Players eligible for Ireland

Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote: Of course it's a grey area.

Repeating that doesn't make it true.

Your whole argument hangs off of your assertion that only a purposive interpretation is ever applied to FIFA statutes, and a literal interpretation is not.

Not at all. Why would you assume that? Your replies rely very heavily on putting words in my mouth instead of actually answering any of the questions I've posed to you about the (im)plausibility of your theories. Why is that?

To clarify, seeing as you've misrepresented my position once again, I've simply stated that FIFA apply (what I characterise or define as) a purposive approach to article 7(c) in the context of persons born outside Ireland who are entitled to Irish citizenship on account of a northern-born grandparent. In order to gauge true meaning, FIFA's legal committee can interpret each of their regulations however they wish, by using a discrete interpretative approach or by employing multiple complementary interpretative approaches simultaneously if they feel it necessary (unless some other party objects and raises the matter with CAS who eventually support the contention of the appealing party after a review and judgment). Just because FIFA might interpret one article or regulation in a certain way in the context of a particular set of circumstances, it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how they'll interpret and enforce other articles or regulations that might have different contexts and histories or that may deal with other situations and circumstances.

In Kearns itself, a forensic literal approach was taken - even looking up the word "nationality" in various other linguistic iterations of the statute and using that to inform the interpretation applied.

 

"The interpretation of the statutes and rules of a sport association has to be rather objective and always to start with the wording of the rule, which falls to be interpreted. The adjudicating body -in this instance the Panel- will have to consider the meaning of the rule, looking at the language used, and the appropriate grammar and syntax. In its search, the adjudicating body will have further to identify the intentions (objectively construed) of the association which drafted the rule, and such body may also take account of any relevant historical background which illuminates its derivation, as well as the entirely regulatory context in which the particular rule is located."

"The fact that Article 16 applies only to players with “shared nationality” is also confirmed by its wording as well as by the systematic interpretation."

And of course, you can't say for certain how any tribunal would interprete FIFA statutes, so please don't pretend you can.

     

The fact that a literal interpretation goes the other way means there is doubt.  As I said, I expect such doubt would be resolved in favour of the FAI for a wide range of reasons, but there is obviously a doubt nonetheless.

As far as FIFA are concerned, there is no doubt; there is no need for resolution. FIFA are the governing body under whose regulatory framework the FAI operate. FIFA are interpreting their own regulations as they were intended to function and are quite content with that. If they weren't content with them, they'd amend them or apply them differently. Obviously, we can't know for certain how an external body such as CAS might view matters - chances are they'd follow FIFA's suit - but their potential interpretation is irrelevant and it will remain so until a time (if ever) that the IFA decides to challenge FIFA's approach. 

To apply your logic in the context of the whole rule-book; it would mean that there is a "grey area" over the entire rule-book simply because we may not be able to know with one hundred per cent certainty how CAS might interpret all regulations or whether the court's interpretations may differ from FIFA's, simply due to the fact that CAS have not delivered a verdict on the entire list of regulations yet. This is nonsensical. We can confidently follow FIFA's lead here in order to understand the nature of the regulation in question, seeing as they are the governing body under whose regulatory framework our international team plays. There is absolutely no reason to invoke or appeal to - for conjectural guiding authority - some hypothetical lead that a court of arbitration may (or may not even) recommend if ever someone was to decide to challenge a particular regulation down the line.

I've trawled back through some past emails I sent and received in relation to eligibility matters. The following paragraph was part of an email that I sent to Yann Hafner (of the Université de Neuchâtel) - an expert in the field of international sporting eligibility matters who has a direct line to the head of FIFA's Players' Status Committee - on the 25th of February, 2015, where I mentioned Alex Bruce (amongst a set of other queries I had for him):

"[T]here are cases of England-born players such as Alex Bruce (and possibly Adam Barton) who have represented the Republic of Ireland on the basis of having a grandparent born in Northern Ireland. Having a grandparent born in Northern Ireland indeed legally entitles such players to Irish nationality through birth registration (effective from the date of registration), so my question is, how exactly do you think such players might qualify to play for the Republic of Ireland considering their Irish nationality is acquired (not effective from birth). Thus, they would surely need to further satisfy article 7. Obviously, they do not satisfy any of the article 7 criteria as they were not born in Ireland, were not born to parents born in Ireland, the grandparent through whom they have seemingly qualified to play for the Republic of Ireland was actually born in Northern Ireland, the territory of the IFA, and they never resided continuously in Ireland for any period of time. Can you possibly shed any further light on how these players might qualify to play for the Republic of Ireland?"

"I do not automatically expect such information to be made public as it might well be a private matter for the player concerned, but the eligibility of Cameroon-born Noe Baba to play for the Republic of Ireland has interested me particularly. If my understanding is correct, Baba acquired his Irish nationality newly, considering he was born Cameroonian, and so would ordinarily be subject to the satisfaction of the criteria for eligibility as outlined in article 7 of FIFA's Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes. However, Baba never satisfied any of those criteria before representing Ireland; he was not born in Ireland, his parents were not born in Ireland, his grandparents were not born in Ireland, nor did he reside in Ireland for five years continuously after the age of 18. Would I be correct in assuming that he has been the recipient of an exemption from the Players' Status Committee to play for Ireland? If it is possible for you to reveal this information, can you shed any light as to the criteria or factors considered crucial to the case by the Committee?

I know Alex Bruce has since declared for Northern Ireland, but his eligibility to play for the Republic of Ireland also fascinated me. He was born in England but qualified to play for the Republic of Ireland as a result of acquiring Irish nationality through a grandparent from Northern Ireland. As his Irish nationality was newly acquired rather than effective from birth, he would have been subject to the criteria of article 7 also, if my understanding is correct. However, the relevant criterion outlines that the player's grandparent must have been born in the territory of the relevant association. Northern Ireland is surely the territory of the IFA, or do FIFA construe Northern Ireland to be the territory of the FAI also for the purposes of player eligibility? Or perhaps Bruce was also granted an exemption by the Players' Status Committee? 

If you could shed any further lights on these questions/matters for me or direct me towards someone who could, it would be very much appreciated."

"Thank you for your email of the 25^th February last.

 

As you quite rightly point out in your email the information you have requested is a private matter for the player concerned and not information that we would be in a position to divulge. 

 

However, I would confirm that both players are/were fully eligible to play for the Republic of Ireland."

Btw: I never said Barton is ineligible, I said it is a "grey area" - there is uncertainty because of the interplay of the text of the FIFA rules and Irish citizenship laws.   Not complicated really.

Whether you're saying he's ineligible or whether you're saying there's a grey area, nether are true. He was eligible and there is no grey area.

Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote: Read the text of the FIFA statutes, the Kearns decision and Irish citizenship law.  Everything I have said is based on those texts.  That's all the "actual evidence" you need.

As against that, it is obvious the likes of yourself and O'Shea haven't bothered to read any of it before reaching a view and spouting abuse.

Even Danny accepts that a literal interpretation of the statutes/regs results in such players being ineligible.  He just asserts that a different approach to interpretation would be used.  I don't necessarily disagree with the likelihood of that, but the fact that a different result arises with a literal interpretation (often the first canon of interpretation used in interpreting any rule or law), plainly means there is doubt.

In my opinion, I suggested that a strict literal interpretation could prove problematic for the FAI, but so what? It's not the case that a different approach to interpretation "would" be used. A different approach to interpretation (from a solely and strictly literal approach) is used; one that encompasses the intent and purpose of the regulation when it comes to the particular situation we've been discussing.

Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote: As regards "insurmountable volumes of evidence", you've in fact only mentioned ONE single player, six years ago, who played in an underage international.  Come on.

 

Adam Barton played in four competitive under-age internationals. Alex Bruce played in at least one competitive under-age international and was a member of the senior match-day squad for two competitive games.