We’re not Brasil we’re Tuaisceart Éireann

irishmufc wrote: The problem is Territorial our situation is unique. You have a huge percentage of people in Northern Ireland that identify with the Republic and consider themselves from Ireland. Obviously we feel the ROI team represents the entire Island. I don't think there's any other political situation in other parts of the world that can really compare with ours.

"Unique"?

Have you never heard of eg Crimea*, Eastern Ukraine, Transdniestra, Ingushetia or Chechnya (to name just a few disputed "Russian" territories)?

The Uighurs? Burmese Rohinghi? Muslim Philippino separatists? Kashmiris? Syrian Kurds, Turkish Kurds, Iraqi Kurds? Tibetans? Basques?

Or half the people living in the Balkans?

The fact is, there are hundreds of disputed territories around the world, where whole populations - sometimes a majority - find themselves living in a jurisdiction which they do not want or recognise.

But if they want to play football for an Association other than in whose territory they were born, then they either have to go and live in that territory, or have a parent/grandparent who was born there.

Unlike NI's Nationalists...


* - http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/12/04/soccer-uefa-crimea-idUKL3N0TO4OY20141204

irishmufc wrote: I can understand peoples resentment on some level where players could be seen to take advantage of Northern Ireland's underage football facility and knowingly going to declare for the Republic when they turn senior.

I really don't want to get involved in a long drawn-out discussion of who did what etc, but I have no doubt whatever that there have been players* who have cynically used the IFA for their own ends, before opting for the ROI when the time suited.

Or do you not believe that professional footballers could stoop to such tactics?

At least in the past, players could not switch after their 21st birthday, or if they had already been capped in a senior friendly, but those restrictions were lifted at the behest essentially of African Associations, who wanted greater access to their diaspora in Europe.


* - We won't mention Jack Grealish

irishmufc wrote: I don't know the ins and outs of some of the standout cases if a player deliberately did that or that they just felt there would be a backlash declaring for the underage Republic squads while still living in N.I. and staying in school.

There have already been a number who have played for ROI at under-age, with no sign whatever of a "backlash".

In fact, considering where many of them live, there'd likely be a greater backlash if they were to play for NI!

irishmufc wrote: For me the players are playing for their country and the ROI team are the representative football team of our country.

As I indicated above, I'm sure if you asked the Kurds, Kosovans, Cossacks and Kashmiris etc, they'd all say something similar.

And be turned down...

Edited by Territorial - 17 Jun 2015 at 2:22pm

horsebox wrote: Serious question though. What are your thoughts on NI born players opting to play for the Republic?

I accept that they're perfectly entitled to under the Rules. And I understand why so many do.

But I have to say it causes NI fans great resentment and has turned very many who would ordinarily be fairly reasonable and easy-going strongly against the FAI/ROI.

And our reasoning is this. The whole point about FIFA is that it recognises and protects National Associations, treating each one equally - eg American Samoa has an equal vote with the USA; National Governments are made to butt out of Associations' internal, footballing matters; and a separation is maintained (as far as possible) between football and politics. Which explains why, eg FIFA has 209 Members, whereas the UN has only 186(?).

With regard to the Irish situation, the FAI is taking advantage of a legitimate, but highly anomalous, application of FIFA's rulebook, as follows (simplified version).

A few years back, Qatar and Cape Verde started dishing out Passports and big salaries to second tier Brazilians (i.e. not quite good enough to get capped by Brazil, but plenty good enough for those countries), so that they could cap them as "Nationals". However, this nationality was liable to be revoked after they retired from playing, or ceased to be picked.

A load of other African and Asian countries complained, so FIFA acted to tighten their Rules. Unfortunately, instead of declaring eg that players shall normally represent the Association in which they were born, they drafted it clumsily (imo) to prescribe Nationality (political), rather than Association (footballing) as the essential criterion. (Basically, Nationality that does not also depend on residence, but has been acquired from birth).

Now in 99% of cases, a player's Nationality coincides exactly with the player's Association i.e. born in France = French nationality = represent the French Football Federation. So that if you want to represent another Association instead, you have either to have resided within the territory of that Association for a qualifying period, or have a parent/grandparent who was born within the relevant territory.

Now tying this in to Nationality rather than jurisdiction/territory might still not have been expected to make any practical difference, since very few, if any, countries automatically confer their nationality from birth upon people who have been born outside of their political jurisdiction. (This is essentially because countries guard their own rights in this matter, and as a minimum expect residency or some sort of service to the state before they will hand out a passport).

However, the ROI routinely confers citizenship on people born in NI i.e. outside their jurisdiction. Further, this citizenship does not either grant the benefits (eg voting rights, social security, pension etc), nor demand the obligations (eg taxation, national service etc) which routinely apply to Irish citizens born within the ROI. In that sense, it is more of a gesture/declaration of intent, than an equal gift. And further, it is essentially political in nature, having nothing to do with football.

The problem is, however, that by the FAI exploiting FIFA's Rules, plus the Irish State's anomalous citizenship procedures, we now have a situation whereby the IFA is the only one of the entire 209 Member Associations of FIFA where all its players are automatically entitled to play for another Association, without any further qualification such as residence or ancestry. (So much for FIFA treating all its members "equally" - would this have been allowed to continue had the Association been eg Germany, Argentina or Russia?)

In fact this situation was expressly noted as "unfair" by the CAS when they ruled on the Kearns case, though as a Court of Appeal (effectively), CAS were not able to determine on the merits of the IFA's case, merely on whether FIFA were applying their own Rules and procedures correctly, which they were.

And this unfairness is made more galling, since having the right to do something, and actively prosecuting that right are two different things. That is, it seems that the FAI would have been within their rights to select NI players for half a century before the Qatar/C.Verde/Brazil business brought the issue to the fore. But it seems unarguable that there was a "Gentlemens' Agreement" in place between the two Associations to prevent this happening, which the FAI unilaterally broke, in a change of policy which Brian Kerr, no less, described as "seedy, unfair and predatory"

So that is why I personally no longer retain any respect for the ROI (Association/team, not fans), when formerly I would have described myself as a "well-wisher".

P.S. These are just my own thoughts on the matter from a purely footballing point of view - I neither want nor need long, tedious and repetitive replies about the Good Friday Agreement/Easter 1916/securocrat collusion/the illegally occupied six county statelet or 800 years of British oppression et cetera et cetera et bloody cetera.
    

Edited by Territorial - 17 Jun 2015 at 12:54pm

Any link to the millions of orange clad black South Africans?

In the 2010 WC Final in South Africa the majority of black south africans supported Holland because of a lot of south africans being of Dutch(Boer) descent even though in their recent history there was apartheid. It was magnificent and a credit to a people who wanted to move on together in peace.

JD & Coke wrote: We could get to the Rugby world cup final and not have our anthem played because of a few prods from the North.

We could get to the Rugby world cup final and not have our anthem played because of a few prods from the North.

You talk some amount of utter sh*te.

Must be hard for michael o neill to stand before games and have to listen to God Save The ****.

Irish Duke wrote: Gary McKay wrote: Irish Duke wrote: Like our illusions/delusions on the greatness of our football history we are the same in our political history. It is also quite remarkable that in our rabid anti-britishness 99% of our revoluntary leaders including Gerry Adams are of british stock. Our two best managers were british as well. We are a contradiction and a hugely ironic people indeed. True. Your average RA head doesnt know that Robert Emmett and Wolfe Tone were Protestants. Sam Maguire too.   I get what you say but being a protestant has nothing to do with a persons nationality or ethnicity. Those men were proud Irishmen living in Ireland.

I know but plenty more - Jim Larkin, James Connolly, (Sir) Roger Casement, Erskine Childers etc were British.


Edited by Gary McKay - 16 Jun 2015 at 11:04pm