According to the interview in the Guardian, Senna wasn't bought by United because 'the sponsors wanted an Englishman'

Right, but what you have said (perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here) is that people who've never ever been in country X, but have a parent or grandparent who have, should still be able to play for country X, but people who make a choice to move to a country, take out citizenship with all the rights/responsibilities thereof should not.

If that's what you are arguing, what you saying is that place of birth should be the ultimate arbiter *except* if blood ties are involved. Which seems creepy to me (but this may be because I live in a city where more than half the population was born abroad).

In the modern world - thank God - people can move around and (following some kind of minimum residecy period) choose citizenship and declare allegiance to whomever they choose. And the world is a better place for it. Why shouldn't football players be able to enjoy the same rights as anyone else?


(edit: to HOH)

In a sense it's a bit like the maximum wage. In many ways football was a better spectacle because of it but only at the expense of the players. In any case being allowed to play for a country because an ancestor was once a citizen is kind of medieval isn't it?

robw wrote:

QUOTE:
According to the interview in the Guardian, Senna wasn't bought by United because 'the sponsors wanted an Englishman'

Ah, yes, that's right. I knew there was something about the transfer that smelled a bit Grimsby.

Three year residency rule, like rugby.

I agree that any blanket attempt to ban naturalised players is almost certain to result in a very quick tumble down a very slippery slope.

At the same time, I understand where Hieronymous is coming from with his criticism of the Roger situation, which can only be described as farcical.

That leads me to advocate a position in which naturalised citizens who have not played at senior level for their home country are fully able to represent their new country, but no "fast track" naturalisation procedures are allowed solely on the basis of athletic prowess.

Which is pretty much exactly what erwin said.

As an aside to whoever mentioned the Serie A passport scandal, that had nothing whatsoever to do with national team qualifications and everything to do with limitations on the number of non-EU players allowed in any Serie A squad. Those restrictions are obviously a very worthy subject of discussion, but I don't think that it is useful to conflate the two.

Hieronymus of Hesselink wrote:

QUOTE:
EIM wrote:

QUOTE:
Am I right in saying that Manchester United had a fee agreed with Villareal for Senna, and a contract all ready to be finalised before pulling it at the last minute?

Two years ago.

As an aside, I am getting a bit sick of European national teams each having their own pet Brazilian who gets to wear the jersey after three or four years (or frequently less) of living in the country. Senna should be playing for Brazil, not Spain.

Actually I've been sick of a certain European country taking players from other European countries for a while now. Wanna guess which one I mean??

An England with Kilbane, Cascarino, Morrison, Townsend, Aldridge, McCarthy...

We can but dream.

QUOTE:
Three year residency rule, like rugby.

Actually no, this could possibly fuck Wales up. Leave everything as it is.

What is the precise FIFA rule on naturalization now? Two years, isn't it? With some discussion of putting it up to five?

Can someone clarify for me whether Maik Taylor has Northern Irish ancestry or, as a British citizen born on an overseas Army Base, whether he could choose any of the four Home Nations?

Pretty sure it's the latter.

Two years or parental/grandparental qualification.

And yes, there has been some discussion of extending it to five. My sense is that the impetus for more stringent rules is primarily coming from non-Emirate AFC members, who are particularly concerned about what Qatar has already done in athletics and is trying to do in football.

Marcos Senna has more of a personal connection with Spain than Aiden McGeady does with Ireland, that's for sure.

I'm all for tightening up the eligibility rules for players, just so long as we can extend it to fans too and ban Rod Stewart from supporting Scotland.

AMMS wrote:

QUOTE:
Actually I've been sick of a certain European country taking players from other European countries for a while now. Wanna guess which one I mean??

McGeady's four grandparents are Irish and emigrated to Scotland from Co Donegal in the 1950s, making him genetically Irish to the tips of his little twinkle toes. He's in the same bracket as Ray Houghton, Tommy Coyne and Charlie Gallagher.

If it's any consolation, his form for Ireland so far has lagged miles behind his displays for Celtic, and Scotland seem to be doing well enough without him.

If Roger Guerreiro's grandparents had emigrated to Brazil from Warsaw in the 1950s, I would have no problem whatsoever with him playing for Poland.