I bet you are right about that, and it is a very valid point.

I'm glad that Toro and Bryan have made the point that national identities, for millions and millions of people, are multiple and changeable. It's almost a separate debate, but an important underlying guiding point in this one none the less. And though I believe you should only be able to declare for one country, the reasons behind such declarations are likely to be varied and complex and should be cut some slack, not hedged in with "Live here? Play for us then!" strictures.

I'm eligible to play for three countries - had I been remotely good enough at football for this to ever have become an issue, I'd have been happy enough playing for any of 'em to be honest.

This is true, I quit football at 16 because I was fed up of playing with people I couldn't relate to in any way. I started playing again when I was 20.

I would prefer a qualifying period (three years residence at any age, as I mentioned in the Ryan Giggs/ England notional example above). I would qualify for Ultonia, the Republic of Ireland, England and, er, Palestine under these rules. Ma'alish.

If, say, a prominent footballer had been forced to leave Apartheid South Africa in fear of prosecution after criticising the regime, I think it would be quite right for the Republic of Ireland- again, say- to offer him citizenship. This, more or less, was the experience of a regular contributor to this forum and I support it unconditionally. But had said Azanian wanted to move instantly into the underachieving national side, I think it would be fair to ask him to wait...



Instant qualification provided he hasn't played youth, u-21 or full for another country and is more than 18 years old.



I think that if- following the above notional example- a South African footballer moves to Dublin purely for economic employment reasons, to star in the Eircom League, he can't reasonably expect a passport for his efforts. But if the FAI want him to strengthen their side, a passport in exchange three years on seems a fair exchange. So the same effect really. FIFA's rule seems broadly fair whatever the oddities raised by special circumstances in Britain.



Indeed. Does forced integration work generally? There's a current case of a Moroccan-born woman living in Paris with her French husband and three children. The state won't award a passport because her burka suggests unthinking submission to male relatives and thus incompatibility with 'Frenchness'. Her supporters counter that anyone accepting wife-beating should lose their passport as a result...



Bryan- I can see that you're irritated y my preference for players to have grown up- ie, to have played and learned the game- locally. But I'm distinguishing that preference- which I accept is quirky, a minority view and unlikely ever to be supported by FIFA, most on here or anybody else- with what I think FIFA should do to correct real injustice. That is, give you and others a choice.

Thanks for the clarification, Dunc.

As always, we come to the issue with opinions that reflect our personal, familial and societal experiences, and all of those cause me to focus on the question of denial of citizenship and the possibility for exploiting the athletically talented.

But that doesn't mean that I'm right.

Another straw man again. It would be great if all players could learn their football down the road from home...



Earlier it was said that players must play for the country they grew up in, now they should have a choice... I'm confused.

To be fair to Dunc, I think that he has always expresed his position as their having a choice, but he himself having a preference as to how they exercise that choice.

It's been difficult to track people's positions on this thread, in part because the topic touches on some very sensitive subjects and deeply-held feelings, and in part because posters have introduced a number of ancillary points to the discussion.

To get back to the issue of parentage, I think there are very different cases.

My father's mother was French and he was born in France and lived there until he was two years old. I was born in England, lived there until I was twelve and then moved to Germany. I have no ties to France, can't speak French much and, although I like the country, I think it is strange that I am able to represent it.

Where would you draw the line with parentage?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it being one grandparent, assuming that the country in question extends citizenship on the same basis (keep in mind that one of my primary concerns here is that the host country will look to exploit talented athletes while failing to extend any protections to their less gifted countrymen).

That said, I can certainly see the argument for limiting the qualification to parents. One thing that I think would definitely not work is some kind of case by case analysis based on individual circumstances; there needs to be a bright line, as those individual circumstances would be essentially impossible to evaluate in any kind of consistent manner.

As I examine my views on this, I keep coming back to citizenship as being central. If a country is willing to offer you full citizenship and you accept that, you should be able to play for their national team, subject only to the anti-abuse rules I noted early on (that it not be a fast-tracked citizenship based on your prowess and that you not have represented another country at U-21 level or above). I am troubled by any rule that would imply that national football teams are subject to more rigorous rules in this respect than the countries they represent.

Defensive minded wrote:


Somebody with exactly the same biological ties to France (a French-born father) could have just as equally grown up speaking French at home while spending two months of every summer at granny's chateau tending the vineyard.

Every case is unique, which is why broad rulings on the issue are difficult.

Bryantop wrote:


I must admit that I couldn't see that Duncan was suggesting that there should be any choice in his intial pronouncements either. His positions seems much more sensible (even if I don't agree with them) now that he's clarified.

Indeed. Thanks Ursus. Upthread, I made my support for choice clear as below before Harri took offence.

Er, I took offense (and I still do) at the reduction of his birthplace, entire life up to the age of seven and his parental heritage as "an accident of birth" not your overall idea.

You've only recently clarified your standpoint as (and I paraphrase) "I want people to have the choice but my preference is that they choose where they "grew up"/went to school" and your position has seemed to vary in severity through the discussion, hence some of the surprised responses you've had from a few people.

I disagree with your stance on Giggs playing for England through residency but am happy to accept that you don't think that him playing for Wales is nonsense.

I am not sure whether this has been your stance throughout the thread but it's cleared up now anyhow

Harri and Bored- here are my only two comments on the Welsh situation made before my emphasis on choice quoted at 12:42,



12:42 (ie, my third comment) makes clear that I think players should have a choice, although I am likely to disagree with many of them. My attitude has been consistent thereafter.

This is an interesting angle on this discussion:

from the BBC

That's odd though, if he was born in Sicily, he should have had Italian qualification from day one, I would have thought, no matter what his parentage

No, because Italy doesn't provide people like Balotelli with passports before they turn 18. "Unusual" rules like that are one of the things that makes this issue as complicated as it is.

Spangles and I have spoken about this on here before, but it will be a very great day for Italy when guys like Balotelli and Stefano Okaka (of Roma) get their first full cap. Italy doesn't have the pool of talent to re-create France's "blanc, black, beur" team of '98, but their emergence into the full squad will still be a very important event, especially in the current political environment.

Duncan Gardner wrote:



I am not talking about "the Welsh situation" and I wasn't aware we were discussing that seperate of the overall discussion, it was just an example from current football and my own personal situation.

Your position on the entire issue has been open to contradictory readings because you havent always made it clear that you believe in players having a choice, hence the comments from others above.

ursus arctos wrote:


Genuine question, why will it differ from when Liverani got his caps?