FIFA eligibility laws need some changes

Roar Guru

By dasilva, 30 Mar 2009 dasilva is a Roar Guru

Tagged:: Bradden Inman, FIFA, football, International Football, Kofi Danning, Rhys Williams, Socceroos

Related coverage

Australia is now facing various recent issues associated with FIFA eligibility laws. On one hand we have players like Bradden Inman and Rhys Williams who are set to represent Scotland and Wales respectively due to nationality of their parents.

On the other hand we have players like Kofi Danning who has lived in this country for 10 years are set to be forbidden to represent Young Socceroos (pending appeal from FFA) as he hasn’t lived in this country for 5 years after the age of 18 (he is only 17 years old).

Other Australian players like John Cisak and Julius Davies may also be kept out of the loop for this reason. A lot of these players migrated to Australia as refugees and are now forbidden to represent Australia.

From Article 17 of FIFA Statute:
Any Player who to assume a new nationality and who has not played international football shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfills one of the following conditions:
(a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association.

Article 17 (d) was added to FIFA Statute to address this issue of Qatar Football Association policy of scouting 10 years old from South America and Africa and bringing them over to Qatar to represent their national team.

I praise FIFA to attempt to stop this practice; I have to question whether this is the right way to go about it. Firstly, all this means is that it will take longer for the South American and African born players to represent Qatar.

I don’t believe this will stop the practice and the better way is to regulate transfer of players to clubs and to fine association for encouraging this practice.

Secondly, what right does FIFA has in telling those players who have lived in Qatar for 5 years that they aren’t Qatari in nationality and can’t represent their country.

I agree in punishing the association but you shouldn’t punish the players that were being poached as they are innocent in this. Australia is now caught in this crossfire due to the actions of the QFA. 5 years over the age of 18 to represent a country is overkill and should be change back to a simple 5 years of residence.

Now I will argue that Article 17 (b) and (c) should be removed from FIFA statute. We can get on our high horses and criticise the likes of Bradden Inman and Joe Simunic but in the end their decision was legal and they are taking advantage of the laws of the game.

However I think it’s a terrible rule.

The International Cricket Council agrees and after the 1996 World Cup where the UAE team was filled with mostly Indians who weren’t residence of UAE and only had 2 locally born players in the squad, the ICC change the laws saying you could only play for the country of birth or residence for the last 5 years which stop the practice of playing for the country of your parents. FIFA would do well to adopt that policy.

The reason why I dislike the concept of playing for the nation of your parents is that I believe what’s more important is where you grew up, which countries raise you, which countries you are contributing to society and which society that contributed to your welfare.

People shouldn’t be putting ethnicity or even culture to the scenario. My justification for this will get in to issues beyond sport.

I reject the notion that people having “insert race blood” running through their veins and that people should be loyal to their ethnicity. I always thought in modern society the importance of ethnicity should be de-emphasised.

What’s to be proud of the fact that your gene is less then 0.01% different to Anglo-Australians that cause you to have different skin tone. We also don’t celebrate having different blood type (ABO system) which is the real difference between the bloods running through your veins.

Some people feel that they have more in common with the culture of their parents then they do with the culture of mainstream society.

I have no problem with that as Australia along with other countries is a multicultural society as well as a liberal society.

To be Australian is to be yourself and follow your own path whether that is more inline with the culture of heritage it doesn’t matter. The only thing that does matter is that whatever you do or what ever you behave you do it as an Australians.

If you speak Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese at home, go to Buddhist temple, Muslim mosque, eat whatever food your culture has, and have more conservative values, all of that is equally Australian as watching cricket, having a BBQ etc.

Australia is a country that mostly (there are few nationalist exceptions) encourages people to stay true to their culture. If people then turn their backs on Australia and represent the country of their parents then it’s taking advantage of that generosity.

Why should Australia be a multicultural country if the children grow up more loyal to the country of parent’s origin then loyal to Australia?

It defeats the whole purpose of multiculturalism and give fuels to ultra-nationalist. I believe allowing people to represent the country of parents birth undermines the principle of multiculturalism in many countries as well as encourage unnecessary divisions in society and hence it is a bad rule.

If FIFA ends up copying ICC eligibility rules, someone like Mark Bresciano would be eligible for Italy and Australia, Jason Culina would be eligible for Australia and Netherlands and Joe Simunic would be eligible for Australia and Germany but they wouldn’t be allowed to represent Croatia which I believe is fair enough.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (50) | Page 1 of Comments

Savvas Tzionis said | March 30th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment

dasilva,

Are you trying to fit in? Trying to accumulate enough White Nationalism? (refer to Ghassan Hage book, ‘White Nation’ for a full explanation of this term).

“It defeats the whole purpose of multiculturalism and give fuels to ultra-nationalist.”

So the allegiances of a sportsman will determine what sort of a country we should have?

Why don’t you wrote about Rupert handing in his Australian citizienship?

Reply
Pippinu said | March 30th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment

I would agree that the FIFA has to be able to cater for the Kofi Danning type of situation – where a player has lived in a country far longer than any other, and where he essentially learned the game.

Reply
Brian said | March 30th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment

I think your missing a key point in the place of residence v heritage argument on where someone can play. The beuaty of eligibility being heritage based is that it cannot be changed after it is clear the player is talented. I agree grandparents goes a bit too far but unlike residence it cannot be manipulated. Place of residence sees internationals compromised because Senna plays for Spain and now Alumina is eligible for England. These players came over for footballing reasons. Would you still be happy for Bresciano to be eligible for Italy if he was as good as Ronaldo and so chose to play for Italy. If 5 years playing somewhere is all that is required Gerrard would probably be the only Englishmen to make the England team!

Reply
Midfielder said | March 30th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment

Das

You raise an excellent point if a players can play for the home country of his parents then, why not the adopted country of his parents especially as you say in this case the child has lived in Australia for over half his life.

I guess it’s countries that flaunt the rules that cause these things …. In the case of Bradden Inman and Rhys Williams I feel its a case of simply pick them in a full Socceroo friendly and give them 10 mins on the park … we are short of quality playersc and both these boys are at resonable clubs…

I think Australia has a case to mount in that we take in over 250, 000 new people each year and often over 350, 000 people and most settle hear… so if a person chooses to settle hear and over more than the five years past 18 then I think Australia has a case to mount that they have settled hear and .. call Australia home … so their children should be able to play for Australia.

Reply
Millster said | March 30th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment

This is a very delicate issue and good on you Das for writing it. I’m a dual national myself as you know (Aussie French) and while I owe my life and success >95% to Australia, I do still hold strong emotional ties and pride towards France.

I do agree that clause 17(d) is too strict, especially in requiring 5 years of residency after the age of 18. At face value the solution is to drop the “after the age of 18″, because to me if you have lived somewhere for 5 years, and are picking up their passport, and are locking yourself to them for representative football then that is not such a small commitment to make.

More importantly though, while I am 100%, even 10000%, in agreement with the notion that to be Australia is to follow your own path, this cannot be properly captured in a set of rules that works in the machiavellian world of football…. nor simply with the fickleness of human nature (and by that I mean that in general life if ‘my own path’ is in one direction one year and in another the next, then thats ok, but if I have a Socceroos or Les Bleus jersey on then that doesn’t work so well for everyone involved…!). So I don’t think that regulations in this area will ever sit comfortably with broader notions of national and cultural identity.

Finally I don’t think one should discount or diminish those people who do feel a stronger cultural pull than a geographic one. If someone is in Australia but had a deep held, family-driven love for Croatia… or if someone is in France but has a similarly captured heart for, say, Poland… well if they are eligible to represent those countries of their heritage and they want to then I say so be it and best wishes to them. God knows we’d all be so lucky to combine elite performance and a deep-held passion on a world stage like that offered by football. What I do ask of those people though is that if and while they reside with us in Australia, they make a positive and fullsome contribution to this country as well.

Reply
Pippinu said | March 30th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment

Millster

I’m fine with your last para, but I would add that such a degree of choice should not be afforded someone who has attended the AIS at taxpayer expense.

Reply
Millster said | March 30th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment

Pip – sometimes I think we should take a balanced view as Australians of these things. I’m sure in sport and across many other pursuits, Aussies have gone abroad and brough back great value to our country – some of it funded by other nation’s public purses. Similarly I’m sure we have many examples of migrants who have come here and been educated/trained in whatever discipline elsewhere, but with us enjoying the value of that training.

I don’t think this is an area where one can be so strict. Reality is if we have a world class academy we will get 95% of the benefit. If there’s a bit of ‘leakage’ who really cares. I remember this debate about the AIS trained Alexander Popov in swimming. At the end of the day good on him and cudos for representing Russia so well, but also good on the hundreds of great Aussie swimmers who came out of that program.

Reply
Art Sapphire said | March 30th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment

Hey Pip,
why don’t we apply this universally and limit choice to everyone?
Australia has been one the the biggest recipients of foreign trained professionals via the skilled migration program.
For example, the entire public health system would collapse if foreign trained doctors were not allowed to “play”for Australia. Wouldn’t theircountries of origin (which have fewer resources) be better off if they practised at “home”.

I am pretty fed up with pundits playing the cheap nationalist card when it comes to young Australians representing other countries. If they decide to do play for another country, for whatever reason, good luck to them. Its their life.

Socceroos should be representing the “lucky” country not the “sooky” country.

Reply
Pippinu said | March 30th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment

As I said, I’m actually fine with players having a choice of two or even three countries – I’m not the least be concerned about that (within certain parameters of course).

But when it comes to AIS scholarships (where we are effectively creating an environment to enable certain lucky individuals to go out an earn millions of dollars), I do not think it is asking too much for a little bit of quid pro quo.

Reply
Pippinu said | March 30th 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment

Furthermore, it’s interesting that we’ve had a regime of user pays for tertiary education for about 20 years now (where part of the learning fee is repaid as a person’s earning capacity increases through life), and yet such a principle does not apply to AIS scholdarships, when in fact a good percentage will end up with a healthy earning capcity for some 12 years after leaving the AIS.

This is an anomaly that should be cleaned up, or, at the very least, those fortunate to be receive AIS scholarships are automaticlaly tied to the Socceroos.

The community deserves at least one or the other in return.

Reply