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.
Captain Random
Guest
Did Freddie Kanoute choose Mali over France? Or did he choose Mali because he wasn't getting picked for France?
dasilva
Roar Guru
Midfielder BTW I wasn't really being critical on Pim. Just trying to work out a reasoning why he isn't picked. Can you tell me what site you are talking about? What's on your playlist?
Midfielder
Guest
Das Good luck in your exams ... I will go back to my playlist ..... what a site I assume you know about it .... but can just site back enjoy good music and read away very pleasant... BTW don't be to hard on PIM he has a lot of players to deal with.
dasilva
Roar Guru
Yeah Midfielder I have exams on next week. Two test on last week. Just checking and writing sporadically and even then feeling a little bit guilty that perhaps I should be studying even more. In any case I have seen the troisi article and it's good to see him doing well and it's kind of puzzling why he isn't in the Socceroos. Djite is a bench player for his club but Troisi is playing regularly and yet Djite is selected and not Troisi. Nevertheless, I see that Djite probably suits pim's system more then Troisi and that Djite would suit a sole striker role. If Pim thinks Nicky Carle dribbles too much and sometimes a bit selfish and doesn't involve the team enough then I'm sure he thinks Troisi dribbles too much as well and doesn't track back and defend and sees him as a high risk option. That's probably why he isn't in the team (along with the likes of Carle and Dodd). In any case, some of his goals has been spectacular and he just got to keep on doing it so that even Pim can't ignore him.
Midfielder
Guest
Das I assume you must be busy at Uni have seen less of you recently ... BTW did you read the bit in the other thread about Troisi.
dasilva
Roar Guru
sorry Midfielder got mix up John Hutchinson is the guy Don't know why Wilkinson was in my mind
Midfielder
Guest
Das Its Hutch not Wilko
dasilva
Roar Guru
Look like Alex Wilkinson is going to represent Malta due to the grandparent clause. It's not exactly a huge lost as he probably will never represent australia anyway and this is a choice between zero international career and a potential long career. I said this about Ogre and I say it about Alex In the end if Alex just sees this as purely as a career/business decision but feels deep down that he is Australian at heart then it's an good decision for him and he's really just making advantages of the rules FIFA laid out. Maybe I would make the decision to further my career as well if I was in his spot, making a rational career decision against a more emotional idea of patriotism and loyalty. However it's raises the question about international football and what it really means when you have players making decisions on who to play for business reason. Kind of removes the romanticism from the game. Good luck to him but I would still support a rule change. I think I probably have to agree to disagree with Art as this will probably go on forever. In summary Choosing nationality is like choosing your genetics. it just can't be done. You don't choose nationality, nationality chooses you. There's nothing emotional about it. It's just accepting who you are. People who are descended from the 1st fleet aren't able to choose to represent England because they are not english and neither should people who are 2nd generation migrant as they are not english/scottish/welsh/croatian/vietnamese/maltese/macedonian etc.
Sam
Guest
Art I agree with what you said. I would say that as the generations go on, the kids will choose Australia over where their ancestors heritage comes from. A lot of it stems from Australia being a football backwater for such a long time.
Art Sapphire
Guest
Millster - I was trying to relate to dasilva of how a rigid view can mellow over time based on personal experience. As the son of Greek migrants, I can relate to dasilva's frustrations of dealing with his fellow 2nd generationers. But, as I keep reiterating, every individual comes to his own decisions and for that they should not be criticised. Just as you clearly outlined above when it came to your choices. Personally, I would choose to play for the Socceroos over Greece. But, If my fellow 2nd generation Greek, Croat, Serb, Turk felt differently and chose to play for the old country then good for them. What's the point in crying about it. That's why I used the example of Freddie Kanoute (he chose to play for Mali over Les Blues) to clearly illustrate that this happens all over the world. Australian football supporters should just look at this issue with a touch more maturity.
Millster
Guest
Art - sometimes its not about "not identifying as greatly with Australia" In my own case I am absolutely ferally passionate about Australia, just a touch more so again about France. Its not a case of not caring for Australia. Its better described as a case of France, then Australia, then daylight between those two and the rest of the world's nations. I also note again that there is a different between the relatively trivial matter of sporting support and more serious stuff. So while I support Les Bleus over the Socceroos on the rare occasion that this clash comes up, and while I would preferentially play for Les Bleus as well if I had the talent, if it was the much more serious case of say going to war I would only take up arms for Australia which is the country to which I owe my lifestyle, education, career, etc in all practical senses.
Art Sapphire
Guest
dasilva - when I was younger I was perplexed as to why some of my fellow second generationers did not identify as greatly with Australia as I did. I had never thought, if given the chance, of representing any other country. But, I then realised that I could not apply my rationale, even though I thought it to be correct, to everybody. Every migrant household and every individual is different and not only in Australia. People make decisions for many different reasons and motivations. Please read the link on second generation French born Freddie Kanoute - 2007 African footballer of the year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frédéric_Kanouté
dasilva
Roar Guru
Last thing, my problem isn't really limited to footballers. Sometimes people insuniate that I'm particular upset that footballers choose to represent another country and therefore the team I support will be weaker and that's why I'm pissed off about this issue but that's not the main reason why I have a beef at the fifa eligibility laws. My main concern is rooted with my dealings with other 2nd generation migrants and people denying that they are Australian and the tension that is produce due to that. My problem is with everyday Australians with that self denial attitude. Footballers arbitrarily choosing nationality is a simple extension and a famous example of that self-denial. Although this article is targeting footballers, that is only because this is a sporting website.
dasilva
Roar Guru
To me the idea of FIFA allowing me (and other 2nd generation migrants) to play for Vietnam is like FIFA letting me to play for ENgland, uzbekistan, Bahrain etc.
dasilva
Roar Guru
Art You don't get it either. Nationality is not about choice. You are born nationality. It doesn't matter if you like this country hate this country, prefer another country etc. Whether you are patriotic to this country or not has no impact over nationality. That's my damn point. The fact is if the person hates Australia (which they have the right to) and prefers another country over Australia, it makes no difference to their nationality. Following your argument Art. Let's say I want to play for England. I never lived in that country ever before but hey I should have a choice to play for whatever country I want right? My heart may be with England, I may choose to immerse myself in their culture, I may choose to learn about their history. Why shouldn't I be able to represent that country? Because I'm not English and I don't consider 2nd generation migrants as nationals of the country of their parents either. Choosing to play for another country where you never lived before is just arbitrarily choosing a nationality and whether your parents come from that country or not doesn't change that fact.
Art Sapphire
Guest
dasilva - i am sorry, but I am wasting my time here trying as its quite clear you have trouble rationalising my arguments. Just look at this statement of yours. "A person can choose to be a patriot or not. I’m not forcing patriotism on people" But ridiculously, when it come to football, you are forcing players not to have a choice in which country they play for. Why else would you have been such a crybaby critic of simunic, ogre, rhys williams and inman. Dasilva - Looks like you are a confused young man.
dasilva
Roar Guru
Thanks for your praise as well
dasilva
Roar Guru
david Perhaps there should be a degree of flexibility about the whole parents or grandparent rule. I do believe that residence should be the primary determining factor but if a person parent came from another country then the amount of years you have to live in that country to be considered eligible can be reduce. So since Mark Viduka's parents came from Croatia he only have to live in that country for 1-2 years to be eligible to play for that country. While everyone else has to live there for 5 years or more to be considered eligible. I would support a two tier residence system. I'm open to an idea that cultural familiarity can have some influence over nationality but it should never be the overriding factor. I just don't like it when they have lived there for 0 years and then represent that country.
david
Guest
I agree with DaSilva in that residence should play SOME part in determining nationality. Otherwise you get absurd results... for instance: One of my grandparents was Canadian. But having never been to the Country, taken any interest in the Country (sorry to any Canadians!) should I be allowed to represent that country because of a one eighth genetic inheritance? Am I allowed to say I am Canadian? How would a Canadian feel about that? The deeper issue here is one of IDENTITY. In the modern world, mobility is easy and you now have a bunch of people living in places they have very little if any genetic or cultural ties. My Father is English, but I was born in Sydney. Am I Australian or English? I think like an Australian but I am a resident of India. Am I Australian or Indian? Anyone who can come up with a solution to this will surely get a Nobel peace prize. I applaud DaSilva for his well thought out and expressed views.
dasilva
Roar Guru
Art My argument has very little to do with patriotism. What nationality you are is pretty irrelevant to patriotism. I never claim to be a patriot (if i was I probably be an activist, join the military, do more community service, voluntary work etc as that's real patriotism not supporting a football team), wherever I like Australia or the culture of Australia or not doesn't change the fact that I'm Australian full stop. If I love and follow Vietnamese culture and even If I like it more then mainstream Australian culture it doesn't make me Vietnamese national either. If Australia takes a turn for the worst and I started to hate this country it doesn't change my nationality. It's not a choice. Just like your ethnicity or your genetics is not a choice. A person can choose to be a patriot or not. I'm not forcing patriotism on people. However I'm just saying that nationality is predominantly form from life experience in the country where you live or born. Unless you migrate to another country you can't choose your nationality. I still stand my beliefs that if you never live in that country you can't call yourself a national of that country and to do so will be a lie.