Is this even allowed in real life?

I realise managers can pull players out of friendly games, but this is the first time a player himself has said no to a call up. I always thought that players had to go to the national team if they were called up??

Funny thing was Rooney was out so he probably would have played.

Well what exactly could the FA do if a player did refuse? Force them to get on a plane at gunpoint?

yep, players can say no to Int duty

Didn't Domenech try to refuse to allow Makelele to retire a few years back?

Thats allowed in real life. Ask Ben Foster.

The seeds for this were sown when he refused to go out on loan as a youngster.

A good example is Robbie Savage Retired when John Toshack took over but made himself available when Toshack left

He went to my next squad without any problems though....

Just took a closer look at the screen print, Sven choose his Squad without Defoe and when players were withdrawn by clubs Sven then asked Defoe to play which he refused because in his eyes he should have been in the original sqaud not second fiddle. So he didn't retire, the next fixture he must have been called up in the first selection.

Strictly speaking , if a player refuses a call up without a valid reason (injury, retirement etc) then the FA has the right to apply for a domestic ban that prevents the player from participating in their clubs next match in order to try avoid the "Im unable to play because i want to be fresh for my clubs big match"

Im assume this rule still exists though, but cant be sure. And i dont remember it ever being imposed... but a player can go in and out of international retirement all they want

Strictly speaking , if a player refuses a call up without a valid reason (injury, retirement etc) then the FA has the right to apply for a domestic ban that prevents the player from participating in their clubs next match in order to try avoid the "Im unable to play because i want to be fresh for my clubs big match"

Im assume this rule still exists though, but cant be sure. And i dont remember it ever being imposed... but a player can go in and out of international retirement all they want

You have no obligation to play for your country and can refuse to play if you want. For any reason.

Steven Ireland. Jamie Carragher. Emile Heskey. To name a few recent ones.

Retirement is not a valid argument... A manager can still call you up and you are still obliged to go (look at Makélélé). Retirement is really nothing more than a gentleman's agreement between player and manager.

A international manager can never force you to play, they can plead with you, but they cannot force you. There are plenty of examples, Barry Ferguson for one, Craig Levin begged him to play when he took over and he has refused every time, Steven Fletcher also refuses to play for Scotland.

Makelele situation

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-23364904-row-after-mourinho-brands-makelele-a-slave-to-france.do

FIFA yesterday confirmed the French have no power to make a player join up if he has announced his retirement. Spokesmen Andreas Herren said: "Any player is free to decide he is not playing for his national team."

Paul Scholes! How many England managers asked him to come back and he refused every time? No rule can make you play.

A international manager can never force you to play, they can plead with you, but they cannot force you. There are plenty of examples, Barry Ferguson for one, Craig Levin begged him to play when he took over and he has refused every time, Steven Fletcher also refuses to play for Scotland.

Similarly, the English FA can enforce Rule D1 for England.

The reason it doesn't get enforced is purely down to gentleman's agreements or "honour" - if they say no, then the FAs quietly move away. They know this is best because they have seen the amount of criticism France got from international wrangles over Anelka and Makélélé.

The SFA can in theory enforce rules 82.1 and 82.2 in the SFA handbook: http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFApublications2011-12/Scottish%20FA%20Handbook.pdf

Similarly, the English FA can enforce Rule D1 for England.

The reason it doesn't get enforced is purely down to gentleman's agreements or "honour" - if they say no, then the FAs quietly move away. They know this is best because they have seen the amount of criticism France got from international wrangles over Anelka and Makélélé.

All that rule states is they can impose a sanction if they refuse the call up, nothing that says the player cannot refuse to play and nothing that states the SFA or any FA can force a player to play.

All that rule states is they can impose a sanction if they refuse the call up, nothing that says the player cannot refuse to play and nothing that states the SFA or any FA can force a player to play.

Players are obligated to, full-stop, and if they don't, the respective FA can apply sanctions. They likely have political reasons not to apply such sanctions, of course.

Well, no, clearly, you cannot control a player like a puppet. But you can make life difficult for players who do not follow the regulations. You cannot be forced, short of kidnapping and blackmail - but you can be under an obligation to.

Players are obligated to, full-stop, and if they don't, the respective FA can apply sanctions. They likely have political reasons not to apply such sanctions, of course.

you can make life difficult to the point of banning the player for 2 games, and even then it would be contested in court and most likely thrown out and the player would not be banned. The simple fact is the FA's are pretty much powerless if the player decides he no longer wants to play.

Nobody reads post #14

FIFA says

Ofcourse its allowed... look at paul robinson, ben foster and wes brown. They all refused to play for england because they dont want to be backup players.

you can make life difficult to the point of banning the player for 2 games, and even then it would be contested in court and most likely thrown out and the player would not be banned. The simple fact is the FA's are pretty much powerless if the player decides he no longer wants to play.

It's never been tested in court because thankfully it has never gone that far, even for the France Football Association.

Nobody reads post #14

FIFA says

Mr. Herren contradicts himself somewhat later:

"There is no Fifa rule to prevent any player stopping his international career, that's up to him.

"The one thing that has to be considered is that the intention to leave a national team, or put an end to an international career, needs to be communicated prior to a specific summons."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/5298458.stm

So there is no rule within FIFA to stop a player from stopping his international career (very different to having a rule saying it is allowed), and that it has to be considered (but possibly rejected).

All he is really saying is that FIFA do not regulate callups between associations - it is up to the association of the national team to mark who is eligible for callup or not, hence why the English and Scottish FAs have these regulations (I'd imagine the French FA has one too, but I don't read French fluently). FIFA of course regulates clubs and managers who prevent callups, but the actual eligibility for callup is up to the FA.

After all, Makélélé played at the World Cup and its qualifiers despite retirement - because he was risking sanctions on his club.

They can't do a thing. I don't understand why that's so complicated?

Paul Scholes! How many England managers asked him to come back and he refused every time? No rule can make you play.

He turned me down too

Plenty of examples of players pulling out in real life, only one example of a country trying to force a player to play. I think that answers the OP question.

They can't do a thing. I don't understand why that's so complicated?

There is nothing stopping Capello calling up the likes of Foster despite their retirement from International football - footballers have no regulations to fall back upon. The reality is that Capello is following an unwritten rule that because Foster doesn't want to play for England, it really isn't beneficial to call him up, as it would affect the squad.

You cannot force someone to go work for you. They are employed by their respective clubs. Nobody else.

You cannot force someone to go work for you. They are employed by their respective clubs. Nobody else.

What would be the point of forcing a player that didn't want to play for a team to play anyway?

I think people have gone off in the wrong direction. The OP was about Jermaine Defoe refusing to play after not being called up to international duty in the first round of selection. If you look at the Screen Shot on the OP you will see players have been withdrawn from the Squad by its managers (so a friendly was due to be played). And then Defoe was asked to play due to the resulting withdrawn player. Defoe did not announce retirement.

Retirment is honoured wether it be a gentlemans agreement or a cast iron rule. Just refusing to play should be punished.

Van Der Sar has just retired from club football Man Utd can't say can you play for use next week because their first choice has been injured. If De Gea turns around and says I don't want to play in the FA Cup against a minnow side then we would be punished under the rules.

Whislt I agree with players retiring to prolong their club career, I disagree with players retiring from International Teams becuase they don't like the manager i.e Robbie Savage (had a barny with Toshack) and I think Stephen Ireland becuase he is what still only 26/27

Van Der Sar has just retired from club football Man Utd can't say can you play for use next week because their first choice has been injured. If De Gea turns around and says I don't want to play in the FA Cup against a minnow side then we would be punished under the rules.

Club football =/= international football. De Gea has a contract with Man Utd, England players don't with the FA

What would be the point of forcing a player that didn't want to play for a team to play anyway?

Just used it has a form of example, if a player is not injured or retired he has an obligation to make himself available for call-up not pick and choose what games he wants to play in. Remeber the big fuss over Ryan Giggs where he would always have an injury just before a friendly then be Miraculously be fit for the Man Utd match after it.

It worked for France and Makélélé and Thuram in 2006.

According to the article (and the eventual findings of the time) Makelele wanted to play for France at the time, going back on a previous retirement. It's just that Mourihno didn't want him to play for France and tried to bully the FFF and Makelele into obeying his whims. Of course if you read any of the article it said that straight up.

Jose Mourinho is going a little bit too far as his words are slightly different when he talks to me. Even if my club don't agree with it, I'm going to accept this call-up.

"Playing for France means a lot to me. My name is on the squad list and I have to go there. I can understand Mourinho's disappointment. It was agreed I was to stop playing for France after the World Cup.

"But I've talked to Domenech and he believes I can still be useful to the team. It's a rather tricky situation. I'll have to play more games and I'll end up more tired. But it's a duty to wear the colours of your country.

His words clearly states that he wants to play for his country and that he feels it a great honour and duty he is willing to accept. He also says that it may make things more difficult for him (injuries and tiredness) but that the rewards outweigh for him the risks. Nowhere does he say that he is being forced into it and wants to stay retired.

So there is no rule within FIFA to stop a player from stopping his international career (very different to having a rule saying it is allowed), and that it has to be considered (but possibly rejected).

By your illogic here me saying "I am Brian Shanahan" and me saying "my name is Brian Shanahan" are two totally different statements with two completely different meanings, which bear little to no relation to each other. Whereas in reality they are just two different ways of saying the same thing (me giving my identity). The same has to be said about the part of your words I have bolded. They say the same thing, there is absolutely no meaningful difference in import or meaning between "no rule stopping" and "a rule allowing".

When you are in a situation where neither the spirit nor the letter of the law stop you from doing something, that means the law allows you to do that action if you wish, implicitly but fully. It'd be like you saying to me that "just because there is no law saying you can't buy a car, that doesn't mean that you can legally". It is absurd in my scenario and absurd when you use it as an arguement.

By your illogic here me saying "I am Brian Shanahan" and me saying "my name is Brian Shanahan" are two totally different statements with two completely different meanings, which bear little to no relation to each other. Whereas in reality they are just two different ways of saying the same thing (me giving my identity). The same has to be said about the part of your words I have bolded. They say the same thing, there is absolutely no meaningful difference in import or meaning between "no rule stopping" and "a rule allowing".

When you are in a situation where neither the spirit nor the letter of the law stop you from doing something, that means the law allows you to do that action if you wish, implicitly but fully. It'd be like you saying to me that "just because there is no law saying you can't buy a car, that doesn't mean that you can legally". It is absurd in my scenario and absurd when you use it as an arguement.

I think that a rule would exist in one case and not the other is significant.

According to the article (and the eventual findings of the time) Makelele wanted to play for France at the time, going back on a previous retirement. It's just that Mourihno didn't want him to play for France and tried to bully the FFF and Makelele into obeying his whims. Of course if you read any of the article it said that straight up.

His words clearly states that he wants to play for his country and that he feels it a great honour and duty he is willing to accept. He also says that it may make things more difficult for him (injuries and tiredness) but that the rewards outweigh for him the risks. Nowhere does he say that he is being forced into it and wants to stay retired.

He retired in the first place for a reason!

He was persuaded to come back from retirement - after getting multiple threats from Domenech to save the disasterous France Euro 2008 qualifying campaign.

He changed his mind - but did the threats shift things?

By your illogic here me saying "I am Brian Shanahan" and me saying "my name is Brian Shanahan" are two totally different statements with two completely different meanings, which bear little to no relation to each other. Whereas in reality they are just two different ways of saying the same thing (me giving my identity). The same has to be said about the part of your words I have bolded. They say the same thing, there is absolutely no meaningful difference in import or meaning between "no rule stopping" and "a rule allowing".

Not true. If there is something unsaid, it is not the same as the negative being said.

There is no law stating specifically that it is not allowed to run over someone with a red car, but this does not mean it is actually alright to run someone over with a red car.

FIFA cannot prove a negative, nor can they state the infinite number of things that are allowed or not allowed. That's the point - they have to state a rule specifically.

FIFA have no rule on being players being eligible for international duty - hence they cannot say "players can refuse". They have to explicitly state in their regulations something like "players may reject associations call-ups for international fixtures as long as notice is given...".

There are an infinite number of things not stated in FIFA's regulations - it doesn't mean that their negatives are correct.

When you are in a situation where neither the spirit nor the letter of the law stop you from doing something, that means the law allows you to do that action if you wish, implicitly but fully. It'd be like you saying to me that "just because there is no law saying you can't buy a car, that doesn't mean that you can legally". It is absurd in my scenario and absurd when you use it as an arguement.

Not true - look up "Freedom of contract" (US), English contract law (England and Wales) - which basically states that a person has the right to enter into a contract [uS - without government interference]. This is the "right" to buy things. The right to buy a car is covered by this law, as a car is a "thing".

If there is nothing in FIFA's regulations on whether a player can reject association callups (or indeed, if not), then all it means is that FIFA is under no position to state anything. "Unknown" is an acceptable answer to a question in this sense - the best answer to an absence of information is an absence of information.

I bet with the England team loads of players have rejected the call up but it hasnt been made public and stayed as a private call between the player and England management

Ive always thought that if a player was to be injured for there national team then they have to go threw a medical exam with England Physio's and they are not allowed to play for there respective clubs next game if its durin the same week.

but going with the OP then yeah i have seen that before and it annoys me aswell when forget a player to be called up and then realise you want him in the squad but he wont accept

No such rule exists. Players cannot be sidelined for their club for not turning up for national squad.

Roy Keane is a good example of this. He was regularly injured anytime an Irish friendly came up, yet was fine for the next Man United game.

There is no law stating specifically that it is not allowed to run over someone with a red car, but this does not mean it is actually alright to run someone over with a red car.

If my understanding of law is correct...i think there is a law saying that it is not allowed to run over someone with a car of ANY color. Now going by your responses and logic, you might say that they have said a car but not a red car. That means that you can run over someone with only red..but not a car

No such rule exists. Players cannot be sidelined for their club for not turning up for national squad.

Roy Keane is a good example of this. He was regularly injured anytime an Irish friendly came up, yet was fine for the next Man United game.

Has this rule changed then?

RELEASE OF PLAYERS TO ASSOCIATION TEAMS

5. RESTRICATIONS ON PLAYING (page35)

A player who has been called up by his association for one of its representative teams

is, unless otherwise agreed by the relevant association, not entitled to play for the club

with which he is registered during the period for which he has been released or should

have been released pursuant to the provisions of this annexe. This restriction on

playing for the club shall, moreover, be prolonged by five days in the event that the

player, for whatever reason, did not wish to or was unable to comply with the call-up.

and this:

4. INJURED PLAYERS (page34)

A player who due to injuryor illness is unable to comply with a call-up from the

association that he is eligible to represent on the basis of his nationality shall, if the

association so requires, agree to undergo a medical examination by a doctor of that

association's choice. If the player so wishes, such medical examination shall take place

on the territory of the association at which he is registered.

Those rules still apply but what was said by my about Ryan Giggs and what Eugene said about Roy Keane is that when friendlies came around they were both coinsidently injured before the call-up so they weren't called-up. In regards to them going to see the countries medic is all down the the county because the law states 'if the association so requires' and with it being friendlies the Associations never pursued that becuase no-one would think that Sir Alex would ask players to fain (is that spelt right) injury.

The whole point of this thread was to see if a player when not injury or suspended or retired has the right to refuse a call-up.

Those rules still apply but what was said by my about Ryan Giggs and what Eugene said about Roy Keane is that when friendlies came around they were both coinsidently injured before the call-up so they weren't called-up. In regards to them going to see the countries medic is all down the the county because the law states 'if the association so requires' and with it being friendlies the Associations never pursued that becuase no-one would think that Sir Alex would ask players to fain (is that spelt right) injury.

The whole point of this thread was to see if a player when not injury or suspended or retired has the right to refuse a call-up.

Yeah, first paragraph.

(feign)

Just took my time reading it making sure I understood it, so if a player refuses he wont be allowed to play for his club for 5 days, which isn't really a punishment because not many teams play within 5 days of an international hopefully I've got that right.

Oh and thanks for the spelling of feign.

Just took my time reading it making sure I understood it, so if a player refuses he wont be allowed to play for his club for 5 days, which isn't really a punishment because not many teams play within 5 days of an international hopefully I've got that right.

He's not allowed to play for his club for whatever length of time he was released for, plus five days. It wouldn't have been good news for anyone doing it this week with saturdays fixtures coming four days after tuesdays Internationals.

Well learn something new everyday.