Almunia in England Squad???

[sydfc4ever]

i think if a player wishes to represent that nation that he has decided to reside in then he should be allowed to. I get angry when players play for the country of their parents/grandparents but don't want to live there (we have this issue in Australia with Croatia and Greece trying to steal our young kids due to family connections) I was born in Australia to an English mother and Egyptian father, however, due to this blood line rule I could represent the following: Australia (born), England (mother), Scotland (mothers mother), Cyprus (mother father), Egypt (father), Italy (fathers mother), or Malta (fathers father) Yes, I am a bit of a bitsa!!

But if I move to Poland (a recent possiblity) and decide to live there for their for the forseeable future, surely I should be able to represent Poland and call myself Polish?

I believe it's who you believe you are, not where you where born, that truely matters.

[rancer890]

Good post sydfc4ever. As a fan of Canadian soccer (yes I said soccer, since we happen to have Canadian football...), I have seen two prominent players decide not to wear the Canadian shirt (Hargeaves and de Guzman) and decide to play for the country they grew up in. Almunia spent a considerable time in England and I think that he's free to represent any country he feels he is a part of.

I, myself, am Canadian, but have roots in Hong Kong, America and China. I will represent Canada if I ever get the chance as I feel I'm Canadian and I have no connection with my previous roots. My parents consider themselves Canadian after moving from HK and US in their 20s. Why can't Almunia get English citizenship and play for their national team?

[the_spoony_bard]

Owen Hargreaves couldn't be any less English if he tried and he is still (sadly) in the England team.

[Carl_272]

uhm why shouldnt it? dont you see how absurd it is? you really advocating a perspective that says that a completely unrealistic definition of 'race' is to hold precedent over a legally held citizenship. one earned by taxation and residency?

it isnt defensible and is a very backwards and descriminatory line.

Excellent post mate.

Imagine France in '98 and '00 without the Africans?!

[Perry Neal]

Finally got someone to say it. You just lost the argument.

Let's assume what you say is true. How far are we allowed to go back to find some form of "bloodline"?....etc.

Absolutely. Everyone, all over the world, is ultimately descended from immigrants. If the bloodline argument were to be strictly followed then the only country anyone would be eligible to play for would be Ethiopia. You have to draw the line somewhere and say that if someone has British (or whatever) citizenship and wishes to be available to be selected by that country, then they should be.

[ATW]

You do know there is a line. It's called your Grandparent. Other Nations allow anyone to play for them after a few years, the Home Nations do not want this. Unlike other nations, the Home Nations which to hold onto International Football.

Do you get it yet

PS. You do know they are eligable... it's just the Home Nations have decided not to go for them. There is nothing wrong with this, it isn't even against human right laws, if it was every tom dick and harry would be suing clubs all over the world for not allowing them to play

[woody2goody]

In my opinion the 'gentleman's agreement is horribly outdated and stupid. So many countries employ this, and yet we (ENG, SCO, WAL, NIR) don't because we have an agreement?

If Almunia has a British passport and wants to play for England then he should be available, same with Nacho Novo, one of the most loyal players to Rangers and Scottish football I've seen.

In life outside of football, someone with a British passport is classed as British. They arn't prevented from having the same rights as someone who was born here and lived here all their lives, so why should footballers be treated differently. If it's not illegal according to FIFA then in my opinion it should be allowed in the British Isles.

[Perry Neal]

You do know there is a line. It's called your Grandparent. Other Nations allow anyone to play for them after a few years, the Home Nations do not want this. Unlike other nations, the Home Nations which to hold onto International Football.

Do you get it yet

PS. You do know they are eligable... it's just the Home Nations have decided not to go for them. There is nothing wrong with this, it isn't even against human right laws, if it was every tom dick and harry would be suing clubs all over the world for not allowing them to play

Here's the problem: how can someone who doesn't have Scottish parents pass on a non-existing Scottish bloodline? Let's just say that a grandfather has no familial or ancestral connection with Scotland but is born in Scotland. He's not eligible to play for Scotland and there is no Scottish bloodline. His son isn't eligible to play for Scotland because he doesn't have a Scottish bloodline. All of a sudden however, a grandson is eligible to play for Scotland because a Scottish bloodline comes into being. A Scottish bloodline from a grandather who wasn't Scottish and a father who wasn't Scottish. Where did it come from? How can someone who isn't Scottish pass on a Scottish bloodline?

Why is the line drawn at the third generation? Why not first, second or fourth? It seems entirely arbitrary to me. Logically, either the rule should be infinite generations (effectively impossible) or at the first generation - i.e. anyone who is a citizen of that country and who wishes to be available for selection. Or is it possible for anyone to give a good explanation for why the third generation is the best place to draw the line?

[saffgee]

I hate to say it, and personally I think it would be a massive shame, but the England/Scotland/Wales/NIreland thing will have to end soon......

Its actually more than unfair, legally ambiguous, not to mention downright cheeky that the UK can field all these different teams in a (from a legal and political standpoint) unified country.

There are plenty of 'other' countries out there that are clamoring for attention and recognition by FIFA, and if FIFA wish to be taken seriously then they will have to end it soon. Most likely they will lie through their teeth and say that a unified olympic team will not affect the home nations - and then turn around and set a deadline....the non-adherence to of which will result in expulsion. Thats when the fun starts over here.

Personally I believe that would take away a massive part of the appeal of the game in this country - but like I said, with the 'alternative world cup' already being positively featured in 442 and World Soccer and similar media, its only a matter of time before FIFA has to take a stand. Ossetia, East Timor, Punjab, etc, just for starters...the list would never end, and it would politicize football - something Platini is dead set against.

Edit: and before someone says it, I know the regions I mentioned are not under UEFA.....I was merely trying to illustrate the reasoning. Same applies to FIFA as it does to UEFA. Also, yes, yes Platini is UEFA president, but I think FIFA would be willing to follow his lead on this.

Incidentally, an 'English' bid for a world cup would be interesting whilst Platini heads UEFA, since he would expect clarification of exactly what that means....if theres any ambiguity he will exploit it.

[Schotsmannetje]

Rubbish, what about Gerald Asamoah, borned in Ghana, Ghanian parents, no bloodline there...

I was referring to the culture of the country, not to how the laws in that country are. German people are very strict about calling someone a German or not, in contrast to the French who accept you as a Frenchman when you can speak their language.

To relate to football: Many Germans still consider Michael Ballack and Lucas Podolski Polish, whereas in France players like Patrick Vieira are considered as French as croissants.

This is not just a bold statement. There have been many researches that support this. In fact, those researches also show that Dutch people (like myself) have the lowest feeling of nationality in Europe. Probably because The Netherlands has only existed since 1830, and has even been a part of Germany for a short while in that period.

[ATW]

If CAF, CONCACAF and the Asian version had their way then Britain would be the Nation of FIFA. The fact is, we have more right to have an International Side (Scotland and England) than anyone, because it is ours. We bloody made up the whole thing. When Queen's Park (Scotland) played and English select at Hampden back in the late 1800's was the birth of International football. If they binned the Home Nations then International Football will be officially dead.

You are correct about the Olympics though, FIFA have given their word that the Home Nations will not be harmed, but FIFA cannot, in any circumstances guarentee that, as FIFA is made up of it's members. Other Nations are jealous as due to the founding of International Football by the Home Nations we receive special disposition with regards we must have powerful seats at both UEFA and FIFA. Unfortunately, everyone except The FA (do they care if The FA becomes the British FA?), some deluded fans (mostly those who are not fans of International Football) and the British Government cannot see FIFA are basically lying.

Why is the line drawn at the third generation? Why not first, second or fourth? It seems entirely arbitrary to me. Logically, either the rule should be infinite generations (effectively impossible) or at the first generation - i.e. anyone who is a citizen of that country and who wishes to be available for selection. Or is it possible for anyone to give a good explanation for why the third generation is the best place to draw the line?

In a perfect world it would be the sole generation, but that would only happen if FIFA made it that way, and they won't do that as it would annoy so many countries around the world, it would annoy the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Croatain, Germans you name they will be peeved. As for why it was decided as I think, when it was first introduced in the mid 90's it was meant to be "direct living relative" but under the advisement of the then Scottish Manager, Craig Brown (circa 1997) it was changed to Grandparent. This was also set in place due to pressure from FIFA regarding the Passport Rule. FIFA and the named above Associations (CAF etc) where unhappy that one passport supported 4 Nations.

[martin23]

carlo cudicini could be called up for england aswell

theres quite a few big name players around the world that dont play for the country they was born in,

i dont think people would be making a big deal of it was a decent player that we could do with lol

[ATW]

theres quite a few big name players around the world that dont play for the country they was born in,

i dont think people would be making a big deal of it was a decent player that we could do with lol

Yes and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a few too (Commons and Alexander for Scotland, although Alexander was brought up supporting Scotland). Your point?

[Les Girondins]

carlo cudicini could be called up for england aswell

theres quite a few big name players around the world that dont play for the country they was born in,

i dont think people would be making a big deal of it was a decent player that we could do with lol

in cudicini's case capello is insane not to want him in the england team. he is light years better than anything they have currently.

the problem is as has been said in the thread before, you soon end up with an England All Stars team not a national team at all.

despite what france did with their national side, nobody cried foul when we fielded 6 africans eh? stupid all of it.

[martin23]

havnt got a point really atw just thought id share it with you all

[Smellfire]

Actually loads of south american and african players have played for countries they werent born in. Either through residency or parentage.

Don't think its that big a deal tbh.

Deco could have played for either Brazil or Portugal, even though he was born in São Paulo, Brazil. There was a huge outcry when he chose Portugal, but now you here nothing about it.

Also an interesting article on Boateng : http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/7735137.stm

Also one on Kalou : http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/nationality-row-clouds-chelseas-kalou-deal-480390.html

[Perry Neal]

In a perfect world it would be the sole generation, but that would only happen if FIFA made it that way...

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/circularno.1147-eligibilitytoplayforrepresentativeteams_55197.pdf

It's not FIFA that imposes the 3rd generation rule. They say that a player can represent a nation if he has that nationality and has a parent or grandparent born there, or has lived there for 2 years (5 years in the case of acquiring a new nationality).

[aka.arrogantio]

in cudicini's case capello is insane not to want him in the england team. he is light years better than anything they have currently.

Capello would be insane to pick a player who hasn't played regular football for four years and is so unambitious he doesn't seem to mind. Similarly, he would be insane to pick an average Spaniard, when frankly, we have an oversupply of average goalkeepers born in England to English parents, speaking English as a first language who have never, ever aspired to play for any national team other than England.

[ATW]

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/circularno.1147-eligibilitytoplayforrepresentativeteams_55197.pdf

It's not FIFA that imposes the 3rd generation rule. They say that a player can represent a nation if he has that nationality and has a parent or grandparent born there, or has lived there for 2 years (5 years in the case of acquiring a new nationality).

Who said it was?

Actually loads of south american and african players have played for countries they werent born in. Either through residency or parentage.

Don't think its that big a deal tbh.

Deco could have played for either Brazil or Portugal, even though he was born in São Paulo, Brazil. There was a huge outcry when he chose Portugal, but now you here nothing about it.

Also an interesting article on Boateng : http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ca/7735137.stm

Also one on Kalou : http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...al-480390.html

Oh God! We know other nations do it and so do we, but we have tighter controls

[Schotsmannetje]

Actually loads of south american and african players have played for countries they werent born in. Either through residency or parentage.

Don't think its that big a deal tbh.

Deco could have played for either Brazil or Portugal, even though he was born in São Paulo, Brazil. There was a huge outcry when he chose Portugal, but now you here nothing about it.

Also an interesting article on Boateng : http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/7735137.stm

Also one on Kalou : http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/nationality-row-clouds-chelseas-kalou-deal-480390.html

About Kalou: As a Feyenoord season-ticket holder I followed that procedure very closely, and it was a very odd one. As we say in Dutch, the truth lies somewhere in between.

What I do want to say about that is this: When Kalou started the procedure (to become Dutch) there was no transfer talk whatsoever. And 1 VERY BIG detail that's being left out in your article is the fact that Holland coach Marco Van Basten started the "Kalou in Holland" campaign, because he wanted to be able to put him in the Holland squad. Besides, before starting the procedure Kalou had already lived in Holland for 5 years, in a Dutch host family for crying out loud, and spoke Dutch fluently.

Just this year, another Feyenoord-wonderkid Jonathan De Guzman started the exact same procedure, and gained the Dutch nationality, making it able to play for Holland (he also played for Holland at the Olympics) and he succeeded without any protest whatsoever. He was born in Canada, his mother is Jamaican and his father is from the Philippines. Same counts for him: Lived in a Dutch host family for approximately 5 years and speaks fluent Dutch. The difference between the two cases is nihil, yet De Guzman succeeded with flying colours, but Kalou's application was turned down several times.

The argument that Kalou only wanted to become Dutch because he would then be a EU-citizen, which would make it easier for him to transfer to a big club: This is actually more the case with De Guzman then with Kalou. When Kalou applied, yes he was good but also under heavy criticism. When De Guzman applied, the stands in the Feyenoord Stadium were completely packed with scouts from all over the world, including clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Everton. In fact, right after the news came out that De Guzman had received Dutch citizenship, Everton made a €10 million bid, which got turned down.

Mind you, I think it's perfectly all right that De Guzman plays for Holland now. He has every right to. He's not more or less Dutch then I am, nor is he more or less Dutch then Salomon Kalou. Hell, Salomon Kalou's brother, Bonaventura, played for Feyenoord for years and years as well and also speaks fluent Dutch.

In my opinion the article on "Solo" is only telling one side of the story. Kalou was just an unfortunate victim of minister Rita Verdonk, who wanted to gain votes by showing how nationalistic (or just plain ignorant) she is.