New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

It seems to me (and please correct me if I have missed something ) that NZFs entire argument is - "we read the rules and thought we knew what they meant and since no-one picked up on this earlier or asked we figured we were correct"...

...hardly seems a defence.

From what I can tell, it seems NZ's only hope rests on Article 5 and the definition of 'permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence'. Why?(and this is just a layman's analysis)

Section 6 says: 

6.Nationality entitling Players to represent more than one Association 

1. A Player who, under the terms of art. 5, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least 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 on the territory of the relevant Association for at least two years.

So NZ Football are relying on Section 6, because Deklan has lived continuously in NZ for at least 2 years. In order for this to apply, he has to be eligible to represent more than one association (NZ and SA) under the terms of article 5.

The relevant part of Article 5 is paragraph 1: Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain Country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that Country.

NZ Football thus have to argue that Wynne falls within this clause, and thus that his (NZ) nationality is not dependent on residence in NZ. It seems to me that what they will have to argue here is pretty illogical and anti-common-sense: they will have to argue that NZ nationality, once awarded, is not conditional on that person continuing to reside in NZ. 

This is true, but really doesn't seem to be the most sensible interpretation of 5.1. It seems much more likely that 'nationality not dependent on residence' means nationality by virtue of something other than meeting residency requirements (which is how Deklan got his NZ citizenship) - e.g. based on parents' citizenship, or being born in a country.

To me, it seems that Deklan's nationality is dependent on residence (that is, the award of his citizenship, and thus his nationality as New Zealander, was based on having lived here for x amount of time). Therefore, he is not eligible under Article 5, and so Article 6, and the 2 year residency requirement there, cannot apply to him.

Article 7 therefore applies to him, and we all know he doesn't fulfil the 5 years after the age of 18 criteria there, nor has NZ Football applied for an exception. So, unless NZ Football can successfully run a fairly strained interpretation of Article 5.1, I can't see them succeeding.

Still different to a conformation of eligibility, I presume. 

This is also my reading.

I think I would feel slightly better if this was an honest mistake than anything deceptive. As mentioned above, depending on what article you read, you can make him ineligible or eligible. Not exactly clear.

It's a load of shark to say that Article 7 doesn't apply because he's played for New Zealand before. You think if you get away with playing someone previously the eligibility rules are then different for you? Dream on.

FIFA really need to define the key terms in their regulations. Nationality and citizenship aren't necessarily synonyms in this context. There's no such thing as English citizenship but there is English nationality, for instance

What amazes me is that the CEO and no doubt many others knew that this was a possible issue some time ago.

This is confirmed by his comment that we didn't apply for an exemption for Wynn because if they said no then that would be the end of it. 

That's a bit like my 7 year old daughter stealing $20.00 from my wallet and when she is caught saying I didn't know if I asked you if you might say yes.

My son was born in Dubai so was not a NZ citizen despite my wife and I both been born in NZ. We had to apply for citizenship and then we could get a passport for him to return to NZ.

Would he have to wait 5 years after the age of 18 to play for NZ.... despite the fact he has no other nationality. (You can't get U.A.E nationality unless fathered by an Emarati.

If this is the case then Wynne isn't the only one who's NZ U-23 rep eligibility is in question. Burfoot e.g.

Reading everyones comments it appears to me that  the whole thing has a certain level of ambiguity about it?.  In not trying to let NZF off the hook but I am starting to feel a little sympathy for them

I think that this blog by a Swiss legal professor on a leading sports law website clears up many of the issues you raise - NZ Football should have asked for a legal opinion from a leading overseas sports lawyer. NZ lawyers don't have the competency to deal with complex football matters, used as they are to only dealing with more minor sports like rugby and netball.

http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/blurred-nationalities-the-list-of-the-23-and-the-eligibility-rules-at-the-2014-fifa-world-cup

Written with last years Brazil World Cup in mind but applies to the Deklan Wynne situation too.

Paras 1-4 are introductory.

Paras 5 on get to the crux of the matter:

"The 32 national associations engaged in the final competition are bound by two sets of rules, namely the Regulations of the 2014 World Cup – Brazil and the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes 2013[4]. Their common purpose is to ensure that players have a genuine, close and credible link with the national association which selects them on its roster[5]. This is primarily ensured by the permanent holding of the nationality of the country of the national association in question[6]. It means that nationality must not be pegged to the residence of the player in a certain country[7]. Naturally, sanctions may apply in the case of a breach of these stipulations[8].

Article 7 of the 2013 FIFA Regulations:

"It institutes a de facto prohibition to play at international level before the age of 23 years old when naturalized."

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In other words, it's Article 7 that applies to the Wynne situation, not Article 6

Wynne would only be eligible if he had applied to FIFA under Article 8, paragraph 1, of the FIFA Regulations which reads as follows: “If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another Country of which he holds nationality..."

Januzaj was born in Belgium.

Zelalem's need for an exemption was nothing to do with him being over at Arsenal. It was because he had lived in US for 6 years before being 18 but hadn't met the 5 years while over 18 rule.

Caitlyn Jenner? Is that you?

So what if it was an 'honest' mistake? Oh no please let me play the final because I didn't knew what I was doing was wrong doesn't seem to be a good defence to me. How can you even prove it was an honest mistake and not something they were aware of? 

I still believe NZF can win the appeal though. Rules are kind of tricky and a good lawyer could prove Wynne has been elegible all the time, or at least that OFC screwed with the procedure when they found out so maybe get a replay of the semifinal.

Acatinx has correctly pointed out something the rest of us missed - The No Backsies Clause. Applies both as an actual FIFA rule, and as a general (universally recognised and upheld) principle of justice. Case closed.

I have grasped it and have never said if he is ineligible by not meeting the criteria of Article 6 but did play for NZ, then he should somehow be OK

But it does not change the fact that Article 7 has nothing at all to do with this except that Vanuatu incorrectly used it as grounds for protest which OFC then accepted.

No, because you were born in NZ - a player only has to fullfill one of the criteria under Article 7:

"....he fulfils 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”.

But then where does that leave the "not through residence" bit of 5.1?  Makes it redundant (if you or your ancestor was born in that country you qualify already - you don't need to be there for 2 years)

It does, but by not confirming it or questioning it are you negligible by ommission?

You said that because he played for the AWs, he is now eligible. That flies in the face of the 1st sentence above

It would seem looking at the statutes, that Vanuatu has protested correctly and Article 7 can apply. That flies in the face of the second sentence

You should read all the posts. Really.

As I've said before, none of a) b) c) d) applies to 21 yr-old Sam Burfoot. So why didn't he get pinged too?

[/quote]

Januzaj was born in Belgium.

Zelalem's need for an exemption was nothing to do with him being over at Arsenal. It was because he had lived in US for 6 years before being 18 but hadn't met the 5 years while over 18 rule.

[/quote]

OK thanks... stuffed that up 

Not sure why Zelalem didn't qualify under Article 6 though - Haven't really seen who does qualify then under Article 6 - any suggestions?

What is staggering is how NZ football have been Cowboys in this matter considering what was on the line.

They obviously knew that this was an issue and potentially a grey area. They had considered applying for an exemption for Wynne but decided they dare not do so in case FIFA said no.

If it was grey did anyone consider before the fact actually approaching FIFA in writing and asking for their interpretation on articles 5,6 and 7?

That is what a governing body is there for - to provide the rules and provide clarity on these rules. FIFA despite its faults is a massive beast and has departments for this purpose. Competent staff in certain areas as well.

The fact they didn't pose the question indicates that NZ football is at fault and someone needs to fall on their sword.

Agree with the last part that this is tricky and not exactly black and white.

No because you are born in NZ so he qualifies under both Articles 6 and 7 anyway.

Becuse he didn't play in the semi vs Vanuatu so they never protested his eligibility.

According to BigPete's article posted over (which by the way isn't favourable to my interpretation), the number of requests to change nationality are in the region of 30-40 each year WORLDWIDE!  In 2014 there were only 14 requests total. 

That does not tally for me with the reality of how this law is being interpreted because we have 3 in one junior team alone. 

Well I hope to hell NZF sort out his eligibility before they play him again.

Cameron the comedian was having a rough night his jokes were not going over well..

Did you hear about the chicken with lettuce over its eyes?

Chicken sees a salad.

Then he tried a few one liners… that fell flat 

I'd tell you a joke about a roof, but it'd just go over your head.


I'd tell you a joke about a blunt knife, but it probably wouldn't cut it.


I'd tell you a joke about a ghost but you'd see right through it.

Finally Cameron had em rolling on the floor with laughter..

He said NZF …

Oh god... I am confused. Bottom line is that if they had any doubt then they really should have made sure. Still I can see how they got in this mess.  A mixture of unfortunate and stupid maybe?

The issue that we are ignoring is whether or not they were playing under FIFA rules, this could all be moot. Ofcourse we don't have access to the necessary paperwork so that line of reasoning would be more frivolous than this.

In order for Durante to play for NZ, his nationality was pegged to residence in NZ for him to be eligible - after 5 years residence, he becomes an NZer. That line there says he didn't have to....

I think it was mentioned earlier I think, people who can play for two countries becuase of citizenship, so for Kiwi's that would be countries which are NZ dependencies, like the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau,  etc.

My head hurts.

Yeah I think the only way this makes sense is if, as some people have already suggested, section 6 is talking about people whose (one) nationality enables them to play for 2 Association's teams. E.g. Tahitians are French citizens, so could represent Tahiti or France, Puerto Ricans are American citizens so could represent America or Puerto Rico. Those two nationalities - Tahitian and Puerto Rican, automatically enable people from those countries to play for two associations. I'm pretty sure this is what article 6 is talking about, as 6.2 talks about 'Associations sharing a common nationality'.

That is different from Deklan's situation, where he has two distinct nationalities that would enable him (if it weren't for the 18+5 rule) to represent both South Africa and NZ. He does not have a 'common nationality' that would enable him to play for both SA and NZ (there is no such nationality).

So I think section 6 is designed to stop, for example, France poaching a Tahitian player who, despite the fact he is eligible to play for France, has no other ties to France: no parents/grand-parents born there, not born there himself, and hasn't ever lived in France.

This is completely different to Wynne's case, so I don't think section 6 is relevant, despite what NZ Football says.

@NZ_Dave @Andrew_Gourdie It cant be 6.1 (d), he doesnt hold a NZ passport as a right, it is due to residency, therefore 5.1 has not been met

— Grant McKavanagh (@grantmcknz) July 14, 2015