New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Absolutely hilarious

The journalist Evan Charlton, who made these claims on Glenn Larmer's show was at the Olympic Qualifying Tournament and whilst he did not disclose his source he was quoting general discussions he had with OFC officials. So he  sounds as if he has his ear to the ground.

There were no facts quoted in that story at all, except that Evan Charlton thought this.........

My spies tell me there is a story - with factoids - due at 2pm-ish.

Coming out of where Bruce?

"We can't be held back by being part of a confederation where we're being pulled to the lowest common denominator." - Andy Martin speaking on TV3 News 02 June following his decision to back Prince Ali bin Hussein in FIFA's presidential election.

Tuipoloa Evan Charlton: "New Zealand Football haven't done themselves any favours by voting against the current powerbrokers, so this is how naïve they are".

As big a clusterfudge as this is can we all just please agree that the above statement is absolute BS.

I don't care if it was politically naive, voting against Blatter is the one thing NZF has done recently that they got absolutely 100% right. It actually made me a teeny bit proud - especially considering the potential consequences.

It's actually contradictory to say that on the one hand NZF stuffed up by not following the rules but then also suggest that part of the solution is to play the type of bullshark political games that FIFA is famous for.

And I'll say it again - it is deeply ironic that in this case "following the rules" (i.e. applying for an exemption for Wynne) would have actually meant following a process which appears to be completely undocumented, lacking transparency and probably ultra vires, or in other words - what rules?

It would be fascinating to know more about the De Vries case because potentially that's where the real grounds for an appeal lie. Is De Vries an example of a player who failed to get an eligibility exemption but who could reasonably argue that it has negatively affected his ability to make a living? (these are the kinds of players that Yann Hafner reckoned FIFA were granting exemptions in order to avoid getting dragged to court).

Martin has a serious case of egg on face after that quote.

Ummm... it's beginning to look like we are becoming Oceania's lowest common denominator.

Holy shark: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c...

The Herald have uncovered 16 players who have represented the All Whites, New Zealand under-17s, New Zealand under-20s and New Zealand under-23s within the past year who also appear to fall short of Article 7 of Fifa's eligibility requirements.

I still want to hear from FIFA(?) that the rule was intended to catch a kid who moved here at 1 years of age and fits into rule 7. This is the unintended consequence and is not 100% confirmed in any source as the issue. A kid who becomes a citizen at 18 like Wynne or de Vries is clearly in that category, but the lack of clarity and transparency on this rule, its processes and if this category are included, still worries me.

I need a drink! 

I'm honestly not surprised. Smithy, so many kids I know of that have been trying to press for a spot in NZ age group teams appear to have moved here from the UK as a children. It's safe to assume many of these didn't have parents born here or grandparents born here. However, because they moved here so young they probably could have been given clearance by FIFA had we applied. 

That is totally what the rule was intended to do.

The behaviour it was designed to stop was the behaviour of European clubs (and unscrupulous agents) taking kids from poorer countries away from their families at a young age with spurious promises. It went hand in hand with the ban on transfers for kids.

The collatoral damage is kids like Wynne who move for entirely legitimate reasons and settle in a new country. But for them it would seem like an exemption process exists which we have ignored.

My holy shark was directed at what this could mean for NZ.

If FIFA decide that our abuse of this rule has been systemic we could be facing a ban from future tournaments.

I get your point, but if its so cut and dried to assist the genuine, why on earth is not a transparent rule bound process that is open and there for all to see?

That's a fair question. You'd think if there was a proper exemption process it would be documented somewhere.

It's entirely possible that we're all suffering groupthink here, that the rules are not intended to ping lads like Wynne, that FIFA will see common sense and this will all go away.

Completely agree with you that this known but unknown exemption is complete bullshark...

On the other hand my sympathy is waning because it seems like we've proceeded (naively or otherwise) for a long time on a blatantly wrong interpretation of the rules

I maybe repeating myself but....

I legal professor( a friend of a friend) who has no links to football looked over the rules, and his response was that they are so poorly written that if challenged would not stand. He also said the intent was not at the scenario of the young immigrant but rather the becoming a citizen later on in age. Having said that, he said if anything this will force FIFA to have them re written as they are as clear as mud( his word)

Why would the other Oceania states let it all go away if our U-17's have qualified for Chile with ineligible players?

I think the fact that the UK has a blanket exemption for players who have had 5 years schooling shows that is what FIFA intended (see the Raheem Stirling example).    I actually still don't see how he could qualify and a NZ kid doesn't so the exemptions has to be straight forward...

In fact, the UK could easily do exactly what the rules are intended to negate and bring kids over for junior schooling and qualify them which to me makes the rules a nonsense

The only thing in our favour here is that the rules in this situation are vague and although it appears that we a re systematically breaking them its not as clear cut as the Mexico thing, a date of birth is a date of birth, this is something much more open to interpretation (as 176 pages show)

It wouldn't matter if the best legal team in the universe were on NZF's side.  FIFA will rule whatever they want and ignore any other directive - legal or otherwise.  This is what FIFA is - a law only to itself.  We are up shark creek and face our u17's being kicked out of the finals, plus other sanctions I'd hazard to guess.

Actually, reading about that in more detail I think Raheem Stirling is in exactly the same situation as Wynne and he is not eligible for England.  I think the home nations agreement only relates to players who are "eligible to represent more than one association on account of their nationality".  He isn't eligible to represent England on account of his nationality therefore the 5 year schooling clause isn't relevant.

Too late for OFC to kick NZ U17s out of Chile I would have thought - don't protests need to be made within relatively short time period post tournament play? However if it's proven we've been rorting the system, then anything is possible.

Well, it's not like they haven't been challenged before - the dispute between IFA and FAI is well documented, and the CAS upheld the FIFA statutes:

http://www.fai.ie/ireland/news/fai-wins-landmark-case-at-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport

That is to say, the CAS had no problems sorting out the meaning and intent of the statutes and certainly did not force FIFA into anything (though FIFA did also encourage the two associations to work out a fairer solution for IFA).

I actually find it quite surprising that there's this perception that the statutes are particularly poorly phrased - when looked in their entirety and overall context, they're pretty straightforward. If you think they're difficult to understand, try understanding Maori land legislation (especially the nineteenth century stuff).

El G I dip in and out of this so may have missed something but can you explain to me how Raheem Stirling qualifies for England (assuming he hasn't been exempted by FIFA)?

Yeah, we discussed this a few pages back - if the FA hadn't applied for an exemption, he is ineligible. But without knowing that they hadn't, it's hard to tell.

Yeah, I think it's the latter that's the potential problem.

Agreed, but they we would have to move quickly for it to affect U17s. Chile tournament is in October.

Well NZF HAVE TO take this to CAS if Oceania continue down this path. This needs to be sorted once and for all. There will be other countries watching this and thinking "shark, they'll be coming after us next". If this is something that also affects one of the big powerful countries, then we can expect some quick action from FIFA but little ole NZ [if on their own] will be shuffled around and rogered at every turn.

I think when you know what the rules are trying to say you can interpret them relatively simply. 

The biggest problem isn't the written rules I agree - it's what are the unwritten rules that allow players who don't qualify under the rules to become eligible.  That's what complicates it I think

I'm sure they relied on the Home Nations ruling and he is not eligible

Who are the 16?

Deklan Wynne 

Sam Burfoot

Storm Roux

Kip Colvey

According to NZ Herald, 4 players from 17s qualifying tournament (3 born in UK and one in PNG, allegedly without kiwi ancestry). This is the team that went to qualifying. A different set of players has been used subsequently.

Yeah, nah.

I was sure the home nations agreement was an alteration to Article 6, as the only evidence of it's wording I could find initially was on wiki, and some news articles about it. However this post from the Scottish FA shows it is actually an amendment to Article 5 (it says 15 in the post but has since been renumbered 5).

So basically anyone who has been educated in one of the Home Nations for 5 years or more under the age of 18 is eligible for said nation. However under the agreement, no immigrant player can play for any of the home nations if they're 14 or older no matter how long they live in the country for. Eg if you moved to England aged 20, and had no ancestral link, you would NEVER be allowed to play for England.

Still seems strange to me that they are allowed to amend Article 5 though, when situations like this are specifically covered in Article 6.2.

Yeah, that's what his Wikipedia page says.