New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Depends. If he was eligible for a NZ passport at birth then yes, through Article 5. If not, then he's acquiring a new nationality so wouldn't meet Article 7 criteria.

Is it eligibility at birth, or is it whether you actually get the citizenship at birth? If you're eligible for citizenship by descent at birth but don't apply for it until you're say, 10, then I would expect that Art. 7 would apply and you wouldn't be eligible. If you held it from birth though then Art 5 applies and you are eligible. It's tough though, how many days/weeks/months after birth would FIFA give you before you considered to be applying for a new nationality? 

One of his parents could be a NZ citizen without having been born here, and then he would be eligible for kiwi citizenship by descent

http://www.dia.govt.nz/Services-Citizenship-New-Ze...

I was looking at that aside. If the parents or grandparents are not born here and they are not born here, its extremely unlikely that the person would have NZ citizenship from birth.

It specifically says they have to be born here so that entire arguement is out the window.

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; 

Back to my previous position, no, not eligible.

Those points are all from Article 7 which explicitly states that it refers to acquisition of a new nationality though - if you were eligible for kiwi citizenship from birth and your parents applied for it as soon as they could, would that count as acquiring a new nationality for FIFA purposes? And that's assuming this kid has a second nationality - I don't know UK nationality laws but I don't think you get British citizenship just by being born there. Without knowing the parents' citizenship situation you can't really say if he holds or is eligible for another nationality. If he is not a citizen of any other country and never has been then surely he'd be eligible under Article 5.

Needs I'm Not Your Bro to provide details of parents citizenship status, otherwise endless hypothetical discussion without full facts (ok, I know that is the oxygen on which this forum survives). Besides, if we get a blanket ban for 2 years, it's all irrelevant for a kid born in 2000 (for 2017 U17 anyway). Given Chile tournament is in October, FIFA will need to make a call asap - for the sake of NZ and Tahiti.

It doesn't matter what the status of his parents are per se, but rather if he's eligible to hold a NZ passport from birth. It also doesn't matter when he applies for the passport, it's when he's eligible that's important.

If he has no Kiwi lineage and he wasn't born in NZ, how would he be able to hold a NZ passport at birth, he wouldn't have NZ citizenship, would he?

Yeah you're right that he would need a parent that is a citizen other than by descent. What I mean is that for the purpose of FIFA it doesn't matter how he is eligible at birth, just that he is.

So...as posted earlier...

Needs I'm Not Your Bro to provide details of parents citizenship status, otherwise endless hypothetical discussion without full facts (ok, I know that is the oxygen on which this forum survives). Besides, if we get a blanket ban for 2 years, it's all irrelevant for a kid born in 2000 (for 2017 U17 anyway). Given Chile tournament is in October, FIFA will need to make a call asap - for the sake of NZ and Tahiti.

When do we know if the appeal has been successful or not?

A few weeks ago when we caught fielding an ineligible player. 

This appeal is just a game of smoke and mirrors 

To attempt to save face and save some incompetent asses

By pretending it is some legal interpretation and that no one at NZ football really did anything wrong

This could be wrong ...

Q: Can player get NZ Citizenship / Passport before residing in NZ ?

A: Yes - He can get "NZ Citizen by Descent" IF one of his parents is a NZ "Citizen otherwise than by Descent" as per the link previously posted by Conan Troutman

http://www.dia.govt.nz/Services-Citizenship-New-Ze...

Eg: One of the parent was born outside NZ but has received the "Grant of NZ Citizenship" so Parent is considered NZ "Citizen otherwise than by Descent"

In NZ Citizenship terms - being born in NZ or "Grant of Citizenship" both allow you to pass on Citizenship by Descent to a child born overseas. ?

The child is entitled to NZ "Citizen by Descent" from birth ...therefore...

Q: If Yes..Eligible ?

A: Yes

Article 5 - He holds permanent (NZ) nationality not dependent on residence in (NZ)

But then again, I could be missing something..!

Hi all,


Unearthed these earlier this evening.


Have a wee gander at article 22, paragraph 2 on page 33 - probably explains the "if they've got a passport, they're OK to play" thinking.

http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/54/40/46/oftsregulationsrio2016-e_neutral.pdf

Cheers,

JR

Just as an aside to the above scenario...

The player (a)  above has a sibling (b) who was born in NZ, then..

Player a : Born in UK - NZ Citizen by Descent

Player b : Born in NZ - NZ Citizen otherwise than by Descent

So, the siblings have different NZ Citizenship status meaning:

a - can not pass on NZ citizenship to their children if child born overseas

b - can pass on NZ citizenship to their children if child born overseas 

Whether any of these kids are any good at Football is a different matter....

Yeah but FIFA don't talk about what citizen status they hold. They specifically say 'if they are born'. If it said 'if they somehow hold a citizenship by some contrived manner at birth' then fair enough. In the above, they are born in the UK. Guess who they represent?

I think you are putting in too much time when its black and white. At the end of the day, they have to be born somewhere. If its not NZ and they don't meet the other criteria then they have to turn 18 and wait 5 or get an exemption. The end.

It may do but would it be fair to say that this really only references what ID they must produce and not what makes them eligible? If you read that and went 'oh good, he can play' then you really should be fired from your job at NZF...

FIFA do talk about what citizenship they hold though - they just refer to citizenship as nationality. And all the stuff about having to be born somewhere is only in the bit about acquiring a new nationality. As I said earlier if he's not acquiring a new nationality because he's had it from birth then Article 7 is not relevant. 

What is interesting though is that Article 6 technically applies to NZ because of the Cook Islands - and that does say he must have lived there for 2 years, or been born there, or have a parent or grandparent who was born there. This hypothetical player might not be acquiring a new nationality but he would fall under article 6 and wouldn't meet requirements to play for either NZ or the Cooks. Whereas if he was say, Australian instead of kiwi, and all other factors were the same from my reading he would be eligible to play for Australia because as far as I',m aware there's no other FIFA member which shares Aussie citizenship. Bizarre. I suppose you could get an exemption for that too though maybe.

Fair point...

So in my scenario  you're saying:  we have 2 brothers with NZ Nationality at birth.... born to the same Parents...with the same Grandparents but they are unable to represent the same Country ?.

Wonder if there's precedent for that ?

Obviously there are many cases where siblings have chosen to represent different Nationalities they are both eligible for, just trying to think of case where they weren't eligible for the same country at their birth

(As mentioned previously I still think they;d be eligible under Article 5 - not that what I think matters, its FIFA  )

So when are we expected to hear back about our appeal?

I would think that it would be a case of being born in either NZ or the Cooks and choosing the represent the other that would be the practical applicator in that instance. Wynne was not born in either.

NZ and Cooks, despite sharing a passport are not listed by FIFA as having shared nationality, probably because simply holding a NZ passport does not mean you are automatically a Cook Island national, so Article 6 doesn't apply.

This page is like a car accident.

You know you don't want to look, but you can't help it and when you do...you instantly feel worse.

Bahahaha!! - spot on

Article here from Michael Burgess.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11494206

Fifa won't ban us as they to busy dealing with their own problems and corruption in concacaf and conmebol and have already said they are refusing to intervene in NZF eligibility issue and were already in the Final Draw for the FIFA U-17 World Cup Chile 2015. So without the backing of Fifa it basically leaves the decision with OFC to either replay the final in accordance with the Pacfic Games Charter:

8. In the event of a challenge to an athlete’s eligibility the Executive Board shall within 5 days refer the challenge to the Disputes Tribunal established by this Charter, for decision within a further 10 days from receipt of the last challenges. All Disputes Tribunal decisions should therefore be finalised at least 20 days prior to the commencement of the Games). The Disputes Tribunal’s decision shall be final. No further challenges shall be considered thereafter.


Or reject it in which case the next step would be to go to the Pacific Games Council

d) The adoption of the International Federation’s eligibility rules will not lead to distorted outcomes from the basic philosophy of the Pacific Games being facilitated for the benefit of the people of the Pacific. In the event that a PGA believes the application of an International Federation’s eligibility rules leads to an unintended discriminatory outcome for one of its athletes, the PGA shall have a right of recourse to the Executive Board who shall have the power to resolve the matter in its discretion. If applied, the International Federation’s eligibility rules shall be sent to all PGAs two years prior to the Pacific Games.

and the international olympic committee

41 Nationality of competitors* 1. Any competitor in the Olympic Games must be a national of the country of the NOC which is entering such competitor. 2. All matters relating to the determination of the country which a competitor may represent in the Olympic Games shall be resolved by the IOC Executive Board.

found these two articles on the ofc website which are interesting.

http://210.48.80.94/OFC/Portals/0/Images/Articles/...

http://210.48.80.94/OFC/Portals/0/Images/Articles/...

Nomeans, these are the formal responses from OFC to NZF supporting the disqualification (decision and process) and have been discussed by the various YF protaganists  somewhere in the previous 194 pages.  The perils of an infinite thread ....

Mai Chen is now sitting on the FIFA 2016 Reform Committee. Interesting. #gravytrain

This whole eligibility stuff has really got me interested in how the Statutes work and are applied. I have been doing quite a bit of research. I have been in contact with FIFA, and also a fantastic, and very patient, man named Yann Hafner.

Yann is from the University of Neuchatel, Switzerland, and has been studying FIFA Rules for the past 7 years.

From my exchanges with him and reading various FIFA Statutes and circulars, I have come up with this step-by-step guide for player eligibility for national associations:

.

1. Does he have permanent nationality not dependant on residence enabling him to play for the association (art 5.1)?

Yes - Go to 2

No - INELIGIBLE

.

2. With the exception of conditions specified in art 8, has he played an international match (in part or full) in an official FIFA competition of any type or category of football for another association (art 5.2)?

Yes - INELIGIBLE

No - Got to 3

.

3. Has he acquired his nationality?

Yes - Go to 4

No - Go to 5

.

4. Does he meet art 7 criteria? *See Note 1

Yes - Go to 5

No - INELIGIBLE

.

5. Is his nationality a 'shared nationality'? *See Note 2

Yes - Go to 6

No - Go to 8

.

6. Does he meet art 6.1 criteria? *See Note 3

Yes - Go to 8

No - Go to 7

.

7. Does he meet art 6.1 criteria for any other association sharing his nationality? *See Note 4

Yes – INELIGIBLE

No - Go to 8

.

8. Has he played an international match in an official competition for

another association?

Yes - Go to 9

No - ELIGIBLE

.

9. Does he meet art 8 criteria? *See Note 5

Yes - ELIGIBLE

No - INELIGIBLE

.

.

Note 1: If a player does not meet art 7(d), FIFA may issue an exemption if it is shown that he is not breaking the spirit of the rule. ie if he moved to the association's territory for non-footballing reasons.

Yann Hafner said:

"national associations are allowed to request from the Player’s Status Committee a dispensation of the stipulation contained in article 7, ie living for 5 years in the relevant country after the age of 18. The waiver is granted on a case by case basis providing that the national association can prove the player arrived in its country at a relative young age and did most of its footballing education in a club under its jurisdiction. This means that the player has usually lived 5 or more years on the territory of the national association."

.

Note 2: New Zealand and Cook Islands is not recognised by FIFA as a 'shared nationality' despite both countries using a NZ passport, as Cook Islands have their own criteria in their constitution to define Cook Island nationality. Therefore simply having a NZ passport does not necessarily entitle you to play for both NZ and Cook Islands.

.

Note 3: In the case of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, art 6.1(d) is amended to read "He has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant association." This alteration (Home Nation Agreement) was ratified by FIFA in 2010 under the clause in art 6.2.

.

Note 4: Article 6 is intended as a Rule of Conflict, so if a player does not meet any criteria of art 6.1 for all associations sharing the same nationality, he may play for any of them.

Yann Hafner said:

"There are six cases of shared nationalities concerning 27 associations. Article 6 is a rule of conflict. This is key. It aims at directing the player towards the national federation they have the closest link with. Thus, if a player does not meet any of the criteria of article 6 – there is no reason to prevent him from playing with any of the association sharing the same nationality. Indeed, he has the same ties with all of them."

.

Note 5: If a player meets art 8 criteria, a written request must be sent to FIFA for their approval before being deemed eligible.

flow chart?

so is he eligible?

Um, no.

He acquired his nationality and doesn't meet the requirements in article 7, and we never got an exemption.

Napier note the above please 

So you could to this in your spare time without leaving home, write some mails, read something on the internet.

That shows how bad NZ Football are organized. I feel deeply sorry for the players, who spent all their years training their asses off, dreaming on playing at the Olympics, just to get kicked out by some lazy NZF bureaucrats? Fire who is responsible and give Wibblebutt the job!

Hang on   is he eligible?

If a player is ineligible to play in a team or competition in a forest New Zealand and is caught doing so, did it really happen?

Because??????

This is only for Auckland Phoenix [I deem everybody else to have more than half a brain]

History where the majority were deemed to be right:

The earth is flat.

Slavery is acceptable.

A woman's place is in the home.

Women have no right to vote.

It is OK to send children to work at the age of 5.

It is OK to send someone to a penal colony on the other side of the world because they stole a loaf of bread.

Homosexuality is wrong

Apartheid in South Africa is OK and it is up to South Africans to decide whether it is right or wrong.

etc etc etc

I don't quite see the relevance Napier and I doubt anyone else can as well.

I guess however you are still saying he is eligible?