History for Bestie

Bored at home, so been trawling through FIFA documents etc., and have come to the conclusion (which some have already stated) that NZ Football's argument arguing that Deklan was eligible under FIFA rules is a non-starter. Here's why:

Followed that link that Feverish put up a few pages back: http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Ok...

The interesting thing to note here is that, according to this Swiss sports lawyer, and contrary to what I and seemingly many others had thought up to this point, under Rule 5.1:

"permanent nationality not dependent on residence" can refer to both nationality from birth (automatic) and nationality acquired via familial inheritance or a naturalisation mechanism. Article 5.1 is specifically worded the way it is to distinguish fromtemporary nationality dependent on residence and to preclude the latter form of nationality from rendering players eligible to play for international teams. He said that the mention of "residence" in this article has nothing to do with the fact that most states require an applicant to reside on their soil before naturalisation, nor does it mean that naturalisations cannot be considered permanent and not dependent on residence; it's referring to something else.  

To provide an example of a temporary nationality (dependent on residence), he mentioned the Vatican Swiss Guards who receive the Vatican nationality during their stay in Rome but lose it when they leave. So, as I was saying, naturalisations can and do fall under the "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" umbrella too (unless they're temporary and/or dependent on residence for a temporary duration whilst the holder resides in the relevant state), but obviously further invoke article 7 as they will, by their nature, amount to the acquisition of a new nationality not automatic from birth. (Article 7 is invoked when a permanent nationality not dependent on residence is newly acquired at any age post-birth and secondary to an already-held birth nationality or birth nationalities.)

This is confirmed by this FIFA circular from 2007: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/admin...

So Deklan's NZ citizenship, acquired through residence, is still considered 'permanent nationality not dependent on [continued] residence', and therefore, prima facie, he is eligible under Art 5.1 to play for New Zealand.

Now, NZ Football say that Deklan, who is eligible under art. 5, is also covered by Art. 6:

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: ... d) He has lived continuously on the territory of the relevant Association for at least two years.

However, as many on here have already stated, art. 6 only covers players whose single nationality entitles them to play for multiple associations (France/Tahiti, Puerto Rico/America, Denmark/Faroe Islands etc.). FIFA confirms this at p. 97 of this doc: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/admin...

Certain players, owing to their nationality, are theoretically eligible to play for the national team of more than one association. In fact, certain countries do not have their own nationality, but for historical reasons have taken over the nationality of another country

So Tahiti or Puerto Rico aren't their own 'nationality' - rather they are French and American nationalities respectively. So art. 6 only covers the 25 associations listed on p. 97: it doesn't cover people with dual nationalities (to take an entirely random example, South African and New Zealand).

So Deklan is definitely not covered by art 6., as many have said, art 7. applies, the 18+5 rule hasn't been met, nor has any exemption been given, therefore he is not eligible. NZ Football must be hoping like hell that OFC/CAS buys their process objection...