Post history

History for Wibblebutt

New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Back to topic

Current version

Posted August 04, 2015 03:23 · last edited August 04, 2015 03:30

For those of you who still think Wynne's case is covered by Article 6 read this

It's mainly about eligibility concerning Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (Several people born in N.Ireland are entitled to both a British AND an Irish passport from birth). The important part as far as Wynne's situation is concerned is about a quarter of the way through the article: The IFA (N.Ireland) went to the CAS to dispute the meaning of Article 6 and this is their findings:

The CAS, going into great detail in order to clear up the IFA’s misconception, stated:

“Whether the player’s multiple eligibilities are based on one single nationality and/or on two or more nationalities is disputed. The IFA submits that Article 16 is applicable to any player who is entitled to play for several associations on the basis of multiple nationalities whereas the FAI submits that it is only applicable to a player who is entitled to play for several associations on the basis of a “shared nationality”, i.e. a single nationality that entitles him to represent two or more associations.

Based on the historical interpretation, it appears that the current Article 16 implements Annexe 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005). Both provisions have a quasi-identical wording. The title of Annexe 2 (“Eligibility to play for association teams for players whose nationality entitles them to represent more than one association”) as well as the FIFA Commentary compel the conclusion that Article 16 covers exclusively the situations of players with “shared nationality”.

The fact that Article 16 applies only to players with “shared nationality” is also confirmed by its wording as well as by the systematic interpretation:

  • The term of nationality is used in the singular form in the title as well as in the par. 1 of the provision, according to which “A Player who (…) is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality”. The IFA contends that the use of the singular form is acceptable English and does include individuals with more than one nationality. The Panel observes that such would not be the case in French or German. In this regard, the French version (“sa nationalité autorise à représenter plus d’une association”) and the German version of the 2009 Regulations (“Ein Spieler, der gemäss Art. 15 aufgrund seiner Staatsbürgerschaft für mehr als einen Verband spielberechtigt ist”) also use the term “nationality” in the singular form.
  • Par. 2 of Article 16 expressly states that associations “sharing a common nationality” may make an agreement “to vary item (d) of para 1 of the Article”.
  • As already noted, Article 18 provides exceptions to the second principle set out in Article 15. Its first paragraph begins with the following three sentences: “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”. In other words, Article 18 identifies the various categories of individuals who are allowed to change associations notwithstanding the Article 15 par. 2. In such a context, it is obvious that the first sentence deals with players who have dual (or more) nationality, i.e. are in a situation falling within Article 15, the third sentence with players who fall under Article 16 and the second sentence with players who fall under Article 17. If the IFA analysis were correct, it would follow that the first and third sentences would deal with the exactly same situation, which would be inconsistent with any intelligible intention to be attributed to the rule-maker. The FAI analysis by contrast endows the Articles with a certain symmetry.”


    • So it's obvious that Article 6 is explicitly referring to someone who has a single nationality that entitles them to play for more than one association, and if NZF end up taking their appeal to the CAS it's going to end in failure as the CAS have already ruled on this very situation.

    Note: Article 15, 16, 17 & 18 have more recently been renumbered 5,6,7 & 8.

    Previous versions

    2 versions
    Wibblebutt edited August 04, 2015 03:30

    For those of you who still think Wynne's case is covered by Article 6 read this

    It's mainly about eligibility concerning Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (Several people born in N.Ireland are entitled to both a British AND an Irish passport from birth). The IFA (N.Ireland) went to the CAS to dispute the meaning of Article 6 and this is their findings:

    The CAS, going into great detail in order to clear up the IFA’s misconception, stated:

    “Whether the player’s multiple eligibilities are based on one single nationality and/or on two or more nationalities is disputed. The IFA submits that Article 16 is applicable to any player who is entitled to play for several associations on the basis of multiple nationalities whereas the FAI submits that it is only applicable to a player who is entitled to play for several associations on the basis of a “shared nationality”, i.e. a single nationality that entitles him to represent two or more associations.

    Based on the historical interpretation, it appears that the current Article 16 implements Annexe 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005). Both provisions have a quasi-identical wording. The title of Annexe 2 (“Eligibility to play for association teams for players whose nationality entitles them to represent more than one association”) as well as the FIFA Commentary compel the conclusion that Article 16 covers exclusively the situations of players with “shared nationality”.

    The fact that Article 16 applies only to players with “shared nationality” is also confirmed by its wording as well as by the systematic interpretation:

  • The term of nationality is used in the singular form in the title as well as in the par. 1 of the provision, according to which “A Player who (…) is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality”. The IFA contends that the use of the singular form is acceptable English and does include individuals with more than one nationality. The Panel observes that such would not be the case in French or German. In this regard, the French version (“sa nationalité autorise à représenter plus d’une association”) and the German version of the 2009 Regulations (“Ein Spieler, der gemäss Art. 15 aufgrund seiner Staatsbürgerschaft für mehr als einen Verband spielberechtigt ist”) also use the term “nationality” in the singular form.
  • Par. 2 of Article 16 expressly states that associations “sharing a common nationality” may make an agreement “to vary item (d) of para 1 of the Article”.
  • As already noted, Article 18 provides exceptions to the second principle set out in Article 15. Its first paragraph begins with the following three sentences: “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”. In other words, Article 18 identifies the various categories of individuals who are allowed to change associations notwithstanding the Article 15 par. 2. In such a context, it is obvious that the first sentence deals with players who have dual (or more) nationality, i.e. are in a situation falling within Article 15, the third sentence with players who fall under Article 16 and the second sentence with players who fall under Article 17. If the IFA analysis were correct, it would follow that the first and third sentences would deal with the exactly same situation, which would be inconsistent with any intelligible intention to be attributed to the rule-maker. The FAI analysis by contrast endows the Articles with a certain symmetry.”


    • So it's obvious that Article 6 is explicitly referring to someone who has a single nationality that entitles them to play for more than one association, and if NZF end up taking their appeal to the CAS it's going to end in failure as the CAS have already ruled on this very situation.

    Note: Article 15, 16, 17 & 18 have more recently been renumbered 5,6,7 & 8.

    Wibblebutt edited August 04, 2015 03:24

    For those of you who still think Wynne's case is covered by Article 6 read this

    It's mainly about eligibility concerning Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (Several people born in N.Ireland are entitled to both a British AND an Irish passport from birth). The IFA (N.Ireland) went to the CAS to dispute the meaning of Article 6 and this is their findings:

    The CAS, going into great detail in order to clear up the IFA’s misconception, stated:

    “Whether the player’s multiple eligibilities are based on one single nationality and/or on two or more nationalities is disputed. The IFA submits that Article 16 is applicable to any player who is entitled to play for several associations on the basis of multiple nationalities whereas the FAI submits that it is only applicable to a player who is entitled to play for several associations on the basis of a “shared nationality”, i.e. a single nationality that entitles him to represent two or more associations.

    Based on the historical interpretation, it appears that the current Article 16 implements Annexe 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005). Both provisions have a quasi-identical wording. The title of Annexe 2 (“Eligibility to play for association teams for players whose nationality entitles them to represent more than one association”) as well as the FIFA Commentary compel the conclusion that Article 16 covers exclusively the situations of players with “shared nationality”.

    The fact that Article 16 applies only to players with “shared nationality” is also confirmed by its wording as well as by the systematic interpretation:

  • The term of nationality is used in the singular form in the title as well as in the par. 1 of the provision, according to which “A Player who (…) is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality”. The IFA contends that the use of the singular form is acceptable English and does include individuals with more than one nationality. The Panel observes that such would not be the case in French or German. In this regard, the French version (“sa nationalité autorise à représenter plus d’une association”) and the German version of the 2009 Regulations (“Ein Spieler, der gemäss Art. 15 aufgrund seiner Staatsbürgerschaft für mehr als einen Verband spielberechtigt ist”) also use the term “nationality” in the singular form.
  • Par. 2 of Article 16 expressly states that associations “sharing a common nationality” may make an agreement “to vary item (d) of para 1 of the Article”.
  • As already noted, Article 18 provides exceptions to the second principle set out in Article 15. Its first paragraph begins with the following three sentences: “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”. In other words, Article 18 identifies the various categories of individuals who are allowed to change associations notwithstanding the Article 15 par. 2. In such a context, it is obvious that the first sentence deals with players who have dual (or more) nationality, i.e. are in a situation falling within Article 15, the third sentence with players who fall under Article 16 and the second sentence with players who fall under Article 17. If the IFA analysis were correct, it would follow that the first and third sentences would deal with the exactly same situation, which would be inconsistent with any intelligible intention to be attributed to the rule-maker. The FAI analysis by contrast endows the Articles with a certain symmetry.”


    • So it's obvious that Article 6 is explicitly referring to someone who has a single nationality that entitles them to play for more than one association, and if NZF end up taking their appeal to the CAS it's going to end in failure as the CAS have already ruled on this very situation.