New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

NZF knew about the rule because Ryan De Vries (born 14 September 1991 in Cape Town, no nz lineage) came to this country, waited 5 years from 2009 - 2014 and was called into the All Whites at the age of 23 to play Korea in March.....

somewhere, somehow, someone knew that rule existed and must have seen Wynne was in the same boat.

No FIFA exemption = NZF fudged

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.

NZ lawyers do just fine on the global sports stage, viz David Howman at WADA.

I really don't understand how NZF is incapable of comprehending a relatively straightforward statute. I can refer them to several lawyers if they need them this badly!

This is how it goes:

Section 5 - General principle of who can play international football. The key issue is permanent nationality - this is the nationality that you hold permanently (i.e. from birth). For Deklan's purposes, his permanent nationality is South African.

Sections 6,7, and 8 provide clarification to Section 5 in cases where there are potential issues in what the 'permanent nationality' is.

Section 6 - clarifies Section 5 in situations where a player has 2 or more 'permanent nationalities' (to use the term from section 5). If Deklan, for example, had a NZ parent but was born in SA, this section would apply to him. But that's not the case, so it doesn't.

Section 7 - clarifies Section 5 in situations where a player with 1 'permanent nationality', and who had not represented that national association in international football before, wishes to switch to another nationality. This is the exact situation that Deklan's in - he wishes to change his SA nationality (having not played for SA before) for a NZ one. This is why section 7 applies to him.

Section 8 - clarifies section 5 in situations where a player with 1 'permanent nationality', and who had represented that national association in international football before, wishes to switch to another nationality. This doesn't apply to Deklan either.

NZF, I take cash, or direct deposit.

So what happens if Deklan renounces his South African citizenship?

Section 6 - clarifies Section 5 in situations where a player has 2 or more 'permanent nationalities' (to use the term from section 5). If Deklan, for example, had a NZ parent but was born in SA, this section would apply to him. But that's not the case, so it doesn't.

I think they have a better argument with the process than the FIFA statutes. 

FIFA has clearly said that it's up to OFC to set and police the rules. And according to NZF, OFC said that they were playing by Pacific Games rules (at least in terms of challenges if not in terms of eligibility), where any challenges had to be dealt with in advance. If that had happened, we wouldn't have played Wynne.

If that holds up we probably have grounds to push for a replay of the semi (and then final if we win it).

Awesome work! Just have a question that I can't figure out.... Under Article 6, how would it be possible for someone to have 2 or more permanent nationalities without fulfilling a, b, c or d?? ie what is the point of putting those conditions there? Are there countries that issue passports to complete non-nationals that can't be rescinded?

I really don't understand how NZF is incapable of comprehending a relatively straightforward statute. I can refer them to several lawyers if they need them this badly!

This is how it goes:

Section 5 - General principle of who can play international football. The key issue is permanent nationality - this is the nationality that you hold permanently (i.e. from birth). For Deklan's purposes, his permanent nationality is South African.

Sections 6,7, and 8 provide clarification to Section 5 in cases where there are potential issues in what the 'permanent nationality' is.

Section 6 - clarifies Section 5 in situations where a player has 2 or more 'permanent nationalities' (to use the term from section 5). If Deklan, for example, had a NZ parent but was born in SA, this section would apply to him. But that's not the case, so it doesn't.

Section 7 - clarifies Section 5 in situations where a player with 1 'permanent nationality', and who had not represented that national association in international football before, wishes to switch to another nationality. This is the exact situation that Deklan's in - he wishes to change his SA nationality (having not played for SA before) for a NZ one. This is why section 7 applies to him.

Section 8 - clarifies section 5 in situations where a player with 1 'permanent nationality', and who had represented that national association in international football before, wishes to switch to another nationality. This doesn't apply to Deklan either.

NZF, I take cash, or direct deposit.

I think they have a better argument with the process than the FIFA statutes. 

FIFA has clearly said that it's up to OFC to set and police the rules. And according to NZF, OFC said that they were playing by Pacific Games rules (at least in terms of challenges if not in terms of eligibility), where any challenges had to be dealt with in advance. If that had happened, we wouldn't have played Wynne.

If that holds up we probably have grounds to push for a replay of the semi (and then final if we win it).

Given that though, wouldn't you expect far more than the 30-40 requests to switch that apparently FIFA receives each year??

Jeff...

Point taken.. really needed to read the articles more thoroughly or have what I was missing explained !

I have been looking for your answer to me and it is this.

If Deklan played probably ANY football in South Africa prior to coming here then Article 7 did apply on whether he was first eligible to play for NZ. If he did then at that time he was and probably still is ineligible to play for NZ right now unless he gets an exemption - which probably would have been forthcoming.

But in my defence NZ football can only be claiming his eligibility on the basis he never played in an "official competition of any category or any type of football for one Association" - being South Africa. And they must know these rules better than us right?????

Finally I have found the crux of it and no doubt this is where the lawyers will come in. I don't know at what age he came to NZ or whether he played football for an association in South Africa. But then again not sure how Vanuatu was able to prove he had played previously in South Africa, at the OFC hearing.

If he did play there even as a kid then my arguments are  likely screwed and probably so is NZ football unless there's a "no backsies" rule someone mentioned....  and somehow I doubt that.

Still seems a set up and I hope they get some traction over it not being sorted out pre tournament.

Jeff...

Point taken.. really needed to read the articles more thoroughly or have what I was missing explained !

I have been looking for your answer to me and it is this.

If Deklan played probably ANY football in South Africa prior to coming here then Article 7 did apply on whether he was first eligible to play for NZ. If he did then at that time he was and probably still is ineligible to play for NZ right now unless he gets an exemption - which probably would have been forthcoming.

But in my defence NZ football can only be claiming his eligibility on the basis he never played in an "official competition of any category or any type of football for one Association" - being South Africa. And they must know these rules better than us right?????

Finally I have found the crux of it and no doubt this is where the lawyers will come in. I don't know at what age he came to NZ or whether he played football for an association in South Africa. But then again not sure how Vanuatu was able to prove he had played previously in South Africa, at the OFC hearing.

If he did play there even as a kid then my arguments are  likely screwed and probably so is NZ football unless there's a "no backsies" rule someone mentioned....  and somehow I doubt that.

Still seems a set up and I hope they get some traction over it not being sorted out pre tournament.

Is he eligible to play for South Africa now that he is a NZ citizen? If not, s6 will not apply.

Surely AucklandPhoenix would know. He is a lawyer of some note...

I am indeed and I have already given my verdict - we are screwed.

There's no point to lawyer up 

Any lawyer who does would be taking on a frivolous case

Is he eligible to play for South Africa now that he is a NZ citizen? If not, s6 will not apply.

The problem with all the assumptions about article 7 is that it applies to all countries! therefore any boy or girl that moves to another country, at any age, and gains citizenship cannot represent that Country at football until they are, at least 23! That has got to be crap.

If he hasn't been granted certification to play for NZ, then yes, he should be eligible to play for SA.

I really don't understand how NZF is incapable of comprehending a relatively straightforward statute. I can refer them to several lawyers if they need them this badly!

This is how it goes:

Section 5 - General principle of who can play international football. The key issue is permanent nationality - this is the nationality that you hold permanently (i.e. from birth). For Deklan's purposes, his permanent nationality is South African.

Sections 6,7, and 8 provide clarification to Section 5 in cases where there are potential issues in what the 'permanent nationality' is.

Section 6 - clarifies Section 5 in situations where a player has 2 or more 'permanent nationalities' (to use the term from section 5). If Deklan, for example, had a NZ parent but was born in SA, this section would apply to him. But that's not the case, so it doesn't.

Section 7 - clarifies Section 5 in situations where a player with 1 'permanent nationality', and who had not represented that national association in international football before, wishes to switch to another nationality. This is the exact situation that Deklan's in - he wishes to change his SA nationality (having not played for SA before) for a NZ one. This is why section 7 applies to him.

Section 8 - clarifies section 5 in situations where a player with 1 'permanent nationality', and who had represented that national association in international football before, wishes to switch to another nationality. This doesn't apply to Deklan either.

NZF, I take cash, or direct deposit.

Agree that the procedural challenge is our strongest bet (although still pretty iffy). The challenge to the eligbility rules would be going completely against the grain. I can't see an OFC disciplinary committee, or even the Arbitration Court in Switzerland overturning however many years of FIFA precedent which says that nationalised players must wait 5 years from the age of 18 to play for their new country. No matter how creative NZ Football's lawyers get with interpreting the FIFA statutes (section 5, section 6, whatever), I very much doubt that any tribunal anywhere would be willing to change it - any change would have to come from FIFA's Exec committee, and even then, probably wouldn't apply retrospectively.

I wonder whether NZ Football is simply putting forward the challenge to the eligbility rule as a face-saving public relations tactic without any real expectation of success, and is really pinning all its hopes on the process challenge. I suspect this is the case.

I've sent emails to OFC and to Vanuatu Football requesting an interview for the podcast. Worth a cheeky email to NZF to see if we can get Andy Martin on the pod?

He hasn't played a competitive match at 'A' level for NZ so he can switch to SA now if he wanted to.