New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

I'm not sure about Wynne's eligibility according to FIFA statutes, but I do think there might be a valid case to question the system used to protest his eligibility.

In my opinion it all comes back to the highly unusual relationship between the Pacific Games Men's Football Tournament and the OFC Olympic Qualification for Rio 2016.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the regulations for football at the 2016 Olympics (http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/54/40/46/oftsregulationsrio2016-e_neutral.pdf)

Art 3, par 2:

The confederations may propose to FIFA that existing tournaments serve as
the preliminary competitions for the Tournaments. In case FIFA accepts such
a proposal, the respective confederations shall be solely responsible for the
organisation and delivery of such preliminary tournaments.

Art 16, par 3:

During the preliminary competitions teams must:

accept that all the administrative, disciplinary and refereeing matters
relating to the preliminary competitions shall be dealt with by FIFA or,
if applicable as per art. 3, par. 2 above, the respective confederation in
compliance with the respective regulations;

Well, the respective confederation is clearly OFC. But the key question is what were 'the respective regulations'? I can see three possible scenarios.

Scenario 1:

The PGMFT was used as a proxy for the OFCOQ. OFC did not administer the tournament - they 'outsourced' OFCOQ to the Pacific Games. In this case the entire PG mens football tournament was solely regulated by the PG council. If this was the case, and if the PG regulations say that any protests about player eligibility need to be made in advance (as has been reported), then the Vanuatu protest was invalid. In this scenario the PG regulations are 'the respective regulations' and they must be followed to qualify for the Olympics.  

Scenario 2:

The OFCOQ took place as an OFC administered tournament within the PGMFT and were regulated by a specific set of OFC regulations for the tournament (or possibly a set of standing regulations for all OFC tournaments). If so then these are clearly 'the respective regulations' and will trump everything else when it comes to the system for protesting player eligibility. But do such a set of regulations exist, and if so, was it communicated to NZ Football that they were being used?

Scenario 3:

The OFCOQ took place as an OFC administered tournament within the PGMFT, but without any OFC regulations. In this scenario we can assume that the generic 2016 Olympic qualifying regulations (as linked above) assume the position of 'the respective regulations'.

So now we turn to article 22 of that document:

Art 22, par 2:

In compliance with art. 15 of the Regulations Governing the Application of
the FIFA Statutes, a passport that explicitly states the day, month and year of
birth shall be the only document considered to be valid proof of a player’s
identity, nationality and age. A player shall not be entitled to play unless he
can produce a valid passport. Identity cards or other official documents shall
not be accepted as a valid means of identification. The Participating Member
Associations shall present the valid national passport of the participating
country for each individual player to the FIFA Match Commissioner on the eve
of the match.

Art 22, par 3:

Each association entering the preliminary competitions shall send the FIFA
general secretariat a list of at least 50 prospective players for the preliminary
competitions no later than 30 days before its first qualifying match. This list
shall show each player’s last name, first name, club, date of birth and passport
number as well as the coach’s last name, first name and date of birth.

Well, did all of that take place? Note that it is not enough to send the list of players to the Pacific Games Committee - it has to go to the FIFA general secretariat. And was there a FIFA Match Commissioner present on the eve of the match?

If these processes did not happen, Scenario 3 is not credible. If there were no OFC regulations communicated for the tournament, Scenario 2 is not credible. That would take us back to Scenario 1 as the default, in which case the Vanuatu protest was not valid and New Zealand should play Fiji in a subsequent match (or home and away series) to determine Olympic Qualifying for Oceania.

a) all players shall hold the nationality of its country and be subject to its jurisdiction;

b) all players shall be eligible for selection in accordance with the FIFA Statutes, the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes and other FIFA rules and regulations.

2. In addition to the above provision, each Participating Member Association shall ensure that all players of its representative team were born on or after 1 January 1995.

3. In addition to the above provisions, players who have already taken part in a preliminary or final competition of the FIFA U-20 World Cup and/or an Olympic Football Tournament and/or the FIFA World CupTM may compete in this competition provided they still fulfil the above age requirement.

4. The Participating Member Associations are responsible for fielding only eligible players. Failure to do so will lead to the consequences stipulated in the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

5. Protests regarding the eligibility of players shall be decided by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code (cf. art. 10 par. 3).

I think some of you are misinterpreting the FIFA requirements.

Article 6 (six) doesn't apply to New Zealand, New Zealand Football are barking up the wrong tree if they think it does. Article 6 applies to FIFA members that share a nationality with another FIFA member. The Oceanian example of this is Tahiti, they share a French nationality with the FIFA member France.

The issue is why did FIFA allow him to play in the U20 World Cup in May, using the same eligibility criteria that the OFC have used to deny New Zealand the opportunity to compete at the Olympics.

FIFA do make mistakes though. For example, during East Timor's recent loss against United Arab Emirates, the team was full of Brazilians. http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=275171/...

I personally, think it comes down to how Article 7, clause 'd' has been interpreted. It's too open to interpretation and places no restriction on players who are younger than 18 when they obtain citizenship. What it says is that if a player obtains citizenship after turning 18, he has to live on the territory for five years to become eligible for the national team.

I think it's a matter of interest to find out whether Wynne, who had arrived aged 14 and 10 months in January 2010, was a New Zealand citizen by the time he turned 18 in March 2013.

As for the Vanuatuan who knew about it? I'd look no further than Christian Kaltabang. He sits on FIFA's Player Status Committee.

Also, it would seem that New Zealand Football were able to select the U20 World Cup without it being checked for eligibility:

I think some of you are misinterpreting the FIFA requirements.

Article 6 (six) doesn't apply to New Zealand, New Zealand Football are barking up the wrong tree if they think it does. Article 6 applies to FIFA members that share a nationality with another FIFA member. The Oceanian example of this is Tahiti, they share a French nationality with the FIFA member France.

The issue is why did FIFA allow him to play in the U20 World Cup in May, using the same eligibility criteria that the OFC have used to deny New Zealand the opportunity to compete at the Olympics.

FIFA do make mistakes though. For example, during East Timor's recent loss against United Arab Emirates, the team was full of Brazilians. http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=275171/...

I personally, think it comes down to how Article 7, clause 'd' has been interpreted. It's too open to interpretation and places no restriction on players who are younger than 18 when they obtain citizenship. What it says is that if a player obtains citizenship after turning 18, he has to live on the territory for five years to become eligible for the national team.

I think it's a matter of interest to find out whether Wynne, who had arrived aged 14 and 10 months in January 2010, was a New Zealand citizen by the time he turned 18 in March 2013.

As for the Vanuatuan who knew about it? I'd look no further than Christian Kaltabang. He sits on FIFA's Player Status Committee.

Also, it would seem that New Zealand Football were able to select the U20 World Cup without it being checked for eligibility:

I think you will find that the chap you refer to above is from New Caledonia.

If he arrived here in Jan 2010 as a resident (which isn't by any stretch of the immagaination guaranteed, he may have came as a student),  then he would t have got citizenship in March 2013 (it's 5 years not 3)

I was only going by what's on the FIFA website. :)

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/bodies/...

Wynne himself said he arrived in January 2010:

http://www.3news.co.nz/sport/video-deklan-wynne-sp...

It's not looking good for NZF, in my opinion.

I personally, think it comes down to how Article 7, clause 'd' has been interpreted. It's too open to interpretation and places no restriction on players who are younger than 18 when they obtain citizenship. What it says is that if a player obtains citizenship after turning 18, he has to live on the territory for five years to become eligible for the national team.

I'm not sure about Wynne's eligibility according to FIFA statutes, but I do think there might be a valid case to question the system used to protest his eligibility.

In my opinion it all comes back to the highly unusual relationship between the Pacific Games Men's Football Tournament and the OFC Olympic Qualification for Rio 2016.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the regulations for football at the 2016 Olympics (http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/54/40/46/oftsregulationsrio2016-e_neutral.pdf)

Art 3, par 2:

The confederations may propose to FIFA that existing tournaments serve as
the preliminary competitions for the Tournaments. In case FIFA accepts such
a proposal, the respective confederations shall be solely responsible for the
organisation and delivery of such preliminary tournaments.

Art 16, par 3:

During the preliminary competitions teams must:

accept that all the administrative, disciplinary and refereeing matters
relating to the preliminary competitions shall be dealt with by FIFA or,
if applicable as per art. 3, par. 2 above, the respective confederation in
compliance with the respective regulations;

Well, the respective confederation is clearly OFC. But the key question is what were 'the respective regulations'? I can see three possible scenarios.

Scenario 1:

The PGMFT was used as a proxy for the OFCOQ. OFC did not administer the tournament - they 'outsourced' OFCOQ to the Pacific Games. In this case the entire PG mens football tournament was solely regulated by the PG council. If this was the case, and if the PG regulations say that any protests about player eligibility need to be made in advance (as has been reported), then the Vanuatu protest was invalid. In this scenario the PG regulations are 'the respective regulations' and they must be followed to qualify for the Olympics.  

Scenario 2:

The OFCOQ took place as an OFC administered tournament within the PGMFT and were regulated by a specific set of OFC regulations for the tournament (or possibly a set of standing regulations for all OFC tournaments). If so then these are clearly 'the respective regulations' and will trump everything else when it comes to the system for protesting player eligibility. But do such a set of regulations exist, and if so, was it communicated to NZ Football that they were being used?

Scenario 3:

The OFCOQ took place as an OFC administered tournament within the PGMFT, but without any OFC regulations. In this scenario we can assume that the generic 2016 Olympic qualifying regulations (as linked above) assume the position of 'the respective regulations'.

So now we turn to article 22 of that document:

Art 22, par 2:

In compliance with art. 15 of the Regulations Governing the Application of
the FIFA Statutes, a passport that explicitly states the day, month and year of
birth shall be the only document considered to be valid proof of a player’s
identity, nationality and age. A player shall not be entitled to play unless he
can produce a valid passport. Identity cards or other official documents shall
not be accepted as a valid means of identification. The Participating Member
Associations shall present the valid national passport of the participating
country for each individual player to the FIFA Match Commissioner on the eve
of the match.

Art 22, par 3:

Each association entering the preliminary competitions shall send the FIFA
general secretariat a list of at least 50 prospective players for the preliminary
competitions no later than 30 days before its first qualifying match. This list
shall show each player’s last name, first name, club, date of birth and passport
number as well as the coach’s last name, first name and date of birth.

Well, did all of that take place? Note that it is not enough to send the list of players to the Pacific Games Committee - it has to go to the FIFA general secretariat. And was there a FIFA Match Commissioner present on the eve of the match?

If these processes did not happen, Scenario 3 is not credible. If there were no OFC regulations communicated for the tournament, Scenario 2 is not credible. That would take us back to Scenario 1 as the default, in which case the Vanuatu protest was not valid and New Zealand should play Fiji in a subsequent match (or home and away series) to determine Olympic Qualifying for Oceania.

This thread has delivered. Fair play to El Gap for taking up the reigns. I gave up on trying to explain it to people two days ago.

Our only remaining leg to stand on is the process of the protest but that doesn't let NZF off the hook to it's stakeholders and may be a long shot in persuit of a chance to play at the Olympics.

Another major part of this IMO is NZF saying they could have applied for eligibility for Wynne but didn't because they didnt want to RISK having him refused eligibility - absolute mare from them. Weigh up that risk with the risk they took playing him and anyone in their right mind knows what they should have done.

This thread has delivered. Fair play to El Gap for taking up the reigns. I gave up on trying to explain it to people two days ago.

Another major part of this IMO is NZF saying they could have applied for eligibility for Wynne but didn't because they didnt want to RISK having him refused eligibility - absolute mare from them. Weigh up that risk with the risk they took playing him and anyone in their right mind knows what they should have done.

All this calling for heads to roll.....sure, someone fudgeed up. But so have you at your work, and you're probably still there. I know I am.

No, their primary argument from what I can gather is that they were playing under Pacific Games and not FIFA rules, their secondary argument (with a seperate team of lawyers) is that Deklan Wynn is eligible without exemption from playing. The Pacific Games rule argument is their best chance to succeed, followed by process.

No.  If they knowingly knew he was ineligible and decided not to get an exemption because he might not get approved that isn't a 'fudge up' that is negligence.

I was stunned when I heard this yesterday. NZF realised that there was an issue around his eligibility, and because they thought an exemption may not be granted, they didn't ask for one, and went on playing. So they went from worst case scenario where a player doesn't get to play in a tournament (which you're going to win without him anyway) and has to wait another 3 years to be eligibly, to a worst case scenario in which the entire Olympic campaign is ruined. What kind of idiot makes that call?

And furthermore, what kind of idiot then goes on to publically admit it in a press conference while the possibility of an appeal is still alive?

One man's negligence is another man's calculated risk......I've heard that this sort of thing happens more often than any hipster might think, as no one really ever bothers to investigate such things at age group level.

Kinda like opening with Dipak Patel at the 92 World Cup.

Lawyers need to argue against each other every day.  At $400 per hour they don't really want to agree on things too quickly.

According to the NZHerald, 

The OFC announced it had appointed leading New Zealand solicitor Mai Chen "to advise the OFC disciplinary committee, and on any appeals process".

The first thing NZF should have done on Monday was appoint Mai Chen to advise them on this matter. This was a smart move by OFC.

According to the NZHerald, 

The OFC announced it had appointed leading New Zealand solicitor Mai Chen "to advise the OFC disciplinary committee, and on any appeals process".

The first thing NZF should have done on Monday was appoint Mai Chen to advise them on this matter. This was a smart move by OFC.

Mai Chen is not the only public lawyer in NZ - she just enjoys the free marketing that comes with being reported on in the paper.

Did you send your CV in ;)

It probably gets you Smithy.  I rest my case.

Any of the legal minds wish to comment on "the doctrine of impossibility of performance"  and how it might relate to one of the theories being supported here? I'm talking about how can a 20 year old conform to a requirement to reside in NZ for 5 years after the age of 18 when they are obviously never going to be able to satisfy that requirement through no fault of their own.

I'm sure someone will give us a view, but on the other hand I hope that the simple act of me raising such a legal doctrine exists will demonstrate to most that the law is  hardly ever straight forward and common sense or the 'obvious' will not always rule the day.

What I can reasonably predict is that [if NZF have the balls] they will take this to the court in Switzerland and we are likely to get a much fairer hearing of all of the relevant facts than if this is handled by FIFA/Oceania. 

Despite the obvious view that I have expoused on this site, I wouldn't bet my house on any outcome.

I actually looked up a couple of pieces of legislation in fact Smithy - first time in about 5 years.  I don't intend to make a habit of it.

They couldn't afford me anyway ;-)

I work for about $400 a week.

If you do that you need to balance the risk vs the reward and from what has been proven there are no rewards and all risk.  

• NZ football look incompetent
• We don't go to Rio
• The media have a stick to beat our sport with
• Wynne has suffered embarassment
• OFC scored points on us
• We have a hefty lawyers bill to fight what on the surface looks an unwinnable battle

vs

• Deklan Wynne doesn't play for NZ and some other person does

That is some pretty shark maths if you calculated that that Reward outweighed the risk.

I work for about $400 a week.