New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

does anyone know where?

I hope after all this uproar he doesn't join Bright, Brockie and Boxall in SA

Some people really hate Ricki - personally, and occasionally with good cause - and are still out to get him when he's no longer relevant to NZ football.

I think many at NZ football do worry about him, as he was around for so long and knows where the bodies are burried

Sorry, did not realise that opinions were not allowed on here.

Really? I mean, really? He was appointed to the NZF board 14/042014. So he's had over a year to check out things like player eligibility. Jesus wept. [shakes head, moans, weeps]

If this happens it is more likely that they would remove the full spot for all tournaments for the OFC and make it a half spot than disband Oceania.  Don't think either would happen though.

This.

Given our current status, I would say we need Fiji to at least don't get thrashed or we will be playing playoffs for every single FIFA tournament. Can't see it happening though but is a possibility.

Nothing happened after Tahiti got thumped really badly at the confeds cup........

...And both OFC teams got wins on the board at the U20 WC

Because the Confederations Cup needs an Ocenaian team, is the whole point of the tournament. But as I said, I don't see FIFA taking away half spot from the OFC at the Olympics

though I have to be honest that I liked the Pacific games- Olympic quals format

The Pacific Games were the perfect tournament for Oceanian teams to get to play at least more than a couple of games every four years. It was also a good oportunity for non-OFC full members like Tuvalu, Kiribati, Niue, Micronesia, to prove themselves and then maybe get full membership for both OFC and FIFA being competitive enough. Tuvalu even get to beat some OFC members like Samoa, Tonga and American Samoa. But in order to save money (and then waste it in the useless Presidents' Cup) Chung and co. are denying the Pacific countries a decent build up for the World Cup qualifiers, what turns up to be bad for the AW (Makes WCQ opposition even weaker). Look at the FIFA rankings (I know it's bullshark but it kind of prove something), from the worst 20 ranked teams, 8 are from Oceania, and that's only because they only get to play 3 games every four years. OFC is acting against the development of football in the region with this stupid Pacific Games/Olympic Qualifiers tournament.

I think the process argument can be made much more simply than my long post earlier in the thread.

• Rio 2016 football regulations require preliminary tournaments to follow 'the respective regulations' of the tournament as well as the Rio 2016 regulations.
• By any reasonable interpretation the respective regulations are the Pacific Games regulations.
• Therefore Vanuatu needed to comply with the Pacific Games regulations in order to compete for Rio qualification.
• In other words the Pacific Games regulations are 'nested' within the Rio regulations. A team needs to comply with both in order to compete for Rio qualification.
• If the Pacific Games regulations stipulate that all protests must be made prior to the tournament, the Vanuatu protest was invalid - both for the Pacific Games and for Rio.

This seems quite clear cut. What are the legal counterarguments?

Are you sure it's not "as well as the sport that governs the entry to the Rio 2016 Olympics"?

If so then we run foul of FIFA.

This is pretty much what happens with other sports entering the Olympics. From the Olympics point of view they don't want to be running rough-shod over other sport's governance and leave it up to the recognised association. 

Yeah, the FIFA Rio 2016 regulations were the operative ones, along with any applicable confederation regulations.

What bastards!

Right.

SO, with the '5 years after 18' -

...given the Olympic Football Tournament is for U-23s, are the FIFA regulations that are being cited (as Wynne's area of ineligibility) compatible with the IOC Regulations?

Some things I can't find the answer for ...

1. For the likes of Gideon Zelalem who needed approval from Fifa when he switched nationalites, are those decisions available on-line?  Something like the player status committee minutes http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/official-documents/...

2. Raheem Sterling, born in Jamaica, moves to England as a child so similar to Deklan Wynne.  From what I can gather he did not get approval from Fifa, but was able to use the "Home Nations Agreement".  How can the "Home Nations Agreement" have less oppressive conditions than the Fifa rules? ie why doesn't Raheem Sterling have to wait until he is 23 to represent England?

3. Fifa has clauses for countries with shared nationality.  How come there isn't one for NZ & the Cook Islands.

1. Don't know.

2. It seems totally BS that Sterling used the Home Nations Agreement to gain eligibility. Home Nations Agreement is basically an amendment to Statute 6, and Sterling's case is not covered by Statute 6. Seems more likely he would have been given an exemption under Statute 7.

3. NZ & Cook Islands is covered by Statute 6.

Actually I've now started thinking about how the Home Nations Agreement has been interpreted. I can't find an official copy anywhere so unfortunately only got wiki to go on but this is what wiki says the wording is:

• 1. 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:
  • 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;
  • d) He has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant association.

Which is the exact same wording as Article 6 with an amendment to clause d).

Furthermore, Article 6, clause 2 of the statutes specifically says "Regardless of par. 1 above, Associations sharing a common nationality may make an agreement under which item (d) of par. 1 of this article is deleted completely or amended to specify a longer time limit. Such agreements shall be lodged with and approved by the Executive Committee." This allows the home nations to make their agreement.

There is no such clause in Article 7 that allows any amendment to any of it's clauses.

So in effect, England have used Article 6 to allow Sterling to play for them. If FIFA agrees that he is in fact eligible to represent England under this agreement, then NZF have a very good case for Wynne to be eligible under Article 6 too.

I know the statute debate has been done to death but there's something I can't figure out:

If nationality under the FIFA statutes is defined as being born in a given country, what is the purpose of "a) He was born on the territory of the relevant association" under article 7?

In what scenario could it be possible that you tick that box if you are acquiring a new FIFA nationality if FIFA nationality is defined by birth?

Or am I misinterpreting this entirely?

Yes, very interesting - clearly the Home Nations agreement clarifies section 6 only, and not 7 which is applicable for players in Wynne's and Sterling's situation. It would be interesting to know if the FA sought an exemption for him, otherwise he's ineligible for England on the face of it.

By the way, a few interesting tidbits on Bernie Ibini's and Awer Mabil's efforts to become eligible for Australia in Mark Reason's article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/70344035/mark-reason-this-is-a-case-of-nz-football-bending-the-rules-until-they-broke

Because it's possible for players to have more than one nationality at birth, it's not related necessarily to the physical place where the player was born. Also it's possible not to acquire the nationality of the country you were born in depending on that country's laws (i.e. you could be born somewhere, but have the nationality of your parents, etc.).

So I think the interpretation that under FIFA Statutes nationality is defined as being born in a given country is wrong. I think they mean they nationality you hold at birth, which isn't necessarily anything to do with where you were born. If an American couple had a kid in New Zealand their kid would be an American citizen by birth for instance. A kid born to kiwi parents in the USA could be a citizen of both the USA and NZ - USA by birth, NZ by descent.

Also, to add to CT's post, Article 7 is about ACQUIRING a new nationality. Often the requirements for acquiring a new nationality is not dependent on being born in the new country, but rather a term of residence.

awesome- a couple of pages of insightful discussion with new and interesting perspectives on this thread. like.

So your interpretation is that 'respective regulations' refers to any OFC regulations rather than the Pacific Games regulations? That was my 'scenario 2' in my first post. But surely the OFC formally engaging the Pacific Games to administer and deliver the tournament means those are also 'respective regulations'? 

I guess the hardline legal view would be that the PG regulations are nested within any OFC regulations which are in turn nested within the FIFA Rio 2016 regulations.

By the way when I mentioned 'Rio 2016 regulations' I meant the FIFA Rio 2016 regulations, not anything to do with IOC.

Based on the wording in the FIFA 2016 Rio regulations, yes. Whether Pacific Games regulations are caught within the OFC regulations, I don't know. But I have a feeling it's a moot point anyway since FIFA regulations were the operative ones (at least in respect of the issue at hand, since they leave no room for doubt over applicability of FIFA statutes on player eligibility, and also set out the protest processes in relation to eligibility issues too).

This whole mess is inexcusable. The rule we have been penalized on is very clear, it is no other parties fault. In any other organisation a simple blunder of this magnitude with these ramifacations would cost someone their job, I can only hope that is the case here. They may have cost us world cup qualification.

What do you mean when you say FIFA regulations were 'operative'? I have seen a few journalists saying the same thing but I'm wondering where this understanding comes from? Because apparently FIFA have actually cited their Rio 2016 regulations as a reason for not having anything to do with the appeal, because those regulations state that all administrative and disciplinary affairs will be carried out by 'the respective confederation' and 'the respective regulations'. Therefore the FIFA Rio 2016 regulations are not really 'operative' are they?

Edit: The FIFA Rio regs may set out protest processes, but so too do the PG regs. You could just as easily claim that the PG regs were operative because they had a process for protests within them. I think a reasonable conclusion is that one is nested within the other.

Ah, thanks ConanTroutman and el grapadura for the clarification. 

Personally, I think the term nationality is far too broad in the context of the statutes. Regardless of the intended meaning, it isn't defined in writing, and NZF may have a case based on that. If you're starting a new job, you wouldn't agree to a contract verbally, you'd want the terms in writing.

I mean, it doesn't excuse NZF from breaking the rules, which I think they knowingly broke, but they might just have enough to get away with it.

Interesting article this morning in the Sunday Star Ties by Mark Reason. Appears the international player debacle could have far reaching effects on the ASB Premiership squads . My belief is that currently 50% of match day squad have to be eligible for  National team selection. Looking back,  under the  regulations,  players such as Burfoot, and De Vries  would be counted in the percentage of players not eligible for national team selection .

In light of this, has anyone gone back and checked the composition of ASB Premiership Match Day squads ? Would be interesting to see if the ASB Premiership have been contravened as well ??

If so,  it has stopped more players , those with genuine  NZ eligibility from being able to be included in the Squad .

Should NZF find a loop hole to the current debacle  , heads should still roll - In my mind Martin Hudson and De Jong .

speaking of which shouldn't we have had a decision on how the ASB premiership will look in the future by now?

Imagine however all planning and announcements on other areas has now been set back by half a year due to this dogs breakfast

I wonder who is actually culpable within our camp. It's possible Hudson insisted on his team, i.e. who was going to PNG, despite possible misgivings that the NZF board may have had over player eligibility? Just a thought...

There's actually two separate issues here, which is why it may seem messy.

16.3 (a) of FIFA Rio Regulations state that all participating member associations undertake to observe the said regulations (and part of these regulations is that FIFA statutes on player eligibility apply), and applicable respective confederation regulations.

This effectively makes these regulations as the key operative ones.

16.3 (b) states that:

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.

All this means is that confederations can deal with the matters set out in 16.3. (b) if there is an arrangement in place under 3.2 (under which FIFA can delegate organisation and delivery of the preliminary tournament to a confederation). But this does not mean that confederations' own regulations take precedence, since 16.3 (a) clearly draws the line on what are the applicable regulations, and does not allow an opt out on that point. So even if Pacific Games eligibility rules were somewhat less stringent, 16.3 (a) obliged NZF to comply with the Rio 2016 regulations and FIFA Statutes (and by the same token, under 16.3 (b) FIFA can easily say that this is a matter for OFC to deal with, without implying that that means that OFC/Pacific Games regulations took precedence). 

Sure, but I am not talking about PG eligibility rules so much as the PG eligibility protest rules. New Zealand's compliance with the FIFA Statutes can only be challenged through some kind of protest process. And the key word in 16.3(a) is the word 'and'. 

FIFA Rio 2016 16.3(a)

On entering the preliminary competition(s), the Participating Member Associations undertake to:
a) observe these Regulations and, if applicable as per art. 3, par. 2 above, those drawn up by the respective confederation;

This means that the protest processes outlined in the FIFA Rio 2016 regs and the Pacific Games regs are both applicable. 

I understand PG regs say protests need to be made several days in advance of the match, but the timeframe for FIFA Rio 2016 regs is for protests to be made within two hours of the match.

So the only way to follow both sets of regs is to follow the PG regs and put the protest in several days ahead of the match. Then the protest would already have been dealt with by the time of kick off so no further protest under the FIFA Rio 2016 regs would be necessary. 

In Vanuatu's case they did not comply with the PG protest system therefore they are in breach of 16.3(a) of the FIFA Rio 2016 regs.  

Edit: Actually it might be too harsh to say Vanuatu 'breached' that regulation. It's just that the protest was invalid. 

I believe that NZF has screwed up and just needs accept that and move on. The appealing is only going to cost a small fortune with little chance of success and allows certain individuals the opportunity to cover their backsides.

Quite simply they should have studied the rules and ensured that they complied.

I'm not sure how much the appeal will cost but in today's paper there is an estimate of the opportunity cost of those Olympic games to be about $1.5m. 

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_i...

I previously mentioned that Messi and Neymar are likely to play for their countries. There is also at least a 50/50 chance that Ronaldo will play for Portugal and Zlatan will play for Sweden (depending on whether those two want to play another tournament so close to the EUROs). In other words this could end up being a blockbuster tournament.

So while I understand your frustration I would certainly say it is something worth fighting for. The stakes are high.