New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

very unfair. Don't know about the Wynne situation but a number of the boys (including Burfoot) came here at a young age, not to play Football, but because their parents thought it was the right thing to do. So they have lived here, been to school here and gained citizenship, the right way. And then a few years down the line it appears they can play football and want to represent their Country!

So just because they may not be born here it doesn't mean that they don't feel as kiwi as the next man and that they don't feel as proud to represent this country!

Yeah Chen has a Wikipedia page too while Shieff Angland has nothing but their own website. Look at the awards Chen has, NZF is fudgeed!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mai_Chen

Vanuatu's protest does not comply with 16.3(a) because they are not complying with the Pacific Games regulations. A protest needs to comply with both sets of rules in order to be legally valid as per 16.3(a).

I have just read the OFC disciplinary committee decision document - it makes the 'process argument' even stronger for NZF.

Paragraph 14 (email from OFC on the topic of Pacific Games regs vs FIFA Olympic regs):

After receiving the second letter from VFF, OFC have accepted VFF's protest due to the significance this context [sic].

As a consequence, FIFA rules regarding the protest will take precedence over the Pacific Games Rules.

Say whaaaaat?

OFC is admitting that they have shifted the goalposts on how protests are dealt with due to "the significance this context." The FIFA Olympic regulations state that those regulations must be followed and the respective local regulations must also be followed. You can not abandon the Pacific Games regulations due to "the significance this context".

This topic is discussed again on pages 16 and 17 under the heading 'Applicability of FIFA rules'. All OFC does is to cite Article 16 of the FIFA Olympic regulations. They have even quoted the exact paragraph (16.3a) which states that both sets of regulations must be followed.

So from a legal perspective this would be a clear cut victory for New Zealand. Any credible legal arbitration would deem the entire OFC process to be null and void as a result of those paragraphs. There is of course still the question of institutional politics - will NZF even have access to credible legal arbitration? Through OFC? No. Through FIFA? Maybe (the organisation is changing rapidly). Through CAS? Likely, but at what cost?

Finally there is the issue of integrity. From what I can tell NZF knew there was some degree of doubt over those players but decided that the Pacific Games rules gave them the security that any challenges would be made ahead of time, in which case they would just remove the challenged players if need be. It is certainly a dubious approach (though legally valid) but before making an ethical judgement I would want to know the full context of how FIFA dispensations work. Is there integrity and consistency to that process or is it a game of roll the dice with Sepp Blatter? What is the FIFA decision making criteria on whether to grant special dispensation and is this a transparent process? If the dispensations are given as a matter of course then why have the rule in the first place? 

But just to clarify, none of that stuff has an effect on the legal appeal. The OFC's case has no legal credibility whatsoever due to paragraphs 14, 51 and 52 of their own decision document.

Chen is an administrative lawyer, not a courtroom shark. Having her involved may actually be an own goal for OFC because she will raise the standard of the proceedings. She has her reputation to protect and she is unlikely to start making up bullshark to protect OFC, especially when the FBI and FIFAgate is just around the corner. 

Now we have something to go on [the official release from OFC].

Firstly, to me, it looks like the process that OFC followed was robust enough in terms of it's reasoning behind coming to the decision it did.

I think it all hinges on whether you accept the interpretation that OFC outlines in point 44.

I'm not certain the meaning is as clear as OFC has stated and there is definitely room to debate their interpretation with what NZ say theirs is. It would appear that both parties have made their positions clear at the very beginning and neither have wavered from those positions.

Without getting too deep into the interpretation issue [its been done to death already here] but my simple interpretation of articles 5,6 and 7 is that if Wynne is eligible to represent more than 1 association - then article 6 applies and the residential time is 2 years. If he is not eligible to represent more than 2 associations - then article 7 applies and the residential qualification is 5 years.

So, what is the actual situation? is Wynne eligible to represent NZ and South Africa - if he is, then he qualifies to play. If not, he doesn't qualify.

I take the OFC point that if this interpretation were true, then article 7 is redundant and not an intended purpose of the legislation. however that is a similar argument to one the other side could put up that the intention of the legislation as not to make everyone in the same situation unable to represent their new country at under 20 or under 23 level.

The FBI being interested in an administrative dispute arising from an Oceania qualifying tournament? I'm going to call that pretty unlikely.

And just an interesting aside; item 21 of the OFC document outlines what they sent to the FIFA Competitions Committee. They only referred to the fact that NZF had not supplied the evidence of parent/grandparent birth and made no reference whatsoever to NZF's challenge regarding which article applied.

What might that indicate? They were referring the matter to FIFA to make a decision [irrelevant that FIFA refused to adjudicate] but did not present all of the facts. Might that indicate a level of predetermination on their part? Legal minds only on what weight this might have in any future legal ajufication.

That is a very generous interpretation of the regulations for NZF, and I don't think you'd find any Judge in the world that would view it quite that way.

16.3 (a) is the key section - under this participating member associations (including NZF and VFF) undertake to observe those regulations and any other applicable respective confederation regulations. This means that first and foremost, the FIFA regulations are operative. Considering that the preliminary tournament was to qualify for a FIFA tournament, and OFC was delegated the organisation and delivery of the preliminary tournament only, any OFC regulations that contradicted the FIFA regulations are effectively inapplicable.

Please let's not go there again.

Who's on 1st ?

I am almost in possession of all of the facts and can therefore give my modest opinion. Not asking anyone to agree with me.

There is a limit to your patience.

Yeah I found that really interesting that they only stated we didn't supply the proof not that we argued that the statute they where using was the wrong one.

Rob Pickstock and NZF lawyer present case to OFC:

The email advice from the NZF lawyer is at times a bit "vibe"-like... "This is not in the spirit of fair play so vital to the game of football". 

Neither is fielding ineligible players unfortunately Shelley...

I don't understand your logic on this. In my view it is quite clearly worded that both sets of regulations must be followed due to the word 'and'. Why would the PG regulations be inapplicable? The two sets of regulations do not technically contradict each other because if any eligibility challenges have been dealt with prior to the tournament (according to the Pacific Games regulations) then there is no need to make a challenge under the FIFA Olympic regulations, which it could be argued are intended as a default rule for confederations that do not have any local regulations in place. 

Why do you think the Pacific Games regulations were inapplicable and the FIFA regulations are any more or less 'operative' than the Pacific Games regulations? Just because FIFA seems like a 'more important' organisation than the Pacific Games, that does not automatically mean that those FIFA regulations are 'operative' in any sense of the word. From what I can tell this is a baseless assertion that was made by OFC and has since been unquestioningly accepted as fact by the NZ media.

OK. Right. So it's a FIFA tournament they're trying to qualify for right? So you would think that FIFA regulations in relation to the competition and its qualifiers are kind of important. Furthermore, by choosing to participate in qualifying for this competition, the participating associations have undertaken to observe the FIFA regulations. There is absolutely no qualifier to this (unlike in relation to the confederation regulations). So by agreeing to participate, VFF have recourse to make a protest over player eligibility under section 10.3 of the FIFA Rio regulations (which stipulate that the protest has to happen within two hours of the match). Nothing in those regulations, or any other regulations, takes away VFF's ability to protest under that rule.

Yes it does. As you say, everyone has to swear a solemn oath that they will comply with all the FIFA regulations. And one of those regulations states that any applicable local regulations must also be followed. Vanuatu's protest did not comply with Pacific Games regulations and therefore it does not comply with the FIFA regulations. It is that simple. Let's agree to disagree. Over and out.

10.3. But yes. Had enough of this.

Simply having to make sure I have had things straight for Over 35's eligibility as well as school and club coaching of kids makes me wonder just how unbelievably negligent NZF have been with respect to the whole thing.   Anyone who has had to deal with playing kids up a grade or trying to put a club team together where there are not enough kids in one age group for a team but enough kids across 2 age groups for a team will if in NZF's position made sure all eligibility was sorted out before any tournament.

The problem I have is that right from the start, the media and the majority of people on this forum have 'dived straight in feet first' blaming NZ Football for getting it wrong again!

I think that it is starting to become clear that it is not that simple and that NZ Football may actually have a case and that OFC may actually be wrong. It comes down to interpretation of Fifa statutes and interpretation of the pacific games regulations. On both counts I am beginning to feel that NZ Football may have been right and that all their players are eligible under any and all of the regulations!!!

NZ Football have still admitted that they knew Wynne was inelligible for New Zealand and decided that rather than risk people saying no, not to apply for an exemption.

Now while a technicality may work in their favour here it doesn't change the fact that we played Wynne in full internationals and the U20s in the hope that no one would question it and all evidence would suggest the same here.  We may fluke our way out of it due to the Mickey Mouse nature of Oceania (but I doubt it very much) but that doesn't change the flawed decision making.

It is just a fudgeing stupid risk to take, particulary when you are looking at something as important to our programme as Olympic qualifying. 

Totally agree with one minor exception where you said ...if by some huge fluke Oceania loose on a technical issue ... IMO FIFA will appeal they do not want these laws changed or capable of being challenged... 

You're dreaming mate

Paragraph 52 of the OFC decision states that "NZF signed a written form stating that it undertook to participate in the preliminary tournaments for the Men's Olympic Football Tournament" on 25 October 2013.

That, combined with section 16.3 (a) of the Rio regulations, puts NZF on an extremely shaky ground when it comes to any potential appeal.

They said something like the initial advice was that Wynne could have been declined and then you get no second attempt. They didn't say that they obtained the advice before the competition. In fact they said that they believed he was eligible. So the impression I got was that is the advice that they have now, it was stupid of them to mention it in that way (or at all) because of the connotations, but everyone says stupid things when put on the spot.

I'd like to see this "advice" that they could only have one bite at exemption. I'd imagine that, like any FIFA decision, they could have appealed any rejection to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. I don't know for sure, but it seems unlikely to me that exemption decisions are one thing that can never be appealed.

.

Can Raheem Sterling save the Oly-Whites?

By Andrew Gourdie

Monday 20 Jul 2015 5:10 p.m.

If you're reading this, chances are you've also read the Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) disciplinary committee's decision relating to the eligibility of Deklan Wynne to represent New Zealand.

It doesn't look good, does it? It would seem New Zealand Football's (NZF) arguments on every step of the process have been slam dunked by this 19-page ruling.

Like so many others, I've been wracking my brains and asking plenty of people with knowledge of the FIFA statutes about whether it's possible Wynne might have somehow been eligible to represent New Zealand.

Something's been brought to my attention (thanks, Twitter user @wibblebutt - who wouldn't trust a name like that?) that might be of interest to those currently sweating bullets at New Zealand Football. It's complicated, possibly even far-fetched but hear me out.

So, we know OFC believe South African-born Wynne is ineligible because he doesn't meet the criteria associated with acquiring a new nationality according to Article 7 in the regulations governing the application of the FIFA Statutes.

We also know New Zealand Football believe that because he's a New Zealand citizen with a Kiwi passport, he's eligible to represent more than one association and is eligible to represent NZ under Article 6.

Oceania Football says this article relates to instances where, by virtue of a person's nationality at birth, they're eligible to represent more than one association (for example: France and Tahiti, United States and American Samoa).

But what about Jamaican-born Raheem Sterling, how is it that he can represent England?

It's all to do with what's referred to as the 'Home Nations Agreement'. It's a cheeky, wee clause you won't find anywhere in the FIFA Statutes.

Indeed, it's hard to find a whole lot of hard evidence about this clause anywhere on the internet but within this rule could lie New Zealand Football's escape route.

In short, the Home Nations Agreement was designed to prevent England from stealing the best talent from around Britain. In reality, they've used the rule to fast-track players into the English system who have no ancestral links to the country. Sterling, who moved to England at a young age, is the best current example.

In 2009, the agreement, which is anecdotally recognised by FIFA, was tweaked. It was agreed that players like Sterling could represent England if they had completed five years of education in the country before the age of 18, instead of rules relating to residency as outlined in the above articles.

Here's the important part:

From what little information is available online, it appears this rule is an amendment of Article 6, rather than Article 7. This means these players become eligible for England not because they have acquired a new nationality, but because this criteria makes them eligible to represent more than one association.

If New Zealand Football can prove this it could be interpreted as an example which proves FIFA have allowed players who have acquired a new nationality to represent a new country via Article 6. This is exactly the grounds on which NZF believe Deklan Wynne is eligible to represent his adopted country.

Now, before we get too excited, I acknowledge there are holes to this argument. Its possible Sterling has been granted an exemption under Article 7. It's possible the Home Nations Agreement isn't an amendment of Article 6 at all. But, it's worth looking into.

Fire up the fax machine.

3 News

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/sport/opinion-can-raheem-sterling-save-the-oly-whites-2015072017#ixzz3gPgPQM6r

what I found most interesting in the whole 19 pages was the reference to the fax machine and that emails don't count!!

Everything else confirmed we have fudgeed up (even worse then I initially thought)

The ridiculous thing about this is that I'm sure Deklan Wynne considers himself a New Zealander. Bet old mate Themistoklis Tzimopoulos doesn't and yet he's eligible..

I agree with most of the comments on this forum that an appeal by NZF is unlikely to succeed. I also said earlier that NZF was negligent regarding Wynne (and Burfoot), assuming these guys are worth a call-up to AWs.  

But let's for a moment assume that there is some kind of a catch that we don't know of - whatever it is - that has now been pulled out of the trick bag. Let's make a wild assumption that OFC is found to have been wrong in chucking us out of the Pacific Games / Rio qualifiers.

What would happen then? My guess is it (OFC) would never pick itself up off the floor after that.

And FIFA would never let that happen since they want to preserve OFC as a valid federation.

So my guess is that - no matter what the outcome is - we're fudged.

Been fascinating reading all this analysis and trying to understand the complexity. One thing really bothering me is that it appears as if NZF are now worried this rule applies to anyone at any age group that came here and became a Citizen. Even the under 17 World cup is in question.

Can one of you better minds explain why 18 is used as an age to spend 5 years for a competition that is under 17?

Guessing here but possibly because in most countries that is when one is deemed to have become an adult?

To answer your question yes they do. The futsal whites have already made sure everyone is eligible. Finally get your facts correct I was born in New Zealand and am now 23 so that wouldn't matter anyway. 

there were times I bled, but like 'austin10' said - it wasn't bad compared to the attempted-tabloid stuff he seems to usually write...

Could not believe I read that. No wonder FIFA are blocking their ears shutting their eyes and giving it "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaalalaala"

Either that or they're forwarding everything around the office in Zurich for a laugh...

She is an employment lawyer! I hope they are tooling up for the appeal because this lot are not up to this level of dispute.

Actually, in second thoughts, maybe an employment lawyer is what they actually need