New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

This "Thread of Inelegibility" should be a permanent fixture on the YF forum. Next we'll take over Wikipedia.

Well, the stuff on pseudo-history and pseudo-anthropology should be moved to Off-Topic, and I'll get some academic experts in to demolish everyone trying to retail the Celtic/Viking/Moriori "Maori are not indigenous so we can ignore them and be rude to them" myths.

Anyway, back on topic. I am amazed by the lack of noise around the place about some kind of palace coup in NZF to deal with the toxic structures which led to this kind of corner-cutting slackness.

But what about during the Paleozoic, when we were a part of Pangaea? Everything was all joined together in one big lump. So technically everyone is a native of every continent! Eh? Eh? Take that, Pacific Games/OFC oligarchs!

Yes, you would think there would be internal rumblings starting to build in NZF. Although I wonder that if ALL the incompetent were to be removed, who would be left? Maybe they should just burn the whole thing down and start again.

The "NZF are shark" angle seems to have been done to death here already (at best they've been reckless, at worst totally evil) but whatever scorn is to be heaped on them surely FIFA deserve x 10.

FIFA's eligibility rules are a mess, ambiguous in parts and in other respects totally unfit for purpose.

Much has been made of "why didn't NZF just ask for an exemption" but I can't believe nobody seems to be making more of an issue of the fact that the exemption process appears to be totally uncodified or off the books. In legal terms it's "ultra vires". I'm happy to be corrected on this but that was one of my big takeaways from reading the very lengthy thread on foot.ie where Yann Hafner said FIFA have "no legal basis to grant such an exception" and that the Player Status Committee don't publish their exemption decisions. No transparency, no certainty, totally subjective decision-making. It's crazy.

The situation definitely has a Bosman-esque flavour to it. If FIFA don't change the rules or codify the exemptions process (which is effectively changing the rules) surely a player or association who is adversely is going to take them to court over it eventually?

Because everyone here was taking this seriously.

I take it you've never dealt with Doloras before.

Well, lack of noise usually means that the coup is actually underway. Once we hear "we have utmost confidence in our processes and we stand behind our people" you know that an announcement on someone moving on to a new exciting opportunity elsewhere is next.

at least mac ds supports him

Kim Jong-Un would know what to do.

Ineligible for U23

I felt it was another 'nothing' article - http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/70479814/deklan-wynne-all-white-for-mcdonalds

It would be very cruel to knock Steven Hawking down with a feather duster.

Now, getting back to the topic of Vikings:

Stephen Hawking and the Vikings

I don't think its in the rules anywhere that has been found.

Can we discuss one aspect of the matter which I don't think we explored much so far (apologies if this has been covered, but I have read every post in this thread and I don't recall much being said about it).

What do we make of FIFA's implicit consent that Wynne was eligible for the All Whites, as well as the U20s? Would that not hold up in a court? At the end of the day, couldn't we say that, as presumably his eligibility was checked by a FIFA match commissioner several times before and no issues were raised about it, that we, in good faith, thought he was eligible to play?

I know that's not the truth, but let's face it, this is now about winning the appeal, whether on a technicality (Vanuatu spelled both Wynne's first AND second name incorrectly) or anything other excuse we could muster...

Yeah, that'd be the kind of promissory estoppel argument I mentioned a couple of lifetimes ago (i.e. the kind of things where although a certain situation hasn't been agreed/made part of the contract etc, but has been allowed to occur and continue occurring in practice), but I think given that FIFA places the onus on national associations to comply with the Statutes when it comes to player eligibility it probably wouldn't hold much water.

Whoa. 

Unfortunately Boxy you can't generally imply the promise required for an estoppel. FIFA's past conduct unlikely to be enough.

Yeah wouldn't fly, but could be worth a try. Desperate measures and all that.

The following link sheds some interesting light: http://nationalsels.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2...

From my own understanding:

1. Playing a "friendly" for a country is apparently not a violation of FIFA rules. There are several examples of players who have participated in friendlies at the senior level, and then successfully switched National associations.

2. Its seems that Olympic (IOC) rules are less stringent than FIFA (again see article above) and on that basis it would seem Wynne would be eligible to play at the Olympics. I would think that this would be the best basis for appeal.

3. It is the FIFA U20 tournament where Wynne was likely ineligible but that is water under the bridge and probably shouldn't be raised in an appeal.

The following is another important discussion of the same topic:

http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/blurred-na...

I came across that as well which was quite interesting, particularly the chart half way down.  The thing with that chart is what happens if you read it in interpretation with Article 8 paragraph 3 of the FIFA statutes 

Any Player who has the right to change Associations in accordance with par.1 and 2 above shall submit a written, substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat. The Players’ Status Committee shall decide on the request. The procedure will be in accordance with the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber

That chart is presumably the count of the number of players per year who have followed Article 8 paragraph 3 and put their request in writing to change associations, irrespective of wether they are using paragraph 1 i.e. Article 6 or Article 7, or paragraph 2.  So my interpretation is that for NZF, it doesn't matter if they are arguing wether Article 6 or Article 7 applied, in both cases they still had to get the change rubber stamped by the FIFA Player Status committee and this does not appear to have occurred.    So IMHO they don't have anything to stand on apart from perhaps asking why it wasn't picked up at the Under 20 tournament.

It would be interesting with that chart to get the list of players who have formalised a change of association.

I also came across this which was interesting too http://codehesive.com/wc-ancestry/

That second link is interesting. It refers to past attempts to have Article 7's 5-year stand-down reduced:

"The waiting rule was introduced in order to protect national identity and young players[17] and thus, to prevent expedited naturalization of football players. It institutes a de facto prohibition to play at international level before the age of 23 years old when naturalized. This rule was challenged twice since its coming into force in 2008. First, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Federation and the Australian Federation sought laxer rules in order to include immigrant players in their national side. The FIFA Congress rejected this bid by 153 to 42 votes..."

Voting occurred at the 2011 FIFA Congress, at which NZF had representatives. Although the names of attendees is not given in the congress minutes, NZ were assigned vote-counting duties, so they were there. The point is, the 5-year stand-down was debated and voted upon by NZF's reps quite recently, so they must have been fully aware of the intention and function of the rules. Trying to then claim eligibility for Deklan on the basis of Article 6 is, at best, disingenuous.

I agree that this would indicate that FIFA were clear in their own minds what impact this had on players under 23 years of age.

The flipside of that though is that it's much more easily argued that NZF played, either knowingly or through negligence, ineligible players despite committing to comply with FIFA Statutes on player eligibility when entering FIFA competitions.

Like Smithy said, there's no implied promise/permission in the FIFA regulations for NZF to hang their hat on, it's actually quite the opposite.

Maybe our definition of promissory estoppel differs then, in the context I'm using, the actions of FIFA were outside any FIFA regulation.  

Promissory estoppel relates to the implication that Wynne must of been eligible because FIFA allowed him to represent NZ before this. Accepted that its another argument  whether FIFA did or not. Still this side argument will be of no interest to anyone else. I can't help thinking that most of your statements are 'legal opinion-like' and not contain too much practicality.

very cool! Nice graphic and quite revealing

Football regulations are in no way shape or form high on practicality.

Even (maybe especially) down to a local level - we've all seen the player scoring a hat-full at a level well beneath what he (or she) is capable of. I hate it. But 'in the regulations', there's nothing stopping that person from playing there!

For example - in Gisborne - a 'Team Gisborne' (stupid name) regular could NOT play a game on their 'bye' week for Campion College (local Division II, but players registered with a club for 'pathway purposes' - as in, they can "legally" go play for the higher teams if they're short) if they were playing say, a team that spanked them - because that'd be against the regulations. Campion College (in this case), would be 'cheating'. But the teams that have goal differences of 5,6:1 across the season AREN'T?? No - because they're within the regs.

Hypothetical example, and we're talking a (very) low level here, but that's regulations 'in action'.

Same deal with talented/physically-developed 14 year-old players NOT being allowed to play. You need an exemption. 

I've applied for three exemptions for this season (real situation here) - but not heard back.

So if tomorrow I play a kid who's 14 years and 11 months - I'm cheating. But I can play the less-talented, shorter, skinnier 16 or 17 year-olds - even if they're MORE at risk of being injured (i think this is the intent of the rule...) - because that's within the regulations.

Yet, much smaller and much less 'at stake' - but it's regulations in action.

Anyway.

This is a great argument - on the occasions where people that clearly do have a reasonable idea of what they're talking about present the different opinions and viewpoints.

I'm very interested to see what the CAS makes of this - hoping that we do go there - especially considering FIFA's extremely poor public image of late.

Took a chance and lost..time to move on.

I would be interested in what some of you lawyer types think of the quality of NZF's legal representation up to this point.

Because we have heard comments like "our legal people said we should not apply for a FIFA exemption for Wynn because if you lose its all over" and some of the comments made by the female lawyer(forgotten her name) sound to me, as a legal lay person, to be quite daft. 

I have formed opinions on football eligibility on precedences that I have casually followed. Like Ibini's and that young guy who was allowed play for the USA U20's. So I was kind of surprised that the legal people were telling NZF stuff(Wynne was OK) when it was plainly obvious to anyone that followed football that it was not OK to play Wynne(once you knew Wynnes background,and knew what other players had to do to become eligible)

I hope you lawyers are arguing gratis.

#yfspendup

Pro bono, not sure about the female comments Austin, but I'm thinking NZF were quoting out of a legal opinion and the "not seeking eligibility status" was probably listed as an option among others. Lawyers often/mainly/usually don't recommend one course of action in many cases, just point out the pros and cons of each option.  Wouldn't be surprised if they also put forward the option to seek permission from FIFA to avoid a dogs breakfast they has since taken place and NZF decided to take a punt.

So tomorrow is July 27. Is that not 14 days? Are we putting something in? I was always of the understanding that this date was D-Day as it was written somewhere or have we decided to quietly drop it?