I legal professor( a friend of a friend) who has no links to football looked over the rules, and his response was that they are so poorly written that if challenged would not stand. He also said the intent was not at the scenario of the young immigrant but rather the becoming a citizen later on in age. Having said that, he said if anything this will force FIFA to have them re written as they are as clear as mud( his word)
Well, it's not like they haven't been challenged before - the dispute between IFA and FAI is well documented, and the CAS upheld the FIFA statutes:
http://www.fai.ie/ireland/news/fai-wins-landmark-case-at-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport
That is to say, the CAS had no problems sorting out the meaning and intent of the statutes and certainly did not force FIFA into anything (though FIFA did also encourage the two associations to work out a fairer solution for IFA).
I actually find it quite surprising that there's this perception that the statutes are particularly poorly phrased - when looked in their entirety and overall context, they're pretty straightforward. If you think they're difficult to understand, try understanding Maori land legislation (especially the nineteenth century stuff).
I think when you know what the rules are trying to say you can interpret them relatively simply.
The biggest problem isn't the written rules I agree - it's what are the unwritten rules that allow players who don't qualify under the rules to become eligible. That's what complicates it I think
Yeah, that why I think the De Vries case is potentially more interesting. If NZF actually applied for an exemption through FIFA's "black box" process and the answer was no, then that's maybe the case where we should be lawyering up and prepared to take it all the way.
That's assuming a few things though:
1. That NZF actually did apply for an exemption, not just make inquiries
2. That Ryan De Vries has been in NZ long enough and for genuine enough reasons to at least be considered for an exemption
3. That FIFA's advice at the time wasn't along the line of "he hasn't been in your country long enough yet, but come back in a year and we'll grant it no problems". If this was what happened then I have a little more sympathy with NZF in Wynne's case because you can almost see how they found themselves in the seemingly contradictory position of "we don't want to apply for an exemption but still believe he's eligible". That's really speculating though and they probably should have still requested an exemption to be on the safe side.
It seems like there would be a lot of other players around the world who might also be prepared to challenge being declined an exemption but nobody knows how many or who they are because FIFA don't publish their decisions!
However, like JD, I haven't been following this closely enough to know if I've got any of that wrong.
COYN 