• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Pichot's message

Unsurprisingly for anyone who has read my posts I largely agree with our Argentine and South African posters that the thrust of Pichots apparent point is apparently sound - even if know the unions from those countries would exploit the rule just as much if they could.

The counterpoints on accuracy and the residency measures already implemented to counter this are valid though. Even if obtaining bullet proof figures is near impossible due to complexities of the matter.

For me the issue is always one of "did your union raise a player through its system as a youth player?". If so, then feel good about their inclusion in your side regardless of their heritage. Feel good also if the player relocated in your country for non-rugby reasons.

In all other instances accept that, whilst legally valid, it isn't ideal from any perspective and that it leaves your union open to criticism for their interpretation of the spirit of international competition. Perhaps use it as grounds to ask your union if it is doing enough to nurture talent in the communities it represents and hold it to account.

Despite improvement, I think the Scottish union should be held aloft as a shining example of historic mismanagement and insular culture. I think it is right to point at them and shake your head when only 6 of their 23 against Canada earlier in the year were born in Scotland. BUT you can't do that and then get animated in the defence of your own union's conduct if it is in a similar vein.

Why are so many people so protective of their unions? I can't think of a single union that doesn't do something I strongly disagree with or doesn't actively constrain the spread of the sport either domestically or internationally. Calling most of them incompetent would be a compliment, yet people man the barricades if anyone should question their motivations or decision making.

Finally, Pichot should be scrutinised as much as anyone, especially over his mining ties to Andrew Forrest, but to say he acts only in the interests of Argentina is unfair and an oversimplification. He is pretty obsessed about expanding the sport, yet the Pumas were Tier1 when he took his post. So if he was as obsessed about the Pumas as folk think then surely it'd be in his best interests to focus on the closed shop Tier1 and Argentina's place in it.

I didn't know he called the Autumn and June Tests friendlies. I thought that was just me! :)
 
For me the issue is always one of "did your union raise a player through its system as a youth player?". If so, then feel good about their inclusion in your side regardless of their heritage. Feel good also if the player relocated in your country for none rugby reasons.
Two interesting edge cases come from this (and I agree with you this is point I'd make a distinguishing between eligibility if ancestors didn't have to come into play).

Dylan Hartley who had an English Mum but came here at the age of 15 specifically with a view to play Rugby for us. So technically a product of both systems.

Martin Johnson who spent some years in AB's system but was pretty much English born and raised, played for AB's under-21's.
 
My wife does but she knows very little rugby. My response is

"Theres no such thing as friendly in Rugby"

The way I've always looked at it is if the match isn't part of a tournament or if there's no trophy to be won, then the match is deemed to be a friendly match. And that the teams play each other, and after the game have a few beers and just have fun.

I have no problem whatsoever in him calling the June series as friendlies...
 
Yeah, George Gregan should never have been allowed to play for the Wallabies; instead, he should have only been eligible to play for the country of his birth.... Zambia, then he would have been team-mates with Corne Krige.

Pichot has a point, but he stuffs it up by foolishly lumping together, players who, as adults, moved to another country with the express intention of playing for their country, and players who, as children, moved where there parents moved to, and grew up in a country they were not born in.
 
Yeah, George Gregan should never have been allowed to play for the Wallabies; instead, he should have only been eligible to play for the country of his birth.... Zambia, then he would have been team-mates with Corne Krige.

Pichot has a point, but he stuffs it up by foolishly lumping together, players who, as adults, moved to another country with the express intention of playing for their country, and players who, as children, moved where there parents moved to, and grew up in a country they were not born in.

There shouldn't be an issue with kids who immigrate with their parents. But then again they aren't the ones who are under scrutiny when it comes to the residency rule.

for me it's more to do when you as a player can start playing professionally, as in the age of 18 (when you are in any case considered no longer a minor), where the residency rules are a bit of a shambles.

Gregan, Krige, Pocock, and Beast can't be held responsible for the opportunities that was presented to their parents, and they as a child and in most cases are completely unaccountable for what happens, will probably get the benefit in 10-15 years in future. Some of them was so young that by the time they moved to the other country, couldn't even walk, let alone pass/kick the ball.
 
I'm surprised so many people value certain nationalistic views and "the spirit of the game" over seeing top class rugby.

Would you rather have 23 born and bred Scots throwing out the awful, or probably worse, rugby like they were for 15 years there recently or the good attacking team we all love to watch right now?

Same with a guy like CJ Stander, he is the most attritional player in rugby right now and he may not even have carved out a pro career longer than 5 years had he stayed in SA. He experienced massive improvement in his three years in Munster going from just about cutting it at pro12 level and not making European squads to a top class international. Ok, three years was too short a time period and that has since been changed but rugby is better for this guy playing internationally.

Shields too, that guy isn't a merc or anything like that he's someone whose goal is to play international rugby, his first choice didn't want him so he went to the country where his entire family before him were from and he gets criticised? Madness.

I think everyone needs to stop looking at this as if unions control players like pieces on a boardgame. Players choose their paths and if a player doesn't want to play for a country he won't.

I think the bad examples are in the minority and are cases like Vakatawa playing for France having been picked up as a teenager in Fiji, it is nothing short of exploitation but it's certainly the better option for the player and his family.

Also, calling test matches friendlies pretty much disregards all of rugby's history before 1987 apart from the 5 nations. International rugby is special because of how highly we regard matches where there's nothing but pride and stature on the line.
 
even if know the unions from those countries would exploit the rule just as much if they could.
That is such an unfair statement and one that you obviously can't back up.
The closest proxy we have is what's being done in other sports. Please, enlighten me, how do we take advantage of that?

There might a few exceptions but the overwhelming majority of athletes in all of the sports weré competitive at (footie, rugby, basketball, women's hockey, men's hockey and tennis), 99% of them were born and raised here. And of the 1%, 99% was because their parents happened to be working abroad when they were born. (Higuain, Cancelliere, Tati Martin, etc).
Sorry for the probably disproportionate response to your comment but this is important to us. We take bloody pride in this. When we see Argentines playing for France(trezeguet), Italy(camoranesi, parisse, dominguez) Peru(quiroga), Spain (pernia), Chile, Paraguay, Australia (Noriega) etc we smile, we take pride because with think "we dont do that" (at least not often). We see the same in brazil and we respect it. It's a rare trait these days.

/end rant
 
Would you rather have 23 born and bred Scots throwing out the awful, or probably worse, rugby like they were for 15 years there recently or the good attacking team we all love to watch right now?
I'd rather lose with my own, every game. Every single game.

Again, for us the beauty lies in seeing how you do with what you've got, not in seeing who can buy more talent elsewhere. That is, precisely and fundamentally, what makes national teams special.
 
That is such an unfair statement and one that you obviously can't back up.
The closest proxy we have is what's being done in other sports. Please, enlighten me, how do we take advantage of that?

There might a few exceptions but the overwhelming majority of athletes in all of the sports weré competitive at (footie, rugby, basketball, women's hockey, men's hockey and tennis), 99% of them were born and raised here. And of the 1%, 99% was because their parents happened to be working abroad when they were born. (Higuain, Cancelliere, Tati Martin, etc).
Sorry for the probably disproportionate response to your comment but this is important to us. We take bloody pride in this. When we see Argentines playing for France(trezeguet), Italy(camoranesi, parisse, dominguez) Peru(quiroga), Spain (pernia), Chile, Paraguay, Australia (Noriega) etc we smile, we take pride because with think "we dont do that" (at least not often). We see the same in brazil and we respect it. It's a rare trait these days.

/end rant

Hah, no worries. My evidence base would be that humans are intrinsically the same throughout history and geography. We are all homo-sapiens and the chances of a group of homo-sapiens agreeing to ignore the spirit of rules and exploit them for their own benefit is sadly pretty high.

I'm not aware of anything in Argentinian society to make me think that your union would be different to any other one if it had the money to "buy" players from other countries. For example, the Argentine union followed other unions in saying you can only play for the Pumas if you play in Argentina (which coincidentally, and not entirely irrelevantly, massively reduces your likelihood of ever having "Argentine qualified" player issues with people whose families emigrated from Argentina).

As pointed out, there aren't many players from countries with a shared heritage with Argentina that this is an issue for you yet (unless you can tell me players who would be Argentina qualified, who are better than what the Pumas have, and are from poorer countries that your union has ignored?). I suppose would could say you haven't bought any Pacific Islanders. But then neither has Scotland.

I agree with your point that I'd rather "lose with what I've got" so much that I can't really support the union governing the country I live in. And yes, I applaud your union for appointing Argentine coaches even when there are limited options available; and this would support your argument.

But does that mean I think that an Argentina with a functioning economy and a wealthy union would never poach a player born in another country who was willing to relocate to Argentina? Hell no.

South Africa have played players born in Ghana and Zimbabwe in the past year. I've no criticism of that, but I make the point to show that only Argentina are exceptional in this matter and to support my argument that, if they could, they probably would.
 
I'm surprised so many people value certain nationalistic views and "the spirit of the game" over seeing top class rugby.

Would you rather have 23 born and bred Scots throwing out the awful, or probably worse, rugby like they were for 15 years there recently or the good attacking team we all love to watch right now?

Same with a guy like CJ Stander, he is the most attritional player in rugby right now and he may not even have carved out a pro career longer than 5 years had he stayed in SA. He experienced massive improvement in his three years in Munster going from just about cutting it at pro12 level and not making European squads to a top class international. Ok, three years was too short a time period and that has since been changed but rugby is better for this guy playing internationally.

Shields too, that guy isn't a merc or anything like that he's someone whose goal is to play international rugby, his first choice didn't want him so he went to the country where his entire family before him were from and he gets criticised? Madness.

I think everyone needs to stop looking at this as if unions control players like pieces on a boardgame. Players choose their paths and if a player doesn't want to play for a country he won't.

I think the bad examples are in the minority and are cases like Vakatawa playing for France having been picked up as a teenager in Fiji, it is nothing short of exploitation but it's certainly the better option for the player and his family.

Also, calling test matches friendlies pretty much disregards all of rugby's history before 1987 apart from the 5 nations. International rugby is special because of how highly we regard matches where there's nothing but pride and stature on the line.

Why do they want to play international rugby? It's not like most rugby players are getting paid more to play for an international team than for a club?

They play international rugby, to show how that country is performing against other countries and how their populace affects performance of the team.

If Scotland were to send 23 Scotsman, and they play crappy, then I'm much more comfortable with it watching them, Because in my view they are a true representative of their nation.

But when Scotland fields a team with WP Nel, Josh Strauss, Sean Maitland etc, who prior to them playing rugby professionally had no desire whatsoever to play for Scotland or to even live there, then I have a big issue watching them as that is not a true reflection of the nation. If we were to interview an 18-year old WP Nel while he's running out for Free State U/19, and ask him what is his dream. I can bet you a lot of money he would've said to play for the Springboks! At no point would he have said that his dream has always been to play for Scotland.

They went to another country, because they were rejected and they knew that they might have a chance to play for that national team. Seems like Scotland can't produce good loosehead props because both WP Nel and Dell are South Africans who went to School in SA. In fact, Dell represented South Africa at U/20 level.

Say what you want, they are mercenaries for hire who couldn't deal with the rejection at a young age and instead of fighting to go to the top, they pussied out and went somewhere else.

If you want to talk about CJ Stander, then fine, let's talk about him. When he left SA, our flankers were guys like Schalk Burger, Juan Smith, Heinrich Brussouw, Francois Louw & Danie Rossouw, to name but a few. He was just starting out for the Blue Bulls and only played senior rugby in SA for 3 years. Some guys only get their break after 4 or 5 years, and in his case his position was occupied by RWC winners, something no Irish flanker can say at the moment.

Mercs! all of them!
 
Hah, no worries. My evidence base would be that humans are intrinsically the same throughout history and geography. We are all homo-sapiens and the chances of a group of homo-sapiens agreeing to ignore the spirit of rules and exploit them for their own benefit is sadly pretty high.

I'm not aware of anything in Argentinian society to make me think that your union would be different to any other one if it had the money to "buy" players from other countries. For example, the Argentine union followed other unions in saying you can only play for the Pumas if you play in Argentina (which coincidentally, and not entirely irrelevantly, massively reduces your likelihood of ever having "Argentine qualified" player issues with people whose families emigrated from Argentina).

As pointed out, there aren't many players from countries with a shared heritage with Argentina that this is an issue for you yet (unless you can tell me players who would be Argentina qualified, who are better than what the Pumas have, and are from poorer countries that your union has ignored?). I suppose would could say you haven't bought any Pacific Islanders. But then neither has Scotland.

I agree with your point that I'd rather "lose with what I've got" so much that I can't really support the union governing the country I live in. And yes, I applaud your union for appointing Argentine coaches even when there are limited options available; and this would support your argument.

But does that mean I think that an Argentina with a functioning economy and a wealthy union would never poach a player born in another country who was willing to relocate to Argentina? Hell no.

South Africa have played players born in Ghana and Zimbabwe in the past year. I've no criticism of that, but I make the point to show that only Argentina are exceptional in this matter and to support my argument that, if they could, they probably would.


as you say its like this that the richer nations are benefiting from their better economies and getting more players. doesent matter if we dont want o we cant bring players. its a fact that the welthier nations have the chance to choose from a wider pool of players. and it is unfair. that is what i think its needs to be more regulated, but not forbbiden attending to cases where real inmigration cases happen
cos when we adress this problem imo the case is not tawarira is more like brad shilds
due to historic bonds within the commonwelth its all very confusing in terms of nationality ( for us in the distance they are acturally, all gringos :)) nz (white) australia england, sa, ireland, scotland wales ) tecnically any player of these could play for another country by just moving arround or having a grand mother. they speack the same language have migrating advantages etc. these happen to be the tier one countries. its only argentina and france in the tier 1 who are not from this bunch.
the real loosers here are the tier 2 and pooerer nations like samoa fiji and tonga, uruguay georgia etc who cant choose from the big english pool and or even worst they actually loose their players. ad argentina and sa as the weaker economies of the tier 1 (the spreding of sa players in europe is huge) there also a big bunch of arg players in europe who are not able to play for the pumas
 
Last edited:
Why do they want to play international rugby? It's not like most rugby players are getting paid more to play for an international team than for a club?

They play international rugby, to show how that country is performing against other countries and how their populace affects performance of the team.

If Scotland were to send 23 Scotsman, and they play crappy, then I'm much more comfortable with it watching them, Because in my view they are a true representative of their nation.

But when Scotland fields a team with WP Nel, Josh Strauss, Sean Maitland etc, who prior to them playing rugby professionally had no desire whatsoever to play for Scotland or to even live there, then I have a big issue watching them as that is not a true reflection of the nation. If we were to interview an 18-year old WP Nel while he's running out for Free State U/19, and ask him what is his dream. I can bet you a lot of money he would've said to play for the Springboks! At no point would he have said that his dream has always been to play for Scotland.

They went to another country, because they were rejected and they knew that they might have a chance to play for that national team. Seems like Scotland can't produce good loosehead props because both WP Nel and Dell are South Africans who went to School in SA. In fact, Dell represented South Africa at U/20 level.


If you want to talk about CJ Stander, then fine, let's talk about him. When he left SA, our flankers were guys like Schalk Burger, Juan Smith, Heinrich Brussouw, Francois Louw & Danie Rossouw, to name but a few. He was just starting out for the Blue Bulls and only played senior rugby in SA for 3 years. Some guys only get their break after 4 or 5 years, and in his case his position was occupied by RWC winners, something no Irish flanker can say at the moment.

Mercs! all of them!
You missed my point entirely on Stander, nice needless dig at a small country massively outperforming yours sincerely CJ started playing international rugby though!

As for the rest. Why do players want to play international rugby? It's the pinnacle of their field of work, most people want to get there.

Are players getting paid more for playing internationally? Yes, except for maybe France, I'm not sure what their appearance fees are.

Did Dell, Maitland etc... Grow up wanting to play for Scotland over their countries of birth? No, were they aware that they were eligible and know it was an option. Yeah, how do you think the SRU found out they were eligible.

Say what you want, they are mercenaries for hire who couldn't deal with the rejection at a young age and instead of fighting to go to the top, they pussied out and went somewhere else.

I had to take this point in isolation because it's so ******* stupid. Rugby are these players' livelihoods, you want them to tough it out where they're under appreciated and under valued when there is better opportunities elsewhere.

I'm being hyperbolic here but this reads the same way as saying "any individual emigrant in Ireland's mass emmigration during the 1980's recession years couldn't deal with rejection and unemployment so they pussied out and went somewhere else".

You're saying these guys don't fight to get to the top? Most of them move half way around the world and become better players to play at the top. When Stander moved he couldn't break into Munster's starting team behind a guy who has one Ireland cap to his name, but he was given opportunities to play in the position he wanted to play, something that was not open to him in Pretoria and all the while he was earning more money and him and his wife were living in better conditions. And the guy fought so hard he literally hit the top this year by being a mainstay in 2018's most successful rugby team. You're happy to call that guy a pussy?
A quick look at Dell shows he didn't just get catapulted to the Scottish team either, he debuted two years after arrival, there must have been a bit of a fight for him too.

This is my problem, you're criticising men and calling them insulting names for doing what is best for them and their families. This would not happen in any other walk of life. Whatever about criticising the unions, I can understand where that's coming from, criticising the individuals however? That's weak.

And this is where the crux of my point lies, there are people who want world rugby to change the current rules when that would be disadvantageous to them as it would lower the quality of rugby and it would be harmful to players quality of life, they want unions to only pick born and bred players when that won't happen and it would be harmful to players quality of life and they want players to risk their careers and livelihoods for national pride? It's dumb and impractical at best and borderline inhumane at worst. Whether we like it or not world rugby is a business, and a good one that allows it's employees plenty of different routes to achieve a high quality of life. A byproduct of this is international games not being 23 full blooded native XV but it is definitely better than the reverse.
 
You missed my point entirely on Stander, nice needless dig at a small country massively outperforming yours sincerely CJ started playing international rugby though!

As for the rest. Why do players want to play international rugby? It's the pinnacle of their field of work, most people want to get there.

Are players getting paid more for playing internationally? Yes, except for maybe France, I'm not sure what their appearance fees are.

Did Dell, Maitland etc... Grow up wanting to play for Scotland over their countries of birth? No, were they aware that they were eligible and know it was an option. Yeah, how do you think the SRU found out they were eligible.



I had to take this point in isolation because it's so ******* stupid. Rugby are these players' livelihoods, you want them to tough it out where they're under appreciated and under valued when there is better opportunities elsewhere.

I'm being hyperbolic here but this reads the same way as saying "any individual emigrant in Ireland's mass emmigration during the 1980's recession years couldn't deal with rejection and unemployment so they pussied out and went somewhere else".

You're saying these guys don't fight to get to the top? Most of them move half way around the world and become better players to play at the top. When Stander moved he couldn't break into Munster's starting team behind a guy who has one Ireland cap to his name, but he was given opportunities to play in the position he wanted to play, something that was not open to him in Pretoria and all the while he was earning more money and him and his wife were living in better conditions. And the guy fought so hard he literally hit the top this year by being a mainstay in 2018's most successful rugby team. You're happy to call that guy a pussy?
A quick look at Dell shows he didn't just get catapulted to the Scottish team either, he debuted two years after arrival, there must have been a bit of a fight for him too.

This is my problem, you're criticising men and calling them insulting names for doing what is best for them and their families. This would not happen in any other walk of life. Whatever about criticising the unions, I can understand where that's coming from, criticising the individuals however? That's weak.

And this is where the crux of my point lies, there are people who want world rugby to change the current rules when that would be disadvantageous to them as it would lower the quality of rugby and it would be harmful to players quality of life, they want unions to only pick born and bred players when that won't happen and it would be harmful to players quality of life and they want players to risk their careers and livelihoods for national pride? It's dumb and impractical at best and borderline inhumane at worst. Whether we like it or not world rugby is a business, and a good one that allows it's employees plenty of different routes to achieve a high quality of life. A byproduct of this is international games not being 23 full blooded native XV but it is definitely better than the reverse.

I think we're speaking past one another, because I agree with you on their livelihoods as professional players, but the money isn't for international appearances, it's for Club appearance. Why else do all the top players move to France/UK where they get paid better, but still feature for their home country like so many guys do.

I have no problem whatsoever with Stander playing for Munster. I'm actually advocating that all our guys should go abroad where the big bucks are. I have an issue with him representing Ireland. Especially when he proudly sang the South African National Anthem as a 20 year old and there are interviews of him saying he wants to be a springbok.

It's again about patriotism and for a guy that was brought up as an Afrikaans Boerseun, with our unique culture representing any other country apart from SA is exactly my point that they are Mercs.
 
Although Pichot is shooting from the hip a bit you have to appreciate that he has a point.

Take England: We have Brad Shields who always wanted to play for NZ (up until a year ago), Ben Teo who actually played for New Zealand (in league) and Nathan Hughes who should be playing for Fiji. I would be more than happy if all these players were dropped and didn't play for England again.

Ok Manu Tuilagi could play for Samoa but he came here at a young age and went through his education here, same with the Vinipola brothers but the likes of Shield's and Teo are mercs. Now I don't blame them as they have a living to make but its too easy to switch allegiance and it needs to change.
 
I think we're speaking past one another, because I agree with you on their livelihoods as professional players, but the money isn't for international appearances, it's for Club appearance. Why else do all the top players move to France/UK where they get paid better, but still feature for their home country like so many guys do.

I have no problem whatsoever with Stander playing for Munster. I'm actually advocating that all our guys should go abroad where the big bucks are. I have an issue with him representing Ireland. Especially when he proudly sang the South African National Anthem as a 20 year old and there are interviews of him saying he wants to be a springbok.

It's again about patriotism and for a guy that was brought up as an Afrikaans Boerseun, with our unique culture representing any other country apart from SA is exactly my point that they are Mercs.
In Ireland he's paid by the IRFU, he'd have to go to France, play far more games in a season and learn another language to make as much I think.

Apart from that I see where you're coming from, I don't really agree but neither of us are going to change our minds.

Although Pichot is shooting from the hip a bit you have to appreciate that he has a point.

Take England: We have Brad Shields who always wanted to play for NZ (up until a year ago), Ben Teo who actually played for New Zealand (in league) and Nathan Hughes who should be playing for Fiji. I would be more than happy if all these players were dropped and didn't play for England again.

Ok Manu Tuilagi could play for Samoa but he came here at a young age and went through his education here, same with the Vinipola brothers but the likes of Shield's and Teo are mercs. Now I don't blame them as they have a living to make but its too easy to switch allegiance and it needs to change.

Can I ask you, or anyone not singling this out, what the change should be? The grandparent rule has to stay because it'd be illegal in places for it not to be in place, the living period is five years now, that's a very common period to obtain citizenship worldwide, can rugby really be stricter? As I've pointed out above a "gentleman's agreement" isn't fair on players trying to earn a living. Taking it on a case by case basis is impossible. Change just isn't practical or possible in my opinion.
 
In Ireland he's paid by the IRFU, he'd have to go to France, play far more games in a season and learn another language to make as much I think.

Apart from that I see where you're coming from, I don't really agree but neither of us are going to change our minds.



Can I ask you, or anyone not singling this out, what the change should be? The grandparent rule has to stay because it'd be illegal in places for it not to be in place, the living period is five years now, that's a very common period to obtain citizenship worldwide, can rugby really be stricter? As I've pointed out above a "gentleman's agreement" isn't fair on players trying to earn a living. Taking it on a case by case basis is impossible. Change just isn't practical or possible in my opinion.

5 years is a good start point but I would make it 7 for Tier 1 nations. No parents rule, so Brad you have an English mother? Well tough if you really want to play for England get over there, pay some taxes become part of the culture and sit your citizenship, otherwise keep following your real dream of playing in black.
 
Oh god does this debate never end, always seems to crop up every 6 months or so!

As everyone has said, the figures are very misleading and pretty much always need extra context - especially when it comes to the "Home" nations.

Simple fact is people move around the UK a lot, and marry and start families with partners from other countries within the UK, so it's always going to skew the numbers.

As others have said, North is a perfect example of someone who sums up the flaws of just listing anyone born outside the country they represent as "foreign born" - he's a fluent Welsh speaking product of the Welsh rugby system who has spent nearly all of his life in Wales, but happened to be born in England.

Ross Moriarty however probably perfectly sums up how complicated it can get between the Home Nations - born in England to Welsh parents while his dad (a dual-code Welsh international) was playing rugby league there, moved back to Wales at a young age where he was educated until he was around 16/17, when he went to Hartbury College in England, and was signed by Gloucester in 2012.

Played age grade for England between 2012 and 2014 (and won the U20s World Cup with them in 2014), but then ended up being called into the Welsh senior squad ahead of the 2015 World Cup who he's played for every since.

Perfectly eligible to play for both, and probably was always gonna lead to the debates about "poaching" etc no matter who he chose, but it's hard to see him as a "foreign" player for Wales.

Not really. Objectively it's just different (you can switch in senior after a friendly but you can't if say, you played a tournament in u16s).

Not quite true, as you do see the players switch around after playing for age grade sides. The only point that you cannot switch is after a competitive game at a FIFA tournament / qualifier for a tournament.

Seen it quite a lot while following Wales in football, as we have a very small pool of Welsh born players to choose from, so generally you'll see players in the squad who qualify via parents/grandparents - some of which may have played for England/Scotland/N.I. age grade sides in the past.

Fairly sure that the FA's of Wales, England, Scotland and N.I. actually have an extra layer of rules on top of the FIFA ones however- for example Scotland can't call up a Spanish player who's played for a Scottish club for 5 years, despite him being ok to play via the residency rules set by FIFA.
 
5 years is a good start point but I would make it 7 for Tier 1 nations. No parents rule, so Brad you have an English mother? Well tough if you really want to play for England get over there, pay some taxes become part of the culture and sit your citizenship, otherwise keep following your real dream of playing in black.
I highly doubt that could be legally enforceable though, I'd be near certain it isn't tbh.

Remove residence and say you have to have a passport/be a citizen?
Again, citizenship can be obtained in the UK, Ireland and tonnes of other countries after 5 years and as little as 2 in Argentina and Australia, that'd make the playing field less even.
 

Latest posts

Top