Pichot's message

[McTallshort]

I highly doubt that could be legally enforceable though, I'd be near certain it isn't tbh.


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.

How? Argentina have very little imported players anyway and Australia isn't the easiest place to migrate too.

Look we (England) need to stop exploiting rules that are actually there to help developing nations. We do the same with immigration, "oh we need to get doctors from Africa to help the NHS!" What? We are the worlds 5th biggest economy with an established education system. We should be sending doctors to Africa not nicking all theirs. Same with Rugby players: we have a huge player base and we should finding solutions to why we cannot produce great players not nicking them from elsewhere.

 

[Which Tyler]

Remove residence and say you have to have a passport/be a citizen?

Sorry - but that's always an utterly stupid suggestion. It HAS to be one rule for everyone; not different rules depending on where you're going to or from. I can see an argument for different rules for switching between tiers - but I'm far from convinced by any of them.
But to say citizenship/nationality, you'd have to have all countries having the same rules for that - which isn't the case. So an Englishman could become Scottish based on half an hour; either could become French based on 4 years (but person B from Cote D'Ivoire could become French in a couple of hours) and neither could ever become German... that's just silly in the extreme.

Personally, now the residency has increase to 5 years, and U20s doesn't tie you; I don't really have a problem with therules as they are - I'd like to see the Grandparent rule being taken down to 2 Grandparents; but parentage is absolutly fine. As is economic migration - regardless of when it happens, so long as it's not with the express purpose of switching a nationality - and 5 years residency pretty much takes care of that.
Yes, there will still be situations like Shields that don't sit right - but any catch-all rule that excludes someone with 2 English parents from feeling English (or whatever else) is just flying in the face of the modern world.

Of course, any tightening up of parent/grandparent rules will cripple the PI nations in pretty short order - which I'm pretty confident isn't the result most people are looking for.

 

[dullonien]

I think this all goes to show that nationality is incredibly complex, and will mean more/less to different people. An example I'd like to give:

A good mate of mine in university. He was born in Barry, S.Wales to a Welsh father and English mother. They moved to the USA when he was 2, and then moved to Kent at the age of 7, and has lived in England ever since. He's in his late 20's now, and one of the most passionately Welsh people I know. He put this solely down to the influence of his dad, who is similarly passionate about being Welsh.

I think this shows that including parentage in eligibility laws is important, because it can be incredibly influential. Yes he was born in Wales, but remembers none of it, and doesn't attribute this as a massive factor. Could just as easily have been born in America. Others in a similar position may identify as American or English depending on their influences.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I think u20s absolutely should tie you to the country, as well.
Any game representing a country should count, silly that it doesn't imo.

Can't complain about project players and then get rid of something that limits it.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Not quite true, as you do see the players switch around after playing for age grade sides.

Trueish.... only if they already had the nationality at the time of their first game for a national (junior) team. I posted a link to the relevant FIFA statutes.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

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.

The solution for me is a radical overhaul in rugby to remove the divide between the "haves" and "have nots". We don't get this sort of nonsense to the same extent in football or athletics - because those sports globally are a more even playing field. So I think you are right to identify that in the current set-up there isn't much scope for change. What might help is:

- aggressive support of professionalism in new countries so players can have careers without leaving home (rather than shutting down German professionalism on spurious grounds as happened recently)

- open access for other nations to NH & SH competitions based on merit, so that players from a wider range of nations have access to putting themselves in the shop window to earn lucrative club contracts. etc, etc

The above will not remove exploitation of grandparent rule, but it would further impact on residency. I'm no legal expert but I don't see why the grandparent rule should be legally binding in sports. It isn't in terms of citizenship. Post-Brexit I can't rock up in Italy and demand they let me in.

 

[bushytop]

The 5 year residency has just been introduced... let's see how that effects things before we throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The solution for me is a radical overhaul in rugby to remove the divide between the "haves" and "have nots". We don't get this sort of nonsense to the same extent in football or athletics - because those sports globally are a more even playing field. So I think you are right to identify that in the current set-up there isn't much scope for change. What might help is:

- aggressive support of professionalism in new countries so players can have careers without leaving home (rather than shutting down German professionalism on spurious grounds as happened recently)

- open access for other nations to NH & SH competitions based on merit, so that players from a wider range of nations have access to putting themselves in the shop window to earn lucrative club contracts. etc, etc

The above will not remove exploitation of grandparent rule, but it would further impact on residency. I'm no legal expert but I don't see why the grandparent rule should be legally binding in sports. It isn't in terms of citizenship. Post-Brexit I can't rock up in Italy and demand they let me in.

I agree with everything that in those first three paragraphs.

If you had an Irish grandparent you could do exactly that in Ireland, there are other places you can do it to. Hit up the high court in Ireland with a claim along the lines of "I'm an Irish citizen by birth right but I can't play for the country based on X rule" and you won't have too much trouble, it'd essentially be seen as discriminatory. I imagine this is why every international sport has the grandparent rule and why there was never any talk of extending the time of residency past 5 years.

There are wacky ways around it. FIBA's rule which only allows one player per roster who gained citizenship after the age of 16 is a good one but Basketball doesn't have rugby's unique problem where half of tier 1 nations' have a policy to only allow players playing club rugby in their own country to play for the national team. If the goal is to build tier 2 we can ignore examples like Stander and focus on ones like Raka though, you have to question what his incentive to hold out and play for France over playing for Fiji is, probably that he'll make more off one appearance for France than 100 for Fiji.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Hit up the high court in Ireland with a claim along the lines of "I'm an Irish citizen by birth right but I can't play for the country based on X rule" and you won't have too much trouble, it'd essentially be seen as discriminatory. I imagine this is why every international sport has the grandparent rule and why there was never any talk of extending the time of residency past 5 years.

Sorry, Alpha, it's the second time you mention this and i have to repeat the answer. Both things are just not true.

Sport associations can apply criteria that go above and beyond what the law states, and they do. Even local/provincial sport clubs do (Athletic Bilbao comes to mind).
And in many countries having had a grandparent doesn't give you the right to claim nationality. Argentina does not.

Another thing to consider: some countries have a different set of rights for nationals born there vs nationals born abroad.
Things can be done about this. It's not that black or white.

 

[ncurd]

Sport associations can apply criteria that go above and beyond what the law states, and they do.

Actually they can't and you would struggle very hard in any European country to stop someone who qualifies as as a citizen to not be called up as player.

Its never been tested in law as far as I know but I imagine you'll similar issues as to those in the following two rulings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolpak_ruling

I'm actually amazed no one has tested the RFU ruling of players playing in foreign leagues as problematic.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Actually they can't and you would struggle very hard in any European country to stop someone who qualifies as as a citizen to not be called up as player.

That is not true. FIFA has crystal clear eligibility rules that do not reconcile with what the law states. Messi has a Spanish passport and for every practical intent and purpose is a spanish citicen yet he could never, ever play for Spain officially. Ever.
Following your logic he should be able to.

Here are two other concrete and down two earths counter examples

1) ADAMA TRAORE CONFIRMED INELIGIBLE FOR SOCCEROOS

"Under current FIFA regulations, Adama Traore will not be eligible for the Socceroos upon becoming an Australian citizen due to his participation in official matches for the Ivory Coast youth national teams at a time when he did not have an Australian citizenship," a FFA spokesperson told the Herald Sun.

Source: https://www.ftbl.com.au/news/adama-traore-confirmed-ineligible-for-socceroos-359269

So basically, for all legal purposes, Adama was an Australian citizen yet he couldn't represent his country (which is exacty what i said, i.e. diffent set of rules between standard legal work requirements and sports association).

2) SARU. I've got a few friends of mine that have small consulting firms in RSA and none of them has to comply with anything remotely close to what the South Afrian Rugby Union has to when they field their players.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Sorry, Alpha, it's the second time you mention this and i have to repeat the answer. Both things are just not true.

Sport associations can apply criteria that go above and beyond what the law states, and they do. Even local/provincial sport clubs do (Athletic Bilbao comes to mind).
And in many countries having had a grandparent doesn't give you the right to claim nationality. Argentina does not.

Another thing to consider: some countries have a different set of rights for nationals born there vs nationals born abroad.
Things can be done about this. It's not that black or white.

As ncurd says, they can't, they're employers and subject to employment law. I can think of two or three solid arguments in Irish employment law (essentially just EU employment law) that would probably see it deemed illegal.

Cases like Athletic Bilbao are oddities, it is probably illegal but it'd take a player being able to prove that they weren't given a job over a Basque player because they aren't Basque, that test case can't possibly come about for a multitude of reasons. This wouldn't be the case for the above considering the IRFU would likely back the test case. And you're still trying to deny players with the right to citizenship at birth playing for a country.

Ncurd, I reckon that's easy to get around as a clause of "you must be a permanent resident in the UK to take this position" is perfectly legal. Same as clauses for "Irish citizens only" which is the point of contention here but that won't stop the grandparent rule.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

That is not true. FIFA has crystal clear eligibility rules that do not reconcile with what the law states. Messi has a Spanish passport and for every practical intent and purpose is a spanish citicen yet he could never, ever play for Spain officially. Ever.
Following your logic he should be able to.

Here are two other concrete and down two earths counter examples

1) ADAMA TRAORE CONFIRMED INELIGIBLE FOR SOCCEROOS

"Under current FIFA regulations, Adama Traore will not be eligible for the Socceroos upon becoming an Australian citizen due to his participation in official matches for the Ivory Coast youth national teams at a time when he did not have an Australian citizenship," a FFA spokesperson told the Herald Sun.

Source: https://www.ftbl.com.au/news/adama-traore-confirmed-ineligible-for-socceroos-359269

So basically, for all legal purposes, Adama was an Australian citizen yet he couldn't represent his country (which is exacty what i said, i.e. diffent set of rules between standard legal work requirements and sports association).

2) SARU. I've got a few friends of mine that have small consulting firms in RSA and none of them has to comply with anything remotely close to what the South Afrian Rugby Union has to when they field their players.

You're not comparing like with like here Cruz, we're not talking about players changing nationality and that's what all of your examples rely on.

As for SARU, none of what they would do would stand in the EU and it's not a WR policy. It only takes one country to rule against a WR rule for them to be forced to change it rather than imposing an unfair playing field.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

You're not comparing like with like here Cruz, we're not talking about players changing nationality and that's what all of your examples rely on.

In order to switch unions you need to change/add a nationality at one point or another. That's the point.

I can think of two or three solid arguments in Irish employment law (essentially just EU employment law) that would probably see it deemed illegal.

Say that's the case, for argument's sake. FIFA then has the right not to invite that federation to the next tournament. End of.
For all practical purposes, which is what's at stake here, the player in question, even if he could/should be able to play as per European/Irish/Etc law, would never play if his case is against FIFA statutes.

A common way to test an argument is to take it to the extreme, see if it holds. Using your logic any player could switch whenever they want at whatever point in time claiming discrimination. I am pretty sure that would not work, not even close.

If what you say is true, that would mean that a pretty big part of FIFA statutes are just, well, useless.
If what you say is true, the Spanish Federation shouldn't have asked permission to FIFA to have Diego Costa play for them. They did and while the decision was pending, as per the statutes, Costa did not play.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

In order to switch unions you need to change/add a nationality at one point or another. That's the point.


Say that's the case, for argument's sake. FIFA then has the right not to invite that federation to the next tournament. End of.
For all practical purposes, which is what's at stake here, the player in question, even if he could/should be able to play as per European/Irish/Etc law, would never play if his case is against FIFA statutes.

A common way to test an argument is to take it to the extreme, see if it holds. Using your logic any player could switch whenever they want at whatever point in time claiming discrimination. I am pretty sure that would not work, not even close.

If what you say is true, that would mean that a pretty big part of FIFA statutes are just, well, useless.
If what you say is true, the Spanish Federation shouldn't have asked permission to FIFA to have Diego Costa play for them. They did and while the decision was pending, as per the statutes, Costa did not play.

You continue to write about switching nationalities and presenting fallacies while showing a clear lack of knowledge as to how the law works.

"A common way to test an argument is to take it to the extreme, see if it holds." This may be true for general arguments but not the law, it'd be a terrible way to form the law. The way the law is imposed in common law jurisdictions (1/2 of tier 1 nations are so it's very relevant) is to write a rule or law into legislation, it's interpreted by the judiciary as to how it's applied through cases presented to the courts and exceptions to the general rule are developed, eventually the legislation will be updated or ammended to reflect this or it will be changed if it becomes outdated or provided unsatisfactory results, wash, rinse, repeat. Switching international allegiance stopping a citizen playing for a certain country would be an exception to the general rule that citizens are entitled to play for their country and won't be considered an extreme to affect an area of the law universally. Any cases where a rare or specific incident results in a rule setting a wide precedent are widely criticised and quickly overruled.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Let's break it down, see exactly where we disagree.
Is it true that using your logic any player holding two nationalities should be legally able to change national sides at any time he wants.
Yes or no?

 

[Aristodemus]

I think u20s absolutely should tie you to the country, as well.
Any game representing a country should count, silly that it doesn't imo.

Can't complain about project players and then get rid of something that limits it.

Do you think that would result in players turning down u20's as a way of keeping options open? I'd agree it should tie you down too but it could have a side effect.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Do you think that would result in players turning down u20's as a way of keeping options open? I'd agree it should tie you down too but it could have a side effect.

Probably, but that's their choice to do so - Like Redpath/Moore turning down invitations to join up with Scotland/Wales because they want to play for England

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Let's break it down, see exactly where we disagree.
Is it true that using your logic any player holding two nationalities should be legally able to change national sides at any time he wants.
Yes or no?

No.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Ok, good. I do not understand your point then.
Reconcile that with this

a claim along the lines of "I'm an Irish citizen by birth right but I can't play for the country based on X rule" and you won't have too much trouble, it'd essentially be seen as discriminatory.