Re: If a player isn't born in a country, should he be allowed to play for it?

by DeletedUser#1 Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:31 pm

You should be eligible to play for countries in which:

- You are Born AND Raised

- Your IMMEDIATE parents (mom and dad) are from. (You have blood ties with)

by Forza Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:56 pm

Natalie Portman wrote:You should be eligible to play for countries in which:

- You are Born AND Raised

- Your IMMEDIATE parents (mom and dad) are from. (You have blood ties with)

Scenario: Both of your parents immigrated to the USA as children and became US citizens. One parent came from Portugal, the other parent came from Spain. Your 4 grandparents were born in Italy, Croatia, Luxembourg and Morocco, respectively. You are born while your parents are living in Thailand. Your parents divorce and your mother remarries a man from Egypt. You live with them as a child growing up. You go to Primary School in Japan, you go to High School in South Korea. You are enrolled in football academies in both of these countries. You join a football club in China and play professionally for the first time in the Chinese League. You then join a club in France and become a French citizen. You then join a club in Belgium and become a Belgian citizen. In the meantime, your mother and step-father have separated and one has become a citizen of Australia, whilst the other has become a citizen of Russia. Your biological father went to live in Buenos Aires after the divorce and has since become a citizen of Argentina. Except he isn't your biological father. While playing in Belgium, you discover that you were adopted and your biological mother and father are from India and Nepal, respectively. And you were actually born in Kazakhstan.

How many countries are you eligible to play for? Which ones? Why/why not?

by DeletedUser#1 Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:08 pm

India, Nepal , Kazakhstan.

Though, I am sure someone who is the product of India-Nepal, won't look anything like Spanish or portuegse Very Happy

by Forza Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:11 pm

The countries are arbitrary. But I think the conclusion you have reached goes against your rules. What about all the countries in which the person is raised?

Also, everyone else should have a shot at the scenario and see where they draw the line. :coffee:

by ExtremistEnigma Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:12 pm

Natalie Portman wrote:You should be eligible to play for countries in which:

- You are Born AND Raised

- Your IMMEDIATE parents (mom and dad) are from. (You have blood ties with)

This sounds perfect to me.. except I'd like to make a slight correction in the first eligibility criteria. Raised and stayed for atleast 5 years in a country different from your country of birth before you turned 18 (even if it takes less than 5 years to become a naturalized citizen of that country).

So in the above case.. India, Nepal and Kazakhtan for sure.

This is a rational explanation, but ultimately it depends upon the individual. One might feel more attached to a country different to the one where he or she was raised and holds citizenship of.

by Onyx Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:26 pm

Forza wrote:
Natalie Portman wrote:You should be eligible to play for countries in which:

- You are Born AND Raised

- Your IMMEDIATE parents (mom and dad) are from. (You have blood ties with)
Scenario: Both of your parents immigrated to the USA as children and became US citizens. One parent came from Portugal, the other parent came from Spain. Your 4 grandparents were born in Italy, Croatia, Luxembourg and Morocco, respectively. You are born while your parents are living in Thailand. Your parents divorce and your mother remarries a man from Egypt. You live with them as a child growing up. You go to Primary School in Japan, you go to High School in South Korea. You are enrolled in football academies in both of these countries. You join a football club in China and play professionally for the first time in the Chinese League. You then join a club in France and become a French citizen. You then join a club in Belgium and become a Belgian citizen. In the meantime, your mother and step-father have separated and one has become a citizen of Australia, whilst the other has become a citizen of Russia. Your biological father went to live in Buenos Aires after the divorce and has since become a citizen of Argentina. Except he isn't your biological father. While playing in Belgium, you discover that you were adopted and your biological mother and father are from India and Nepal, respectively. And you were actually born in Kazakhstan.

How many countries are you eligible to play for? Which ones? Why/why not?

In this situation the only countries considered should be the ones you lived in. Where your father/mother lived/is a citizen doesn't matter.

In terms of determining which country you should play for, well it could be any from the following, since equal time was spent in each. France and Belgium can't be considered, because you moved there later in life.

Kazakhstan
Egypt
Japan
South Korea

From there Kazakhstan makes the most sense, since that's where you were born and it's part of Asia.

by Kaladin Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:27 pm

I'd have to agree with BC's take on this, who're we to say say which country a player should play for? It's the individual's decision to recognize himself to whichever country he feels his identity relates to. It can be a place where he has history with (Studied in, born in or and developed in) or the place where he holds citizenship, or even his where his parents are from (Being blood related and all) As long as the 'said' country acknowledges him

Of course, choosing a country is an entirely subjective decision. The scenario that Forza said, is quite hectic lol. But its up to the individual and the country, depends on whatever he feels most affiliated to and if the country is willing on him.

by DuringTheWar Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:37 pm

Nationality means jack sh*t to some people (as we see in this thread)

For me personally, its about being part of the countries culture. If you identify with the culture fine (most lenient scenario for this id say is moving to the country at a young age and growing up/being immersed in the culture there). Otherwise, fck no.

by Forza Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:01 pm

From the first few responses to my scenario, I think it's interesting that Kazakhstan, India and Nepal were said to be eligible by everyone even though the person potentially hasn't found out that they were born there until their 30s and may know nothing about those countries or their biological parents. Even more interesting is that the country that the person thought they were born in until now, Thailand, doesn't even rate a mention in the responses and nor do the countries of origin of the people who adopted him, Spain and Portugal. I thought people might say the USA, since that was the citizenship of his parents at the time of his birth. So it was surprising that nobody mentioned that. Equally surprising to me was that Belguim, the country of the person's current citizenship, was not mentioned.

Anyway, it's unfair for me to snipe from the sidelines and not put my opinion out there for judgement. Honestly, what I am attempting to portray in the scenario is a person with a very confusing and conflicted identity, as far as nationality is concerned. Isn't every line arbitrary? Conversely, it would be farfetched to consider a Francophile who was born and raised in England and had never left the country other than for short holidays eligible to play for France - even if he identifies with French culture more so than English culture. So from that perspective, there do need to be limits.

However, what I think is most important about national team football is that once you are in an adult team, you cannot change your allegiance. I believe that it is this rule that serves to maintain the integrity of national team football and that it is this rule that distinguishes national team football from club competition. That is really the issue at the heart of this discussion.

by BORUSSIA!! Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:15 pm

Natalie Portman wrote:You should be eligible to play for countries in which:

- You are Born OR Raised

- Your IMMEDIATE parents (mom and dad) are from. (You have blood ties with)

Fixed

by Gil Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:47 pm

Natalie Portman wrote:You should be eligible to play for countries in which:

- You are Born AND Raised

- Your IMMEDIATE parents (mom and dad) are from. (You have blood ties with)

Replace and with Or and this is my viewpoint on the entire matter.

If that makes me a member of the EDL...so be it.

Might as well scrap. International football completely if a *bleep* like Diego Costa is claiming he's Spanish.

by Lex Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:08 pm

Remember when Almunia stated that he would love to play for England and the media (and people on here) tore him apart because he wasn't English? Rolling Eyes

by Highburied Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:14 pm

As long as someone is eligible to join the army of a nation, he may as well play for that nation.

Wilshere should start walk to walk, and stop talk to talk.

by Casciavit Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:45 pm

BORUSSIA!! wrote:
Natalie Portman wrote:You should be eligible to play for countries in which:

- You are Born OR Raised

- Your IMMEDIATE parents (mom and dad) are from. (You have blood ties with)
Fixed

by punkfusion1992 Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:19 pm

I think you should be allowed to choose once. If you feel you are more one country at 18 and you play for their youth team, you should not allowed to choose another. You shouldnt be allowed to play for a country's U-21 and then decide, hey i dont feel attached to that country, because then that country has invested in your youth development and you betray them by choosing another country

Think of Asmir Begovic for example, he played for Canada in the U-20s and then goes and plays for Bosnia? Like that is not fair for the Canadian national team, that they develop his skills and give him international experience and he just dips to another nation, albeit the nation he was born in, when he gets more experience

by zigra Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:59 pm

punkfusion1992 wrote:I think you should be allowed to choose once. If you feel you are more one country at 18 and you play for their youth team, you should not allowed to choose another. You shouldnt be allowed to play for a country's U-21 and then decide, hey i dont feel attached to that country, because then that country has invested in your youth development and you betray them by choosing another country

Think of Asmir Begovic for example, he played for Canada in the U-20s and then goes and plays for Bosnia? Like that is not fair for the Canadian national team, that they develop his skills and give him international experience and he just dips to another nation, albeit the nation he was born in, when he gets more experience

But it's like that in life? Just one example: In Germay in theory I can go to school for 12+ years and study for another 5+ years while I even GET money from the state so I don't have to work while I study. So the country paid for nearly 20 years of my education - they invested heavily in me - and yet I can just leave.
Why is that different? Or do you think one shouldn't leave a country that paid for his education?

by punkfusion1992 Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:05 pm

zigra wrote:
punkfusion1992 wrote:I think you should be allowed to choose once. If you feel you are more one country at 18 and you play for their youth team, you should not allowed to choose another. You shouldnt be allowed to play for a country's U-21 and then decide, hey i dont feel attached to that country, because then that country has invested in your youth development and you betray them by choosing another country

Think of Asmir Begovic for example, he played for Canada in the U-20s and then goes and plays for Bosnia? Like that is not fair for the Canadian national team, that they develop his skills and give him international experience and he just dips to another nation, albeit the nation he was born in, when he gets more experience
But it's like that in life? Just one example: In Germay in theory I can go to school for 12+ years and study for another 5+ years while I even GET money from the state so I don't have to work while I study. So the country paid for nearly 20 years of my education - they invested heavily in me - and yet I can just leave.
Why is that different? Or do you think one shouldn't leave a country that paid for his education?

Well thats the thing right. Fifa laws are that if you play an official match, then you cant change. All I am saying is that if you play an official match regardless of the level, for a country, then you should be bound to that country. Its a simple change to the what is already established.

by Ganso Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:15 pm

Player should either be born or live for at least 7-10 years in this country to be able to play for them.Or else international football would just lose a lot of its charm.Anyone who follows futsal know what im talking about.

Diego Costa playing for Spain is ridiculous.Complete glory hunting."He should play for spain if he feels Spanish"..what an utter joke

by Lord Awesome Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:11 pm

Giu told us that it's one's own ideals that decide what one wants to be afilliated with. Some are nationalistic others are beneficial. Either way, I'm starting to feel less judgemental about it. Doesn't mean I like it either, though.

by LeBéninois Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:37 pm

The Awesome wrote:Giu told us that it's one's own ideals that decide what one wants to be afilliated with. Some are nationalistic others are beneficial. Either way, I'm starting to feel less judgemental about it. Doesn't mean I like it either, though.

Players should do what they want. For instance if you study in a country for years , let's say from 5 to 25 , and then you go away and start making money and paying taxes elsewhere ... is that '' fair '' ? No. Are we going to judge ? No.
Players should play for the country they want if they have the possibility even if it's only for benefits.

by Lord Awesome Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:56 pm

Bénin wrote:Players should do what they want. For instance if you study in a country for years , let's say from 5 to 25 , and then you go away and start making money and paying taxes elsewhere ... is that '' fair '' ? No. Are we going to judge ? No.
Players should play for the country they want if they have the possibility even if it's only for benefits.

Fair enough. But then it wouldn't be fair.

This is what's happening in Concacaf right now. Mexico, as we all know, have a decent amount of money in their league, and thus have a lot of foreign players in their league and ultimately in their current NT. Panama on the other hand, don't have much money to buy quality players outside of Panama. Now I ask, outside of Panamanian's themselves, "Who want's to play in Panama?" "Who want's to play for Panama?" I'm pretty sure the idea itself is very unattractive or outlandish to many footballers in the world, especially those countries who are in the elite in football.

To me, that's what Naturalizing does to teams like Panama. It creates inbalance to NT Football. That's why I don't like it.

by punkfusion1992 Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:08 pm

Ganso wrote:Player should either be born or live for at least 7-10 years in this country to be able to play for them.Or else international football would just lose a lot of its charm.Anyone who follows futsal know what im talking about.

Diego Costa playing for Spain is ridiculous.Complete glory hunting."He should play for spain if he feels Spanish"..what an utter joke

I am completely with you on the Diego Costa issue. I mean the guy has played a friendly with the senior team, soon we will go back to the 50s when Di Stefano played for Columbia, Argentina and Spain.

by Ganso Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:21 pm

punkfusion1992 wrote:
Ganso wrote:Player should either be born or live for at least 7-10 years in this country to be able to play for them.Or else international football would just lose a lot of its charm.Anyone who follows futsal know what im talking about.

Diego Costa playing for Spain is ridiculous.Complete glory hunting."He should play for spain if he feels Spanish"..what an utter joke
I am completely with you on the Diego Costa issue. I mean the guy has played a friendly with the senior team, soon we will go back to the 50s when Di Stefano played for Columbia, Argentina and Spain.

Thats what Scolari said, and I am with him.

Im fine with cases like Klose,Cacau and even Thiago, but i find Diego Costa's case a disgrace really, because its 100% glory hunting. 0 feelings toward Spain and Im sure he isnt the only one.Im sure thiago would chose Brazil if Spain weren't at their current level

by BarrileteCosmico Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:38 pm

Ganso wrote:Diego Costa playing for Spain is ridiculous.Complete glory hunting."He should play for spain if he feels Spanish"..what an utter joke

Do you know him? Has he specifically told you he does not feel Spanish? I agree that it's likely that he feels more Brazilian than Spanish - but we shouldn't make judgements about things we know nothing about. People ought to have a right to self-identify and the benefit of the doubt.

by Ganso Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:57 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:
Ganso wrote:Diego Costa playing for Spain is ridiculous.Complete glory hunting."He should play for spain if he feels Spanish"..what an utter joke
Do you know him? Has he specifically told you he does not feel Spanish? I agree that it's likely that he feels more Brazilian than Spanish - but we shouldn't make judgements about things we know nothing about. People ought to have a right to self-identify and the benefit of the doubt.

He played for us a few months ago, and when you put that shirt on it means "Im Brazilian and I feel Brazilian", i dont even need to know him to be sure that he is a gloryhunter.

You dont change your nationality in 2 months

by Lex Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:13 am

Addressing what Ganso said, being able to change national teams even after playing in international friendlies is a joke

by Sponsored content