With the recent debate after a kid has played 45 minutes of good football for United and now the press are pissing their pants, I wondered what everyones views were on what the criteria should be for a player to play for a national team.

 

Should it be place of birth? Parents nationality? Grandparents nationality? Born in one country but schooled in another? Residency in a country for 5 years?

 

For me you should hold some affinity for the nation that you are going to represent, so I would say that as long as you had lived in that nation from before the age of 10 then that should qualify you. Anything else is not acceptable in my opinion.

Whatever passport you hold should be the nation you represent. 

Whatever passport you hold should be the nation you represent. 

 

This is way too simplistic an answer; it definitely has to be considered on a deeper level than that.

 

With the increase in children having parents from 2 different nationalities (often many more than that, as their parents may even have dual nationalities), you have to think more about individual examples and identify where they stand. For example, if someone has a British passport as they were born in England, but also have citizenship or nationality pertaining to a different country based on one or both parents, or grandparents, being from that other country - as they have full rights to attain nationality or citizenship for the other country, you could argue that they must also have the right to ultimately represent that country, for example, in International football.

 

Technically this person could have a passport for each country, but in the event they only had a British passport, they could still travel as a British Citizen, but at the same time represent the other nationality in sporting terms due to their official nationality and citizenship. 

 

It makes more sense IMO to think about the answer on a more wide question of 'identity', and whatever that means. Ultimately, it's whatever the individual, or collective, defines that to be (e.g. 5 years residence? Country of birth? Heritage?). 

 

Take for example, the case of Owen Hargreaves. By shedpensioner's logic, he shouldn't have been allowed to represent England, as he spent most of the first 10 years of his life in his birth nation Canada, then only spent 6 years of his teens in the UK before moving to Germany. He qualified due to a combination of his parents both being British and his years as a resident in the UK. 

 

So many players nowadays swap allegiances for various reasons (Ibrahimovic, Moses, Podolski spring to mind), that I don't think there'll ever be a definite answer to this question.

 

To that end, the answer must be considered to be more complex than just one of the following: playing for the country for which you have a passport, or your country of birth, or your country of residence etc...  

 

 

 

 

 

You shouldn't be allowed to play for your national team if you have set foot outside the country - I am sick of these imperial European bar stewards once again pillaging what they perceive to be 'lesser' countries of all their virgin fruits. Down with neocolonialism!

 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

This is way too simplistic an answer; it definitely has to be considered on a deeper level than that.  

 

Actually I went with that solution because of it's simplicity.

 

Too often in football the rules are unclear due to their ambiguity so my reasoning is strip it right down to the most simple solution.

 

What country do you represent at international level? The one you hold a passport for.

 

If you hold a British passport but want to represent Nigeria/Russia or whoever due to you parents/grandparents then apply for the relevant passport and and then you can play for that nation.

Place of birth, or parents. Thats it.

The FA's touting for that kid is utterly pathetic and really embarrassing.

Place of birth, or parents. Thats it.

The FA's touting for that kid is utterly pathetic and really embarrassing.

 

The problem is the FA or whoever gives out a senior appearance that effectively then ties that player to playing for that nation regardless of if they develop to be good enough or not.

 

They've done it with Raheem Sterling and Wilfred Zaha recently, neither of them really deserved a senior call up but now they've played for England should they progress and become better players they are eligible. 

This is way too simplistic an answer; it definitely has to be considered on a deeper level than that.

 

With the increase in children having parents from 2 different nationalities (often many more than that, as their parents may even have dual nationalities), you have to think more about individual examples and identify where they stand. For example, if someone has a British passport as they were born in England, but also have citizenship or nationality pertaining to a different country based on one or both parents, or grandparents, being from that other country - as they have full rights to attain nationality or citizenship for the other country, you could argue that they must also have the right to ultimately represent that country, for example, in International football.

 

Technically this person could have a passport for each country, but in the event they only had a British passport, they could still travel as a British Citizen, but at the same time represent the other nationality in sporting terms due to their official nationality and citizenship. 

 

It makes more sense IMO to think about the answer on a more wide question of 'identity', and whatever that means. Ultimately, it's whatever the individual, or collective, defines that to be (e.g. 5 years residence? Country of birth? Heritage?). 

 

Take for example, the case of Owen Hargreaves. By shedpensioner's logic, he shouldn't have been allowed to represent England, as he spent most of the first 10 years of his life in his birth nation Canada, then only spent 6 years of his teens in the UK before moving to Germany. He qualified due to a combination of his parents both being British and his years as a resident in the UK. 

 

So many players nowadays swap allegiances for various reasons (Ibrahimovic, Moses, Podolski spring to mind), that I don't think there'll ever be a definite answer to this question.

 

To that end, the answer must be considered to be more complex than just one of the following: playing for the country for which you have a passport, or your country of birth, or your country of residence etc...  

 

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

 

My criteria is a minimum, not the be all and end all.

 

The minimum requirement for me is that you have lived in the country you are choosing since the age of 10, in the case of parents who are that nationality then that would give you nationality of that country also, so therefore you could choose that country.

 

The one I am uncomfortable with is the residency, so after 5 years you could pick a country, IMO that could lead to players being hired to play for a certain country.

 

Lets take this United player, he has no real affinity to England, he just plays his football for United. What if the FA said to him, we'll pay you a million a year until your elligible to play for us if you sign here to say you will?

 

If that starts to become the norm it will be another nail in the coffin of national football.

Actually I went with that solution because of it's simplicity.

 

Too often in football the rules are unclear due to their ambiguity so my reasoning is strip it right down to the most simple solution.

 

What country do you represent at international level? The one you hold a passport for.

 

If you hold a British passport but want to represent Nigeria/Russia or whoever due to you parents/grandparents then apply for the relevant passport and and then you can play for that nation.

 

You've just proven my point.

 

Even the solution you propose, that the person's passport determines who they can play for, is a potential headache for whoever decides whether that person is eligible. Someone could, for example, emigrate to England, after so many years claim citizenship, and then eventually be eligible for a British passport (with no prior connection to the UK), giving the relevant bodies the same issue as to whether they should or shouldn't be eligible to play for England.  

 

The point I'm making is it's too complex a situation to ever be able to just 'strip it right down to the most simple solution'. 

Whatever passport you hold should be the nation you represent. 

 

 

Your passport says "British" as your nationality! (Unless you;'re from Eire)  Though by next year it may be possible to have a Scottish passport.

Your passport says "British" as your nationality! (Unless you;'re from Eire)  Though by next year it may be possible to have a Scottish passport.

 

Stop splitting hairs woman.... 

No brainer - country of birth - end of discussion.

No brainer - country of birth - end of discussion.

 

What if you were born on an army base outside of the country of your nationality like Jack Reacher?!

I think I agree with forevercarefree, if a player qualifies for legal citizenship of a country then that's got to be sufficient to play football for them.

I think I agree with forevercarefree, if a player qualifies for legal citizenship of a country then that's got to be sufficient to play football for them.

 

How would you feel if Arteta played for England? He can apply for citizenship of Britain.

 

Edit: Surely we should be asking for more than just citizenship.

Edited October 9, 201312 yr by shedpensioner

How would you feel if Arteta played for England? He can apply for citizenship of Britain.

 

Edit: Surely we should be asking for more than just citizenship.

 

I guess that's the point I'm trying to make, even by 'simplifying' it down to just citizenship/passport produces the same questions as to whether the person should be eligible. 

How would you feel if Arteta played for England? He can apply for citizenship of Britain.

 

Edit: Surely we should be asking for more than just citizenship.

 

If he identifies with country enough to want to represent us at international level, then why not?

If he identifies with country enough to want to represent us at international level, then why not?

 

As long as you're happy with that vote for it, there is no right or wrong, just opinion.

 

I'm just curious as to how people think on the subject.

Hitchin's finest Jack Wilshere has graced us all with his particularly enlightened point of view:

 

"If you live in England for five years it doesn't make you English."

 

"The only people who should play for England are English people."

 

Thanks for that Jack, just the level of nuance I would expect from a nightclub-dwelling Hertfordshire honky.

 

 

 

"If I went to Spain and lived there for five years, I'm not going to play for Spain."

 

Well you can certainly say that again...

What if you were born on an army base outside of the country of your nationality like Jack Reacher?!

 

Army bases are de facto sovereign territory of the country the army belongs to.  However, if Reacher was born outside of the base, but while his family were based overseas, then he would take the nationality of his parents.  Same as if your woman dropped one while clubbing it up in Magaluf.

Army bases are de facto sovereign territory of the country the army belongs to.  However, if Reacher was born outside of the base, but while his family were based overseas, then he would take the nationality of his parents.  Same as if your woman dropped one while clubbing it up in Magaluf.

 

Fairly sure Reacher was born on a German army base to an American father and French mother but is an American citizen.

 

(Does it show I've read most the books...)

Doesn't matter to me.  It's all just arbitrary lines on a map.  Someone born in Ghana, moved to England as a baby, knowing no other culture, is no less English than I am as far as I'm concerned.  I don't really see why an attribute determined by an accident of birth has any relevance to football.  If you met someone born in London, but raised entirely in Uruguay to the point that they couldn't even speak English - would you consider them English or Uruguayan?  

 

Besides, considering how sh*t our national team is we could do with sneaking some talent in from abroad if we play with semantics a bit. 

How would you feel if Arteta played for England? He can apply for citizenship of Britain.

 

Edit: Surely we should be asking for more than just citizenship.

 

I'd honestly love to see him in the England team. As far as I'm concerned, if he's legally considered a UK citizen then with all the benefits and responsibilities that entails it should more than qualify him to kick a ball around on a pitch on our behalf.

Edited October 9, 201312 yr by bluedave

When you look at the England Rugby or Cricket teams they are full of South Africans, Kiwis etc but I don't get a sense of the fans thinking they don't deserve to represents us.

 

There is something about our football team though that has almost an air of snobbery (for want of a better word) about it and we always seem to be trying to keep the English game "pure" talking down on the johnny foreigners ruining our game. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that Rugby and Cricket have the same rules in terms of 'foreign' players as football, don't they either have to have a parent or grandparent or have fulfilled the residency rules to play for that country?

 

It's got nothing to do with anyone ruining the game, I'm just asking the question, I personally would rather play for a country that I had some affinity to, in my case England, however I could through my Grandad play for Wales, do I feel Welsh, not for a minute, nor do I feel French, German or Mongolian, however if I fulfilled theri residency rules I could play sport for them.

 

Would I want to, probably not, unless there was financial reward in it for me.