Parky vs. Immigration issues in International football caused by modern society

[CaliMag]

A Welsh child growing up in England from the same age is probably not going to have that sort of attachment to his place of birth. 

 

You mean like Ryan Giggs?

 

Well that's my point.  It depends on the loyalties of the individual, not the piece of paper.  Wasn't Michael Owen in the same boat? 

No. Owen is ethnically English.

[oldtype]

The thing I find so fantastic is that Poles would actually play for Gemrany at all.

 

How many Scots or Irish would play for England? None. I am ethnically Scottish, and eventhough my family has lived in Northumberland and Newcastle for 50 years - none of them would play for England... ever. And this is because of s*** that happened 300 to 500 years ago.

 

Meanwhile the Poles were deemed "subhuman," forced in slave labour and offered free sterilization by the "Master Race" just 60 years ago and yet you have players like Podolski and Klose playing for the Germans.

 

So either the Poles are just more forgiving people than the Celts or the Germans are just more likable than the English.

 

I am going with the Poles being less bitter personally. Obviously there's something different here.

 

I've actually been kind of amazed by that. I know, different situation and all, but if an ethnically Korean player ever played for Japan he'd be crucified in public opinion over here.

 

Same time frame as the Poles BTW. Subjegation by the Japanese is over hundreds of years but obviously culmniated during WWII - similar timeline and yet there they are.

 

no no no, subjugation by the Japanese was not over hundreds of years, probably over the course of half a century at most. It was just a case of their leaders being smart and opening doors to the west in the 19th century and our leaders being idiots and closing ourselves off. It kind of all went downhill from there but before that we were arguably in a much stronger position than Japan for most of our history.

 

Sorry, sensetive issue

[CaliMag]

The thing I find so fantastic is that Poles would actually play for Gemrany at all.

 

How many Scots or Irish would play for England? None. I am ethnically Scottish, and eventhough my family has lived in Northumberland and Newcastle for 50 years - none of them would play for England... ever. And this is because of s*** that happened 300 to 500 years ago.

 

Meanwhile the Poles were deemed "subhuman," forced in slave labour and offered free sterilization by the "Master Race" just 60 years ago and yet you have players like Podolski and Klose playing for the Germans.

 

So either the Poles are just more forgiving people than the Celts or the Germans are just more likable than the English.

 

I am going with the Poles being less bitter personally. Obviously there's something different here.

 

I've actually been kind of amazed by that. I know, different situation and all, but if an ethnically Korean player ever played for Japan he'd be crucified in public opinion over here.

 

Same time frame as the Poles BTW. Subjegation by the Japanese is over hundreds of years but obviously culmniated during WWII - similar timeline and yet there they are.

 

no no no, subjugation by the Japanese was not over hundreds of years, probably over the course of half a century at most. It was just a case of their leaders being smart and opening doors to the west in the 19th century and our leaders being idiots and closing ourselves off. It kind of all went downhill from there but before that we were arguably in a much stronger position than Japan for most of our history.

 

Sorry, sensetive issue

 

So I gather. 

[CaliMag]

A Welsh child growing up in England from the same age is probably not going to have that sort of attachment to his place of birth. 

 

You mean like Ryan Giggs?

 

Well that's my point.  It depends on the loyalties of the individual, not the piece of paper.  Wasn't Michael Owen in the same boat? 

No. Owen is ethnically English.

 

Owen actually proves my point in that he attended school in Wales but still played for England.

[Kaizero]

Why would the said player care though, if he really saw himself as more Japanese than Korean then surely he'd just laugh at you?

That would never happen though. That's the wierdness.

 

Because of the historic tension between the countries, it can't be anything else since they're happy to farm Brazilians to play for them.

[chicago_shearer]

A Welsh child growing up in England from the same age is probably not going to have that sort of attachment to his place of birth. 

 

You mean like Ryan Giggs?

 

Well that's my point.  It depends on the loyalties of the individual, not the piece of paper.  Wasn't Michael Owen in the same boat? 

No. Owen is ethnically English.

 

Owen actually proves my point in that he attended school in Wales but still played for England.

 

So Google tells me he was born in an English hospital across the border to English parents, but spent his entire childhood in Wales.  If he hadn't have been talented enough to get scouted by professional scouts at a relatively young age, it's entirely conceivable that he would have spent his life in Wales.  But he would never have been eligible to play for Wales, because there is no way to acquire Welsh 'citizenship' in the same way that Podolski acquired German citizenship.  

 

It's really surprising that the home nations have maintained this special dispensation from FIFA for so long. 

[Kaizero]

A Welsh child growing up in England from the same age is probably not going to have that sort of attachment to his place of birth. 

 

You mean like Ryan Giggs?

 

Well that's my point.  It depends on the loyalties of the individual, not the piece of paper.  Wasn't Michael Owen in the same boat? 

No. Owen is ethnically English.

 

Owen actually proves my point in that he attended school in Wales but still played for England.

 

So Google tells me he was born in an English hospital across the border to English parents, but spent his entire childhood in Wales.  If he hadn't have been talented enough to get scouted by professional scouts at a relatively young age, it's entirely conceivable that he would have spent his life in Wales.  But he would never have been eligible to play for Wales, because there is no way to acquire Welsh 'citizenship' in the same way that Podolski acquired German citizenship.  

 

It's really surprising that the home nations have maintained this special dispensation from FIFA for so long. 

 

There's no five year rule in the UK I think, for British people that is, because Wales, Scotland and Norn Ireland aren't "real" countries.

[chicago_shearer]

A Welsh child growing up in England from the same age is probably not going to have that sort of attachment to his place of birth. 

 

You mean like Ryan Giggs?

 

Well that's my point.  It depends on the loyalties of the individual, not the piece of paper.  Wasn't Michael Owen in the same boat? 

No. Owen is ethnically English.

 

Owen actually proves my point in that he attended school in Wales but still played for England.

 

So Google tells me he was born in an English hospital across the border to English parents, but spent his entire childhood in Wales.  If he hadn't have been talented enough to get scouted by professional scouts at a relatively young age, it's entirely conceivable that he would have spent his life in Wales.  But he would never have been eligible to play for Wales, because there is no way to acquire Welsh 'citizenship' in the same way that Podolski acquired German citizenship.  

 

It's really surprising that the home nations have maintained this special dispensation from FIFA for so long. 

 

There's no five year rule in the UK I think, for British people that is, because Wales, Scotland and Norn Ireland aren't "real" countries.

 

Apparently there is.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1285321/Andrew-Driver-moon-FIFA-rule-change-allows-Hearts-star-play-Scotland.html

[Kaizero]

A Welsh child growing up in England from the same age is probably not going to have that sort of attachment to his place of birth. 

 

You mean like Ryan Giggs?

 

Well that's my point.  It depends on the loyalties of the individual, not the piece of paper.  Wasn't Michael Owen in the same boat? 

No. Owen is ethnically English.

 

Owen actually proves my point in that he attended school in Wales but still played for England.

 

So Google tells me he was born in an English hospital across the border to English parents, but spent his entire childhood in Wales.  If he hadn't have been talented enough to get scouted by professional scouts at a relatively young age, it's entirely conceivable that he would have spent his life in Wales.  But he would never have been eligible to play for Wales, because there is no way to acquire Welsh 'citizenship' in the same way that Podolski acquired German citizenship.  

 

It's really surprising that the home nations have maintained this special dispensation from FIFA for so long. 

 

There's no five year rule in the UK I think, for British people that is, because Wales, Scotland and Norn Ireland aren't "real" countries.

 

Apparently there is.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1285321/Andrew-Driver-moon-FIFA-rule-change-allows-Hearts-star-play-Scotland.html

 

That would've made Owen eligible for Wales then if it wasn't a new rule. It's a good rule change for the rest of the UK countries, IMO.

[oldtype]

Why would the said player care though, if he really saw himself as more Japanese than Korean then surely he'd just laugh at you?

That would never happen though. That's the wierdness.

 

Because of the historic tension between the countries, it can't be anything else since they're happy to farm Brazilians to play for them.

 

It's also simply the case that the Korean-Japanese players so far haven't been that good.

 

The only one there could have been any sort of row over so far has been Chong Tae-se, and he burst on the scene after he had already declared for North Korea so there was very little anybody could do about it.

 

Bloody shame that, what we could have done with him playing up front with Park in our front line It's just wierd, the guy has parents with South Korean passports, lived in Japan all his life, and chooses to play for North Korea.

[Kaizero]

Why would the said player care though, if he really saw himself as more Japanese than Korean then surely he'd just laugh at you?

That would never happen though. That's the wierdness.

 

Because of the historic tension between the countries, it can't be anything else since they're happy to farm Brazilians to play for them.

 

It's also simply the case that the Korean-Japanese players so far haven't been that good.

 

The only one there could have been any sort of row over so far has been Chong Tae-se, and he burst on the scene after he had already declared for North Korea so there was very little anybody could do about it.

 

Bloody shame that, what we could have done with him playing up front with Park in our front line It's just wierd, the guy has parents with South Korean passports, lived in Japan all his life, and chooses to play for North Korea.

 

You can't really look away from bribes/threaths when it comes to a player declaring themselves for North Korea though.

[oldtype]

I really can't stand being at work during the WC by the way I should fucking get a month off so I can do nothing but watch, think of, and talk about football all day.

 

...Although I guess that's pretty much what I'm doing now anyway.

[Kaizero]

The WC is great, even if subjects like this come up.

[CaliMag]

It's just wierd, the guy has parents with South Korean passports, lived in Japan all his life, and chooses to play for North Korea.

I question his sanity... or the bribes/death threats are in full effect.

[cubaricho]

Can we give Clint Dempsey away?  Look at him in Kaizero's avatar, what a tool bag.

[Kaizero]

Can we give Clint Dempsey away?  Look at him in Kaizero's avatar, what a tool bag.

 

I'd take Deuce for no other reason than Don't Tread, man. I still can't get over it.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I'm not facist at all (Sentences that start like that usually turn out bad, but keep reading) but there has to be something done. For example if players are brought over to a country specifically to play football, and then end up playing for that national team its not really right, I know most countries now are a totally mixed gene pool, but if you were born in a different country, and your parents are from that same different country, then you should play for that country. it shouldn't be about national pride, it should be about what the facts say.

 

For example is Messi Spanish? Is Arteta English? No, they're not, so there shouldn't be this faux idea that there's anything fascist about players playing for the county they're from.

 

In my opinion, it should be 2nd generation when you can play for the country of residence. You might say that there's no difference if the mother and father are both, for example Spanish, but have their child in England, and to an extent that's true, but at the least it will stop teams from being able to recruit players from far regions to improve their teams, and the child will have been born in England at the least.

[Village Idiot]

Can we give Clint Dempsey away?  Look at him in Kaizero's avatar, what a tool bag.

 

I'd take Deuce for no other reason than Don't Tread, man. I still can't get over it.

 

Dempsey has to shoot a hip hop video with himself throwing 100$ bills to the camera.

[oldtype]

Can we give Clint Dempsey away?  Look at him in Kaizero's avatar, what a tool bag.

 

I'd take Deuce for no other reason than Don't Tread, man. I still can't get over it.

 

Dempsey has to shoot a hip hop video with himself throwing 100$ bills to the camera.

 

We need a deuce smiley.

[Village Idiot]

I'm not facist at all (Sentences that start like that usually turn out bad, but keep reading) but there has to be something done. For example if players are brought over to a country specifically to play football, and then end up playing for that national team its not really right, I know most countries now are a totally mixed gene pool, but if you were born in a different country, and your parents are from that same different country, then you should play for that team. it shouldn't be about national pride, it should be about what the facts say.

 

For example is Messi Spanish? Is Arteta English? No, they're not, so there shouldn't be this faux idea that there's anything fascist about players playing for the team they're from.

 

In my opinion, it should be 2nd generation when you can play for the country of residence. You might say that there's no difference if the mother and father are both for example are Spanish but have their child in England, and to an extent that's true, but at the least it will stop teams from being able to recruit players from far regions to improve their teams, and the child will have been born in England at the least.

 

Messi and Arteta are pretty different though. Messi came to Spain when he was 13 and has Spanish relatives. Arteta was signed in his mid-20s by an English team. Not saying that Messi should play for us, but I think it's blurrier than you make it sound.

 

Honestly, I think if you have been living in your adoptive country a decent amount of years before your majority of age (how many I don't know), I think you should be eligible.

[Kaizero]

I'm not facist at all (Sentences that start like that usually turn out bad, but keep reading) but there has to be something done. For example if players are brought over to a country specifically to play football, and then end up playing for that national team its not really right, I know most countries now are a totally mixed gene pool, but if you were born in a different country, and your parents are from that same different country, then you should play for that team. it shouldn't be about national pride, it should be about what the facts say.

 

For example is Messi Spanish? Is Arteta English? No, they're not, so there shouldn't be this faux idea that there's anything fascist about players playing for the team they're from.

 

In my opinion, it should be 2nd generation when you can play for the country of residence. You might say that there's no difference if the mother and father are both for example are Spanish but have their child in England, and to an extent that's true, but at the least it will stop teams from being able to recruit players from far regions to improve their teams, and the child will have been born in England at the least.

 

Messi and Arteta example fail as clearly you shouldn't be able to make use of the five year rule to play for another country. And what if a person's passport says they're German? That's a fact, even if they're born in Poland. They should be able to represent their country as long as it's in a non-abusive fashion, meaning countries farming players just to use them for their national team. I don't see how Germany could have farmed Podolski and Klose to become players on their national team when they were two and six years old, though. "Oh hey, those two toddlers look like they'll be world beaters in 20-something years, let's bring them to Germany."

 

Personally, I think a footballer signing a professional contract with a professional club should declare which nation he will represent from the available ones (parents, birth, citizenship) at the latest at 18 years old (or earlier, depending on when the professional contract is signed.)

 

It is somewhat fasicst to say that someone who's lived their entire life in a country shouldn't get to represent it because he wasn't born in it, it's not how the world works today and football needs to evolve with it or we'll end up with no International football as nobody can represent anybody.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I'm not facist at all (Sentences that start like that usually turn out bad, but keep reading) but there has to be something done. For example if players are brought over to a country specifically to play football, and then end up playing for that national team its not really right, I know most countries now are a totally mixed gene pool, but if you were born in a different country, and your parents are from that same different country, then you should play for that team. it shouldn't be about national pride, it should be about what the facts say.

 

For example is Messi Spanish? Is Arteta English? No, they're not, so there shouldn't be this faux idea that there's anything fascist about players playing for the team they're from.

 

In my opinion, it should be 2nd generation when you can play for the country of residence. You might say that there's no difference if the mother and father are both for example are Spanish but have their child in England, and to an extent that's true, but at the least it will stop teams from being able to recruit players from far regions to improve their teams, and the child will have been born in England at the least.

 

Messi and Arteta example fail as clearly you shouldn't be able to make use of the five year rule to play for another country. And what if a person's passport says they're German? That's a fact, even if they're born in Poland. They should be able to represent their country as long as it's in a non-abusive fashion, meaning countries farming players just to use them for their national team. I don't see how Germany could have farmed Podolski and Klose to become players on their national team when they were two and six years old, though. "Oh hey, those two toddlers look like they'll be world beaters in 20-something years, let's bring them to Germany."

 

Personally, I think a footballer signing a professional contract with a professional club should declare which nation he will represent from the available ones (parents, birth, citizenship) at the latest at 18 years old (or earlier, depending on when the professional contract is signed.)

 

It is somewhat fasicst to say that someone who's lived their entire life in a country shouldn't get to represent it because he wasn't born in it, it's not how the world works today and football needs to evolve with it or we'll end up with no International football as nobody can represent anybody.

 

That's a total contradiction there mate. Because if you shouldn't be able to make use of citizenship, then you shouldn't be able to make use of a passport when you weren't born in that country, and your parents aren't from that country. Are you saying that there's a limit on when you stop becoming, for example being Spanish, and suddenly factually become English?

 

The whole thing about the toddlers and kids thing isn't my point at all, I'm not suggesting at all that Germany thought about them playing for Germany when they were kids (howeh man, what do you take me for?) What I'm saying is some players move from one country to another at a young age specifically for football (Messi to Spain for example) and although they aren't farmed, when they become successful professionals and haven't represented their country of birth, or where their parents are from, then they can play for the country they've grown up in, specifically because of football.

 

Finally, it's not fascist at all, and I resent your use of that word tbh. First of all, I didn't say that you shouldn't represent a country if you weren't born there. What I actually said was you shouldn't be able to represent a country if you weren't born there, AND/OR neither of your parents were born there. Also, you're not getting the point, if you're saying that players should be able to play for a country that they weren't born in, or don't have parents from then basically you may as well go the whole way and say that the World Cup is fascist because it separates countries when really, as long as you've lived somewhere for an extended period of your life, you can play for wherever.

 

I'm not saying there should be rules of extended heritage, because really most of us are all mongoloids anyway, and that would be fascist. What I'm saying is that there should be a rule of being 2nd generation in play, to stop it from making all borders pointless, and allowing countries like Germany to have a catchment area where basically it's Eastern Europe, and not Germany at all. I think that idea gives a clear, defined and fair guideline, that subtracts any ambiguity, and allows there to be a system that cannot disregard the idea of one country vs another. It stops their being any potential abuse of the system, and it still allows the individual a maximum of three different choices (place of birth, place of mothers birth, place of fathers birth). I think that plays into the hands of common sense, fairness, and equality.

 

 

[Kaizero]

I'm not facist at all (Sentences that start like that usually turn out bad, but keep reading) but there has to be something done. For example if players are brought over to a country specifically to play football, and then end up playing for that national team its not really right, I know most countries now are a totally mixed gene pool, but if you were born in a different country, and your parents are from that same different country, then you should play for that team. it shouldn't be about national pride, it should be about what the facts say.

 

For example is Messi Spanish? Is Arteta English? No, they're not, so there shouldn't be this faux idea that there's anything fascist about players playing for the team they're from.

 

In my opinion, it should be 2nd generation when you can play for the country of residence. You might say that there's no difference if the mother and father are both for example are Spanish but have their child in England, and to an extent that's true, but at the least it will stop teams from being able to recruit players from far regions to improve their teams, and the child will have been born in England at the least.

 

Messi and Arteta example fail as clearly you shouldn't be able to make use of the five year rule to play for another country. And what if a person's passport says they're German? That's a fact, even if they're born in Poland. They should be able to represent their country as long as it's in a non-abusive fashion, meaning countries farming players just to use them for their national team. I don't see how Germany could have farmed Podolski and Klose to become players on their national team when they were two and six years old, though. "Oh hey, those two toddlers look like they'll be world beaters in 20-something years, let's bring them to Germany."

 

Personally, I think a footballer signing a professional contract with a professional club should declare which nation he will represent from the available ones (parents, birth, citizenship) at the latest at 18 years old (or earlier, depending on when the professional contract is signed.)

 

It is somewhat fasicst to say that someone who's lived their entire life in a country shouldn't get to represent it because he wasn't born in it, it's not how the world works today and football needs to evolve with it or we'll end up with no International football as nobody can represent anybody.

 

That's a total contradiction there mate. Because if you shouldn't be able to make use of citizenship, then you shouldn't be able to make use of a passport when you weren't born in that country, and your parents aren't from that country. Are you saying that there's a limit on when you stop becoming, for example being Spanish, and suddenly factually become English?

 

The whole thing about the toddlers and kids thing isn't my point at all, I'm not suggesting at all that Germany thought about them playing for Germany when they were kids (howeh man, what do you take me for?) What I'm saying is some players move from one country to another at a young age specifically for football (Messi to Spain for example) and although they aren't farmed, when they become successful professionals and haven't represented their country of birth, or where their parents are from, then they can play for the country they've grown up in, specifically because of football.

 

Finally, it's not fascist at all, and I resent your use of that word tbh. First of all, I didn't say that you shouldn't represent a country if you weren't born there. What I actually said was you shouldn't be able to represent a country if you weren't born there, AND/OR neither of your parents were born there. Also, you're not getting the point, if you're saying that players should be able to play for a country that they weren't born in, or don't have parents from then basically you may as well go the whole way and say that the World Cup is fascist because it separates countries when really, as long as you've lived somewhere for an extended period of your life, you can play for wherever.

 

I'm not saying there should be rules of extended heritage, because really most of us are all mongoloids anyway, and that would be fascist. What I'm saying is that there should be a rule of being 2nd generation in play, to stop it from making all borders pointless, and allowing countries like Germany to have a catchment area where basically it's Eastern Europe, and not Germany at all. I think that idea gives a clear, defined and fair guideline, that subtracts any ambiguity, and allows there to be a system that cannot disregard the idea of one country vs another, it stops their being any potential abuse of the system, and it still allows the individual a maximum of three different choices (place of birth, place of mothers birth, place of fathers birth). I think that plays into the hands of both common sense, fairness, and equality.

 

 

 

I'll blame my contradictions on not having slept for almost two days, and my comment about fascism is more aimed at Parky than you.

 

In general, I think you and I agree on the basics. Only difference being you want 2nd generation, and I want declaration of country before a certain age.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I'm not facist at all (Sentences that start like that usually turn out bad, but keep reading) but there has to be something done. For example if players are brought over to a country specifically to play football, and then end up playing for that national team its not really right, I know most countries now are a totally mixed gene pool, but if you were born in a different country, and your parents are from that same different country, then you should play for that team. it shouldn't be about national pride, it should be about what the facts say.

 

For example is Messi Spanish? Is Arteta English? No, they're not, so there shouldn't be this faux idea that there's anything fascist about players playing for the team they're from.

 

In my opinion, it should be 2nd generation when you can play for the country of residence. You might say that there's no difference if the mother and father are both for example are Spanish but have their child in England, and to an extent that's true, but at the least it will stop teams from being able to recruit players from far regions to improve their teams, and the child will have been born in England at the least.

 

Messi and Arteta example fail as clearly you shouldn't be able to make use of the five year rule to play for another country. And what if a person's passport says they're German? That's a fact, even if they're born in Poland. They should be able to represent their country as long as it's in a non-abusive fashion, meaning countries farming players just to use them for their national team. I don't see how Germany could have farmed Podolski and Klose to become players on their national team when they were two and six years old, though. "Oh hey, those two toddlers look like they'll be world beaters in 20-something years, let's bring them to Germany."

 

Personally, I think a footballer signing a professional contract with a professional club should declare which nation he will represent from the available ones (parents, birth, citizenship) at the latest at 18 years old (or earlier, depending on when the professional contract is signed.)

 

It is somewhat fasicst to say that someone who's lived their entire life in a country shouldn't get to represent it because he wasn't born in it, it's not how the world works today and football needs to evolve with it or we'll end up with no International football as nobody can represent anybody.

 

That's a total contradiction there mate. Because if you shouldn't be able to make use of citizenship, then you shouldn't be able to make use of a passport when you weren't born in that country, and your parents aren't from that country. Are you saying that there's a limit on when you stop becoming, for example being Spanish, and suddenly factually become English?

 

The whole thing about the toddlers and kids thing isn't my point at all, I'm not suggesting at all that Germany thought about them playing for Germany when they were kids (howeh man, what do you take me for?) What I'm saying is some players move from one country to another at a young age specifically for football (Messi to Spain for example) and although they aren't farmed, when they become successful professionals and haven't represented their country of birth, or where their parents are from, then they can play for the country they've grown up in, specifically because of football.

 

Finally, it's not fascist at all, and I resent your use of that word tbh. First of all, I didn't say that you shouldn't represent a country if you weren't born there. What I actually said was you shouldn't be able to represent a country if you weren't born there, AND/OR neither of your parents were born there. Also, you're not getting the point, if you're saying that players should be able to play for a country that they weren't born in, or don't have parents from then basically you may as well go the whole way and say that the World Cup is fascist because it separates countries when really, as long as you've lived somewhere for an extended period of your life, you can play for wherever.

 

I'm not saying there should be rules of extended heritage, because really most of us are all mongoloids anyway, and that would be fascist. What I'm saying is that there should be a rule of being 2nd generation in play, to stop it from making all borders pointless, and allowing countries like Germany to have a catchment area where basically it's Eastern Europe, and not Germany at all. I think that idea gives a clear, defined and fair guideline, that subtracts any ambiguity, and allows there to be a system that cannot disregard the idea of one country vs another, it stops their being any potential abuse of the system, and it still allows the individual a maximum of three different choices (place of birth, place of mothers birth, place of fathers birth). I think that plays into the hands of both common sense, fairness, and equality.

 

 

 

I'll blame my contradictions on not having slept for almost two days, and my comment about fascism is more aimed at Parky than you.

 

In general, I think you and I agree on the basics. Only difference being you want 2nd generation, and I want declaration of country before a certain age.

 

Aye, it seems that way. Also, the bit in bold, I'd go along with that, but from when until when? Say you have to declare before 18, then how long do you need to have been there from? What if you miss out by one day? There's tons more questions that would bring unfair situations into play imo. That's why I think the clear defining line of birth takes away any ambiguity.

[Kaizero]

I'm not facist at all (Sentences that start like that usually turn out bad, but keep reading) but there has to be something done. For example if players are brought over to a country specifically to play football, and then end up playing for that national team its not really right, I know most countries now are a totally mixed gene pool, but if you were born in a different country, and your parents are from that same different country, then you should play for that team. it shouldn't be about national pride, it should be about what the facts say.

 

For example is Messi Spanish? Is Arteta English? No, they're not, so there shouldn't be this faux idea that there's anything fascist about players playing for the team they're from.

 

In my opinion, it should be 2nd generation when you can play for the country of residence. You might say that there's no difference if the mother and father are both for example are Spanish but have their child in England, and to an extent that's true, but at the least it will stop teams from being able to recruit players from far regions to improve their teams, and the child will have been born in England at the least.

 

Messi and Arteta example fail as clearly you shouldn't be able to make use of the five year rule to play for another country. And what if a person's passport says they're German? That's a fact, even if they're born in Poland. They should be able to represent their country as long as it's in a non-abusive fashion, meaning countries farming players just to use them for their national team. I don't see how Germany could have farmed Podolski and Klose to become players on their national team when they were two and six years old, though. "Oh hey, those two toddlers look like they'll be world beaters in 20-something years, let's bring them to Germany."

 

Personally, I think a footballer signing a professional contract with a professional club should declare which nation he will represent from the available ones (parents, birth, citizenship) at the latest at 18 years old (or earlier, depending on when the professional contract is signed.)

 

It is somewhat fasicst to say that someone who's lived their entire life in a country shouldn't get to represent it because he wasn't born in it, it's not how the world works today and football needs to evolve with it or we'll end up with no International football as nobody can represent anybody.

 

That's a total contradiction there mate. Because if you shouldn't be able to make use of citizenship, then you shouldn't be able to make use of a passport when you weren't born in that country, and your parents aren't from that country. Are you saying that there's a limit on when you stop becoming, for example being Spanish, and suddenly factually become English?

 

The whole thing about the toddlers and kids thing isn't my point at all, I'm not suggesting at all that Germany thought about them playing for Germany when they were kids (howeh man, what do you take me for?) What I'm saying is some players move from one country to another at a young age specifically for football (Messi to Spain for example) and although they aren't farmed, when they become successful professionals and haven't represented their country of birth, or where their parents are from, then they can play for the country they've grown up in, specifically because of football.

 

Finally, it's not fascist at all, and I resent your use of that word tbh. First of all, I didn't say that you shouldn't represent a country if you weren't born there. What I actually said was you shouldn't be able to represent a country if you weren't born there, AND/OR neither of your parents were born there. Also, you're not getting the point, if you're saying that players should be able to play for a country that they weren't born in, or don't have parents from then basically you may as well go the whole way and say that the World Cup is fascist because it separates countries when really, as long as you've lived somewhere for an extended period of your life, you can play for wherever.

 

I'm not saying there should be rules of extended heritage, because really most of us are all mongoloids anyway, and that would be fascist. What I'm saying is that there should be a rule of being 2nd generation in play, to stop it from making all borders pointless, and allowing countries like Germany to have a catchment area where basically it's Eastern Europe, and not Germany at all. I think that idea gives a clear, defined and fair guideline, that subtracts any ambiguity, and allows there to be a system that cannot disregard the idea of one country vs another, it stops their being any potential abuse of the system, and it still allows the individual a maximum of three different choices (place of birth, place of mothers birth, place of fathers birth). I think that plays into the hands of both common sense, fairness, and equality.

 

 

 

I'll blame my contradictions on not having slept for almost two days, and my comment about fascism is more aimed at Parky than you.

 

In general, I think you and I agree on the basics. Only difference being you want 2nd generation, and I want declaration of country before a certain age.

 

Aye, it seems that way. Also, the bit in bold, I'd go along with that, but from when until when? Say you have to declare before 18, then how long do you need to have been there from? What if you miss out by one day? There's tons more questions that would bring unfair situations into play imo. That's why I think the clear defining line of birth takes away any ambiguity.

 

Yeah, I see your point. But it'll also be clear to whoever comes to a new country after turning 13 that they'll be inelligible for playing for that country, if you are too late you are too late, it'd feel unfair to the people involved but overall it would be a fair rule that would not fully dillute a national team.

 

That said, I'd definitely back 2nd generation if offered. Both options are good to make a national team still mean something at the same time as adapting to the new "smaller" world.

 

I'm sorry for calling you fascist by the way, I'm just easily going OTT at the mo, seriously need some shut eye soon.