Whats The Big Problem?

[tigerfish]

so whats the big problem with some sporting fans when it comes to representing a country that they werent born in.

was listening to the twenty/20 cricket world cup in the early hours of last night. the ireland v england game. some people were getting into a wright two and eight about the fact that an irish born(eoin morgan) english batsman may have put the nail in the coffin of ireland if it came down to the duckworth lewis method of settling the match. then some of the commentators started talking about, if england were to proceed the game against s.africa may turn into a bit of a feisty encounters. seeing as england have 3 s.african born players(peiterson, keistwetter and lumb)

as an englishman it seems to be hit upon quite a lot, and there is almost a an undercurrent of bad feeling and jealousy by other nations fans in wanting whatever team it maybe to fail in the competitions they are taking part in. nothing new there i suppose and something i have got used to over the years.

i can give a few other examples in other sports where countries feild players that are not nessesarily born in the country they are playing for. the rep. of ireland field a lot of players that are born in england, but because their parents or grandparents where born in ireland they get the chance to play for them. or in rugy union, where n.z. have fielded guys that come from the surronding countries and islands i.e. fiji, tonga and samoa.

so does it bother you?

your views and comments please on the subject.

Edited May 5, 2010 by tigerfish

[H2oDunc]

If it is a national championship then of course the team has to be made up of the countries citizens otherwise it is just a league match. I can't see why you are having trouble understanding the big difference. If it was OK to have players from outside the country then the England football team would have no English players in it would it

[tigerfish]

If it is a national championship then of course the team has to be made up of the countries citizens otherwise it is just a league match. I can't see why you are having trouble understanding the big difference. If it was OK to have players from outside the country then the England football team would have no English players in it would it

i do understand it and i dont have a problem with it either.

btw name me one player in the england football setup who was born outside of england.

the only possiblities i can think of are maybe defoe or richards! whoops nearly forgot owen.

Edited May 5, 2010 by tigerfish

[321niti123]

We'll how can you decide which country is better than a sport if the people in the team is not from that country.

BTW, born in and a citizen of is a completely different thing. If you are a citizen of a country then you should be able to join their national league if you are good enough however if you are just born there and hold a different passport, then you are essentially not a national.

[Donnyboy]

I think it depends. If a player migrates to another country, and resides there after a set period, whatever that maybe, sure let them play for that country Case in point, NZ rugby. Many pacific island players that played for the All Blacks were born overseas and grew up in NZ. NZ actually has more people of Samoan decent than Samoa has! Many players wanted to play for The All Blacks rather than for the countries that they were born in, which makes the comment of NZ poaching overseas players a misnomer.

NZ have many rugby players move offshore in their prime and later years as well, some making the national sides of the country theyve moved to.

On a side note, why is it in the olympics Great Britian can be represented as a team, and not under their individual nations? Ie Scotland Wales and England. Surely they have enough of a population base to have representatives in most olympic sports. Most of us smaller nations have to make do with our limited population and budgets. After all they have their own football, rugby, netball teams.

always wanted to know.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Donnyboy

[Donnyboy]

double post

Edited May 6, 2010 by Donnyboy

[PhilHarries]

I think if a player is a citizen of that country he should be allowed to play for the national team.

People might want to add riders that he's never played for his country of birth and by taking up the teamship of his country of residence he is now a fixture (i.e. can't uproot and go someplace else and have another go).

What about people born of British parents while they were working abroad?

I don't see it as a place of birth thing so much as a nationality issue.

Mind you it wasn't that long ago if you weren't born in Yorkshire you couldn't play cricket for Yorkshire and there's more than a few who bemoan that rule being dropped.

[StreetCowboy]

Its maybe more complicated for those of us from countries that don't issue passports - Catalonians, Scots - or Northern Irish.

My children were born with British passports overseas - could they play for England? Or Wales or the Isle of Man, for that matter? What passport do Manxmen carry, by the way?

We're lucky to have Pakistanis to help our cricket team, and they are as Scottish as the next man, judging from their accents. Many of our rugby league players have Lancs or Yorks accents. I'm sure Kevin Pietersen is as proud as they are when they pull on their respective jerseys. And I doubt many Scots rugby supporters would have turned their backs on the Leslie brothers (I know until recently, Dan Parks was a different story...) but in this day and age, we can't rely on people born and bred (or in-bred) for generations in our own local parochial backwaters.

SC

[Mossfinn]

What passport do Manxmen carry, by the way?

For those that qualify, it will be a British passport.

[Mossfinn]

My children were born with British passports overseas - could they play for England?

If they have Brit passports, they are by definition, British, so if they are unlucky enough, yes they can play for England.

However, if you are born in England, that does not necessarily mean that you can have a Brit PP, but that is for another forum and a wholly separate debate.

[endure]

Mind you it wasn't that long ago if you weren't born in Yorkshire you couldn't play cricket for Yorkshire and there's more than a few who bemoan that rule being dropped.

You can tell a Yorkshireman - but not much.

[StreetCowboy]

My children were born with British passports overseas - could they play for England?

If they have Brit passports, they are by definition, British, so if they are unlucky enough, yes they can play for England.

However, if you are born in England, that does not necessarily mean that you can have a Brit PP, but that is for another forum and a wholly separate debate.

But my point was that for those British passport holders born overseas, what combination of circumstances would combine to render them qualified to play for England (or Scotland, Channel Islands etc.?). For intenrational moves, I believe sportsmen can qualify based on residence. Is that correct? Is such qualification hereditary? Could my children play for England on the grounds that I had lived there five years? A laughable assumption, I know, but a valid one?

SC

[Mossfinn]

If they have a Brit PP, they do not need any combination of circumstances, they can play for England or Scotland etc, as for the Channel Islanders they can play for any of the Home Countries.

Yes, foreign born sports people for example can play for certain adopted countries, a typical example would be Graeme Hick a Rhodesian/Zimbabwe born cricketer who had to qualify through a 7year residency period. Zola Budd was a little more fortunate, time wise.

Is qualification hereditary? A little more complicated, just being born in a country isn't always enough for Nationality, however if you have lived in England for 5 years, without being a national, you would have to go through the usual procedures to become a national, if those procedures are not followed, no they would not be eligible.

[StreetCowboy]

If they have a Brit PP, they do not need any combination of circumstances, they can play for England or Scotland etc, as for the Channel Islanders they can play for any of the Home Countries.

Yes, foreign born sports people for example can play for certain adopted countries, a typical example would be Graeme Hick a Rhodesian/Zimbabwe born cricketer who had to qualify through a 7year residency period. Zola Budd was a little more fortunate, time wise.

Is qualification hereditary? A little more complicated, just being born in a country isn't always enough for Nationality, however if you have lived in England for 5 years, without being a national, you would have to go through the usual procedures to become a national, if those procedures are not followed, no they would not be eligible.

My understanding is that a home countries player has to have a grandparent or a parent or some such ancestor born in the country, as well as British passport. Now, Foreign nationals can qualify on the basis of residency - can British of other home nationality similarly qualify? So if I had lived in England as long as Graeme Hick, could I play for England, despite being as Scottish as he is Zimbabwean? Will his children be able to play for England, even if they are born overseas? Is it a necessity to have the relevant passport as well as residency - for example, my dear old father, a card-carryng foreigner but who has lived 90% of his life in Scotland, and is as Scottish as the next man - could he play for Scotland (presumably in the Zimmer-frame hurdling competition, as he's a bit elderly for most sports...).

Does anyone know what team or teams the British nations will be offering for the Olympic rugby sevens? Do we offer a team for the Olympic soccer now? Maybe the best option would be to hold a tournament with each of the home nations and the Six Counties offering a team, and the winner to represent the Kingdom at the Olympics, and let the Republic carry the flag for Ireland.

SC