The Death of International Football?
One week after a much acclaimed Champions’ League final in Rome, FIFA’s Congress passed a new resolution removing age limits on a player’s ability to change national teams. While the vote received little fanfare as more attention seems to be affixed on whether Kaka will play for AC Milan, Real Madrid or Chelsea, the potential repercussions on international football are enormous.
Before delving into the potential consequences it may be worthwhile to discuss what the actual rule change entails. Originally once a player had played for a national team at any level (whether senior level, U-23, U-17 and so on) that player was prohibited from donning the shirt of another national side. Then a rule revision allowed a player who had played for one national team to switch to another national side so long as the player in question had never played for the full national team and so long as the switch occurred before his 21st birthday.
With Wednesday’s new vote, a player who has never played for the full national team, despite what his age is, can now switch allegiances to a new national team. Mind you, to switch to a new national team that player would be subject to the naturalization requirements and laws of the new country.
I recall a clever advertisement made by gaming giants Electronic Arts promoting their Euro 2004 video game with a picture of Ronaldinho sitting on Rio de Janeiro beach (Copa Cabana I presumed) reading a newspaper with Euro 2004 articles and the catchy phrase that went along the lines of “He won’t be playing, you will.”
The ad highlighted how the best player in the world at the time was sidelined from taking part in perhaps the second most prestigious international competition due to his nationality (and how you wouldn’t be sidelined so long as you shelled out the required monies to buy EA’s video game and “take part” on your Playstation).
Yet four years on, we were watching Brazilians by birth, Marcos Senna, Mehmet Aurelio and Roger Guerreiro play important roles for their new national teams in Euro 2008 (Spain, Türkiye, and Poland, respectively).
Now as we turn the corner to see which thirty one countries will join next year’s hosts South Africa for World Cup 2010, it remains to be seen whether this ruling will be the international version of that seismic “Bosman” ruling back in the 1990s that essentially restructured the transfer market and has given us an important part of the modern game (i.e. a separate “transfer season” in the off-season that is as exciting for some as the real season).
My own personal speculation is that the international game as we know it will now be further diluted into a mercenary market that serves a symbiotic relationship between national team and player. For national teams that traditionally lack the manpower or talent to get onto these big stages, there is a renewed pool of talent to choose from. For players who fail to make the grade on their national teams, and who are over 21 years of age, the doors international football are no longer eternally closed. More importantly they have a stage to potentially raise their stock value for suitor clubs that may never have had an opportunity to assess this hidden talent under the old system. In this new paradigm both the national team and the footballer mutually benefit. Yet this benefit is at the expense of the essence of international football.
What then exactly is the essence of international football? FIFA’s slogan “for the good of the game” has meant more and more recently the inclusion of every conceivable nation to be part of the football community. Sepp Blatter would have that football be played in every corner of the globe and on its face, what true football fan can disagree with that ideal? And to further this goal it only makes sense that those with the knowledge of football be sent forth to nations where football is still in the developing stages. By lifting the age restriction on players from switching nationalities, FIFA’s goal can be further advanced as it allows players who are left without a national team to play for a country that certainly needs an amount of talent and experience. When looking through the FIFA lens, the new rule change is a godsend for underachieving national teams.
But for fans of the international game (who share my view), what real meaning does it have when you have a player on your national team whose only reason for playing is to play international football? Not every player will fit this bill and even those who do will certainly kiss the national team crest and make every effort to memorize the words to their new national anthem to look the part. As Luis Figo once quipped toward his new Brazilian-born teammate Deco, that one could learn the words to the national anthem but could not sing them from the heart. The line between a player who genuinely makes a switch for a new country because he has adapted and naturalized legitimately and a player solely switching for personal gain is blurred and certainly not one that is bright lined.
What value does a World Cup or a European Championship hold when a Brazilian plays for Scotland, or a Scot for Qatar, a Cameroonian playing for San Marino or a Nigerian for China? Even worse, what value will it have when half or more than half of the starting eleven are foreign born? Will Sepp Blatter and FIFA then impose an international 6+5 rule?
This is the direction we appear to be heading for with international football as players who fail to make it beyond the U-23, U-21 or U-17 levels will look for new and greener pastures even in the twilights of their careers. And if FIFA continue this trend of reversing itself, we may very well see a day when a player who has played for the full national team be allowed to switch to another full national team. At that rate the World Cup is destined to be a once-in-a-four year version of the Champions’ League. But perhaps that’s what FIFA is gunning for.
Some will accuse me of being nationalist, xenophobic, politically incorrect and the whole lot, but if we ask ourselves this question without fear of being branded as such, I believe that many will reach the same conclusion that I have.
Topics: General Football News, Help Football
Football News 24/7
This is terrible, a player should only play for the country he was born in, period!
June 5th, 2009 @ 08:55i couldnt see how this benefitted international football. the african national teams are going mental in france now looking for potential internationals… but it’s pathetic. i do not want non-english players playing for england.
it’s not xenophobic remotely; it’s the same as you voting in another country, you can’t just decide to vote in the australian general election because you don’t feel represented in england.
June 5th, 2009 @ 09:05I do not see this as a negative, in today;s modern world players and the general population migrate regularly. Why shouldnt someone with 5 years in one country play for them, this already exists with former colonial countries playing for France, Spain and Portugal.
This is commonsense within reason.
June 5th, 2009 @ 10:27Sorry Daniel, but I think you’ve gone way over the top on this one.
All palyers want to play for their ‘home’ country, it’s a natural thing. Where players do change allegiance it’s usually, as you say, because they are not good enough.
However, to change allegiance you have to either have a distant realtion (most country’s go to grand-parent)to qualify or you have to become a naturlised citizen.
In both cases some allegiance or commitment is implied or required. National associations demand this.
You make it sound like a Brazilian who can’t get into the national team and is playing (say) in Spain can just decide to declare for (say) Ghana.
Not the case at all. I don’t see this as half the big deal you try to imply.
June 5th, 2009 @ 10:34I wholeheartedly agree with you. This only adds to the commercialism of football and threatens to turn international football, which used to be about the heart and soul of playing for your country, into yet another money game that just sickens everything about the beautiful game.
It’s one thing that I definitely respect teams like England for, though. Their players are in it for the glory of playing for the Three Lions, not like the filth in countries like Portugal, Turkey, etc. that come just for the money.
June 5th, 2009 @ 15:54I totally disagree with Spencer. If England is a racist country that selects those who can hold certain jobs then thats good with u guys. If Portugal chooses to give all those the chance to exhale in what they are best irrespective of nationality race or color so long as the person in question holds a valid passport then whats the problem.
Can u remember John Fashanu and Shola Ameobi once wear English shirt. Think
I think this rule is the best innovation of the game since the FIFA was born. This rule is for the best of the game. Take for instance, those players from Africa in particular who through at times been dupe by agents or through naivety opt to play for a foreign country such as France and are never called again now have the second chance to revive their international career.
I think every person on earth deserve a second chance.
June 5th, 2009 @ 18:22@ Alex Bogatiryov
I wouldn’t go as far as saying that a person should only play in the country he is born. That would exclude expatatriate children from playing for their country of origin. Jordi Cruyff (despite the very Catalan name) was born to Dutch parents in Barcelona (when his famous father Johann was playing for FC Barcelona). To have it your suggested way would preclude Jordi from having played for Holland (which he did in Euro’96. Hence the rule of “lineage” allowing expatriate children to play for the country of origin.
@BD Condell
Sorry if you feel I went over the top. My view is that with the rules becoming more lax and lax, we are on a slippery slope that degenerates international football into a game that holds no real meaning. There is national pride and I’m not one to define what being a national of a particular country is. I’ll leave that up to the people of that country. Speaking from my own vantage point, the Korean national team (despite the lack of riches in attack) has at least resisted the temptation of simply taking on a non-Korean player to fill in that gap. Mind you we have had players born abroad of Korean descent (the son of the famous Cha Bum-Keun was born in Germany when his father was tearing it up in the Bundesliga during the 1980s) play for the national team. But the day we have a Brazilian player donning on our shirt and scoring goals, I will be asking myself “what is the point of this?” Again, my view.
Oh, and I am plenty aware of the lengthy and arduous process of naturalization and am not representing a scenario where an African player could simply decide to go to another country and play for that team. Yes, there has to be a showing of good faith desire to play for that new team which is coupled with going through naturalization. And if that country is willing to take that person on and make him a citizen, who am I to say he isn’t a true citizen of that country? But let’s not be fooled into thinking that players are going to take advantage of this new rule (and that there have been those who have already taken advantage of the switch rule). One day a player will be playing for England whose only reason is not for love of the country or the fans but simply to advance his own personal career. Maybe it will be Manuel Almunia or someone but there is going to be that day when wearing the England shirt will be like putting on a club shirt, devoid of any passion, mumbling the words to “God save the Queen.”
June 5th, 2009 @ 18:55I think you really have to look at this on a case by case basis. Guerreiro, for example, had his naturalisation and citizenship process sped up – that’s not okay in my book. He doesn’t even speak Polish. Aurelio and Senna, though, I think they went through the regular naturalisation process – they gained Turkish and Spanish citizenship in the same way that any other person would, by living there for a certain number of years.
I’m not convinced that footballers should *only* play for the country or their birth, or even only countries they’re eligible for due to ancestry. I think the more globalised the world becomes, we’re going to see cases of, I don’t know, maybe a player who is born in not-a-footballing-power country X who moves to footballing-power country Y for family or personal reasons. If he then becomes a naturalised citizen of country Y and is good enough to play for them – why not?
June 6th, 2009 @ 03:17@Madridista
I can’t deny that globalization will inevitably change the demographics of even traditionally homogeneous countries. Already in Korea the population of non-Korean nationals has reached the one million mark. And honestly, I’m not all out for a situation where the Korean team can accomodate only Koreans (whether born in Korea or ethnic Koreans). But with the new rule, there is a risk that some countries will employ more non-nationals than their own countrymen. Imagine a situation like Arsenal (where you have only one or two Englishmen) but at the national level. That’s what I’m really trying to get at.
June 7th, 2009 @ 01:55@Daniel: But what’s new? The rule change makes little difference. The cases of players switching because of ancestry or having become citizens has applied for years now.
I miss the point as to why anything will be different and don’t see this ever becoming widespread.
June 7th, 2009 @ 02:12@BD Condell
Players who have played for their respective U-23, U-21, U-17 sides who now pass the age of 21 can switch (albeit going the ancestry route or via naturalization). On its surface the difference is minute as you said. But it’s the progression we’re making toward a day when potentially players may be able to switch even after perhaps gaining a full international cap at the senior level. Then we really say goodbye to international football as we know it.
June 7th, 2009 @ 04:07Just don’t see it happenning Daniel. Countries and fans will never accept someone without a link to the nation coming on board at the expense of a national player.
June 7th, 2009 @ 11:11And let’s face it, the ones that choose to do it are not that great anyway.
But the point is, it is now possible when it wasn’t before.
Let’s cook up another hypothetical case. A player from non-footballing-power X goes to, say, the U.S. for college. He’s played amateur football all his life, he’s pretty darn good at it, but the professional league in his country isn’t great so he’s never considered it as a career. In addition, his long-term career plan is to stay abroad and work at an international company – he never wants to go back (invent a reason: civil unrest or something). At his college, he tries out for the football (er, soccer) team and joins it as a walk-on.
Three seasons under a proper coach later, he’s improved by leaps and bounds and gets called up and capped for his country’s U-21 squad. MLS clubs start talking about taking him on trial. He figures the football career is worth a shot in this league, since it’s a lot better than the league back home. At this point he decides he would prefer to play for the USMNT than for his home country since he has no more stake there. After plying his trade in the MLS for a few years, he takes up American citizenship and turns out for the USMNT.
Far-fetched? Sure. But it’s possible. The rule change is minute, yes, but since the player still has to submit to the naturalisation laws of his new country, the onus – as I see it – is on the individual countries and federations to make sure the players who turn out in their colours have something to play for other than top-level football.
As for a change from one full national team to another… we could invent a scenario for that too. Player A of Country X has played in Country Y’s league long enough to take up citizenship in Country Y. For one reason or another, Country X revokes Player A’s citizenship (this may be less unlikely than you think – I believe China doesn’t recognise dual citizenship, so taking on another country’s citizenship might get a Chinese citizenship revoked automatically. I’m not sure about the mechanics of it though). Under the current rules this would render Player A ineligible for both Country X and Country Y.
June 7th, 2009 @ 16:04