|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI said it before and I’ll say it again. Is said individual eligible for a passport in the country? If the answer is yes then said individual is a citizen of that country. Quite simple really Fortunately FIFA are even more strict than that, otherwise the Qatari and Chinese governments could just issue passports to any players they want. I think the current rules are quite fair, requiring a player to have a legitimate connection with the country. I love the Qatar handball team  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_World_Men%27s_Handball_Championship#Controversy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Surely nationality is just another social construct? If you identify as an Australian you are one.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Haven't lived in Australia then you're not eligible. Disgraceful that Boyle was picked to play for us. Absolute bollocks.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I haven’t checked, but my memory is that Italy have won 4 World Cups with about 20 Oriundi. Ie. Argentinians, Brazilians, Uruguayans whose great grandparents, grandparents etc came from Italy. Many of those had never been to Italy before they went their to play for a club team.
The point is that this has been happening for around 100 years with all nations.
I don’t think we should be arguing that we are unique and shouldn’t do the same as every one else.
|
|
|
|
|
nick1408
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 668,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThis is is a continuation of the following derailments from "Aussies Abroad" and "Aussies called up by other countries" threads.  Barca4LifeMy way of looking at this is similar to yours. But I think this needs to be addressed properly by FIFA. Atm, it's basically mercenary-esque. This isn't just Australia. Cricket is bad enough, in this respect. However they, at least, have residency requirements even for those who already have citizenship of the country by descent. E.g. Kevin Pietersen (born a British citizen by descent and brought up entirely in South Africa) had to live in England for several years before he was eligible to play for England. I guess FIFA doesn't have such residency rules otherwise how would Souttar and Boyle be eligible to play for Australia (regardless of being Aussie passport-holders)? Cricket's bad enough with KP-esque mercenaries. Football's worse. Any bets Qatar and China try to import gun players from South America by hook or crook and get them into their NTs. Until then, we just have to hope that our NT (and other NTs) don't end up with starting line-ups comprising entirely of footballers brought up entirely outside Australia. Souttar and Boyle, fair enough, as long as they are the minority compared to Riley McGree, Aaron Mooy, Arzani, Deng, Mabil, etc. Wouldn't we have missed out on Cahill and Kewell if residency was a requirement? Speaking of residency; China has recently capped players due to their residency rather than being a dual national. I have no issues with picking whoever is eligible with the current rules and I wish Australia did a lot more work in finding these dual-nationals for both A-League teams and the national team. Speaking of cricket; South Africa is losing white players to county cricket due to perceived political issues in the country (whether warranted or not). KP even said he had more chance of playing for England rather than South Africa due to their quota system (I think he would have still played but it would have meant someone else missed out). Again Tim Cahill and Harry Kewell were both born and raised in Sydney, alot of different to someone who isn't born here, let alone haven't been here before. Fair point - what about Kyah Cahill? Son of Tim Cahill and arguably has no connection to Australia. Should he be barred from representing his father's country?
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThis is is a continuation of the following derailments from "Aussies Abroad" and "Aussies called up by other countries" threads. Barca4LifeMy way of looking at this is similar to yours. But I think this needs to be addressed properly by FIFA. Atm, it's basically mercenary-esque. This isn't just Australia. Cricket is bad enough, in this respect. However they, at least, have residency requirements even for those who already have citizenship of the country by descent. E.g. Kevin Pietersen (born a British citizen by descent and brought up entirely in South Africa) had to live in England for several years before he was eligible to play for England. I guess FIFA doesn't have such residency rules otherwise how would Souttar and Boyle be eligible to play for Australia (regardless of being Aussie passport-holders)? Cricket's bad enough with KP-esque mercenaries. Football's worse. Any bets Qatar and China try to import gun players from South America by hook or crook and get them into their NTs. Until then, we just have to hope that our NT (and other NTs) don't end up with starting line-ups comprising entirely of footballers brought up entirely outside Australia. Souttar and Boyle, fair enough, as long as they are the minority compared to Riley McGree, Aaron Mooy, Arzani, Deng, Mabil, etc. Wouldn't we have missed out on Cahill and Kewell if residency was a requirement? Speaking of residency; China has recently capped players due to their residency rather than being a dual national. I have no issues with picking whoever is eligible with the current rules and I wish Australia did a lot more work in finding these dual-nationals for both A-League teams and the national team. Speaking of cricket; South Africa is losing white players to county cricket due to perceived political issues in the country (whether warranted or not). KP even said he had more chance of playing for England rather than South Africa due to their quota system (I think he would have still played but it would have meant someone else missed out). Again Tim Cahill and Harry Kewell were both born and raised in Sydney, alot of different to someone who isn't born here, let alone haven't been here before. Fair point - what about Kyah Cahill? Son of Tim Cahill and arguably has no connection to Australia. Should he be barred from representing his father's country? Same with Scott Chipperfield's son who is at Fc Basel, it will be interesting what happens to them if they are good enough for international football down the line and if they want to play for us.
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSurely nationality is just another social construct? If you identify as an Australian you are one. I agree to a point. Nationality is just a social and political construct, imo. That we are human (beings) is concrete and definable (even in scientific terms), whereas nationality is just something that societies made up. The nation-state, as a concept, only became prominent in the 18th and 19th Centuries. The notion of universality of rights trumps the concept of nationality. In principle, all human beings should have the same rights and opportunities (regardless of nationality) and international law strives to make that a thing. And the concept of the universality of human rights overrides the importance of international sport (including football). However, international football is a fundamentally emotional thing. Insofar as it is actually played, I reckon it's better if that's understood. Citizenship is a political concept (and a passport is just a piece of paper expressing that in legal terms). Bearing in mind the emotional aspect of international football, the whole thing is undermined if the competitors don't have a strong emotional bond with the nation which they're representing. Lived experience informs emotional connection in 99.99% of cases. If a person has never lived in Country B (having grown up entirely in Country A), how can their emotional link to Country B be anywhere nearly as strong as their emotional link to Country A? Sure they can identify as Australian and be an Australian citizen (no argument there) but their emotional link to the country they grew up in outweighs that, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI haven’t checked, but my memory is that Italy have won 4 World Cups with about 20 Oriundi. Ie. Argentinians, Brazilians, Uruguayans whose great grandparents, grandparents etc came from Italy. Many of those had never been to Italy before they went their to play for a club team.
The point is that this has been happening for around 100 years with all nations.
I don’t think we should be arguing that we are unique and shouldn’t do the same as every one else. Not suggesting Australia's the only (or even worst) culprit in terms of pinching footballers developed in other countries. Just that the whole thing is a bit messy, imo, and it's not all that reassuring to know that Australia is contributing to that status quo. I guess if Boyle and Souttar are the only ones, it's not too bad. And I wish them all the the best. I certainly don't have anything against either of them personally (just disagree with them on a particular principle). But if, say, half the NT haven't grown up in Australia, then it's like - what's the point in supporting the NT?
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xWhat an interesting thread. Fascinating topic and something that will need to be addressed more and more as global migration patterns are sure to be changing post covid. Anyway my opinion is that an Australian child, born overseas to Aussies parents and thus being able to claim citizenship, perhaps never even having visited the country of his parents birth has every right to represent Australia if they feel a connection. What difference would living a few years in the country make anyway? We are a multicultural country anyway so how would that child's life experience be different say growing up in Stockholm compared to Adelaide? Apart from the language of course. This whole "if you don't like meat pies or drink beer or watch Neighbours, your un-Australian" is a little past it's use. Haha, ironically far more Brits watch Neighbours than Aussies. Can't stand the show. I don't think being brought up in STHM vs Adelaide makes any meaningful difference to a person's character. We're all just human beings. We benefit and suffer the same traits of human nature (wherever we grow up). I think it's better to think about the person as an individual defined by their character, rather than their nationality. It's just different life experience. Life experience (of growing up in a place) shouldn't really define their future (where they want to live, what they want to do). A person can only step foot in Australia for the first time as an adult and my opinion of them, as a person, is no different to if they've lived in Australia their whole life. In saying that, I feel as if international sport is the only realm remaining in which emotional association with a country (patriotism) is truly valid. Life experience does inform emotional connection. And international sport is all about that emotional connection. Australia is, indeed, multicultural. But we've created our own kind of hybrid culture which is utterly unique. That's the true nature of multiculturalism. Greek-Australians have a shared identity in their own right, for example. Vietnamese-Australians have a shared identity in their own right (different to that of Vietnamese Vietnamese people). The beautiful thing about this country is that it's an umbrella under which all these identities come together. We have shared experience living here and have common NT goals. And wasn't that special in 2006. Absolutely agree that we have created, in Australia, a hybrid multicultural facet of the individual cultures that arrived here over the years and our shared experience has added to that deviation from the original culture. This is not unique btw,
I don't mean that Australia is the only society for which it is unique. I'm not suggesting that Australia's the only multicultural society on the planet in which people's national identities are informed by their upbringing in a country as a first-generation citizen. All multicultural societies have their own unique hybrids.
I mean that, for example, the hybrid culture in which a Greek-Australian has grown up is utterly unique. However, the hybrid culture for a Barbadian-British person (or maybe Caribbean- British person?) has grown up is also utterly unique.
+x+x+x[quote]What an interesting thread. Fascinating topic and something that will need to be addressed more and more as global migration patterns are sure to be changing post covid. Anyway my opinion is that an Australian child, born overseas to Aussies parents and thus being able to claim citizenship, perhaps never even having visited the country of his parents birth has every right to represent Australia if they feel a connection. What difference would living a few years in the country make anyway? We are a multicultural country anyway so how would that child's life experience be different say growing up in Stockholm compared to Adelaide? Apart from the language of course. This whole "if you don't like meat pies or drink beer or watch Neighbours, your un-Australian" is a little past it's use. Haha, ironically far more Brits watch Neighbours than Aussies. Can't stand the show. I don't think being brought up in STHM vs Adelaide makes any meaningful difference to a person's character. We're all just human beings. We benefit and suffer the same traits of human nature (wherever we grow up). I think it's better to think about the person as an individual defined by their character, rather than their nationality. It's just different life experience. Life experience (of growing up in a place) shouldn't really define their future (where they want to live, what they want to do). A person can only step foot in Australia for the first time as an adult and my opinion of them, as a person, is no different to if they've lived in Australia their whole life. In saying that, I feel as if international sport is the only realm remaining in which emotional association with a country (patriotism) is truly valid. Life experience does inform emotional connection. And international sport is all about that emotional connection. Australia is, indeed, multicultural. But we've created our own kind of hybrid culture which is utterly unique. That's the true nature of multiculturalism. Greek-Australians have a shared identity in their own right, for example. Vietnamese-Australians have a shared identity in their own right (different to that of Vietnamese Vietnamese people). The beautiful thing about this country is that it's an umbrella under which all these identities come together. We have shared experience living here and have common NT goals. And wasn't that special in 2006. Absolutely agree that we have created, in Australia, a hybrid multicultural facet of the individual cultures that arrived here over the years and our shared experience has added to that deviation from the original culture. That's exactly it. You've hit the nail on the head. +x+x+xWhat an interesting thread. Fascinating topic and something that will need to be addressed more and more as global migration patterns are sure to be changing post covid. Anyway my opinion is that an Australian child, born overseas to Aussies parents and thus being able to claim citizenship, perhaps never even having visited the country of his parents birth has every right to represent Australia if they feel a connection. What difference would living a few years in the country make anyway? We are a multicultural country anyway so how would that child's life experience be different say growing up in Stockholm compared to Adelaide? Apart from the language of course. This whole "if you don't like meat pies or drink beer or watch Neighbours, your un-Australian" is a little past it's use. Haha, ironically far more Brits watch Neighbours than Aussies. Can't stand the show. I don't think being brought up in STHM vs Adelaide makes any meaningful difference to a person's character. We're all just human beings. We benefit and suffer the same traits of human nature (wherever we grow up). I think it's better to think about the person as an individual defined by their character, rather than their nationality. It's just different life experience. Life experience (of growing up in a place) shouldn't really define their future (where they want to live, what they want to do). A person can only step foot in Australia for the first time as an adult and my opinion of them, as a person, is no different to if they've lived in Australia their whole life. In saying that, I feel as if international sport is the only realm remaining in which emotional association with a country (patriotism) is truly valid. Life experience does inform emotional connection. And international sport is all about that emotional connection. Australia is, indeed, multicultural. But we've created our own kind of hybrid culture which is utterly unique. That's the true nature of multiculturalism. Greek-Australians have a shared identity in their own right, for example. Vietnamese-Australians have a shared identity in their own right (different to that of Vietnamese Vietnamese people). The beautiful thing about this country is that it's an umbrella under which all these identities come together. We have shared experience living here and have common NT goals. And wasn't that special in 2006. A Greek-Australian, a Greek-American and a Greek-South African may have many differences in how they relate to their compatriots but the one commonality is the connection to their "original" culture. Patriotism is a funny thing and often can vary between families, let alone communities. I don't think it's an easy thing to quantify. I agree that it's not easy to quantify patriotism. And I agree that if a person is brought up in a Greek househould, whatever the country, that person will have a link with other people who grew up in Greek households elsewhere in the world. And maybe other links (as nationality and ethnicity are just one of many aspects of identity). However, I still think that the a Greek-Australian's cultural circumstances are fundamentally different to a Greek-American's cultural circumstances, for example. It's a different microcosm. Greek-Aussies tend to have been brought up a different microcosm to non-Greek-Aussies. However, Greek-Aussies have definitely been brought up in a wholly different microcosm to Greek-Americans (or Greek-anythings). The great thing about multiculturalism is whole news cultural identities, once regarded as inconceivable, rise up. +x+x+xWhat an interesting thread. Fascinating topic and something that will need to be addressed more and more as global migration patterns are sure to be changing post covid. Anyway my opinion is that an Australian child, born overseas to Aussies parents and thus being able to claim citizenship, perhaps never even having visited the country of his parents birth has every right to represent Australia if they feel a connection. What difference would living a few years in the country make anyway? We are a multicultural country anyway so how would that child's life experience be different say growing up in Stockholm compared to Adelaide? Apart from the language of course. This whole "if you don't like meat pies or drink beer or watch Neighbours, your un-Australian" is a little past it's use. Haha, ironically far more Brits watch Neighbours than Aussies. Can't stand the show. I don't think being brought up in STHM vs Adelaide makes any meaningful difference to a person's character. We're all just human beings. We benefit and suffer the same traits of human nature (wherever we grow up). I think it's better to think about the person as an individual defined by their character, rather than their nationality. It's just different life experience. Life experience (of growing up in a place) shouldn't really define their future (where they want to live, what they want to do). A person can only step foot in Australia for the first time as an adult and my opinion of them, as a person, is no different to if they've lived in Australia their whole life. In saying that, I feel as if international sport is the only realm remaining in which emotional association with a country (patriotism) is truly valid. Life experience does inform emotional connection. And international sport is all about that emotional connection. Australia is, indeed, multicultural. But we've created our own kind of hybrid culture which is utterly unique. That's the true nature of multiculturalism. Greek-Australians have a shared identity in their own right, for example. Vietnamese-Australians have a shared identity in their own right (different to that of Vietnamese Vietnamese people). The beautiful thing about this country is that it's an umbrella under which all these identities come together. We have shared experience living here and have common NT goals. And wasn't that special in 2006. From my perspective, being the child of Greek migrants, my connection to both countries is very strong. I am as much a Greek as I am an Aussie and even though, yes, I have lived for a portion of my life in Greece, I think my connection to the country would have been equally as strong even if I had never visited. I only own one half-n-half scarf (as I think that they are the cringiest f$%cken things on the planet) and is a Greece-Socceroos one. If my kids ever show any promise and have the opportunity to represent either country I would be equally as pleased and feel they would be entitled to choose Greece despite never having been there. Fair enough. My Dad's family are from Goa (a region in India which was colonised by the Portuguese). That, in itself, is a complex identity crisis for many Goan-Indians. As far as demographics go, the older ones tend to hate India and to identify as Goan or Goan-Portuguese. Whereas the younger ones tend to be opposed to the colonisation and identify as Indian. In the 1960s, Goa was handed back to the India. Some people hate "Invasion Day", others celebrate "Liberation Day". Very tricky. Anyhow, we have Goan relatives who live all over the world. The UK, the States, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland (iirc) and Goa. Probably a bunch of other places. The UK-based ones have stayed with us a few times. And I was lucky enough to stay with the Swedish-based ones. We definitely have things in common as Goan-Indians. But then I definitely noticed certain cultural things which are unique to Goan-Australians, or maybe Indian-Australians. +x+x+xWhat an interesting thread. Fascinating topic and something that will need to be addressed more and more as global migration patterns are sure to be changing post covid. Anyway my opinion is that an Australian child, born overseas to Aussies parents and thus being able to claim citizenship, perhaps never even having visited the country of his parents birth has every right to represent Australia if they feel a connection. What difference would living a few years in the country make anyway? We are a multicultural country anyway so how would that child's life experience be different say growing up in Stockholm compared to Adelaide? Apart from the language of course. This whole "if you don't like meat pies or drink beer or watch Neighbours, your un-Australian" is a little past it's use. Haha, ironically far more Brits watch Neighbours than Aussies. Can't stand the show. I don't think being brought up in STHM vs Adelaide makes any meaningful difference to a person's character. We're all just human beings. We benefit and suffer the same traits of human nature (wherever we grow up). I think it's better to think about the person as an individual defined by their character, rather than their nationality. It's just different life experience. Life experience (of growing up in a place) shouldn't really define their future (where they want to live, what they want to do). A person can only step foot in Australia for the first time as an adult and my opinion of them, as a person, is no different to if they've lived in Australia their whole life. In saying that, I feel as if international sport is the only realm remaining in which emotional association with a country (patriotism) is truly valid. Life experience does inform emotional connection. And international sport is all about that emotional connection. Australia is, indeed, multicultural. But we've created our own kind of hybrid culture which is utterly unique. That's the true nature of multiculturalism. Greek-Australians have a shared identity in their own right, for example. Vietnamese-Australians have a shared identity in their own right (different to that of Vietnamese Vietnamese people). The beautiful thing about this country is that it's an umbrella under which all these identities come together. We have shared experience living here and have common NT goals. And wasn't that special in 2006. Btw your words fill me with hope and I agree about our multiculturalism being an umbrella to bring our shared NT hopes. Yes 2006 was indeed special - I watched the Italy game in a taverna in Southern Greece, while on my honeymoon, with a room full of Germans and Italians. Glad to hear it :) Here's to a very multicultural Socceroos and one which goes far at a World Cup.
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xSurely nationality is just another social construct? If you identify as an Australian you are one. I agree to a point. Nationality is just a social and political construct, imo. That we are human (beings) is concrete and definable (even in scientific terms), whereas nationality is just something that societies made up. The nation-state, as a concept, only became prominent in the 18th and 19th Centuries. The notion of universality of rights trumps the concept of nationality. In principle, all human beings should have the same rights and opportunities (regardless of nationality) and international law strives to make that a thing. And the concept of the universality of human rights overrides the importance of international sport (including football). However, international football is a fundamentally emotional thing. Insofar as it is actually played, I reckon it's better if that's understood. Citizenship is a political concept (and a passport is just a piece of paper expressing that in legal terms). Bearing in mind the emotional aspect of international football, the whole thing is undermined if the competitors don't have a strong emotional bond with the nation which they're representing. Lived experience informs emotional connection in 99.99% of cases. If a person has never lived in Country B (having grown up entirely in Country A), how can their emotional link to Country B be anywhere nearly as strong as their emotional link to Country A? Sure they can identify as Australian and be an Australian citizen (no argument there) but their emotional link to the country they grew up in outweighs that, imo. Sorry. Should have put a <sarc> after my comment and saved you some typing. 😄
|
|
|
|
|
lebo_roo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Most of the people saying we should play anyone and everyone probably were too young and never went through the heartache and bastadry of Josip Suminic choosing Croatia over us. If you were around then you would realise he was made by us and should of played for us.
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMost of the people saying we should play anyone and everyone probably were too young and never went through the heartache and bastadry of Josip Suminic choosing Croatia over us. If you were around then you would realise he was made by us and should of played for us. Seems like most fans on here and haven't been long enough, Simunic should have played for us given he went through the AIS under Ron Smith. Tony Dorrigo is another one for England. And people are happy to cap players that probably haven't been here before, hopefully we have better standards which is where my argument is coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI haven’t checked, but my memory is that Italy have won 4 World Cups with about 20 Oriundi. Ie. Argentinians, Brazilians, Uruguayans whose great grandparents, grandparents etc came from Italy. Many of those had never been to Italy before they went their to play for a club team.
The point is that this has been happening for around 100 years with all nations.
I don’t think we should be arguing that we are unique and shouldn’t do the same as every one else. Not suggesting Australia's the only (or even worst) culprit in terms of pinching footballers developed in other countries. Just that the whole thing is a bit messy, imo, and it's not all that reassuring to know that Australia is contributing to that status quo. I guess if Boyle and Souttar are the only ones, it's not too bad. And I wish them all the the best. I certainly don't have anything against either of them personally (just disagree with them on a particular principle). But if, say, half the NT haven't grown up in Australia, then it's like - what's the point in supporting the NT? Agree nothing against Boyle and Souttar and I hope they do well for the Roos, but I would be worried if this trend continues whilst ignoring the glaring problems in player development the country still has got.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMost of the people saying we should play anyone and everyone probably were too young and never went through the heartache and bastadry of Josip Suminic choosing Croatia over us. If you were around then you would realise he was made by us and should of played for us. I wasn't heart broken over Suminic or Vieri before him. It is what it is mate. He wasn't "made by us" he was made by his family and community. Spending time at the AIS doesn't give Australia any moral claim to the guys soul. Dont know the guy and am not Croatian but I can imagine both his parents brought him up to be proud of his heritage, and he probably got told, like a lot of other migrant kids, to "fuck off back to your own country wog" one too many times.
|
|
|
|
|
lebo_roo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xMost of the people saying we should play anyone and everyone probably were too young and never went through the heartache and bastadry of Josip Suminic choosing Croatia over us. If you were around then you would realise he was made by us and should of played for us. I wasn't heart broken over Suminic or Vieri before him. It is what it is mate. He wasn't "made by us" he was made by his family and community. Spending time at the AIS doesn't give Australia any moral claim to the guys soul. Dont know the guy and am not Croatian but I can imagine both his parents brought him up to be proud of his heritage, and he probably got told, like a lot of other migrant kids, to "fuck off back to your own country wog" one too many times. I am talking strictly as a football fan here. As a wog myself of course i get the identity politics involved in this country but in this discussion its all about who which clubs from which country produced which players.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xMost of the people saying we should play anyone and everyone probably were too young and never went through the heartache and bastadry of Josip Suminic choosing Croatia over us. If you were around then you would realise he was made by us and should of played for us. I wasn't heart broken over Suminic or Vieri before him. It is what it is mate. He wasn't "made by us" he was made by his family and community. Spending time at the AIS doesn't give Australia any moral claim to the guys soul. Dont know the guy and am not Croatian but I can imagine both his parents brought him up to be proud of his heritage, and he probably got told, like a lot of other migrant kids, to "fuck off back to your own country wog" one too many times. I am talking strictly as a football fan here. As a wog myself of course i get the identity politics involved in this country but in this discussion its all about who which clubs from which country produced which players. Yeah I get what your saying but that's the thing it's not only Australian clubs that made the best Socceroos and we are not unique in any way. Do you think many of the current Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay etc etc players have spent any of their senior careers in their respective countries?
|
|
|
|
|
spitz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 0
|
It's good enough for the likes of Spain to fill half of their side with players born in Brazil, yet we should turn our nose up at players with Australian born parents?
Get stuffed.
It's the best player eligible to play for Australia, full stop.
These players aren't like the Qatari or Saudi naturalised players. They have a legal right for Australian citizenship through their parents, if they choose to take up Australian citizenship, they are Australians legally, who are you to say they can't then represent Australia if they choose? Australian citizenship is not easy to obtain, it's not handed out like confetti in the gulf countries.
If our local development isn't up to scratch, a player developed overseas filling 1 or 2 positions in the socceroo's isn't the cause of these problems and holding back local development. Players like Souttar and Boyle could actually help advance their development. Especially if someone like Souttar becomes a PL defender in the future.
I'm more worried about FIFA potentially changing the locked eligibility rules in the near future, where played can change nations under a certain threshold of games. Like the Cahill situation.
I'm guessing Souttar is probably second guessing his decision, given his breakout at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIt's the best player eligible to play for Australia, full stop. So pride, honour, the shirt and the privilege of being picked to represent YOUR country means fuck all does it? (Emphasis on YOUR country.) What other countries do shouldn't come into it. Boyle and his ilk are Australian as polar bears.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIt's the best player eligible to play for Australia, full stop. So pride, honour, the shirt and the privilege of being picked to represent YOUR country means fuck all does it? (Emphasis on YOUR country.) What other countries do shouldn't come into it. Boyle and his ilk are Australian as polar bears. Has anyone asked the players how they feel? Why do you assume that they are NOT proud Aussies? Absolutely I agree that honour and pride are the hallmarks of wanting to play for your nation but I don't agree that playing for the Socceroos means playing for the honour of the FFA. Maybe Soutar and Boyle etc etc have been brought up to feel like they are Aussies living in a foreign land? Maybe growing up they where always told they were convicts and didn't belong in England and to go back to where they came from. Maybe mum or dad or whoever was a massive influence in their lives and they grew up wanting to get a Southern Cross tattoo and drink VB? Point being that you cant tell a stranger who he/she is or what they feel connected to.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIn saying that, I feel as if international sport is the only realm remaining in which emotional association with a country (patriotism) is truly valid. Life experience does inform emotional connection. As a 2nd generation kid, I grew up dreaming of playing for Italy in a World Cup. I never went there till my mid-twenties. I spoke the language, had been raised around the customs, knew more about the history/geography than I did about Australia ffs If some wanna be debate team captain on an internet forum told me I wasn't really Italian enough for him I'd have kicked him in the nuts
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
The flip side is, as Scott said earlier, if I moved to the UK today and my child was born there I would be hoping and subtly pushing for them to grow up dreaming of playing for Australia.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIt's the best player eligible to play for Australia, full stop. So pride, honour, the shirt and the privilege of being picked to represent YOUR country means fuck all does it? (Emphasis on YOUR country.) What other countries do shouldn't come into it. Boyle and his ilk are Australian as polar bears. Has anyone asked the players how they feel? Why do you assume that they are NOT proud Aussies? Absolutely I agree that honour and pride are the hallmarks of wanting to play for your nation but I don't agree that playing for the Socceroos means playing for the honour of the FFA. Maybe Soutar and Boyle etc etc have been brought up to feel like they are Aussies living in a foreign land? Maybe growing up they where always told they were convicts and didn't belong in England and to go back to where they came from. Maybe mum or dad or whoever was a massive influence in their lives and they grew up wanting to get a Southern Cross tattoo and drink VB? Point being that you cant tell a stranger who he/she is or what they feel connected to. Doesn't matter mate. Both my parents were born overseas and I as much as I feel a part of those cultures when I go there I'd never call myself a native of either and/or believe I'm entitled to be called up for their respective countries'. Of course you can't tell them what they feel connected to but you sure as eggs can tell them they're not entitled to the shirt. It does make me laugh the blokes on here most fervently against 'plastic' franchises because a closed system is not 'real' football will happily give away the honour of our national shirt to any clown who just might have the smallest skerrick of an association with Australia because they're quite decent.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
scott20won
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xIt's the best player eligible to play for Australia, full stop. So pride, honour, the shirt and the privilege of being picked to represent YOUR country means fuck all does it? (Emphasis on YOUR country.) What other countries do shouldn't come into it. Boyle and his ilk are Australian as polar bears. Has anyone asked the players how they feel? Why do you assume that they are NOT proud Aussies? Absolutely I agree that honour and pride are the hallmarks of wanting to play for your nation but I don't agree that playing for the Socceroos means playing for the honour of the FFA. Maybe Soutar and Boyle etc etc have been brought up to feel like they are Aussies living in a foreign land? Maybe growing up they where always told they were convicts and didn't belong in England and to go back to where they came from. Maybe mum or dad or whoever was a massive influence in their lives and they grew up wanting to get a Southern Cross tattoo and drink VB? Point being that you cant tell a stranger who he/she is or what they feel connected to. Doesn't matter mate. Both my parents were born overseas and I as much as I feel a part of those cultures when I go there I'd never call myself a native of either and/or believe I'm entitled to be called up for their respective countries'. Of course you can't tell them what they feel connected to but you sure as eggs can tell them they're not entitled to the shirt. It does make me laugh the blokes on here most fervently against 'plastic' franchises because a closed system is not 'real' football will happily give away the honour of our national shirt to any clown who just might have the smallest skerrick of an association with Australia because they're quite decent. I think the difference is FIFA has world rules for internationals. Unfortunately it’s not the same for domestic football and we have ended up with a overly micromanaged shitshow. #unique
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xIt's the best player eligible to play for Australia, full stop. So pride, honour, the shirt and the privilege of being picked to represent YOUR country means fuck all does it? (Emphasis on YOUR country.) What other countries do shouldn't come into it. Boyle and his ilk are Australian as polar bears. Has anyone asked the players how they feel? Why do you assume that they are NOT proud Aussies? Absolutely I agree that honour and pride are the hallmarks of wanting to play for your nation but I don't agree that playing for the Socceroos means playing for the honour of the FFA. Maybe Soutar and Boyle etc etc have been brought up to feel like they are Aussies living in a foreign land? Maybe growing up they where always told they were convicts and didn't belong in England and to go back to where they came from. Maybe mum or dad or whoever was a massive influence in their lives and they grew up wanting to get a Southern Cross tattoo and drink VB? Point being that you cant tell a stranger who he/she is or what they feel connected to. Doesn't matter mate. Both my parents were born overseas and I as much as I feel a part of those cultures when I go there I'd never call myself a native of either and/or believe I'm entitled to be called up for their respective countries'. Of course you can't tell them what they feel connected to but you sure as eggs can tell them they're not entitled to the shirt. It does make me laugh the blokes on here most fervently against 'plastic' franchises because a closed system is not 'real' football will happily give away the honour of our national shirt to any clown who just might have the smallest skerrick of an association with Australia because they're quite decent. I think the difference is FIFA has world rules for internationals. Unfortunately it’s not the same for domestic football and we have ended up with a overly micromanaged shitshow. #unique I know what the FIFA rules are and I know we're entitled to call them up. I'm just putting forward my opinion that's it's a big bunch of arse for us to do it.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
scott20won
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIt's the best player eligible to play for Australia, full stop. So pride, honour, the shirt and the privilege of being picked to represent YOUR country means fuck all does it? (Emphasis on YOUR country.) What other countries do shouldn't come into it. Boyle and his ilk are Australian as polar bears. Has anyone asked the players how they feel? Why do you assume that they are NOT proud Aussies? Absolutely I agree that honour and pride are the hallmarks of wanting to play for your nation but I don't agree that playing for the Socceroos means playing for the honour of the FFA. Maybe Soutar and Boyle etc etc have been brought up to feel like they are Aussies living in a foreign land? Maybe growing up they where always told they were convicts and didn't belong in England and to go back to where they came from. Maybe mum or dad or whoever was a massive influence in their lives and they grew up wanting to get a Southern Cross tattoo and drink VB? Point being that you cant tell a stranger who he/she is or what they feel connected to. Doesn't matter mate. Both my parents were born overseas and I as much as I feel a part of those cultures when I go there I'd never call myself a native of either and/or believe I'm entitled to be called up for their respective countries'. Of course you can't tell them what they feel connected to but you sure as eggs can tell them they're not entitled to the shirt. It does make me laugh the blokes on here most fervently against 'plastic' franchises because a closed system is not 'real' football will happily give away the honour of our national shirt to any clown who just might have the smallest skerrick of an association with Australia because they're quite decent. I think the difference is FIFA has world rules for internationals. Unfortunately it’s not the same for domestic football and we have ended up with a overly micromanaged shitshow. #unique I know what the FIFA rules are and I know we're entitled to call them up. I'm just putting forward my opinion that's it's a big bunch of arse for us to do it. As long as we are not recruiting young players, getting them citizenship, then selecting I am fine with it. I personally think all the staff should be citizens (via FIFA rules). Perhaps medical staff could be up for discussion but the manager and their team imo should have the same links as the players to represent nations (if I got to choose) At least make it a rule you can’t be manager of more than 1 team in a WC cycle like Lagerbäck going to WC with Nigeria after failing to qualify with Sweden.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xIt's the best player eligible to play for Australia, full stop. So pride, honour, the shirt and the privilege of being picked to represent YOUR country means fuck all does it? (Emphasis on YOUR country.) What other countries do shouldn't come into it. Boyle and his ilk are Australian as polar bears. Has anyone asked the players how they feel? Why do you assume that they are NOT proud Aussies? Absolutely I agree that honour and pride are the hallmarks of wanting to play for your nation but I don't agree that playing for the Socceroos means playing for the honour of the FFA. Maybe Soutar and Boyle etc etc have been brought up to feel like they are Aussies living in a foreign land? Maybe growing up they where always told they were convicts and didn't belong in England and to go back to where they came from. Maybe mum or dad or whoever was a massive influence in their lives and they grew up wanting to get a Southern Cross tattoo and drink VB? Point being that you cant tell a stranger who he/she is or what they feel connected to. Doesn't matter mate. Both my parents were born overseas and I as much as I feel a part of those cultures when I go there I'd never call myself a native of either and/or believe I'm entitled to be called up for their respective countries'. Of course you can't tell them what they feel connected to but you sure as eggs can tell them they're not entitled to the shirt. It does make me laugh the blokes on here most fervently against 'plastic' franchises because a closed system is not 'real' football will happily give away the honour of our national shirt to any clown who just might have the smallest skerrick of an association with Australia because they're quite decent. If thats the way you feel your perfectly entitled to, it's the basic human right of self determination. What makes one player more Australian than others though? Is there some sort of eligibility test in your eyes as to what is an Aussie? From the below list, who would you allow to represent you (if any)? 1) A person born overseas, migrated to Australia as a child, now a citizen and never represented another country 2) A person born here, with parents from another country who dont speak English and don't really want their child to represent Australia but that player is not realistically good enough to rep for his parents choice. 3) someone born here but spent their whole childhood playing overseas (got into academies from 10 years old) and has never returned to Australia. I don't just hate plastic franchise's btw I hate all franchises, I don't got to Dominos if I want a pizza or Starbucks if I want a coffee. What you call giving away the honour of the shirt to clowns I call ultimately honouring the national team by wanting to enlist the best possible eligible players.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xIt's the best player eligible to play for Australia, full stop. So pride, honour, the shirt and the privilege of being picked to represent YOUR country means fuck all does it? (Emphasis on YOUR country.) What other countries do shouldn't come into it. Boyle and his ilk are Australian as polar bears. Has anyone asked the players how they feel? Why do you assume that they are NOT proud Aussies? Absolutely I agree that honour and pride are the hallmarks of wanting to play for your nation but I don't agree that playing for the Socceroos means playing for the honour of the FFA. Maybe Soutar and Boyle etc etc have been brought up to feel like they are Aussies living in a foreign land? Maybe growing up they where always told they were convicts and didn't belong in England and to go back to where they came from. Maybe mum or dad or whoever was a massive influence in their lives and they grew up wanting to get a Southern Cross tattoo and drink VB? Point being that you cant tell a stranger who he/she is or what they feel connected to. Doesn't matter mate. Both my parents were born overseas and I as much as I feel a part of those cultures when I go there I'd never call myself a native of either and/or believe I'm entitled to be called up for their respective countries'. Of course you can't tell them what they feel connected to but you sure as eggs can tell them they're not entitled to the shirt. It does make me laugh the blokes on here most fervently against 'plastic' franchises because a closed system is not 'real' football will happily give away the honour of our national shirt to any clown who just might have the smallest skerrick of an association with Australia because they're quite decent. If thats the way you feel your perfectly entitled to, it's the basic human right of self determination. What makes one player more Australian than others though? Is there some sort of eligibility test in your eyes as to what is an Aussie? From the below list, who would you allow to represent you (if any)? 1) A person born overseas, migrated to Australia as a child, now a citizen and never represented another country 2) A person born here, with parents from another country who dont speak English and don't really want their child to represent Australia but that player is not realistically good enough to rep for his parents choice. 3) someone born here but spent their whole childhood playing overseas (got into academies from 10 years old) and has never returned to Australia. I don't just hate plastic franchise's btw I hate all franchises, I don't got to Dominos if I want a pizza or Starbucks if I want a coffee. What you call giving away the honour of the shirt to clowns I call ultimately honouring the national team by wanting to enlist the best possible eligible players. 1) Grew up here. Fine. They're Australian. 2) Born here, lived here. They're Australian. (Represent Australia or represent nobody.) 3) Would allow a choice. BTW You don't honour the shirt by giving it away to mercenaries. Ever played in reserve grade all year and then made the grand final and they jam the reserve grade side with 4 or 5 first graders and leave you and your mates on the bench? Shitty yeah? You might win but it's a fucked way of doing it. I can't make it any clearer. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIt's the best player eligible to play for Australia, full stop. So pride, honour, the shirt and the privilege of being picked to represent YOUR country means fuck all does it? (Emphasis on YOUR country.) What other countries do shouldn't come into it. Boyle and his ilk are Australian as polar bears. Has anyone asked the players how they feel? Why do you assume that they are NOT proud Aussies? Absolutely I agree that honour and pride are the hallmarks of wanting to play for your nation but I don't agree that playing for the Socceroos means playing for the honour of the FFA. Maybe Soutar and Boyle etc etc have been brought up to feel like they are Aussies living in a foreign land? Maybe growing up they where always told they were convicts and didn't belong in England and to go back to where they came from. Maybe mum or dad or whoever was a massive influence in their lives and they grew up wanting to get a Southern Cross tattoo and drink VB? Point being that you cant tell a stranger who he/she is or what they feel connected to. Doesn't matter mate. Both my parents were born overseas and I as much as I feel a part of those cultures when I go there I'd never call myself a native of either and/or believe I'm entitled to be called up for their respective countries'. Of course you can't tell them what they feel connected to but you sure as eggs can tell them they're not entitled to the shirt. It does make me laugh the blokes on here most fervently against 'plastic' franchises because a closed system is not 'real' football will happily give away the honour of our national shirt to any clown who just might have the smallest skerrick of an association with Australia because they're quite decent. If thats the way you feel your perfectly entitled to, it's the basic human right of self determination. What makes one player more Australian than others though? Is there some sort of eligibility test in your eyes as to what is an Aussie? From the below list, who would you allow to represent you (if any)? 1) A person born overseas, migrated to Australia as a child, now a citizen and never represented another country 2) A person born here, with parents from another country who dont speak English and don't really want their child to represent Australia but that player is not realistically good enough to rep for his parents choice. 3) someone born here but spent their whole childhood playing overseas (got into academies from 10 years old) and has never returned to Australia. I don't just hate plastic franchise's btw I hate all franchises, I don't got to Dominos if I want a pizza or Starbucks if I want a coffee. What you call giving away the honour of the shirt to clowns I call ultimately honouring the national team by wanting to enlist the best possible eligible players. 1) Grew up here. Fine. They're Australian. 2) Born here, lived here. They're Australian. (Represent Australia or represent nobody.) 3) Would allow a choice. BTW You don't honour the shirt by giving it away to mercenaries. Ever played in reserve grade all year and then made the grand final and they jam the reserve grade side with 4 or 5 first graders and leave you and your mates on the bench? Shitty yeah? You might win but it's a fucked way of doing it. I can't make it any clearer. We'll have to agree to disagree. Nah never made finals in the rezzies we where shite. Lol I do get your point and I agree about mercenaries and ring ins. Cahill was the biggest one of all. All I'm trying to say is that (for me at least) the lines are blurred and maybe these boys aren't necessarily that. Maybe they are just jumping at a chance to play international's as they know they have fark all chance to play for England or Scotland or whatever, but that's my point, who knows? It's enough for me if they are Australian by legal right AND they have the desire to represent our country. Anyway happy to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|