This is is a continuation of the following derailments from "Aussies Abroad" and "Aussies called up by other countries" threads.



Barca4Life

My 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.

Continuation from "Aussies called up by other countries" thread




To my mind, not having lived in a country and representing it is unfathomable (citizen or not). It's one thing not to have grown up in the country at all but not even to have lived there.

How can there be any passion (beyond the level of club football)?

This is stupid.

Best eligible player. 

i agree

What if that means that China and Qatar one day end up with a starting line-up of stars from the European Big 4 leagues. And none of the guys grew up in China or Qatar?

Wouldn't put it past either of those countries. And if the gave FIFA enough money, do you think FIFA would have too many qualms about changing the eligibility rules?

If people want the best players and some are not from here then I suggest people need to stick to club football, thats not what international football is all about.

Thats interesting because all of the Swedish national team players all come from Sweden, why should it be different for Australia? 

I said it before and I’ll say it again. 

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).

Of course but a passport is merely a document that expresses citizenship. When your passport expires, you don't stop being a citizen. Similarly, you can be a citizen without ever having had a passport (as various politicians know to their cost).

Nobody is arguing that Harry Souttar or Martin Boyle shouldn't have Australian citizenship. That's fine by me. They can move to Australia, have families in Australia, work in Australia and study in Australia (as domestic students). By all means. Those things are rights.

(a) Should representing Australia be regarded as a right or a privilege?

(b) If a person didn't grow up in Australia (at all) and maybe hasn't even lived in Australia can they have the same kind of emotion attachment to Australia that people on this forum, for example, have?

(c) If they don't have that emotional attachment to Australia, should they be afforded the right/privilege to play for Australia?

If there are changes to the current eligibility rules then that would surely be a separate argument.

Nah, don't think so. They had still resided in Australia all throughout their childhoods.

I don't think "residency" in sport is meant in the same way the federal government looks at "residency for tax purposes".

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.

Arguably, yes. If you're just judging the validity of the rules at any given time (and think they're fine now). That would be fair enough, if we could have confidence in FIFA not being easily corruptible.

On the other hand, if you abide by the idea of "picking the best player eligible" as a principle, then it's difficult to argue about whatever rules FIFA makes. Then you've just gotta accept them (just or unjust). They might suit us now and then. But they might be a huge Achilles Heel for the AFC, as well as the integrity of international football, in general.

Jordan Larsson doesn’t for example.

But to quote Zlatan- There is an underlying racism. (Player selection)

But I am Australian. You think if I have a child who is good enough to play for Australia that they shouldn’t be allowed because they don’t know what a chickoroll is or a Wally Lewis.

That’s fine.

But that child would be eligible whether you like it or not.

That Jordan Larson fella played his youth football in Sweden based on his wiki page, thats different from someone that hasnt been in our shores before and all of a sudden is part of World Cup qualifiers. 

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.

It’s one for the scholars.

Who is more Australian? Someone who has a parent/s or grandparent/s from Australia or an asylum seeker whom moved to Australia after being 10 years old?

Depends on their story and how they being brought up.

Both have advantages and disadvantages to both.

Personally I get more connected to someone who is from here especially if they come through the system here.

Each to their own I guess.

An asylum seeker who moved to Australia as a kid. E.g. Awer Mabil or Thomas Deng. In my opinion, at any rate.

At least, they have more of an emotional connection with Australia than somebody whose connection is having Australian parents or grandparents. Our parents' and grandparents' experiences aren't our own. We can have a cultural link. But it's not lived experience. By all means, the child or grandchild should have every right to Australian citizenship and to move here and create a life here. But I don't buy the idea that their emotional connection with Australia is greater than, say, Mabil's or Deng's.

Swedens most popular/number 1 sport for decades has been soccer- Not the case here sadly thanks to cricket, thugby, Aus rules. 

I understand the dangers, but at the moment, I don't really see any evidence that it's out of control (NT's grabbing players from anywhere to join the NT).

Ice Hockey is pretty strong.

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.

Let’s say your grandparents are Greek. Immigrated to Australia. You are second gen Australian. When you visit Greece you have an emotional connection with that country.

For me it’s Scotland. I feel more at home there than in Sweden even after almost 20 years living in Sweden.

You grow up having that contact with your parents or grandparents... of course you are going to have an emotional connection when every second old lady reminds you of your nana.

100% And thats why I said if the player is eligible as a citizen and has a connection with the country then thumbs up from me. 

But I also think that a new citizen, living in this country for the minimum amount of time required to get pr and then citizenship,  and provided they comply with Fifa  rules regarding previous participation,  has every right to feel a connection to this great land and to play for the Socceroos 

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 from 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 step foot in Australia only 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.

I love the Qatar handball team

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, 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.
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.
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. Lucky my Greek is very fluent as I would have found it very hard to explain to the police why I had to break the nose of the drunk Italian guy that kept yelling "va fanculo kangaroo" all afternoon to me.... Haha Haha