Sorry but your example misses the point. Regardless of how you feel about the Boyle situation, it’s not analogous to the Arzani situation.

Daniel Arzani has lived in Australia since the age of seven. Most of his childhood was spent in Australia. He learnt to play football in Australia and came through the system here. He did almost all his schooling in Australia. His childhood friendships were predominantly formed in Australia. He grew up here.

Martin Boyle first came to Australia as an adult. He grew up entirely in another country. And nothing prevents (or prevented) him from representing that country.

It’s a tricky one. By virtue of IR law, Boyle can’t be deprived of the right to represent Australia. That’s the law. For some people, that’s end of story.

But Munrubenmuz makes a good point. This situation has shades of Tatiana Grigorieva, Kevin Pietersen and Jofra Archer about it. As far as I’m concerned, representing a country in sport should be a privilege, not a right. I think Martin should have the right to Australian citizenship. He should have the right to live, to work and to study in Australia as an Australian citizen.

But playing for the NT is tricky, imo. The only exception would be if, say, Scotland was banned from international football and he would otherwise be deprived of the right to play international football (e.g. Tony Grieg playing cricket for England when South Africa was banned because of Apartheid).