Do you think players should only be allowed to play for their country of birth?

Question

examples are.... Owen Hargreaves / England (born in Canada) Deco / Portugal ( born in Brazil) Zinadine Zidane / France (born in Algeria)

Please state what you think about this issue.

Answer 1

Yeah, because I think some countries are importing way too many players, and then brag about national pride on the WC.

France is a good example, you look at them and it looks like an african team, nothing against black players as my main football idols are black, but here in Brazil the majority is black... in france it looks obvious most players got french citizenship to play in a national team with good infra-structure.

England is also another interesting case, they brag so much about the english footballing superiority over the other Great Britain countries, but they would be a much weaker team without players from those countries.

Germany's team would be great without Klose and Podolsky, another case of people deciding to play for the country they think have better chances.

This is the main reason why it's always the same teams that are on top, the european national teams get the best from weaker countries (in footballing tradition) to compete with the brazilians and argentinians, who don't need that.

It should only be allowed if the person lived in the country BEFORE BECOMING A PLAYER!!! That means if he lives since a kid on that country. It's ridiculous to get him only if he already is a good player, like african players that become citizens on european countries, to play in their clubs, then get into the national team.

Now for you that think that a colony should be counted as part of the country.... I am stoned, can't believe such imperialist thinking survive to this day... a colony is a slave country damnit... and I thought europeans were more evolved when it comes to good sense...

EDIT: I think the system is being cheated. I'll use two players like Roberto Carlos and Ronaldo as an example, who both are spanish citizens. Why? Because Real Madrid has a quota of "outsiders", they can't hire more players that aren't spanish, unless some of them becomes a spanish citizen. So that means almost all players that play on european clubs have that country's citizenship, more a way of cheating the system more than anything else. And the players from less known countries, or countries that have no chance of going to the WC, are taken to the national team of the country he's playing at.

It weakens new "football superpowers", specially in the 3rd world countries, and makes the european big names have undeserved results.

You really think it's fair for the french to say "We won the 98 cup" when the team is really a mix of african/french players? (just using france as an example). I think their fans looks like retarded for waving their flags with pride of their country, while some of their players must be thinking "I wish my home country was here instead".

Do you think Deco would play for Portugal if he had a chance on the brazilian team? Obviously not, he's like a reject that Portugal got with arms wide open. Good for him, good for the portuguese team (he is very good), but where is the portuguese pride?!?!

Way too many countries are doing that to maintain their "football superpower" status, they weakened their own stars by importing stars from other countries, let them suffer on internacional tournaments for their greed.

Answer 2

I understand the sentiments implicit in your question and, if you were a purist, you might insist that your country of birth,should be the only one that you should be allowed to play for. I would like that too, if it were practicable.
I am certain of one thing, that is, the rules should not afford you a choice. The rules should make it clear which country you are eligible to play for.

What would you do though, in a situation which is commonplace these days, where a player resided in another country, other than his country of birth, and had become a legal national (emphasis on legal) of that country? It would mean that the selection rules you postulate would be at variance to international law? Moreover, his country of birth might not allow him to play for them.

So I think that your your suggestion would be very difficult to apply in practise, although, notwithstanding the above, it would be useful to have some sort of loyalty test as well. I can't think of anything more hypocritical than selecting a player who's heart was secretly with another country.

Also, by applying your suggestion, it might be difficult to match up league commitments with national obligations.

I do think though, and this may have triggered your question, that if football fans cannot empathise with the players selected for their national side, because the rules are too flexible or unclear, and allow too much latitude, then the whole point of a national side is undermined.

Ps. What about foreign nationals playing in the English league?

Answer 3

I think players should play for any country to which they have citizenship and a certain allegiance.

I'm not sure that Hargreaves has ever lived in England, yet he has an English passport so who can stop him?

Zidane on the other hand was born in a country that at the time was really part of France, and he has lived in France for quite a bit of his life. I believe this is also the case with Klose and Podolski - don't they actually live in Germany, but were born to Polish parents in Poland.

Answer 4

For a start, Zidane was not born in Algeria. He was born in Marseille to Algerian parents. Hargreaves does not have an Ingerlish passport. There's no such thing. The Ireland thing is a poor subject that Ingerlish people should not mention seeing as half of your cricket captains since World War Two were not Ingerlish and a load of rugby players as well. I won't mention athletics. At the end of the day, if you qualify, by whatever rules are going, for whatever country, it is up to the individual concerned. Which is why I refused to play schoolboy international football for Ingerland. Unlike Ryan Giggs.

Answer 5

No, I do not think that that is particularly fair. Because you are born in a certain country, I do not think that it means they are particularly that nationality.

If someones parents are on holiday in, lets say Spain or Egypt (random countries), and whilst their a future footballer is given birth to, does this make that future footballer either Spanish or Egyptian. No, it doesn't. That future footballers parents will go back to their home country, lets say England and they will bring that future footballer up as English. It'd be stupid for that child to only be able top play for Spain/Egypt in the future. Also, I have a friend who was born in Austria to 2 English parents. How does this make him Austrian.

I've just read back everything that I have written above and it all sounds ****.

Answer 6

I am not so sure about this one. i believe it is more loogical for the player to play in their country of birth, but then again it is up to the player, say if they were born in a certain country then moved to a different country at an early age, the player would feel more at home playing for the country they were living in at the moment. Although i think some cases are getting a little out of hand, for example the case of Salomon Kalou, at Feyenoord he wanted to play for Holland as he was playing there at the time, but now as he is playing for Chelsea he wants to start playing for his native Ivory Coast.

Answer 7

Even if you are born in another country, you can be ethnically tied to another--for example, your parents could be Indian, but you are born in Germany, so does that mean you can only play for Germany? Or only for India? It's hard to put one clear cut answer for this with the world being so globalized. I think it's wrong to have players on teams that have nothing to do with them personally. They should atleast feel some sort of patriotism towards their team's country.

Answer 8

Well before I answer your question you have some facts that are not true. I do not like the French but Zidane was born in France however they do have 8 players on their team that are not born in France. Deco was born in Brazil.
This is a tough question. I certainly think they should. However in the two recent world cups of the teams that mattered only Italy and Turkey was formed of players only from their own country. I think as long as the player embraces the country he makes his living in, learned his skills in in todays Global World it is ok.

Answer 9

A player should be allowed to play for any country for which he has citizenship.

Imagine a child born to English parents working overseas - surely he should be allowed English citizenship and the right to play for England.

Answer 10

I think that national sports players should play for the country that holds their citizenship not the country of their ethnic origin. I also feel that a player should have to be a US citizen to make money here. If that were the case we wouldn't have anyone to represent the United States.

Answer 11

No. Most of the naturalized players live in that country and have established roots there. They've had children born in that country, moved their families there, and bought homes. Why treat them like 2nd class citizens when one way or another they're giving back to the country that embraced them.