Sorry I missed it after having my views likened to the Hitler Youth and being misquoted about Ozil
I have elsewhere (in the WC thread about Poles playing for Germany) suggested a series of strict criteria that would be applied to everyone regarding which country they can play for. Based on country of birth and nationality of parents. If that couldn't decide it, then 'tie-break' criteria would come into play, using such things as whether a parent has represented a country at international level, nationality of grandparents and so on.
There would be a whole bunch to go through, but would be in the exact same order for everyone, so no one could cheat by opting for a more favourable country - you would not be allowed to choose, it would be chosen for you as determined by the criteria. If it turns out you have an Italian mother and a father from Papua New Guinnea but were born in Spain, but the link to Papua New Guinnea (as determined by the criteria) is stronger - tough luck, you could only ever play for them and never Italy or Spain
So I can't give a straight answer to your question about the adopted Ghanian, but either Ghana or England would be the strong favourite
The bottom line is that no one should ever be allowed to choose the country they can represent
The first one of those is absurd. The other bold bits highlight that you haven't really thought this through. There would be too many borderline, too many blurry and too many bureaucratic barriers blocking common sense. The current system is simple, almost universally accepted and there is no tinge of xenophobia. "Real" English this and "proper" Spanish that.
The first one of those is absurd. The other bold bits highlight that you haven't really thought this through. There would be too many borderline, too many blurry and too many bureaucratic barriers blocking common sense. The current system is simple, almost universally accepted and there is no tinge of xenophobia. "Real" English this and "proper" Spanish that.
Country of birth and nationality of parents would be enough for the vast majority of players. After that it would become more obscure.
Seeing as many believe it right that a player should not represent another country after he has already represented one. why not bring in the parents international careers as well as part of the tie break criteria? It's better than drawing straws
Lets say born in germany with a dutch mum and indian dad (3 equal but different facts), so we need something more - lets say the dad had played cricket for india. That would be the deciding factor which would mean the kid could only ever represent india in international sports. It may be harsh in some cases but it would be the same for everyone and be much fairer than being allowed to choose
Re the ghanian adoptee, I cannot give you a straight answer as there are not enough details supplied to match against the list of criteria
Seeing as many believe it right that a player should not represent another country after he has already represented one. why not bring in the parents international careers as well as part of the tie break criteria? It's better than drawing straws
Lets say born in germany with a dutch mum and indian dad (3 equal but different facts), so we need something more - lets say the dad had played cricket for india. That would be the deciding factor which would mean the kid could only ever represent india in international sports. It may be harsh in some cases but it would be the same for everyone and be much fairer than being allowed to choose
Re the ghanian adoptee, I cannot give you a straight answer as there are not enough details supplied to match against the list of criteria
No, i'm sorry, that is just stupid. Nothing else needs to be said on that idea, I can guarantee you won't get a single right minded person on here agreeing with you that that idea should be part of the criteria.
Country of birth and nationality of parents would be enough for the vast majority of players. After that it would become more obscure.
It's enough as it is now! You're system doesn't actually provide a solution or a viable alternative.
You should be able to give me a straight answer. If you really want these decisions to be based on such a detailed case-by-case basis you are asking for trouble. You haven't got a list of criteria, and there isn't much information you need other than that anyway. If your 'system' if you can call it that can't even solve that one, there's going to be many more grey areas. The one in place now, like i said is simple and doesn't have any kind of racial undertones. Sorry, but your idea of 'proper' English and 'true' Spanish has an undeniable tinge of it. Griffin was laughed at on Question Time when he came out with similar rhetoric. And it is similar rhetoric. You're saying, despite people growing up from birth in Britain with British citizenship are 'less' British than me. And i don't accept that, and the vast majority don't either which is why you are a pretty much lone voice in seeking reform.
No, i'm sorry, that is just stupid. Nothing else needs to be said on that idea, I can guarantee you won't get a single right minded person on here agreeing with you that that idea should be part of the criteria.
It's enough as it is now! You're system doesn't actually provide a solution or a viable alternative.
You should be able to give me a straight answer. If you really want these decisions to be based on such a detailed case-by-case basis you are asking for trouble. You haven't got a list of criteria, and there isn't much information you need other than that anyway. If your 'system' if you can call it that can't even solve that one, there's going to be many more grey areas. The one in place now, like i said is simple and doesn't have any kind of racial undertones. Sorry, but your idea of 'proper' English and 'true' Spanish has an undeniable tinge of it. Griffin was laughed at on Question Time when he came out with similar rhetoric. And it is similar rhetoric. You're saying, despite people growing up from birth in Britain with British citizenship are 'less' British than me. And i don't accept that, and the vast majority don't either which is why you are a pretty much lone voice in seeking reform.
You seem stuck on racial undertones, mentioning far right groups and now nick griffin just because some folk would rather see players represent their own countries and not someone elses, There is absolutely nothing racist in having those beliefs and will not be drawn into discussion about it (again) on these forums as it's becoming tedious to have to state the bleedin obvious over and over again
In any case you keep misquoting me, first the ozil comment and now this 'proper english, true spanish' stuff as well. If you can't remember what people are actually saying to you, use the quote button - thats what it's there for. I shall leave you to find someone else to vent your antiquated views on racism with as it doesn't interest me in the slightest
You seem stuck on racial undertones, mentioning far right groups and now nick griffin just because some folk would rather see players represent their own countries and not someone elses, There is absolutely nothing racist in having those beliefs and will not be drawn into discussion about it (again) on these forums as it's becoming tedious to have to state the bleedin obvious over and over again
I don't think there's any call for using the 'R' word in this thread because that's not the discussion we're having. No-one is suggesting players should be exlcuded from playing for England based on race. We're discussing exclusion based on 'assumed' nationality. The law of the land states that if someone holds British Citizenship (no matter how that is gained) and have not played for another senior national side then they can play for a home nation team (how it's decided which, I'm not sure. I assume they are deemed 'English' if they've lived in England. What happens if they've lived in England & Scotland for equal amounts of time I have no idea). The thread is not discussing the legal rules, it's a discussion about what people beleive is right. A lot feel it's wrong for a foreigner who has gained citizenship through residency and qualifies for national team selection should actually ever be considered. I respect people's opinions but in my opinion that's descrimination and xenophobic.
There's a wider implication. Playing for the national side is supposedly the pinnacle of the football proffession. What is being suggested is that you can stop someone from attaining that honour based on assumed national laoyalty when that runs contrary to the law. In any other profession that would be descrimination and the employer would have a legal case to answer.
I understand why people don't like it but I don't understand why people don't accept it.
I don't think there's any call for using the 'R' word in this thread because that's not the discussion we're having. No-one is suggesting players should be exlcuded from playing for England based on race. We're discussing exclusion based on 'assumed' nationality. The law of the land states that if someone holds British Citizenship (no matter how that is gained) and have not played for another senior national side then they can play for a home nation team (how it's decided which, I'm not sure. I assume they are deemed 'English' if they've lived in England. What happens if they've lived in England & Scotland for equal amounts of time I have no idea). The thread is not discussing the legal rules, it's a discussion about what people beleive is right. A lot feel it's wrong for a foreigner who has gained citizenship through residency and qualifies for national team selection should actually ever be considered. I respect people's opinions but in my opinion that's descrimination and xenophobic.
There's a wider implication. Playing for the national side is supposedly the pinnacle of the football proffession. What is being suggested is that you can stop someone from attaining that honour based on assumed national laoyalty when that runs contrary to the law. In any other profession that would be descrimination and the employer would have a legal case to answer.
I understand why people don't like it but I don't understand why people don't accept it.
I find it amazing to believe that some people confuse talking about issues that involve 'foreigners' such as this topic, or others such as immigration. with racism
As soon as such a subject arises, you can be sure someone on here will come along and start misplaying the racist card. I believe a person's nationality is determined by their circumstances of birth - country born in, nationality of parents to begin with, and is not something which can be chosen (quite often for conveniences sake).
To make this perfectly clear to paddy, this applies to everyone be they black, white, oriental, nordic, eskimo whatever and has absolutely nothing to do with nazism, the bnp, nick griffin, stormfront or the kkk. At which point I am departing this thread to find something vaguely sensible to talk about
Well ok, but when you say arteta could never be English enough to play for England even if he were born
here, it's hard not to raise your eyebrows at that. As for your ozil, behave it was a genuine confusion, so nice one on deviating it from your ridiculously vague and impractical alternative. The status of your dads international record was the particular lowlight.
Will someone please tell paddy I've never said anything about arteta not being allowed to play for england if he were born here and point him to where I have said several times that country of birth is a key factor in determining nationality.
Thanks ever so much as I'm rapidly losing the will to live
If it was me, I would pick him. If he wants to pull on the shirt, then he has the skills to make the team improve imo.
It isn't though. It's a matter of whether you think one British citizen is 'more' British than another. Or denying the right of an Iranian immigrant say who escaped persecution and has embraced English culture to be thought of as English enough to play for the team. People have DUAL NATIONALITY status. Football has no right to disregard that.
Born here. Or moved here at the age of 1. You really believe there is such a difference... What if a German family who lived in England most of their lives went on holiday for a week while in Germany, then gave birth while over there but raised their child in England? You don't have a proper answer for that, and you don't have a proper answer for the adoption case. You don't provide any properly thought out alternative. Who their dad played for...that makes them 'English enough' to play for the national team? And you aren't being misquoted. You're not saying the words, but how can this not be about you not thinking some players have legitimacy to call themselves an England player and others don't, despite having the same thing written on the passport. You MUST regard one to be more English than the other, otherwise there would be no issue. You just don't want to use the phrase.
It isn't though. It's a matter of whether you think one British citizen is 'more' British than another. Or denying the right of an Iranian immigrant say who escaped persecution and has embraced English culture to be thought of as English enough to play for the team. People have DUAL NATIONALITY status. Football has no right to disregard that.
Born here. Or moved here at the age of 1. You really believe there is such a difference... What if a German family who lived in England most of their lives went on holiday for a week while in Germany, then gave birth while over there but raised their child in England? You don't have a proper answer for that, and you don't have a proper answer for the adoption case. You don't provide any properly thought out alternative. Who their dad played for...that makes them 'English enough' to play for the national team? And you aren't being misquoted. You're not saying the words, but how can this not be about you not thinking some players have legitimacy to call themselves an England player and others don't, despite having the same thing written on the passport. You MUST regard one to be more English than the other, otherwise there would be no issue. You just don't want to use the phrase.
That's all well and good, but I am a simple man, and I say if he qualifies for citizenship, and by "law" qualifies to play for England, and he wants to......and Capello wants to pick him.....I don't have a problem with it.
I don't tie myself up in knots about this and that.
Not read through the entire thread, but responding to the title I would say yes, based mainly on the 'cricket' argument (no-one is in outcry on the fact most of our England cricket team are from S.A.) Also, the Owen hargreaves aspect. I was more than happy for him to play for England based on his ability, not having heard of him at the time he was first picked and knowing he was basically Canadian and only played in Germany.
Having said that, I was not on DS at the time OH was picked - maybe the same arguments raged on here then?
Not read through the entire thread, but responding to the title I would say yes, based mainly on the 'cricket' argument (no-one is in outcry on the fact most of our England cricket team are from S.A.) Also, the Owen hargreaves aspect. I was more than happy for him to play for England based on his ability, not having heard of him at the time he was first picked and knowing he was basically Canadian and only played in Germany.
Having said that, I was not on DS at the time OH was picked - maybe the same arguments raged on here then?
Owen Hargreaves has an English Dad and Welsh Mum. Thats why he fairly and squarely could have chosen Wales or England.
Completely different scenario from a player would has no link to a country except being employed in it for a period.
Owen Hargreaves has an English Dad and Welsh Mum. Thats why he fairly and squarely could have chosen Wales or England.
Completely different scenario from a player would has no link to a country except being employed in it for a period.
So just having a parent who holds the nationality and never having actually lived or worked in that country makes you more worthy than earning your citizenship by living and working in the country, paying your taxes etc...? Come off it!
So just having a parent who holds the nationality and never having actually lived or worked in that country makes you more worthy than earning your citizenship by living and working in the country, paying your taxes etc...? Come off it!
Thats exactly what im saying.
Take Arteta and Hargreaves.
You are saying Arteta is more worthy. Do you think he is in England because he loves all things English and has a burning desire to pull on the 3 lions or do you think its cos Everton pay him £50k a week to stay in the country?
If after 4 years Barca had bid £15m and Everton had accepted, what do you think he would have done?
If after 4 years do you think he would have rejected a call up to the Spanish team?
Both because he wanted to be English?
Hargreaves comes from a UK background to UK parents, who happen to live outside the UK.
I think that gives him more right than a player who has absolutely no connection with the country other than being paid a fortune to be here.
I like Arteta and if people want him for England then good luck to you all but be under no illusion that he is doing it for any reason other than playing international football for the team that asks because the country he comes from didnt.
If this happens and is adopted as acceptable you will have an England team in 10/15 years with no English connections whatsoever other than 5 year residency. Again, if you are happy with that then thats totally fine but i think it will do nothing but marginalise the public further from the nation team than they already seem to be IMO.
You are saying Arteta is more worthy. Do you think he is in England because he loves all things English and has a burning desire to pull on the 3 lions or do you think its cos Everton pay him £50k a week to stay in the country?
If after 4 years Barca had bid £15m and Everton had accepted, what do you think he would have done?
If after 4 years do you think he would have rejected a call up to the Spanish team?
Both because he wanted to be English?
Hargreaves comes from a UK background to UK parents, who happen to live outside the UK.
I think that gives him more right than a player who has absolutely no connection with the country other than being paid a fortune to be here.
I like Arteta and if people want him for England then good luck to you all but be under no illusion that he is doing it for any reason other than playing international football for the team that asks because the country he comes from didnt.
If this happens and is adopted as acceptable you will have an England team in 10/15 years with no English connections whatsoever other than 5 year residency. Again, if you are happy with that then thats totally fine but i think it will do nothing but marginalise the public further from the nation team than they already seem to be IMO.
Rubbish! Firstly I never said Arteta was more worthy. Worthiness is entirely sunbjective and has no place in this decision. There are simple rules about qualification both of which Hargreaves and Arteta meet. I have no doubt that Arteta came to England because Everton was the best offer he had and I also have no doubt if RM or Barcelona made him an offer he'd go back. I am also quite sure given the choice he'd pull on the Spanish shirt over the England shirt. But none of that matters. What matter is is he willing to sacrifice any chance of making it into the Spanish team in the future in order to get just one cap for England? If he is, why? Because he wants to play international football and one of the teams he qualifies to play for may call him up.
And no, in 10 - 15 years time we will not have and England team made up entirely of adopted nationals. The PL has had a large foreign contingent for 10 years now and many of those players have had the same opportunity as Arteta to become British citizens. I have no idea which of them took that opportunity up.
The real issue here is that in the past the quality of 'English born and bred' player has been good enough that this issue has not really come to a head. Clearly now with the reprecussions of the WC the FA are considering it's choices and selecting Arteta is a real option. He may not be good enough for the World Champions but he may just be good enough for England and as I've said before, if he qualifies and wants to play then not selecting him based on any other criteria is just plain wrong.
So just having a parent who holds the nationality and never having actually lived or worked in that country makes you more worthy than earning your citizenship by living and working in the country, paying your taxes etc...? Come off it!
You can't make laws and legislation based on that kind of subjective view. It will never happen, because of this argument which disregards the fact that you can't take these things on a case by case basis. A clear, underlining precedent must be kept and the current system falls in line with other areas of life that involve having British citizenship. All the other suggestions made are always either too complicated, too subjective, too open to interpretation and prone to racism. Sorry, the R word again. But when you start talking about some British citizens having more Britishness about them than others to play for the national side than others, it is a very slippery slope.
Rubbish! Firstly I never said Arteta was more worthy. Worthiness is entirely sunbjective and has no place in this decision. There are simple rules about qualification both of which Hargreaves and Arteta meet. I have no doubt that Arteta came to England because Everton was the best offer he had and I also have no doubt if RM or Barcelona made him an offer he'd go back. I am also quite sure given the choice he'd pull on the Spanish shirt over the England shirt. But none of that matters. What matter is is he willing to sacrifice any chance of making it into the Spanish team in the future in order to get just one cap for England? If he is, why? Because he wants to play international football and one of the teams he qualifies to play for may call him up.
And no, in 10 - 15 years time we will not have and England team made up entirely of adopted nationals. The PL has had a large foreign contingent for 10 years now and many of those players have had the same opportunity as Arteta to become British citizens. I have no idea which of them took that opportunity up.
The real issue here is that in the past the quality of 'English born and bred' player has been good enough that this issue has not really come to a head. Clearly now with the reprecussions of the WC the FA are considering it's choices and selecting Arteta is a real option. He may not be good enough for the World Champions but he may just be good enough for England and as I've said before, if he qualifies and wants to play then not selecting him based on any other criteria is just plain wrong.
There is an agreement in place whereby the home nations agree not to pick players this way so in effect there has to some level of change in order for Arteta to play.
If he applies for citizenship he will get a UK passport, not an English one therefore he can play for any home nation. In effect Scotland could pick him with him never having set foot in the country (a bad example as Arteta played for Rangers, but you get the broad idea, perhaps not likely this way round but for example Scotland could approach Almunia).
You could easily see a scenario where a lot of the young players who now come to the UK at 16 to play for the big clubs end up applying for UK Passports, it could be in the best interests of the club and the country so its not that far fetched. Fabio and Rafael for example at Utd. Handy if they are classed as British for Utd and a couple of full backs for England. Again, with them being Brazilian it may not happen but again its just an example, im sure you can see how it may appeal to kids from lesser footballing nations.
So just having a parent who holds the nationality and never having actually lived or worked in that country makes you more worthy than earning your citizenship by living and working in the country, paying your taxes etc...? Come off it!
Comments
The first one of those is absurd. The other bold bits highlight that you haven't really thought this through. There would be too many borderline, too many blurry and too many bureaucratic barriers blocking common sense. The current system is simple, almost universally accepted and there is no tinge of xenophobia. "Real" English this and "proper" Spanish that.
Seeing as many believe it right that a player should not represent another country after he has already represented one. why not bring in the parents international careers as well as part of the tie break criteria? It's better than drawing straws
Lets say born in germany with a dutch mum and indian dad (3 equal but different facts), so we need something more - lets say the dad had played cricket for india. That would be the deciding factor which would mean the kid could only ever represent india in international sports. It may be harsh in some cases but it would be the same for everyone and be much fairer than being allowed to choose
Re the ghanian adoptee, I cannot give you a straight answer as there are not enough details supplied to match against the list of criteria
No, i'm sorry, that is just stupid. Nothing else needs to be said on that idea, I can guarantee you won't get a single right minded person on here agreeing with you that that idea should be part of the criteria.
It's enough as it is now! You're system doesn't actually provide a solution or a viable alternative.
You should be able to give me a straight answer. If you really want these decisions to be based on such a detailed case-by-case basis you are asking for trouble. You haven't got a list of criteria, and there isn't much information you need other than that anyway. If your 'system' if you can call it that can't even solve that one, there's going to be many more grey areas. The one in place now, like i said is simple and doesn't have any kind of racial undertones. Sorry, but your idea of 'proper' English and 'true' Spanish has an undeniable tinge of it. Griffin was laughed at on Question Time when he came out with similar rhetoric. And it is similar rhetoric. You're saying, despite people growing up from birth in Britain with British citizenship are 'less' British than me. And i don't accept that, and the vast majority don't either which is why you are a pretty much lone voice in seeking reform.
In any case you keep misquoting me, first the ozil comment and now this 'proper english, true spanish' stuff as well. If you can't remember what people are actually saying to you, use the quote button - thats what it's there for. I shall leave you to find someone else to vent your antiquated views on racism with as it doesn't interest me in the slightest
I don't think there's any call for using the 'R' word in this thread because that's not the discussion we're having. No-one is suggesting players should be exlcuded from playing for England based on race. We're discussing exclusion based on 'assumed' nationality. The law of the land states that if someone holds British Citizenship (no matter how that is gained) and have not played for another senior national side then they can play for a home nation team (how it's decided which, I'm not sure. I assume they are deemed 'English' if they've lived in England. What happens if they've lived in England & Scotland for equal amounts of time I have no idea). The thread is not discussing the legal rules, it's a discussion about what people beleive is right. A lot feel it's wrong for a foreigner who has gained citizenship through residency and qualifies for national team selection should actually ever be considered. I respect people's opinions but in my opinion that's descrimination and xenophobic.
There's a wider implication. Playing for the national side is supposedly the pinnacle of the football proffession. What is being suggested is that you can stop someone from attaining that honour based on assumed national laoyalty when that runs contrary to the law. In any other profession that would be descrimination and the employer would have a legal case to answer.
I understand why people don't like it but I don't understand why people don't accept it.
As soon as such a subject arises, you can be sure someone on here will come along and start misplaying the racist card. I believe a person's nationality is determined by their circumstances of birth - country born in, nationality of parents to begin with, and is not something which can be chosen (quite often for conveniences sake).
To make this perfectly clear to paddy, this applies to everyone be they black, white, oriental, nordic, eskimo whatever and has absolutely nothing to do with nazism, the bnp, nick griffin, stormfront or the kkk. At which point I am departing this thread to find something vaguely sensible to talk about
here, it's hard not to raise your eyebrows at that. As for your ozil, behave it was a genuine confusion, so nice one on deviating it from your ridiculously vague and impractical alternative. The status of your dads international record was the particular lowlight.
Thanks ever so much as I'm rapidly losing the will to live
If it was me, I would pick him. If he wants to pull on the shirt, then he has the skills to make the team improve imo.
It isn't though. It's a matter of whether you think one British citizen is 'more' British than another. Or denying the right of an Iranian immigrant say who escaped persecution and has embraced English culture to be thought of as English enough to play for the team. People have DUAL NATIONALITY status. Football has no right to disregard that.
Born here. Or moved here at the age of 1. You really believe there is such a difference... What if a German family who lived in England most of their lives went on holiday for a week while in Germany, then gave birth while over there but raised their child in England? You don't have a proper answer for that, and you don't have a proper answer for the adoption case. You don't provide any properly thought out alternative. Who their dad played for...that makes them 'English enough' to play for the national team? And you aren't being misquoted. You're not saying the words, but how can this not be about you not thinking some players have legitimacy to call themselves an England player and others don't, despite having the same thing written on the passport. You MUST regard one to be more English than the other, otherwise there would be no issue. You just don't want to use the phrase.
That's all well and good, but I am a simple man, and I say if he qualifies for citizenship, and by "law" qualifies to play for England, and he wants to......and Capello wants to pick him.....I don't have a problem with it.
I don't tie myself up in knots about this and that.
Having said that, I was not on DS at the time OH was picked - maybe the same arguments raged on here then?
Owen Hargreaves has an English Dad and Welsh Mum. Thats why he fairly and squarely could have chosen Wales or England.
Completely different scenario from a player would has no link to a country except being employed in it for a period.
So just having a parent who holds the nationality and never having actually lived or worked in that country makes you more worthy than earning your citizenship by living and working in the country, paying your taxes etc...? Come off it!
Thats exactly what im saying.
Take Arteta and Hargreaves.
You are saying Arteta is more worthy. Do you think he is in England because he loves all things English and has a burning desire to pull on the 3 lions or do you think its cos Everton pay him £50k a week to stay in the country?
If after 4 years Barca had bid £15m and Everton had accepted, what do you think he would have done?
If after 4 years do you think he would have rejected a call up to the Spanish team?
Both because he wanted to be English?
Hargreaves comes from a UK background to UK parents, who happen to live outside the UK.
I think that gives him more right than a player who has absolutely no connection with the country other than being paid a fortune to be here.
I like Arteta and if people want him for England then good luck to you all but be under no illusion that he is doing it for any reason other than playing international football for the team that asks because the country he comes from didnt.
If this happens and is adopted as acceptable you will have an England team in 10/15 years with no English connections whatsoever other than 5 year residency. Again, if you are happy with that then thats totally fine but i think it will do nothing but marginalise the public further from the nation team than they already seem to be IMO.
Rubbish! Firstly I never said Arteta was more worthy. Worthiness is entirely sunbjective and has no place in this decision. There are simple rules about qualification both of which Hargreaves and Arteta meet. I have no doubt that Arteta came to England because Everton was the best offer he had and I also have no doubt if RM or Barcelona made him an offer he'd go back. I am also quite sure given the choice he'd pull on the Spanish shirt over the England shirt. But none of that matters. What matter is is he willing to sacrifice any chance of making it into the Spanish team in the future in order to get just one cap for England? If he is, why? Because he wants to play international football and one of the teams he qualifies to play for may call him up.
And no, in 10 - 15 years time we will not have and England team made up entirely of adopted nationals. The PL has had a large foreign contingent for 10 years now and many of those players have had the same opportunity as Arteta to become British citizens. I have no idea which of them took that opportunity up.
The real issue here is that in the past the quality of 'English born and bred' player has been good enough that this issue has not really come to a head. Clearly now with the reprecussions of the WC the FA are considering it's choices and selecting Arteta is a real option. He may not be good enough for the World Champions but he may just be good enough for England and as I've said before, if he qualifies and wants to play then not selecting him based on any other criteria is just plain wrong.
You can't make laws and legislation based on that kind of subjective view. It will never happen, because of this argument which disregards the fact that you can't take these things on a case by case basis. A clear, underlining precedent must be kept and the current system falls in line with other areas of life that involve having British citizenship. All the other suggestions made are always either too complicated, too subjective, too open to interpretation and prone to racism. Sorry, the R word again. But when you start talking about some British citizens having more Britishness about them than others to play for the national side than others, it is a very slippery slope.
There is an agreement in place whereby the home nations agree not to pick players this way so in effect there has to some level of change in order for Arteta to play.
If he applies for citizenship he will get a UK passport, not an English one therefore he can play for any home nation. In effect Scotland could pick him with him never having set foot in the country (a bad example as Arteta played for Rangers, but you get the broad idea, perhaps not likely this way round but for example Scotland could approach Almunia).
You could easily see a scenario where a lot of the young players who now come to the UK at 16 to play for the big clubs end up applying for UK Passports, it could be in the best interests of the club and the country so its not that far fetched. Fabio and Rafael for example at Utd. Handy if they are classed as British for Utd and a couple of full backs for England. Again, with them being Brazilian it may not happen but again its just an example, im sure you can see how it may appeal to kids from lesser footballing nations.
Thats what it looks like to me. "Come off it!" suggests thats exactly what you are saying.
'Come off it' is clearly me refuting your suggestion that OH is more worthy than Arteta. At no point did I infer that the opposite was true.
It conveyed a strength of feeling that led me to jump to that conclusion. I apologise.
Some might say that as the EU wants to destroy the nation states, it'd be a good idea to dilute the interests of the nations first?
If we allow foriegners to play for our country then kiss goodbye to your country because this is just another of many nails in the coffin.