nolando Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Looks similar to me to the Koffie situation. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Wish it didn't involve Mexico, though, as I think that this will muddle the thinking in the minds of a FIFA not keen to lose such a regional giant. http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2013/10/30/report-panama-asking-fifa-look-mexican-players-eligibility-play-world-cup-qu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackdude Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Why are you comparing this situation and Koffie's? Koffie clearly played an official match for the Ghana U20. Gimenez's situation is much more complicated because it is not clear if the matches he played were official or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolando Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 Admittedly I didn't word it quite correctly above (it's now edited), but if I am reading the article correctly, Gimenez, "played six times for Argentina during the 2001 South American U-20 Championship in Ecuador." This would have been well before he had the option to choose Mexico, similar to Koffie playing for his native Ghana long before had the chance to play for his second home of Canada. The fact that Argentina didn't technically need to play in those matches (since they were the host and thus already qualified) seems wholly irrelevant to the argument as they did play them and it was clearly a very official and recognized tournament. If FIFA does find that a relevant difference, though, I wonder if the matches that Colombia or South Korea played in our Gold Cup would not have counted as cap-ties or as official Class A matches for them (or their CONCACAF opponents, which is another element) just on account of them not being required to play in that tournament, since they were invited guests? This Mexican case potentially has wider ramifications, I suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackdude Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 If FIFA does find that a relevant difference, though, I wonder if the matches that Colombia or South Korea played in our Gold Cup would not have counted as cap-ties or as official Class A matches for them (or their CONCACAF opponents, which is another element) just on account of them not being required to play in that tournament, since they were invited guests? This Mexican case potentially has wider ramifications, I suspect. Didn't Thiago Motta play in the Gold Cup for Brazil which should have captied him? And he's an Italian international, now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alberta white Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Can anyone on here state For the Record. Under Current FIFA rules and directives at what age and type of tournament is a appearance in a national shirt considered a Full CAP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonovision Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 No matter the details of the situation, Panama can take their complaint and go get stuffed. No time for them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finchster Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Didn't Thiago Motta play in the Gold Cup for Brazil which should have captied him? And he's an Italian international, now. Brazil was an invited nation, thus not considered official matches for Brazil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 ^Argentina. Hard to imagine the Mexican fed wouldn't have got something in writing regarding Gimenez from FIFA before they gave him a chance at a fitting for a jock strap little less field time during WCQing but stranger things have happened I guess. You know, like George Bush, Jr got re-elected president of the USA. That sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackdude Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 By the way, FIFA said Mexico didn't do anything wrong. They approved the move before. Brazil was an invited nation, thus not considered official matches for Brazil Gimenez's situation is a bit like Motta's ie: the player played games that weren't "official". The team wasn't really playing official games. Koffie did play in 2 official matches for Ghana U20. I'm not going to believe Koffie in Red and White until there is a breach that allows a player like Koffie to play for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Let's be honest here, regardless of the situation, FIFA gives special treatment to its powerful nations, and Mexico is one of them due to their cache in CONCACAF. Remember how they were suspended from Italia 90? Those days at FIFA are long gone! Is it me, or have these naturalization rules caused more trouble than clarity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmonte Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Personally I'm for stricter regulations in terms of who can play where, not looser ones. So I have to say sorry, I don't mind if we lose Koffie if it sets a precedent for future losses of Canadian players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackdude Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Personally I'm for stricter regulations in terms of who can play where, not looser ones. So I have to say sorry, I don't mind if we lose Koffie if it sets a precedent for future losses of Canadian players. I highly doubt that there is a possible Canadian case like Koffie. Because a) most Canadian players have a choice when it comes to national team. If there's a footballer that is good enough, he would just say no to Canada until he is able to play for his naturalizing country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.