Canadian Dual Nationals 2.0 Edition, Chase for the 5 stars

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

39 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Before I close it out, here is my futile stab at a more sensible system:

• Citizenship (by any means) and you are eligible.
• No switching, ever. You step on the field at any level, you are tied.

I am not ready to make a decision you make, possibilty as a 16-17 year old, be permanant for the life of your livelihood. 

I guess on the other, citizenship is very different for different nations, so FIFA has to have some standard to make it sort of fair.

 

What the right set of rules is, not sure.  I guess look at what you think the goal of world football is and then go from there.

 

[Obinna]

Just now, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I guess on the other, citizenship is very different for different nations, so FIFA has to have some standard to make it sort of fair.

Good point and I like this. There should be a way to standardize things. 

1 minute ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I am not ready to make a decision you make, possibilty as a 16-17 year old, be permanant for the life of your livelihood. 

 

 

I know what you mean here, but two things:

• Things tend to snowball when you open them up to exceptions. That's why we are where we are now. 
• Harsh for a 16 year old to make a life altering decision at a young age, but nobody forces a player to play international soccer. Maybe being patient while you decide who you REALLY want to play for could be a good thing. I think what we want as fans is for players to be committed to the badge, right? 

[Aird25]

Seriously, is this kid officially gone?

Edited April 1 by Aird25

[kacbru]

9 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Harsh for a 16 year old to make a life altering decision at a young age, but nobody forces a player to play international soccer. Maybe being patient while you decide who you REALLY want to play for could be a good thing. I think what we want as fans is for players to be committed to the badge, right?

100% agree on no switching ever. And I don't think it is harsh at all. We are talking about international football here - it is a privilege. 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

7 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Harsh for a 16 year old to make a life altering decision at a young age, but nobody forces a player to play international soccer. Maybe being patient while you decide who you REALLY want to play for could be a good thing. I think what we want as fans is for players to be committed to the badge, right? 

I guess that where I think legally it gets quashed almost immediately.  Playing for a national team has financial benefits, you can prove that easily even in the cases where they are not direct.  Making a kid permenantly subject to a decision that affects that, before they can legally vote is probably not going to fly most places.  

 

It will also make the football worse, if every kid that has promise and a bit of a question holds out. 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

2 minutes ago, kacbru said:

100% agree on no switching ever. And I don't think it is harsh at all. We are talking about international football here - it is a privilege. 

You have the right most places to earn a living how you decide.  If playing international, financial affects that right, I don't think legally it's a priviledge. 

[Obinna]

Just now, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I guess that where I think legally it gets quashed almost immediately.  Playing for a national team has financial benefits, you can prove that easily even in the cases where they are not direct.  Making a kid permenantly subject to a decision that affects that, before they can legally vote is probably not going to fly most places.  

I think that's a big part of the problem that is making national team ball increasingly like club ball. In some cases it's indirect financial gain, as playing with England (for example) comes with a certain level of prestige and opportunities. Then, we have teams like the USA that literally pay their players nice sums of money for showing up, and they aren't alone.

I would personally support efforts to de-financialize international soccer where possible and not letting players switch could help.

But interesting thought on the legal side, I hadn't considered that. Is there an issue though? Nobody makes a kid play international soccer, so would there even be a legal basis?

4 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

It will also make the football worse, if every kid that has promise and a bit of a question holds out. 

It would make things look a lot different, but would things be worse? If a kid holds out there is another kid who steps in. If anything that could help more kids get opportunities who wouldn't otherwise. 

[kacbru]

3 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

You have the right most places to earn a living how you decide.  If playing international, financial affects that right, I don't think legally it's a priviledge. 

I don't know what the legal arguments might be. But show me an international footballer that is making their living from playing for their national team, and whose living has been curtailed because they couldn't play for another nation. 

I know it is naive on my part, but I like to imagine that playing in WCQs, WCs, etc. is done for non-financial reasons. 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

21 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I think that's a big part of the problem that is making national team ball increasingly like club ball. In some cases it's indirect financial gain, as playing with England (for example) comes with a certain level of prestige and opportunities. Then, we have teams like the USA that literally pay their players nice sums of money for showing up, and they aren't alone.

I would personally support efforts to de-financialize international soccer where possible and not letting players switch could help.

But interesting thought on the legal side, I hadn't considered that. Is there an issue though? Nobody makes a kid play international soccer, so would there even be a legal basis?

It would make things look a lot different, but would things be worse? If a kid holds out there is another kid who steps in. If anything that could help more kids get opportunities who wouldn't otherwise. 

- You are putting a restriction (permanent cap tie) on someone doing something that has financial value. (He might be able to make more with another country some day, for instance.) I think a permanent consequence would be too onerous for most courts.

On the de-financialize , for me, there is no way you can.  National teams are supposed to be and usually are the best players from a country.  Even if no one is ever paid, your agent is saying: "this guy is an international, one of the best," when the contract is negotiated.  For some players there are explicit bonuses.

 

- If a talented kid steps away, you presume the kid that steps in is less talented or he would have been picked in the first place.  Lots of exceptions, sure, but generally you are by definition make the pool less talented.

 

@kacbru But you know there are not (only played for non-financial reasons) and we can't force people to somehow not play for financial ones.

Edited April 1 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Kadenge]

I think FIFA's current rules are a bit of a joke. Take Suriname, who probably have all their starters +/-from the Dutch  or other Euro leagues. How is that developing their domestic players? And even if they get a bump in youth players/ improve the quality domestically, will those players ever be better than the nxt dutch recruit? Then you have other countries, who have almost zero chance of " foreign nationals" or whatever term you want to use. It may raise the quality for some teams  but it's a bit of a sham. Re Canada, I would not want to see our starting XI dominated with players like that for the reasons I have stated.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

I will put this out for fun and unfortunately/fortunately my last comment for today probably.

Is there anything more Canadian than having a team made up of people from anywhere and everywhere, who came last week or from hundreds-years-old roots?

[Ivan]

34 minutes ago, Kadenge said:

I think FIFA's current rules are a bit of a joke. Take Suriname, who probably have all their starters +/-from the Dutch  or other Euro leagues. How is that developing their domestic players? And even if they get a bump in youth players/ improve the quality domestically, will those players ever be better than the nxt dutch recruit? Then you have other countries, who have almost zero chance of " foreign nationals" or whatever term you want to use. It may raise the quality for some teams  but it's a bit of a sham. Re Canada, I would not want to see our starting XI dominated with players like that for the reasons I have stated.

Not to mention Jamaica (England B )or even the USA.  The US, with all their talent, have 6 or 7 NT players that never stepped foot in the country before playing for them internationally. What a joke.

Edited April 1 by Ivan
Fuck off with these damn emoji insertions already!

[InglewoodJack]

I think the rules as they are currently designed are good, and if I had to change anything it would be to give players more freedom to switch nations later in their career. I think after 3-5 years of inactivity with a national team, you should be able to do a one time switch- Fikayo Tomori case if he never cracks England. 
 

Other than that, I think it’s important to remember that how these rules affect Canada stem from our unique relationship with immigration which is unlike the majority of countries who are more directly affected by dual national rules. We lose out on players like Mitrovic or Farsi either because they “feel” closer to their other nation, or for sporting reasons, but African nations may lose out on players because their parents had no choice but to leave and they would never have a chance to play for the nation they were physically born with or moved to at a young age for practical reasons. 
 

I will also say that given the direction that international soccer is headed towards, I think allowing more player flexibility is the right way to go. There are going to be a lot of really bad teams at the World Cup next week. Early days, but a team like Indonesia is in a spot to qualify, and ranked 142, they probably won’t do all that much. If they had a few dual nationals who flamed out of the Dutch system pretty young, surely they could put together a better product. 
 

Re: making the rules even more stringent in terms of switching nations: even if FIFA isn’t afraid of a little bit of  hypocrisy, I think simultaneously growing the $$$ side of international games and then turning around and telling a player he’s to be held liable for the youth soccer decision he made at 17 is a little too on the nose, even for them, I would think. 

[CanadaFan123]

12 minutes ago, Ivan said:

Not to mention Jamaica (England B )or even the USA.  The US, with all their talent, have 6 or 7 NT players that never stepped foot in the country before playing for them internationally. What a joke.

Anytime someone wants to say the USA are world contenders this is a very easy point to shut that down. Crazy really that a country that big with so many clubs etc still relies on rejects from other nations they aspire to be like. 

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

 

- If a talented kid steps away, you presume the kid that steps in is less talented or he would have been picked in the first place.  Lots of exceptions, sure, but generally you are by definition make the pool less talented.

 

I see it as widening the pool, but it's a fair point I guess. I think it's kind of splitting hairs, because at that level everyone is talented for the most part. It's not like you are replacing a star with a bum, not to mention that coaches often pick inferior players. That's true at a variety of levels, actually. It would create an environment where players who wear the shirt are making a real commitment, so for me that juice is worth the squeeze. 

1 hour ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

- You are putting a restriction (permanent cap tie) on someone doing something that has financial value. (He might be able to make more with another country some day, for instance.) I think a permanent consequence would be too onerous for most courts.

Was there ever a time when players were not allowed to switch nationalities? If so were there any legalese around it? 

 

1 hour ago, Kadenge said:

I think FIFA's current rules are a bit of a joke. Take Suriname, who probably have all their starters +/-from the Dutch  or other Euro leagues. How is that developing their domestic players? And even if they get a bump in youth players/ improve the quality domestically, will those players ever be better than the nxt dutch recruit? Then you have other countries, who have almost zero chance of " foreign nationals" or whatever term you want to use. It may raise the quality for some teams  but it's a bit of a sham. Re Canada, I would not want to see our starting XI dominated with players like that for the reasons I have stated.

Good post. I think of Mexico when I read that. If you're a USMNT fan it's pretty easy to dunk on Mexico now. There are real issues with Mexican football and the Americans (well MLS) is doing well to export players and get them into Europe early. They've really covered the map with professional teams and acadamies and are really maximizing the domestic potential, so they deserve credit for that. 

BUT also they increasingly calling up "foreign nationals" which really stacks the talent relative to a team like Mexico who don't have the same opportunities to capture such players. Funny enough, their biggest talent (Santi Giminez-Argentina) is one of them. Imagine how much strong Mexico would be if they could get half a roster of "foreign nationals" like the USA has - we probably wouldn't see this level of dominance, would we? And it's not Mexico's fault, structually they just don't have the connections like USA or Canada do with respect to dipping into foriegn programs.   
 

[costarg]

1 hour ago, InglewoodJack said:

I think the rules as they are currently designed are good, and if I had to change anything it would be to give players more freedom to switch nations later in their career. I think after 3-5 years of inactivity with a national team, you should be able to do a one time switch- Fikayo Tomori case if he never cracks England. 
 

Other than that, I think it’s important to remember that how these rules affect Canada stem from our unique relationship with immigration which is unlike the majority of countries who are more directly affected by dual national rules. We lose out on players like Mitrovic or Farsi either because they “feel” closer to their other nation, or for sporting reasons, but African nations may lose out on players because their parents had no choice but to leave and they would never have a chance to play for the nation they were physically born with or moved to at a young age for practical reasons. 
 

I will also say that given the direction that international soccer is headed towards, I think allowing more player flexibility is the right way to go. There are going to be a lot of really bad teams at the World Cup next week. Early days, but a team like Indonesia is in a spot to qualify, and ranked 142, they probably won’t do all that much. If they had a few dual nationals who flamed out of the Dutch system pretty young, surely they could put together a better product. 
 

Re: making the rules even more stringent in terms of switching nations: even if FIFA isn’t afraid of a little bit of  hypocrisy, I think simultaneously growing the $$$ side of international games and then turning around and telling a player he’s to be held liable for the youth soccer decision he made at 17 is a little too on the nose, even for them, I would think. 

More player flexibility could open up a really ugly door.  Guys/stars who see themselves as bigger than coaches and nations can start to blackmail nations for not playing them the right way or hold grudges cause they'll just swap nations in 3-4 years.  Play for a country for a few years, not like it, sit out for 3 show up with a new country.  Just sounds bad all around.  The way it is now keeps players honest and keeps the pride intact.

I love what Pasta88 suggested, about having to play or develop somewhere for at least 2 years and citizenship to qualify.  I just hate seeing people that never stepped on a territory suddenly showing up with the shirt.  And saying this as a huge Arfield fan.  Italy capping Brazilians because of one grandparent is just wrong.  It'll water down the international game and become more of a club concept where players can switch.  The switches are the issue to begin with, you play for who you want to represent.  

Edited April 1 by costarg

[InglewoodJack]

46 minutes ago, costarg said:

More player flexibility could open up a really ugly door.  Guys/stars who see themselves as bigger than coaches and nations can start to blackmail nations for not playing them the right way or hold grudges cause they'll just swap nations in 3-4 years.  Play for a country for a few years, not like it, sit out for 3 show up with a new country.  Just sounds bad all around.  The way it is now keeps players honest and keeps the pride intact.

I love what Pasta88 suggested, about having to play or develop somewhere for at least 2 years and citizenship to qualify.  I just hate seeing people that never stepped on a territory suddenly showing up with the shirt.  And saying this as a huge Arfield fan.  Italy capping Brazilians because of one grandparent is just wrong.  It'll water down the international game and become more of a club concept where players can switch.  The switches are the issue to begin with, you play for who you want to represent.  

In theory this could happen, but I don't think it would be practical for any player to risk what is effectively the prime of their career because a nation isn't playing them properly. Even if LDF was fully capped by his age and decided to try and force Biello to promise him 3 Copa starts or he bounces, he'd have to wait until he's 23 to play for England, he'd miss a world cup, and by that time, England would have even younger players coming up behind him- very risky move for him. Considering most players start getting calls at 21-22, they'd be towards the later part of their prime before even getting a chance to play internationally, and with how early national teams cycle out vets for younger players, that international career will be very short. 

Under these rules, even a case like Tomori may want to reconsider switching nations. If he decided he wanted to be at the 2026 world cup, he'd have had to start rejecting all of his calls since 2021, he'd suit up for us at 29, and considering we cycle out our players in their early to mid 30s, he'd play 3-4 years for us max.

As for Pasta88's rule, I appreciate how it affects players like Arfied and Wotherspoon- I get it, it's weird to cheer for these players who have never stepped foot in the country for reasons unrelated to sport. That said, these rules are designed with players from nations with far more precarious situations in mind than ours. I think of two players in particular- Viktor Loturi and William Akkio. I think Loturi is cap tied to Canada because he played at the GC, but unfortunately, I have a feeling we may never see him get another Canada call, just based on what our pool is looking like. I think he deserves the opportunity to play for South Sudan, and it would benefit him, at no detriment to Canada, to wait years to make that happen- he'd also be their star player. As for Akkio, this is a player who has never lived in South Sudan, yet plays for them. The country has very little sporting infrastructure, and beyond that, it's been mired in a massive refugee crisis and civil war since its independence, so even if he decided he felt so South Sudanese that he wanted to go and spend a few years living there or even play there, that's not such a great idea. It would've been nice for Arfield to go and buy a home in Canada and spend his summers here, and nothing prevented him from doing that, but he has to abide by the same set of rules as players who are not able to go to their sporting nation because of a political situation.  I doubt a team like Afghanistan has a full roster of guys who have lived in that country, and I see by the fact that the most represented club on their roster is AS Blainville that they really do need that representation from second generation players to field a competitive roster. 

 

tl;dr- I think the nation switching rules need to account for players who are out of their nation's plans by no choice of their own, and I also think that these rules should be interpreted with countries whose civilians leave due to instability more than nations like Canada who can also count dual nationals who play for us out of convenience. 

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, InglewoodJack said:

tl;dr- I think the nation switching rules need to account for players who are out of their nation's plans by no choice of their own, and I also think that these rules should be interpreted with countries whose civilians leave due to instability more than nations like Canada who can also count dual nationals who play for us out of convenience. 

I am conflicted by this. One one hand, it would allow inactive players to have an international future again after being frozen out. On the other hand, it'd be yet another exception. I would prefer there to be no exceptions, I think. If a player is frozen out or has aged out, isn't it on that player? 

If there's a political issue then maybe there could be room for a case by case ruling, some special kind of appeal process. 

[SthMelbRed]

On 4/1/2024 at 1:01 AM, Macksam said:

It could just be cultural thing as well with regards to Sigur. It's not just Canada that has that issue but Austria for example has also lost their fair share of Croatians to Croatia. Rakitic is also from Switzerland and he ended up repping Croatia to. It clearly is a proud culture and one of the biggest ways I guess they like to express that is through soccer. 

Back in 2006, I actually had the misfortune of having to listen to a Croatian-Australian, born in Melbourne, complaining bitterly about the unfairness of Mark Viduka being allowed to play for Australia, the country of his birth, rather than 'his true country,' Croatia. This was in the immediate aftermath of the Socceroos knocking Croatia out of the World Cup, so I just laughed and laughed right in the pathetic loser's face.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

16 hours ago, Obinna said:

Was there ever a time when players were not allowed to switch nationalities? If so were there any legalese around it? 

I think players were always allowed to switch in some way.

It was pretty open if I remember my history at all, there was a guy who played for Brazil in a 50's World Cup and then Italy in the next one, and Puskas, he who gave his name to the award, played for Hungary then Spain. 

In the 2000s, they started to cracked down, basically, and tightened rules over the next few years: they added the parent or grandparent stuff or residency, for example.  But then started loosening some things, age limits, and the big wholesale rule changes came a few years ago. 

I guess I see the court stuff as pretty new, I could be wrong.  But it can have a huge impact, if you look at the Bosman ruling it completely changed an aspect of club transfers even outside the EU. That was in the 90s which I know is 30 years ago now but doesn't seem that long ago. I think that international players can argue similar things as he (or his lawyers) did. 

[InglewoodJack]

15 hours ago, Obinna said:

I am conflicted by this. One one hand, it would allow inactive players to have an international future again after being frozen out. On the other hand, it'd be yet another exception. I would prefer there to be no exceptions, I think. If a player is frozen out or has aged out, isn't it on that player? 

If there's a political issue then maybe there could be room for a case by case ruling, some special kind of appeal process. 

I think the issue with this is that allowing exceptions for some cases but not others forces FIFA into the business of deciding who is truly part of a nation or not, and that goes far beyond their mandate as a sporting organization. It's possible that Akkio can't point to South Sudan on a map and that Arfield grew up idolizing every great Canadian athlete (unlikely on both counts, but still...)

As for whether a player being frozen out is on them or not- I think sports are an exception to the "kids are just kids" rule because we're talking about a very specific industry, but I think it's unfair to force a player to make a permanent, irrevocable decision on their sporting future at 17, especially because they may have been lied to by the national team, they may have had unforeseen changes in their career, a number of things could happen. There was a point in time where Stephen Eustaquio could've become a Portugal national. He snapped his leg and a few things happened, and then he wasn't. He couldn't possibly have predicted that when he was first called up to Portugal's youth team, and I think it would be unfair to force him to stay in their system when it was obvious he had no future with them.

[Obinna]

2 hours ago, InglewoodJack said:

I think the issue with this is that allowing exceptions for some cases but not others forces FIFA into the business of deciding who is truly part of a nation or not, and that goes far beyond their mandate as a sporting organization. It's possible that Akkio can't point to South Sudan on a map and that Arfield grew up idolizing every great Canadian athlete (unlikely on both counts, but still...)

As for whether a player being frozen out is on them or not- I think sports are an exception to the "kids are just kids" rule because we're talking about a very specific industry, but I think it's unfair to force a player to make a permanent, irrevocable decision on their sporting future at 17, especially because they may have been lied to by the national team, they may have had unforeseen changes in their career, a number of things could happen. There was a point in time where Stephen Eustaquio could've become a Portugal national. He snapped his leg and a few things happened, and then he wasn't. He couldn't possibly have predicted that when he was first called up to Portugal's youth team, and I think it would be unfair to force him to stay in their system when it was obvious he had no future with them.

Unless there is a legal reason behind this, I would say tough shit. Many things in live are irrevocable, even for teenagers. You just have to be wise and well advised and if you are not, that's a life lesson you could learn from beyond the pitch. 

And again, nobody is forcing anyone to make a decision. Players aren't obligated to be internationals. Yes, doing so could raise your profile, but risk is part of the game. I don't agree with de-risking the consequences of international soccer for teenagers, just to protect them. If you are unsure, you take your time and pass up the career benefit, until you are sure. 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

27 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Unless there is a legal reason behind this, I would say tough shit. Many things in live are irrevocable, even for teenagers. You just have to be wise and well advised and if you are not, that's a life lesson you could learn from beyond the pitch. 

And again, nobody is forcing anyone to make a decision. Players aren't obligated to be internationals. Yes, doing so could raise your profile, but risk is part of the game. I don't agree with de-risking the consequences of international soccer for teenagers, just to protect them. If you are unsure, you take your time and pass up the career benefit, until you are sure. 

I'll tell you what it makes me think of and why I can't agree.

I grew up with kids from a Reserve that had a fair bit of oil and natural gas.  The kids would get royalties when they turned 18 that added up $100-150,000. 

About age we are talking, adults would start coming to them with contracts, saying I'll give you $50000 now to buy a truck (and contract would essentially say they had to pay $75000 - $80000 when their money came.) Parents weren't usually rich so some were all for it. Essentially a lot of them lost half their money in the end. And had almost nothing to build a future.

Lots of people like those adults in football.  You are asking the kid, to make a totally rational decision, in a very irrational time with the lure of something that for a young footballer might feel the same as a new truck. Maybe with parents who would love for them to represent such and such a country.

I can't make that permanent. 

 

 

Edited April 2 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Bigandy]

4 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I'll tell you what it makes me think of and why I can't agree.

I grew up with kids from a Reserve that had a fair bit of oil and natural gas.  The kids would get royalties when they turned 18 that added up $100-150,000. 

About age we are talking, adults would start coming to them with contracts, saying I'll give you $50000 now to buy a truck (and contract would essentially say they had to pay $75000 - $80000 when their money came.) Parents weren't usually rich so some were all for it. Essentially a lot of them lost half their money in the end. And had almost nothing to build a future.

Lots of people like those adults in football.  You are asking the kid, to make a totally rational decision, in a very irrational time with the lure of something that for a young footballer might feel the same as a new truck. Maybe with parents who would love for them to represent such and such a country.

I can't make that permanent. 

 

 

You cannot sign pro in Europe until your 18 if you dont have residency there. Clearly fifa thinks that its too early for kids to make decisions that drastically alter their lives with no guarantee. Although not a perfect comparison, I think the foundational thought of "kids shouldnt be tied into lifelong decisions too early in their career" is fair. 

[Obinna]

7 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I'll tell you what it makes me think of and why I can't agree.

I grew up with kids from a Reserve that had a fair bit of oil and natural gas.  The kids would get royalties when they turned 18 that added up $100-150,000. 

About age we are talking, adults would start coming to them with contracts, saying I'll give you $50000 now to buy a truck (and contract would essentially say they had to pay $75000 - $80000 when their money came.) Parents weren't usually rich so some were all for it. Essentially a lot of them lost half their money in the end. And had almost nothing to build a future.

Lots of people like those adults in football.  You are asking the kid, to make a totally rational decision, in a very irrational time with the lure of something that for a young footballer might feel the same as a new truck. Maybe with parents who would love for them to represent such and such a country.

I can't make that permanent. 

 

 

I am enjoying the back and forth and I appreciate the logic behind this post.

But deciding to play for Portugal instead of Canada as a 17 year old is a far cry from the example you are providing.

I think about myself as a 17 year old, if I was good enough to choose between Nigeria and Canada, what is the real consequence? That I declare for Nigeria and play some garbage minutes and never see the field again? That sucks but I would be the same player and would have to do my best to someone get a recall. If someone from the NFA pulled on my ethnic heartstrings and promised me the world and I ended up with nothing, that's on me no? It's not as if the NFA would be trying to scam me in a way that an adult would scam a reserve kid out of thousands of dollars in a truck deal, and unlike those kids I would have some sort of reasonable counsel. Maybe some kids wouldn't, especially coming from impoverished conditions, but even then what would th English FA (for example) have to gain by trying to recruit a Nigerian kid with an English connection? I can't help but feel you are worried about an improbable and unrealistic scenario and I say that with respect.