Opponent watch: Suriname (why they have the potential to be a tough team)

[An Observer]

Not sure about the other two, by Guyana is definitely more Caribbean than South American.  I had a friend in uni from there and he was a massive cricket fan and definitely felt very much part of the Caribbean and would freely say it.  They also are part of the West Indies team for cricket and participate in their leagues/tournaments. Doesnt change the fact they are geographically in South America though

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

On 10/29/2020 at 12:04 PM, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

 ie. official youth tournaments count.   

That is where the Suriname players mentioned become ineligible. 

Youth Tournaments count in some circumstances. They count if you didn't already have the nationality you want to switch to at the time.

The new nationality rules can be found here:
https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-statutes-2020.pdf?cloudid=viz2gmyb5x0pd24qrhrx

BTW, Regulations for 2022 WCQs including new COVID19 regulations can be found here:
https://img.fifa.com/image/upload/ytkbpnxyvcghx6bebesv.pdf

Let's look at the 8 guys at who were recently deemed eligible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damil_Dankerlui
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Koolwijk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dion_Malone
https://www.transfermarkt.us/ishan-kort/profil/spieler/530253
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myenty_Abena
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tjaronn_Chery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Alberg ***
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Hasselbaink (already played for Suriname at the end of 2019 - they were that confident about him being eligible!)

"These are Damil Dankerlui (FC Groningen), Ryan Koolwijk (Almere City FC), Dion Malone (NAC Breda), Ishan Kort (Almere City FC), Myenty Abena (Slovan Bratislava), Tjaronn Chery (Maccabi Haifa), Roland Alberg ( Roda JC) and the clubless Nigel Hasselbaink."
https://www.vi.nl/nieuws/suriname-bouwt-verder-fifa-geeft-achttal-spelers-vrij

Of those guys, only Alberg played youth games for the Netherlands but none of them were official (just like Davies played U-20 friendlies for us before he got his Canadian citizenship). So that all makes sense.

 

Now let's look at the players that weren't deemed eligible as per the article in @PiedPilko 's post :

On 10/28/2020 at 12:57 PM, PiedPilko said:

Suriname update: 

Apparently 7 players have been blocked by FIFA from joining Suriname, including Ryan Donk and Diego Bisewar, who would probably be their two stars. That leaves most of their imports in the Dutch second tier. Crystal Palace CB Jairo Riedewald might still be a possibility though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Donk
https://www.transfermarkt.us/ryan-donk/profil/spieler/38414

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Jozefzoon
https://www.transfermarkt.us/florian-jozefzoon/profil/spieler/124873

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Biseswar
https://www.transfermarkt.us/diego-biseswar/profil/spieler/35884

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_Leerdam
https://www.transfermarkt.us/kelvin-leerdam/profil/spieler/92936

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miquel_Nelom
https://www.transfermarkt.us/miquel-nelom/profil/spieler/130257 ******

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Donald
https://www.transfermarkt.us/mitchell-donald/profil/spieler/45511 ******

The first 4 guys on that list played youth official matches for The Netherlands after age 21 if I looked at their stats correctly. They all need to file their one-time-switch aka "request to change the association".

A request to change association may be granted only in the following
circumstances:

a) the player:
i) was fielded in a match in an official competition at any level (with
the exception of “A” international level) in any kind of football for his
current association; and
ii) at the time of being fielded for his first match in an official
competition in any kind of football for his current association, he already
held the nationality of the association which he wishes to represent.

b) the player:
i) was fielded in a match in an official competition at any level (with
the exception of “A” international level) in any kind of football for his
current association;
ii) at the time of being fielded for his first match in an official
competition in any kind of football for his current association, he did not
hold the nationality of the association which he wishes to represent;
iii) at the time of being fielded for his last match in an official
competition in any kind of football for his current association, he had
not turned 21 years old; and
iv) meets any of the requirements provided in article 6 or article 7.

This means that FIFA interprets those players as having acquired a Surinamese nationality only recently (let's say in 2019 after they passed that new law). Therefore part "a" is not relevant to them and they were too old to switch nationalities using part "b".

So it makes perfect sense why those 4 guys were rejected, they were not already dual citizens when they played for the Netherlands years ago.

****** The curious cases to me are Miquel Nelom and Mitchell Donald.

Nelom played "A" level official friendlies for The Netherlands after age 21, and he does have to file his one-time-switch aka "request to change the association" but the rules say nothing about and age restriction for "A" level friendlies. 

In the case of Donald, he also has to file a one-time-switch aka "request to change the association" but I think he should be eligible because his last U21 match for The Netherlands was on October 13th 2009, 2 months BEFORE he turned 21.

So I don't get why they blocked those two guys. Donald should clearly be eligible under "b" right?!?

[Big_M]

Again, its not only about holding or acquiring nationality...Fifa has rules on top of that

6 Nationality entitling players to represent more than one
association

1.
A player who, under the terms of art. 5, is eligible to represent more
than one association on account of his nationality, may play in an
international match for one of these associations only if, in addition to
holding the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following
conditions:
a) He was born on the territory of the relevant association;
b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of
the relevant association;
c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the
relevant association;
d) He has lived on the territory of the relevant association for at least five
years

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

Just now, Big_M said:

Again, its not only about holding or acquiring nationality...Fifa has rules on top of that

Apologies, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Is my analysis of the situation flawed? If so, where?

[Big_M]

Do those players fulfill at least one of the following
conditions:
a) He was born on the territory of the relevant association;
b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of
the relevant association;
c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the
relevant association;
d) He has lived on the territory of the relevant association for at least five
years

 

If not, not eligible even if they have nationality

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

4 minutes ago, Big_M said:

Do those players fulfill at least one of the following
conditions:
a) He was born on the territory of the relevant association;
b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of
the relevant association;
c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the
relevant association;
d) He has lived on the territory of the relevant association for at least five
years

 

If not, not eligible even if they have nationality

Yes. I believe all of them do, even the rejected ones.

[Shway]

So how the hell was Scott Arfield eligible for Canada? Didn't he get his passport a year or months before his first game?...or was it because it was under the "old rules".

These rules are very wonky.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Shway

[Shway]

Dupe

Edited November 15, 2020 by Shway

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

10 hours ago, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

Youth Tournaments count in some circumstances. They count if you didn't already have the nationality you want to switch to at the time.

The new nationality rules can be found here:
https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-statutes-2020.pdf?cloudid=viz2gmyb5x0pd24qrhrx

Appreciate the work but am a little unclear as to why you just quoted what you did from my post because I believe we were saying similar things including providing the same link - you can see it in my post above what you quote.   The first part you quoted was my attempted clarification (hence the use of "ie.") of a clause under 9.2.b.iii. but it was only one part of the requirement and only under that section.  Maybe that was confusing?  

As you see from both our posts, having the nationality of your new nation, at the time of playing certain matches, is explicitly not a part of the "b" requirement but was in others.  

I do not know about Donald and Neom, I was referring to the players the Suriname manager did (I could have made that more clear) with "That is where the Suriname players mentioned become ineligible."  Not sure why he did not mention those two as well. (Or if he did, it was not quoted.)

 

5 hours ago, Shway said:

So how the hell was Scott Arfield eligible for Canada? Didn't he get his passport a year or months before his first game?...or was it because it was under the "old rules".

These rules are very wonky.

 

This is who the rules said was eligible when he switched:

" a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an Official Competition at “A” international level for his current Association, and at the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match in an Official Competition for his current Association, he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play for."

So again that would seem to exclude him as he played official matches for the Scotland u21s well before he had any thoughts of Canada.  Any legal minds explain what that is actually saying? (Does it mean he was eligible to switch already - his dad had already been born in Canada?) 

If I am understanding all this, he would definitely be rejected now, like the Suriname players named by their manager, because he played in the U21 Euros Qualifying Playoffs when he was 21.  (He turned 22 on 1 November 2010 and played against Iceland on 7 Oct 2010. 

https://www.uefa.com/under21/match/2003235--iceland-vs-scotland/?referrer=%2Funder21%2Fseason%3D2011%2Fmatches%2Fround%3D2000007%2Fmatch%3D2003235%2Findex )

I can't see under the "b" eligibility where being in a final u21 tournament is different from being in any other official u21 game. ie -  "in an official competition in any kind of football"

 

A pointlessly fun discussion on a (meaningful) football-less Sunday morning. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2020 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

2 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Appreciate the work but am a little unclear as to why you just quoted what you did from my post because I believe we were saying similar things including providing the same link - you can see it in my post above what you quote.   The first part you quoted was my attempted clarification (hence the use of "ie.") of a clause under 9.2.b.iii. but it was only one part of the requirement and only under that section.  Maybe that was confusing?  

I had quoted that part because we were saying similar things but I wasn't sure if we were saying identical things.

Scott Arfield, if we used the current rules, would be a good example of where I thought you may have erred:

3 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

If I am understanding all this, he would definitely be rejected now, like the Suriname players named by their manager, because he played in the U21 Euros Qualifying Playoffs when he was 21.  (He turned 22 on 1 November 2010 and played against Iceland on 7 Oct 2010. 

https://www.uefa.com/under21/match/2003235--iceland-vs-scotland/?referrer=%2Funder21%2Fseason%3D2011%2Fmatches%2Fround%3D2000007%2Fmatch%3D2003235%2Findex )

I can't see under the "b" eligibility where being in a final u21 tournament is different from being in any other official u21 game. ie -  "in an official competition in any kind of football"

Scott's father being born in Toronto meant that he was always Canadian (even before he ever bothered to apply for a passport). The relevant nationality laws are decades old. So he would be Canadian through "a":

13 hours ago, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

a) the player:
i) was fielded in a match in an official competition at any level (with
the exception of “A” international level) in any kind of football for his
current association; and
ii) at the time of being fielded for his first match in an official
competition in any kind of football for his current association, he already
held the nationality of the association which he wishes to represent.

 

Whereas I think FIFA is treating those Dutch players with Surinamese ancestry as having acquired the nationality of Suriname not at birth but as of the law being passed in 2019, so they would fall under "b":

13 hours ago, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

b) the player:
i) was fielded in a match in an official competition at any level (with
the exception of “A” international level) in any kind of football for his
current association;
ii) at the time of being fielded for his first match in an official
competition in any kind of football for his current association, he did not
hold the nationality of the association which he wishes to represent;
iii) at the time of being fielded for his last match in an official
competition in any kind of football for his current association, he had
not turned 21 years old; and
iv) meets any of the requirements provided in article 6 or article 7.

 

So in Scott's case, if the switch rules were applied today, the "21 years old" thing would still not be relevant whereas for those Dutch guys it would.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

29 minutes ago, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

I had quoted that part because we were saying similar things but I wasn't sure if we were saying identical things

...

Scott's father being born in Toronto meant that he was always Canadian (even before he ever bothered to apply for a passport). The relevant nationality laws are decades old. So he would be Canadian through "a":

Whereas I think FIFA is treating those Dutch players with Surinamese ancestry as having acquired the nationality of Suriname not at birth but as of the law being passed in 2019, so they would fall under "b":

So in Scott's case, if the switch rules were applied today, the "21 years old" thing would still not be relevant whereas for those Dutch guys it would.

Fair enough on the first part.

I guess for the rest I am reading under 5.2 and maybe misunderstanding. 

"2. There is a distinction between holding a nationality and being eligible to obtain a nationality. A player holds a nationality if, through the operation of a national law, they have: a) automatically received a nationality (e.g. from birth) without being required to undertake any further administrative requirements (e.g. abandoning a separate nationality); or b) acquired a nationality by undertaking a naturalisation process"

I guess I am saying that Arfield had done none of that when he first played for the Scotland u21s. He was not automatically a Canadian national, he had to go through some process.  The example I used for (a.) Declan Rice - he was automatically an English national because of where he was born. 

Add. - I guess I also look at someone like Leerdam, who was born in Suriname but I read was one of the ones rejected. 

Edited November 15, 2020 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

4 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Fair enough on the first part.

I guess for the rest I am reading under 5.2 and maybe misunderstanding. 

"2. There is a distinction between holding a nationality and being eligible to obtain a nationality. A player holds a nationality if, through the operation of a national law, they have: a) automatically received a nationality (e.g. from birth) without being required to undertake any further administrative requirements (e.g. abandoning a separate nationality); or b) acquired a nationality by undertaking a naturalisation process"

I guess I am saying that Arfield had done none of that when he first played for the Scotland u21s. He was not automatically a Canadian national, he had to go through some process.  The example I used for (a.) Declan Rice - he was automatically an English national because of where he was born. 

I think you may be misunderstanding 5.2.

Despite Arfield having done "none of that when he first played for the Scotland u21s", he was a) automatically Canadian already (because he was already Canadian at the time he played U21 matches). So FIFA saw him as "holding a (Canadian) nationality".

I think Arfield was sort of like this Australian senator, automatically Canadian (despite not wanting to be in her case) :

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/australian-senator-resigns-after-learning-she-s-also-canadian-1.4209902

 

Just to clarify (or perhaps digress) I think an example of a Canadian [b) undertook a "naturalisation process"] case would be Kianz Froese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kianz_Froese

Froese wasn't automatically Canadian at birth but later acquired Canadian citizenship (through his family immigrating to Canada) BEFORE playing youth official matches for Cuba so was therefore eligible to switch to Canada after playing those games with the Cuba U17s.

 

I think Suriname's problem comes down to the way their "Sports Passport" law is seen by FIFA. Unlike Canada which grants citizenship irrespective other citizenships the person has (dual, triple etc...)

This Sports Passport law for Suriname seems very specific:

‘’Zie het als een diplomatiek paspoort dat wordt gegeven aan een Nederlandse diplomaat zodat hij voor een case zijn functie kan uitoefenen in Suriname. Zodra hij terugkomt in Nederland dan moet hij zijn diplomatieke paspoort inleveren, want de missie is voorbij. Waarom mogen voetballers niet op een diplomatiek paspoort spelen?”, vraagt Gorré zich af. Hij legt het zelf uit. ‘’Spelers gaan namelijk het land vertegenwoordigen op dat moment. Zie het als een diplomatiek paspoort dat wordt omgezet in een sportpaspoort en alleen gebruikt mag worden tijdens een interland. Daarna moet het worden teruggegeven.’’

https://www.natiosuriname.sr/in-de-media/suriname-introduceert-sportpaspoort/

 

I would guess that the players are technically not under clause 5.2 in FIFA's eyes because they are a) not automatically Surinamese (e.g. from birth) without being required to undertake any further administrative requirements and b) Didn't undertake a "naturalisation process" PRIOR to playing for The Netherlands.

There laws seems to say "We still don't allow dual citizenship, but we will make an exception for you guys for the duration of your involvement with the our Sports Programs".

 

I hope this all makes this more and not less obscure! 😄

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

5 minutes ago, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

I think you may be misunderstanding 5.2.

Quite possibly. 

I guess FIFA rules on nationality seem to override national ones for their purposes.  I know for a fact that I am not automatically English (or British) in any real way because I have English grandparents.  But I could play for England (for a few reasons now).  

I have never had to apply for anything Canadian nationality wise (other than being a non-resident for tax purposes), are you automatically Canadian if your parent is born there but you are not? Or again is that FIFA thing despite saying "through the operation of a national law" in their statutes?

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

11 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Quite possibly.

This stuff is complicated haha

 

12 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I guess FIFA rules on nationality seem to override national ones for their purposes.  I know for a fact that I am not automatically English (or British) in any real way because I have English grandparents.  But I could play for England (for a few reasons now). 

UK laws on Nationality are WAYYY more complicated (besides England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland, it's a crazy country that has random other smaller countries inside of it like for example the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda or the Isle of Man) and is WAYYY more restrictive because of their colonial legacy (they are afraid too many people of British decent would simply try and enter the UK).

 

18 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

are you automatically Canadian if your parent is born there but you are not?

I think so, yes.

[Shway]

Thanks guys @Olympique_de_Marseille @WestHamCanadianinOxford you made it even more confusing lol or FIFA rules are truly subjective, considering the recent rule change was to “ease” restrictions.

I’m going to assume that those guys aren’t eligible because they played at a final A tournament, after the age of 21 which makes them not eligible, where Arfield and more recently changed Munir El Haddadi were 18 at there last game.

It can’t be nationality thing...it simply can’t.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Shway

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

1 minute ago, Shway said:

Thanks guys @Olympique_de_Marseille @WestHamCanadianinOxford you made it even more confusing lol or FIFA rules are truly subjective, considering the recent rule change was to “ease” restrictions.

Haha, you're welcome!

2 minutes ago, Shway said:

It can’t be nationality thing...it simply can’t.

We shall see...

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

9 minutes ago, Shway said:

Thanks guys @Olympique_de_Marseille @WestHamCanadianinOxford you made it even more confusing lol or FIFA rules are truly subjective, considering the recent rule change was to “ease” restrictions.

I’m going to assume that those guys aren’t eligible because they played at a final A tournament, after the age of 21 which makes them not eligible, where Arfield and more recently changed Munir El Haddadi were 18 at there last game.

It can’t be nationality thing...it simply can’t.

Arfield was definitely 21, I posted the link to the game from uefa, somewhere in there. 

I am sure it makes sense to some lawyers somewhere.  

But the rules did loosen things some things.  You can play for a different national team after playing any (3) A team official games now (in certain circumstances).  But it did add a whole bunch of textual restrictions that will probably be challenged at some point.

Edited November 15, 2020 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Shway]

14 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I am sure it makes sense to some lawyers somewhere.  

Ultimately this sounds like a case that could be brought to CAS, and win in Surinamese way... because it makes no sense.

[Buchta]

2 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

 Are you automatically Canadian if your parent is born there but you are not?

Yes, you are. With that being said, a child born abroad to a Canadian parent will not be able to pass on citizenship to their children in the future.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Buchta

[An Observer]

10 hours ago, Buchta said:

Yes, you are. With that being said, a child born abroad to a Canadian parent will not be able to pass on citizenship to their children in the future.

I thought that was the law the conservatives brought in but was changed when the liberals got back in.  The issue with this is that in some countries (like HK where I live now), a child born here is not automatically entitled to citizenship here so you could create stateless people as Canada doesn't give a child of Canadian parents citizenship and the child does it get where it was born.

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

40 minutes ago, An Observer said:

I thought that was the law the conservatives brought in but was changed when the liberals got back in.  The issue with this is that in some countries (like HK where I live now), a child born here is not automatically entitled to citizenship here so you could create stateless people as Canada doesn't give a child of Canadian parents citizenship and the child does it get where it was born.

Not quite. Changes were made to the laws in 2009 and 2015.

The 2009 changes are the most relevant, you can't pass on Canadian citizenship while living abroad simply by jus sanguinis (you aren't Canadian if your grandparents were born in Canada) if the the child was born after April 17th 2009.

It theoretically shouldn't narrow our player pool at youth level until after 2026.

[jtpc]

I'm not sure how similar Munir's situation is with Morocco compared to why FIFA rejected Donk and Leerdam's applications to play for Suriname, but after 2 lost appeals at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, FIFA has now cleared Munir to switch countries.

From the AP article: "Now, a FIFA amendment means the age limit of 21 only applies to games played after September 2020, when the new rules took effect."

Link to the article: FIFA clears Munir to change allegiance from Spain to Morocco (apnews.com)

I wonder if this amendment puts Donk and Leerdam back in play now for Suriname.

Edited February 7, 2021 by jtpc

[CanadaFan123]

2 minutes ago, jtpc said:

I'm not sure how similar Munir's situation is with Morocco compared to why FIFA rejected Donk and Leerdam's applications to play for Suriname, but after 2 lost appeals at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, FIFA has now cleared Munir to switch countries.

From the AP article: "Now, a FIFA amendment means the age limit of 21 only applies to games played after September 2020, when the new rules took effect."

Link to the article: FIFA clears Munir to change allegiance from Spain to Morocco (apnews.com)

More importantly, this means Tomori is now eligible for Canada I believe.

[narduch]

23 minutes ago, CanadaFan123 said:

More importantly, this means Tomori is now eligible for Canada I believe.

Cap him!

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

On 07/02/2021 at 2:38 PM, CanadaFan123 said:

More importantly, this means Tomori is now eligible for Canada I believe.

I'm not sure my heart can take this.  

 

-----

 

On 07/02/2021 at 2:35 PM, jtpc said:

I wonder if this amendment puts Donk and Leerdam back in play now for Suriname.

This article:

https://www.waterkant.net/suriname/2021/02/04/weer-twee-diaspora-spelers-toegevoegd-aan-natio-suriname/

says that Miquel Nelom and Mitchell Donald have been cleared to play. In my super long post at the top of this page, I stated that I thought they should be eligible.

The others (Donk, Leerdam etc)  may be able to play for Suriname if the "21 years of age limit only after September 2020" thing applies not just to the cap-tie part of the rule, but also to the "citizenship" part of the rule. That was Suriname's problem. Unlike Morocco they don't have full dual citizenship and only that new "sports passport" thing.

The sooner we play Suriname, the better.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Olympique_de_Marseille