Only English players should play for England.

First topic message reminder :

Would a rugby player be allowed to come out with xenophobic comments like Jack Wilshere has for English Football?

I find what he has said to be disgusting and he should be fined by the FA for his stupid comments, someone should remind him it's the 21st Century and times have changed.

Thank God (not that he is real) that Rugby Union has a sensible policy that allows players to qualify for other Countries if they have lived in that country for a number of years or that their game has been developed in that country.

Scrumpy wrote:Would a rugby player be allowed to come out with xenophobic comments like Jack Wilshere has for English Football?

I find what he has said to be disgusting and he should be fined by the FA for his stupid comments, someone should remind him it's the 21st Century and times have changed.

Thank God (not that he is real) that Rugby Union has a sensible policy that allows players to qualify for other Countries if they have lived in that country for a number of years or that their game has been developed in that country.

Oh bless, someone English shows a touch of pride in their nation and its values, and out come the PC brigade with their "xenophobic" and "racist" comments.

Precisely mystiroakey. The point being in what Wilshire actually said he could well have been talking about someone like Zaha.

I doubt that is what he meant though!

Myst
I only included the comment on Barnes as a throw-away, becuase his name has come up in discussion elsewhere.

I'm with you to the extent that someone like Barnes in football or Manu T / Toby Faletau / Vunipola brothers should at least have the choice of representing either the country of their birth and ancestry or of their sporting development (and clearly with the assymetry in earning potential as a pro in England compared with their 'native' countries it is not a difficult decision to make for financial reasons).

Someone coming over at a later age for solely sporting purposes I think should have to go through a much extended residency period and be required to become a British citizen prior to being considered eligible.

You mean like in Trotts case.

Trott did the graft in the counties before he started for england, but sadly KP didnt(even though he is the best player we have had for decades)

Duty281 wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Would a rugby player be allowed to come out with xenophobic comments like Jack Wilshere has for English Football?

I find what he has said to be disgusting and he should be fined by the FA for his stupid comments, someone should remind him it's the 21st Century and times have changed.

Thank God (not that he is real) that Rugby Union has a sensible policy that allows players to qualify for other Countries if they have lived in that country for a number of years or that their game has been developed in that country.

Oh bless, someone English shows a touch of pride in their nation and its values, and out come the PC brigade with their "xenophobic" and "racist" comments.

This has nothing to do with him showing 'a touch of pride in his nation and its values' this is a young man who should THINK things through before saying it to the press.
I guess he didn't like Mo Farah winning his Olympic golds for GB as he wasn't born here.

Foolish comments from a silly young man who needs to understand that this is 21st Century Britain.

Wilshire is having a tough time of it at the moment. 

He is a class player- but sadly had injury issues and only just got back in the team and is being overshadowed by two world class form players(ramsey and ozil)

He has just been caught smoking and now this..

Just hide and train for a bit Jack!!

It will come good again soon!

Scrumpy wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Would a rugby player be allowed to come out with xenophobic comments like Jack Wilshere has for English Football?

I find what he has said to be disgusting and he should be fined by the FA for his stupid comments, someone should remind him it's the 21st Century and times have changed.

Thank God (not that he is real) that Rugby Union has a sensible policy that allows players to qualify for other Countries if they have lived in that country for a number of years or that their game has been developed in that country.

Oh bless, someone English shows a touch of pride in their nation and its values, and out come the PC brigade with their "xenophobic" and "racist" comments.

This has nothing to do with him showing 'a touch of pride in his nation and its values' this is a young man who should THINK things through before saying it to the press.
I guess he didn't like Mo Farah winning his Olympic golds for GB as he wasn't born here.

Foolish comments from a silly young man who needs to understand that this is 21st Century Britain.

What does that signify?

I think people should just calm down a little. He clearly used an example of someone who came to the UK as an Adult (the 5 year comment).... he didn't say someone who came here <10 like Farah.

The guy is a footballer... he isn't going to be found quoting shakespeare anytime soon.

I remember reading a report on a chat up line he used on a taken girl in a bar a year ago.... "why don't you come with us... we've got more money".  Kind of says it all really. not a lot of finesse upstairs.

GeordieFalcon wrote:What does that signify?

That its about time people stopped having xenophobic views and get on with life.

Lets face it England needs all the help it can get when it comes to soccer, players smoking and making themselves unavailable when they have little cuts to the head is hardly setting the right example.

fa0019 wrote:I think people should just calm down a little. He clearly used an example of someone who came to the UK as an Adult (the 5 year comment).... he didn't say someone who came here <10 like Farah.

The guy is a footballer... he isn't going to be found quoting shakespeare anytime soon.

I remember reading a report on a chat up line he used on a taken girl in a bar a year ago.... "why don't you come with us... we've got more money".  Kind of says it all really. not a lot of finesse upstairs.

I bet it worked. but you are right all he said was that living in england for 5 years doesn't make you english.


That doesn't imply they aren't english if they want to be!- if they decide to become a brit national at that point and take the test they will become as english as the next person!!

fa0019 wrote:I think people should just calm down a little. He clearly used an example of someone who came to the UK as an Adult (the 5 year comment).... he didn't say someone who came here <10 like Farah.

The guy is a footballer... he isn't going to be found quoting shakespeare anytime soon.

I remember reading a report on a chat up line he used on a taken girl in a bar a year ago.... "why don't you come with us... we've got more money".  Kind of says it all really. not a lot of finesse upstairs.

FA0019

I agre that most of the criticism of WIlshere is simply that he said something in a very clumsy way. His basic point about Januzaj is not unreasonable - the guy has the choice of 4 nations based on birth and ancestry, and we (as the England national team) should net be needing to look at such players following the applicable residence period.

The problem is that as a footballer, people do listen to what he actually says, rather than interpreting it, and he was quoted with the 'England for English players' line, and made reference to place of birth.

Unfortunately, the world is a bit more complex than people being born in 'their' country - I've put a list on another thread of top class sportsmen who were born in surprising countries. A few favourites for me are John McEnroe (born in Germany) and Terry Bitcher (born in Singapore).

Scrumpy,

Ok im not going to get in to a big arguement...but i happen to think that we live in a very tolerant and un xenophobic country.

Also..mentioning players smoking? Really. What does that matter? Robert Prosinecki 60 marlboro red man...top class football player, Serge Blanco 60 a day marlboro reds...him or Cullen for greatest full back ever.
I dont care about their health habbits...if they perform to the best on the pitch.

Thats not the discussion here...

Scrumpy wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:What does that signify?

That its about time people stopped having xenophobic views and get on with life.

Lets face it England needs all the help it can get when it comes to soccer, players smoking and making themselves unavailable when they have little cuts to the head is hardly setting the right example.

becoming a team of mercenaries and stating a desire to chose a player who has no ancestry and hasn't been in the UK for more then a few months is hardly setting the right example too.

International sport is meant to mean more then performing with whom you can achieve the highest personal profile and income from...

if not why don't any footballing country simply go to Brasil, pick the 100 best youths and throw money at them to move to their country and then wait to reap the rewards. Afterall, if you're going to do something, do it properly.

fa0019 wrote:
if not why don't any footballing country simply go to Brasil, pick the 100 best youths and throw money at them to move to their country and then wait to reap the rewards. Afterall, if you're going to do something, do it properly.

I'm sure Germany have done something similar in the past.

You should go for a job at the FA.

" and he was quoted with the 'England for English players' line, and made reference to place of birth."




he didn't reference brith, its only others making that leap!

GeordieFalcon wrote:Scrumpy,

Ok im not going to get in to a big arguement...but i happen to think that we live in a very tolerant and un xenophobic country.

Also..mentioning players smoking? Really. What does that matter? Robert Prosinecki 60 marlboro red man...top class football player, Serge Blanco 60 a day marlboro reds...him or Cullen for greatest full back ever.
I dont care about their health habbits...if they perform to the best on the pitch.

Thats not the discussion here...

smoking is a big deal these days mate.

I agree with you on the first, but no he shouldn't smoke! If you think Prosinecki would compete at any pro level TODAY at any physical sport on 60 Mally reds a day! then...........................

Scrumpy wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
if not why don't any footballing country simply go to Brasil, pick the 100 best youths and throw money at them to move to their country and then wait to reap the rewards. Afterall, if you're going to do something, do it properly.

I'm sure Germany have done something similar in the past.

You should go for a job at the FA.

What did Germany do?

FA

It's either a reference to the number fo recent German internationals who are either of Turkish background (Ozil for one, although he was actually born in Germany) or from Poland (Podolski and Klose are both from western Poland, an area that was part of Germany prior to WW2), or to the attemtpt the Germans made in the 1930s to invade most of central Europe and so annexing plenty of good footballers...

Linking back to rugby for a moment or two, the parallel with Jaruzaj would be the 'project players' from Scotland and Ireland, where the provinces recruit talented but uncapped youngsters and train them on with the idea that after the residency period they can take a place in the national side. It may be allowed within the system as written but is not really within the spirit of the rules.

I am a bit uncomfortable with these kinds of discussions, only because it is easy to type something easily misinterpreted.  I have no idea what was in the lads head when he spoke, nor the context of the questions asked.  

On the other hand, I do believe we live in a pretty open and fair country.  Every nation or group has their xenophobic miscreants.  Can't avoid them but we can ridicule them.  This is what makes us great - we are open and we know better than the racist lot.

But to actual residency?  We live in such an increasingly mobile world, there will always be families moving for whatever reasons.  I simply favour someone to be a citizen, or far down the road towards becoming a citizen (whatever that entails), meeting a nation's immigration requirements, not a simply meeting the parameters of a sporting organisation.    Not sure how that could be put into practice, but seems logical to me as a starting point.  

The conundrum of the United Kingdom can be handled once the rest of the world is sorted.

Wiltshire's comments were just vague, therefore can be misinterpreted by a few(but funnily enough mainly be people that look down there noses at football players).

I think its pretty obvious what he meant IMO and it wasn't racist or xenophobic, just lacking in content!

The issue here i would guess is more of a classest one over a xenophobic one!!

Maybe he just means that English Passport holders should only be allowed play for England......that's makes sense right?  

i am sure that is what he meant tbh.

all he said was " living in england for 5 years doesn't make you english"

That is 100% spot on, however you still can be english/british if you want to!

he is being attacked because he is a 'stupid footballer'

mystiroakey wrote: He is english as the rest of us!

Speak for yourself

mystiroakey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Scrumpy,

Ok im not going to get in to a big arguement...but i happen to think that we live in a very tolerant and un xenophobic country.

Also..mentioning players smoking? Really. What does that matter? Robert Prosinecki 60 marlboro red man...top class football player, Serge Blanco 60 a day marlboro reds...him or Cullen for greatest full back ever.
I dont care about their health habbits...if they perform to the best on the pitch.

Thats not the discussion here...

smoking is a big deal these days mate.

I agree with you on the first, but no he shouldn't smoke! If you think Prosinecki would compete at any pro level TODAY at any physical sport on 60 Mally reds a day! then...........................

Its a big deal to many of the do gooders brigade...and the PR men as its not fashinable to smoke these days. Im not a smoker, but i honestly couldnt care less if some of the players did so long as they met the criteria - fitness, ability, performance.
I know people who smoke that are rediculously fit. And i think the likes of Prosinecki and Blanco definately would be fine still at the top of their respective games.

dummy_half wrote:FA

It's either a reference to the number fo recent German internationals who are either of Turkish background (Ozil for one, although he was actually born in Germany) or from Poland (Podolski and Klose are both from western Poland, an area that was part of Germany prior to WW2), or to the attemtpt the Germans made in the 1930s to invade most of central Europe and so annexing plenty of good footballers...

Linking back to rugby for a moment or two, the parallel with Jaruzaj would be the 'project players' from Scotland and Ireland, where the provinces recruit talented but uncapped youngsters and train them on with the idea that after the residency period they can take a place in the national side. It may be allowed within the system as written but is not really within the spirit of the rules.

It was in referance that a number of German players were born/grown up outside of Germany or have family that aren't German who play for other nations. There is nothing wrong with that IMO I just don't understand why English football still has an issue with this when most English teams are full of foreigners, many of whom have lived/paid tax here for a number of years and have Sons and Daughters who have been born here and have a right to call themselves British if they chose to.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Scrumpy,

Ok im not going to get in to a big arguement...but i happen to think that we live in a very tolerant and un xenophobic country.

Also..mentioning players smoking? Really. What does that matter? Robert Prosinecki 60 marlboro red man...top class football player, Serge Blanco 60 a day marlboro reds...him or Cullen for greatest full back ever.
I dont care about their health habbits...if they perform to the best on the pitch.

Thats not the discussion here...

smoking is a big deal these days mate.

I agree with you on the first, but no he shouldn't smoke! If you think Prosinecki would compete at any pro level TODAY at any physical sport on 60 Mally reds a day! then...........................

Its a big deal to many of the do gooders brigade...and the PR men as its not fashinable to smoke these days. Im not a smoker, but i honestly couldnt care less if some of the players did so long as they met the criteria - fitness, ability, performance.
I know people who smoke that are rediculously fit. And i think the likes of Prosinecki and Blanco definately would be fine still at the top of their respective games.

i smoke and if you think anyone smoking 60 malbroro reds a day would be at the top of their game today then you are in the land of the fairies!

Every smoker knows that it affects them. Maybe as you dont smoke you dont understand what it does to us!

If i stop smoking for just 1 day I on average I can burn an extra 500 calories of down the gym!

My performance level difference is unbelievable.

BTW i have actually recently given up(I am not a  smoker anymore- but I vape instead!)

Scrumpy wrote:

dummy_half wrote:FA

It's either a reference to the number fo recent German internationals who are either of Turkish background (Ozil for one, although he was actually born in Germany) or from Poland (Podolski and Klose are both from western Poland, an area that was part of Germany prior to WW2), or to the attemtpt the Germans made in the 1930s to invade most of central Europe and so annexing plenty of good footballers...

Linking back to rugby for a moment or two, the parallel with Jaruzaj would be the 'project players' from Scotland and Ireland, where the provinces recruit talented but uncapped youngsters and train them on with the idea that after the residency period they can take a place in the national side. It may be allowed within the system as written but is not really within the spirit of the rules.

It was in referance that a number of German players were born/grown up outside of Germany or have family that aren't German who play for other nations. There is nothing wrong with that IMO I just don't understand why English football still has an issue with this when most English teams are full of foreigners, many of whom have lived/paid tax here for a number of years and have Sons and Daughters who have been born here and have a right to call themselves British if they chose to.

Just out of interest, which players are you referring to?

Klose moved to Germany when he was 8. Podolski moved when he was 2. Asamoah moved when he was 12, they were children, they weren't shopped by Germany. There is nothing wrong with that and I don't think Wilshere was suggesting so. He's a foolish uneducated chap, we all know that but its magnifying what he said * 10 in my opinion.

There was deffo some talk of a lot of forign born Germans last year or so ago .however they are still on the whole German and grew up in Germany.

I am not sure those discussions are helpfull. But it is an ongoing topic for us rugby or cricket fans. It is basically pointless though.

If our main sporting rivals played more football we would probally utilise the aussies or saffas though.. so I suppose we could blame the demise of English football on them??

Congratulations on giving up. Impressive effort.

Im not away with the fairies.

I would love to know how many rugby players smoke...i bet theres still a few.

Personally I have no problem with a foreign born player representing England. As long as they have lived in this country for a significant amount time, learned to play here and love this country, I am happy. At the end of the day, does it matter what particular scrap of land you are born on if you have no strong feeling/ emotional ties to the people who live there?

As long as a player loves this country and has pride in the shirt I'll call him an Englishman and support him to the hilt.

geoff998rugby wrote:Someone on here came up with a points proposal which I thought would work well

Born in Country - 50
Parent Born in country - 30
Grandparent born in country - 20
Lived in country (continously) - 20
If you left the country the last measure was wiped and went back to zero

You need 100 point to qualify

Works for me

Are you saying this should apply for the whole team? I couldn't honestly countenance a situation where someone was born in this country and lived here all their life not qualifying to play for this country?

An English lad of South African parentage and lineage would only score 70 points by that reckoning. It's not workable or positive in my view.

the lived in country bit is 20 pts each year!

mystiroakey wrote:the lived in country bit is 20 pts each year!

That isn't stated anywhere.

In principle I agree. But let's face it, there are few enough strong international teams to keep things interesting without consigning England to the no hopers, easy beats pile.

I know thats why we all questioned him..

but it is stated on another later post by him,

Chjw131 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:the lived in country bit is 20 pts each year!

That isn't stated anywhere.

As stated above I corrected that sorry for any confusion.

20 points a year I think is fair so basically 5 years Residency - but only if you stay in the country.
What needs to be stopped is someone doing a Flutey - coming to England for 3 years and then going off to France and still being eligable - thats not right.

Define English Players,both parents of English birth?born in England,English?Both Parents
English born in France French?[or NZ,Sa,OZ.SAMOA.etc.]Two parents of Non -English Birth
English?.One Parent of English Birth born in England.English?that is the bag of worms.Manu
Tuilagi  was born in England,his Brothers in Samoa is he English or Samoan?Not being obtuse
the rules are the same for all.Residency shouldn't count or should it?Grand parents a very
grey area.For me it should be Parent/s.place of birth,residency after 5 years,non qualified
if you played for another tier one side at League,sevens or any level for another country.
Dual qualification for a tier two side example NZ then later for Samoa/Tonga/Fiji.Player
must be resident country to be picked NOT playing in another country.

I dont think someone should be able to qualify to play sport for a country through residency after the age of about 15( I think, but maybe 13 or 14).
Born in a country=qualify
Parent or grandparent=qualify
Moved to country under 15=qualify.

the reality is, whatever the rules are, people are going to game them.

international rugby is where the mass exposure is. players want it. and pretty soon you'll see comprehensive scouting (and relocation/sponsorship by clubs subsidised by union/academy at youth levels in order to give national teams the option.

sad but true.

Just so long as they don't play for Quins I don't care where they come from.

Trevor40 wrote:Just so long as they don't play for Quins I don't care where they come from.

mum letting you use the internet after lights out again trev?

My mums dead. Thanks for reminding me.

kingjohn7 wrote:I dont think someone should be able to qualify to play sport for a country through residency after the age of about 15( I think, but maybe 13 or 14).
Born in a country=qualify
Parent or grandparent=qualify
Moved to country under 15=qualify.

my solution.

biology = nothing
birthplace = nothing
residency for 5 years before the age of 21 = qualify.

In the rare case that this sportsman has lived in so many different countries so he/she hasn't lived in any particular one for 5 years, or his/her nation has sunk/been blown up/dismantled politically then concessions can be made.

Mys u were up early mate. I agree concessions could be made in some rare circumstances.
I think most people would agree that birthplace should allow one to qualify.

I think the parents and grandparents should allow one to qualify because it allows people to represent their "homeland". Im sure you must know plenty of english people whos family immigrated here or english families abroad. Whilst being and feeling english they might also have a strong connection to where they came from and may well feel equally from there(although sadly most probably just look to see which side they would be able to get into).

I just cannot see the logic of someone growing up in another country yet playing for their birth nation..

The birth nation did not make them what they are today!

However if you can get a passport for the said country then i suppose we have to really abide by that logic . Being a national of a country should require the same logical as playing for your country does.

A friend of mine was born in the states. His parents are english and french only and he moved back to the UK after 4 months.

When he travels he calls himself american, and he takes his american passport!! yuk is all I can say to that!! He is about as american as my neighbours english bulldog is!

No, I don't agree with Jack Wilshere.  The rules for playing representative international rugby are much better than what he'd like to see in football.

In the modern world, with so much exchange of people between countries, it doesn't make sense to simply exclude players not born in the country for which they're considered good enough to play.

For instance, like many people I think it's great to see Italy progressing in the 6 Nations. They wouldn't be doing so without influential players who were/are not born in Italy but qualified through residency or via parents/grandparents. Sergio Parisse, for example, wasn't born in Italy but Argentina.

New Zealand make very good use of players born in Pacific countries who went there as children or qualify through residence. Before anyone says that's all one-way traffic, note that at the 2007 RWC there were 14 New Zealand-born players in the Samoa squad.

And what about players' personal ambitions to be in top-class international sides? For instance, would South Africa's prop Tendai Mtawariria (the Beast) prefer to be playong for Zimbabwe, where he was born? Would Percy Montgomery have fulfilled his talent playing fullback for Namibia, his birthplace, instead of South Africa?

The current residency and family qualifications for international rugby are about right.

A few things. Firstly I don't think Wilshere is taking a position which would be morally appealing to that many. Specifically, his distinction between apparent definitive national characteristics in players (the Spanish are "technical", the English "tackle hard" etc) strikes me as rather silly. This might be subjective but I see no reason why any national side shouldn't be strategically open-minded in the players it selects or should be associated with with a stereotypical model of player.

However it is a sensitive topic difficult to address without even inadvertently stoking the fire. It's one of sport's minefields in which treading wrong results in social hysteria and for that reason I think Wilshere is brave to draw attention to it. Bluntness often helps to get these things out in the open.

Personally I don't think these issues are nearly as black and white as we often try to think. It comes down to individual circumstances regarding whether one could justifiably be considered to be part of the country they play for or whether their link to that country is more questionable over those of others who are playing just as well or better. There are no factors which automatically determine the argument either way. You might have been born thousands of miles from England but if you've spent most of your life there then it's difficult to rationally dismiss the connection and therefore the right to play for England. Equally your parents might be from Zimbabwe and although you've not lived there long you could justifiably call it your country of origin in a sense. In this day and age many players do have a legitimate choice between where they might commit.

This does not apply to every case. I agree that football's policy looks more sensible in that it's five years rather than three, the number of years you need to have lived in this country to be considered a citizen in the absence of a familial link. That is the legal boundary and I think IRB policy should be adapted accordingly to avoid confusion. Three years is simply not enough in itself without any prior association with the country in question which is why I thought and still think Scotland's right to call up Tim Visser was extremely contentious.

Either way individual circumstances ought to be taken into account when a player's claim to come from a particular country may not immediately seem obvious. I think it's important to prevent international sport from becoming a higher tier of club sport as its representative format is what has always distinguished the former from the latter and made it so people feel like they're behind their country and not just their super-local club.