Only English players should play for England.

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.

 

He isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer is he?! Obviously talking in relation to the new kid on the block, Januzaj, but completely oblivious to how that will make someone like Berahino feel. The sort of view that 'they'll never be one of us' makes me feel slightly queasy.

That's my serious view before the wums hit anyway!

Ok this whole topic is a right can of worms...and been discussed several times over on here..

The couple that bothers me is:

1) The residency rule should be increased from 3years...
2) If you have played for another country at League then you should not be able to change country if you swap to union and vice versa. ie Henry paul, Vainikolo etc...
3) Grandparents rule needs to be looked at. I can understand the link...but im not 100% sure that should qualify...im sure many will disagree.

Wilshire is a bit of a fool mind...

I think that phrase is slightly different to what he was getting at, which is that having someone learn their sport elsewhere, come here and then wait several years so they can specifically play for England isn't in the spirit of sport. That Janzuaj bloke has no connection to England other than Man Utd signed him.

Actually I think football is much better that rugby in this regard as a result of the club game being bigger than the international one, which means less restrictions on chosing to play for your homeland.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I think that phrase is slightly different to what he was getting at, which is that having someone learn their sport elsewhere, come here and then wait several years so they can specifically play for England isn't in the spirit of sport. That Janzuaj bloke has no connection to England other than Man Utd signed him.

Actually I think football is much better that rugby in this regard as a result of the club game being bigger than the international one, which means less restrictions on chosing to play for your homeland.

There seems to be a few differing quotes on it aye

Sky Sports wrote:
"The only people who should play for England are English people. We have to remember what we are. We are English. We tackle hard, are tough on the pitch and are hard to beat."

"If you live in England for five years it doesn't make you English. If I went to Spain and lived there for five years I am not going to play for Spain.

"We have to remember what we are. We are English. We tackle hard, are tough on the pitch and are hard to beat.

"We have great characters. You think of Spain and you think technical but you think of England and you think they are brave and they tackle hard. We have to remember that."

Maybe he was a bit grouchy as he hadn't had his nicotine when interviewed?

Well, let’s not lay into young Jack, it’s obviously an honestly held view and it IS something that the wise sages of 606v2 have discussed in the past.

However here’s a 21 year old football player who, let’s face it, will know very little about life apart from football (and [allegedly] night clubs and smerking tabs) and whilst we are all entitled to an opinion, should his be given more validity than anyone else?

He plays in a League where the wages are very high and these good wages are part funded by the expertise and skill of many, many ‘foreigners’ plying their skills, so I think he should think hard about the target audience and what paths his remarks could take the ensuing conversations, he could end up playing in a League where it’s 95% ‘English’ (and what the hell is ‘English’ anyway, we are a mongrel nation and always have been) but he might have a couple of noughts knocked off his take home pay.

Well done to Wilshere for speaking out!  

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ok this whole topic is a right can of worms...and been discussed several times over on here..

The couple that bothers me is:

1) The residency rule should be increased from 3years...
2) If you have played for another country at League then you should not be able to change country if you swap to union and vice versa. ie Henry paul, Vainikolo etc...
3) Grandparents rule needs to be looked at. I can understand the link...but im not 100% sure that should qualify...im sure many will disagree.

Wilshire is a bit of a fool mind...

1) Agree
2) Agree
3) I think the grandparent rule is perfectly fine. Many people are proud of their heritage not to mention the blood connection.

Bathman in London that's very true.

It's actually funny that perhaps the worst culprit is cricket because internationals are so important in that game.

E.g. Ed Joyce,Eon Morgan and Boyd Rankin all playing for England.

That's even more extreme than what happens in rugby.


I do think the dual nationality can be a blurred line - so players feel they are of two nationalities. E.g. Chris Wyles sees himself as English and American. In a sense he's kept that - he lives in England, plays for an English club yet was born in USA and plays internationally for USA.

Wasn't Wilshere speaking about a Belgium born and raised kid of  Kosovan Albanian heritage who moved to the UK in the summer and some are already trying to suggest he should play for England???

If so, he's right... this kid hasn't been in England for more then 6 months, has no heritage... it would be about money and fame, thats it. Playing for your country should be more then that... it should be everything bar that in fact.

This isn't a kid who was raised here or one who has lived here for 5 years already... its one who has just entered the country.

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

Ah, the folly of youth. No shades grey to cloud the judgement. No doubt he's about find out things are not so simple. Some lessons have to be learned the hard way.

fa0019 wrote:Wasn't Wilshere speaking about a Belgium born and raised kid of  Kosovan Albanian heritage who moved to the UK in the summer and some are already trying to suggest he should play for England???

If so, he's right... this kid hasn't been in England for more then 6 months, has no heritage... it would be about money and fame, thats it. Playing for your country should be more then that... it should be everything bar that in fact.

This isn't a kid who was raised here or one who has lived here for 5 years already... its one who has just entered the country.

His choice of language is poor though. From what he's saying he could well consider someone like Berahino not right for England. A lad who came to Britain as an asylum seeker from a country in the middle of a war. He probably sees this as ok I don't know but these comments suggest not. Very black and white and sounds appropriate for the Daily Mail. Berahino probably hates England according to them anyway.

Perhaps he needs to talk to his England colleague Wilfried Zaha - born in the Ivory Coast but immigrated to London at age 4, so almost his entire remembered upbringing and certainly all his football development.

I agree with Wilshere that there should be no discussion of Januzaj as a potential England international at this stage - he simply moved here a year ago because of the potential to play professionally for Man U, and has no demonstrable loyalty to England. However, his comments were poorly thought out.

Geoff
Your points system is overly complicated and too restrictive for the reality of the modern world. By your need to attain 100 points, my neice would be ineligible for any country, but scores 70 for 3 different nationalities (Swiss by birth and residency, English through one parent and two grandparents, German through one parent and two grandparents).

I'm largely in agreement with Geordie - the current rules need a bit of tweaking in terms of length of residency (especially if only as an adult), grandparents and having represented another country in another professional sport.

Dummy_half is she wanted to represent any of those three countries she would only have to live in one of them for the next two years - not an unreasonable requirement

I don't actually see anything wrong with what Wilshere said. This is what he said:

"If you live in England for five years it doesn't make you English."

That's his opinion. That's fair enough. I can understand that point of view.


"The only people who should play for England are English people."

Depends how you define English. To me someone is English if they feel they are English and have an attachment to the country in some shape of form when it comes to their identity.

Again I don't think there is anything wrong with that but it can be interpreted in different ways . He doesn't specifically say what he thinks being English means.

Adnan Januzaj is currently not English. If he stayed in the country for 5 years, called his nationality English then yes I think he should be accepted in the England squad. I have no problem with that.

I think Jack Wilshere is rightly questioning whether the FA should be trying to entice Adnan to play for England.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Wasn't Wilshere speaking about a Belgium born and raised kid of  Kosovan Albanian heritage who moved to the UK in the summer and some are already trying to suggest he should play for England???

If so, he's right... this kid hasn't been in England for more then 6 months, has no heritage... it would be about money and fame, thats it. Playing for your country should be more then that... it should be everything bar that in fact.

This isn't a kid who was raised here or one who has lived here for 5 years already... its one who has just entered the country.

His choice of language is poor though. From what he's saying he could well consider someone like Berahino not right for England. A lad who came to Britain as an asylum seeker from a country in the middle of a war. He probably sees this as ok I don't know but these comments suggest not. Very black and white and sounds appropriate for the Daily Mail. Berahino probably hates England according to them anyway.

in the summer??

no he has been here since he was 16

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

you are telling me if you have lived in the country continuously all your life and born here yet you have no other ties to the nation you get 70 pts yet still dont qualify for the country. I take it you are nuts then?

In fact the maths is so bad that there could be loads of players that couldn't even qualify for any country!!

geoff998rugby wrote:Dummy_half is she wanted to represent any of those three countries she would only have to live in one of them for the next two years - not an unreasonable requirement

 
Other than the country she was born and lives in...

Sorry, to correct myself and Geoff, that's simply wrong.

She can't get more that 70 points for Switzerland through birth and residency, despite that being the only country she has ever lived in.

Moves to England or Germany for two years would get her to 90 points.

I think born in the country scores 100?

Players should only be able to play for one country. They shouldn't have a choice. And xenophobic(nationality) reasons should have zero bearing on the decision.

The only law should be.

The country that the individual has lived in most between the age of 0-21 (or the age of playing his first game for the national team- and any national team- so that includes all under 18,s , under, 17's, youth teams etc)

Nationality is immaterial- It should only be about the system that made you!

The bit that made me laugh from Wilshire...

The only people who should play for England are English people. We have to remember what we are. We are English. We tackle hard, are tough on the pitch and are hard to beat

Its a LONG time since i saw an England team that displayed those credentials!!

FA

Wasn't Wilshere speaking about a Belgium born and raised kid of Kosovan Albanian heritage who moved to the UK in the summer and some are already trying to suggest he should play for England???

Your right mate...i labled Wilshire a bit of a fool above, but he's probably just not said what he meant correctly...as you say, this scenario is a bit of a farce....besides ill put money on it choose to play for Belgium.

The kid came here at 16 to the man u academy(he has been here two years)- so yes he could chose england at 21 or something like that. at the moment he can only play for albania belgium and one other country due to heritage and birth- But if man u are the team that make him why shouldn't he pick england(he wont off course as he would have to wait too long- but it is well known that he doesn't feel any affinity to belgium, and feels albanian!


This of course could change very soon, 18 year old's minds change like the wind! And i would bet he picks belgium

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

Hell no, that would make me more bloody English and Irish than Welsh. Very bad idea!

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Wasn't Wilshere speaking about a Belgium born and raised kid of  Kosovan Albanian heritage who moved to the UK in the summer and some are already trying to suggest he should play for England???

If so, he's right... this kid hasn't been in England for more then 6 months, has no heritage... it would be about money and fame, thats it. Playing for your country should be more then that... it should be everything bar that in fact.

This isn't a kid who was raised here or one who has lived here for 5 years already... its one who has just entered the country.

His choice of language is poor though. From what he's saying he could well consider someone like Berahino not right for England. A lad who came to Britain as an asylum seeker from a country in the middle of a war. He probably sees this as ok I don't know but these comments suggest not. Very black and white and sounds appropriate for the Daily Mail. Berahino probably hates England according to them anyway.

To be honest what he said doesn't seem to wrong to me. It is a question of nationality, not ethnicity or creed etc. If you can get in cack for having an opinion that only English people should play for England, then I think that any international sports governing body should be in bit cack, as they try to enforce only English people play for England.

Lets not get confused between nationality and race or religion. IMO there can be Christian, Muslim, Seek, Jewish etc Englishmen, and various different skin toned Englishmen, however there can't be a Welsh Englishman, or an American Englishman etc. And Witshire was IMO talking about the later not the former.

It's probably the case that Wilshere was trying to voice the same concerns that many of us on here have discussed in length regarding the residency qualification, but being a footballer he simply doesn't have the intelligence to elucidate his feelings properly and has ended up sounding xenophobic through sheer clumsiness. Poor boy.

Residency qualification should be the only factor that matters in determining the team you can play for.. Anything else is backwards, xenophobic and racist imo.

I get what Wilshire was trying to say (I think) ScarletSpiderman in that he doesn't want someone playing for England who doesn't consider himself an Englishman but by his wording he could be talking about Sterling, Zaha, Berahino which I don't think is right. They should be allowed to play for us. Think it's clumsy wording that's all. I'm all for playing to the rules; the only time I've thought it was completely wrong is in case like Flutey who had already played for NZ.

Agree with Pat.

Scarletspiderman I think you're wrong though.

There can be an English American as I mentioned with Chris Wyles example. He feels English and American. Don't see what is wrong with a dual nationality.

Pat Mustard I agree. It's Wilshere's clumsiness that gets him in trouble plus the media jumping on the bandwagon.

Pat & No7.5 -: I agree it is probably a case of a lad trying to tiptoe through a pc minefeild, but unfortunately whilst wearing steel toe-capped boots.

mystiroakey wrote:Residency qualification should be the only factor that matters in determining the team you can play for.. Anything else is backwards, xenophobic and racist imo.

Is JW related to rainbow warrior ?

mystiroakey wrote:

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

you are telling me if you have lived in the country continuously all your life and born here yet you have no other ties to the nation you get 70 pts yet still dont qualify for the country. I take it you are nuts then?

In fact the maths is so bad that there could be loads of players that couldn't even qualify for any country!!

Surely it should be 100 for born in country, same for parents born and then different amounts fir other things

Beshocked, i think you feel one over the other though.

I was born and raised in Liberia West Africa, after my English father and Scottish Mother oved there for my dads job. I went to the UK for Holidays etc regularly.
At 11 i came back to the UK permanently.

I have a huge passion and affinity for Liberia...but due to my parents, family and being here since i was 11 im English through and through.
Even hypothetically, if Liberia were amongst the best rugby teams in the world...that wouldnt sway me...i want to play for England.
I think there is a part of you that feels the identity of one particular country.

 i dont think what he said was wrong but it does feel he getting worried about losing his England place as well as his arsenal . . 

yappysnap wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

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

you are telling me if you have lived in the country continuously all your life and born here yet you have no other ties to the nation you get 70 pts yet still dont qualify for the country. I take it you are nuts then?

In fact the maths is so bad that there could be loads of players that couldn't even qualify for any country!!

Surely it should be 100 for born in country, same for parents born and then different amounts fir other things

well not for me as birth is immaterial- but yes it should be based on the clear mathematical flaws in his 'qualification' process!

Personally resident for 5 or more years should be 100(before the age of 21), nothing else should matter.(unless we go with my other suggestion above)

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

I was born here, none of my parents/grandparents were but only time I've left the country is to go on holiday, by you measure I would only have 70 points so I couldn't play for England? Bollix to that

Geordiefalcon

Perhaps but I feel like you should have the choice to play for Liberia,England or Scotland.

Liberia based on birthplace.

England based on English father and residency

Scotland based on Scottish mother.

I can understand that, and i would like the choice to represent Liberia...but is that right even when i havent been there since i was 11? Maybe there should be a certain number of years that if you havent been in that country you cant represent them...

Its a tricky one

i think up to 11 is the point where its half and half!

scotland though- You certainly shouldn't be able to play for them!

On the whole football doesn't seem to employ the same approach as rugby and cricket have both done I know Wales capped Vinnie Jones  and not sure if any of the other have but it doesn't seem as widespread as the other sports.

Is there a specific reason for this, are there enough home based football players or do they operate by different rules?

At the moment there are about 10 english born players in the irish national squad!- the welsh, NI and scottish also have plenty

The english national team is one of the most tightly nationalistic sporting teams in the world though. We rarely ever get someone that isn't born or partially raised here (hargreaves would be the only one i can think of)

 Big error in my table - Lived in the country continously should read 20 points for each year. Not 20 point total

geoff998rugby wrote: Big error in my table - Lived in the country continously should read 20 points for each year. Not 20 point total

much better, and i would almost agree with it(5 years in any country) will give you the right to play

I agree with the posts that have labelled Wiltshire clumsy, not the most eloquent at the best of times. He appears to be questioning the 'feeling' of nationality someone has, which cannot be quantified.

This brings into the argument our friend Mr Shingler. Am I correct in thinking that he was brought up in Wales and developed through a Welsh system before electing to represent Scotland. Now I couldn't possibly say which of the nations he feels he has the most affiliation with (although I could guess), but having seemingly admitted to feeling Scottish, how would players (and his brother) feel about representing Wales now? Potentially something that could happen this Autumn?

geoff998rugby wrote: Big error in my table - Lived in the country continously should read 20 points for each year. Not 20 point total

That makes much more sense. Could even drop to 15 or 10.

Geordiefalcon you were born there. You said you do feel some affiliation. I feel you should be able to play for them if you want.

Oh and I think geoff's table is far too strict.

mystiroakey wrote:At the moment there are about 10 english born players in the irish national squad!- the welsh, NI and scottish also have plenty

The english national team is one of the most tightly nationalistic sporting teams in the world though. We rarely ever get someone that isn't born or partially raised here (hargreaves would be the only one i can think of)

Myst
Tony Dorigo would be another - aussie by birth and Aussie + Italian ancestry, only came to England at 18 when he signed for Aston Villa. Completed the required (at that time) 5 years residency and citizenship before being capped for England. John Barnes moved at about 13.

The football rules are a bit different from rugby or cricket - England and the other home nations now have an agreement in place that prevents them selecting players from outside Britain based solely on adult residency, but 5 years attendance at school counts (I quite like that one...), which is how the likes of Zaha, Berahino etc qualify. There is though obviously more movement of 'nationality' between the home nations than would be the case for clearly defined countries (although interestingly Wikipedia only list Dominic Matteo from Scotland and Rob Jones + Frederick Green from Wales as foreign-born England players - I thought Michael Owen might also be on the list, although it turns out he was born in Chester but lived just over the border in Wales as a child).

john barnes moved here at 13 - and that is completely fine, no problems with that at all, 

anyway we are talking about a very small percentage compared to other home nations or other uk/world sports teams

If Zaha didn't count then it would be a tragedy!

Palace made him and he moved here at 4 YEARS OLD. off course he should represent England.

Why do people keep bringing up Zaha like he is a foreigner or something??


I dont really understand what is going on here tbh! Is that what you lot actually think of him? He is english as the rest of us!