What if the World Cup allowed only native-born players?

[William Blake]

That is , what if, for example, only someone born on Germany could play on
Germany's team in the world Cup, only players born in Spain could play for Spain's team in the World Cup, and so on? How would this rule change the Cup itself? Would it be more interesting?

 

[HNHauge]

Take for instance the 2006 World Cup; notable players missing just from France: Boumsong, Vieira, Makelele, possibly Malouda (depends on how FIFA considers French Guyana) and possibly Thuram and Chimbonda (Guadalope). There's a lot of the defensive core of the team ripped out right there.

On the other hand I think such a rule would be changed when immigration to Europe really got going; a lot of the players would be protesting that they only wanted to play for for instance France, not the Congo or Senegal.

There would also be a grey area in the law; would for instance a German born in East Prussia in 1934 still be allowed to play for Germany in 1954? And what about German reunification?

 

[Dizcorp]

No John Barnes for England

... he was born in Kingston, Jamaica.

Owen Hargreaves would be equally doomed to footballing isolation as he was born in bloody Canada...! Michael Owen barely makes it by a couple of miles as he was born in the English side of Chester.

France would find themselves with a lot of holes in their squad as already stated in an earlier post: current squad losses include Mandanda (DR Congo), Evra (Senegal), Boumsong (Cameroon), Vieira (Senegal), a guy called Mavuba (born in international waters!)

Guadeloupe and Martinique, together with French Guiana and Réunion, are overseas territories of France and thus would be considered French for footballing purposes (as they are for most other purposes).

Spain would lose the crafty Marcos Senna (Brazilian-born).

Portugal lose Rolando, Pepe, Deco, Liédson and Nani (Portugal get screwed a lot by this butterfly, although the Cape Verde Islands gain a couple of surprisingly good players!)

Italy lose Camoranesi (born in Argentina) and Giuseppe Rossi (USA!)

Germany lose out a lot as well: Andreas Beck (born in what is now Russia), Trochowski (Poland), Marin (Bosnia), Podolski (Poland) and Klose (also Poland), and Cacau, who was born in Brazil.

Given the integrated nature of modern European economics, it's unlikely FIFA would sanction this kind of rule. Intriguing butterflies though...

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

I think a more realistic rule would be that the player must live in the nation they play for during the majority of their life, since someone who is born in spain but moved to Portugal when he was 4 and lived there for the rest of his life, it's not reasonable to expect the guy to play for spain, and what about people who come from nations that don't exist in the same form as they did when the guy was born, for instance the Prussian situation, and the pakistani one too.

 

[minifidel]

Argentina would have won a lot more of the early WCs

 

[Bill Cameron]

William,

What would happen if only native-born players could play for a national team?

There would be a different list of Cup champions for sure, but the real effect would be rather damaging to the sport. Native-born requirements would mean you'd see much more cheating with regards to birth certificates and national laws stipulating what the term "native-born" means. Such shenanigans would effect the sport's popularity.

Footie has always skirted the edges of corruption. There's the current European investigation into 200+ fixed matches, Maradona "winning" the Cup in 1986 with a completely illegal maneuver which was allowed to stand, and France doing the same - and baldly admitting they did - this year in a qualifying match. Adding native-born restrictions and the cheating they'd engender would simply add to the undercurrents of fixes and corruption many fans feel is a large part of the game.


Bill

 

[William Blake]

William,

What would happen if only native-born players could play for a national team?

There would be a different list of Cup champions for sure, but the real effect would be rather damaging to the sport. Native-born requirements would mean you'd see much more cheating with regards to birth certificates and national laws stipulating what the term "native-born" means. Such shenanigans would effect the sport's popularity.
Bill

On the other hand, every Cup there is a writer pointing to teams made, in large part, of effectively imported players. These also affect the sport's popularity. It cuts both ways, you see.
As for cheating, every new rule, no matter the subject, always brings opportunity and incentive for cheating. This is no reason to abolish all rules, or even to stop passing them.

 

[SalienceG]

Croatia loses Eduardo Da Silva.

 

[Bill Cameron]

On the other hand, every Cup there is a writer pointing to teams made, in large part, of effectively imported players. These also affect the sport's popularity. It cuts both ways, you see.

William,

I do see, but you don't.

Currently, imported players are both necessary and entirely within the rules. Under your suggested rules change, foreign players will still be necessary, will still be used via loopholes or outright fraud, and their presence will be a mockery of the rules.

As for cheating, every new rule, no matter the subject, always brings opportunity and incentive for cheating.

There's cheating, like the hundreds of fixed games now being investigated, and then there's flouting the rules, like the asinine events surrounding both Maradona's Hand of God and Thierry's more recent "double tap".

Maradona and Thierry both cheated and made a mockery of the rules. Both cheated, both were seen to cheat by millions, and the rules were not enforced due to FIFA's incompetence. That's very damaging to the sport and having foreign-born players still playing for national teams thanks to a variety of loopholes will be even more damaging.

This is no reason to abolish all rules, or even to stop passing them.

I'm not suggesting there should be no rules. I am suggesting that FIFA not adopt a rule it cannot enforce and that will be frequently circumvented. That just makes FIFA look more incompetent than it already is, if that's possible.

FIFA has enough trouble already, the looming European investigation is just one of several potential disasters. Adopting a new rule which it cannot honestly enforce will only further highlight all the other rules FIFA cannot, will not, or does not enforce.


Bill

 

[Markus]

Just for the record, the US constitution says the POTUS needs to be a native born American but guess what, it does not define what "native born" actually means!

 

[perfectgeneral]

Good news for The Terminator.

 

[William Blake]

William,

I do see, but you don't

No, Bill, you feel, but I don't.
You feel so strongly, that just by stating your feelings you feel as if you were presenting a strong argument.

Currently, imported players are both necessary

That is what you feel to be true. I respectfully disagree, based in more than just my feelings.

and entirely within the rules.

Granted, but "allowed" doesn't mean "right".
The spirit of the Cup is that it is a contest between footballing nations, represented by teams of their players. If the players are actually mercenary, then it is the money, not the people that it is being represented. Presently mercenary players are a mockery of the spirit of the contest.
You are outraged by the letter of the rules being mocked? I am outraged by the silently ignoring of the spirit behind the rules, what is much worse than the disrespect of any rule, since it leads to outright emptying and de-souling of the sport.

 

[Markus]

Good news for The Terminator.

No, he was born both outside the US and to non-american parents.

 

[Berra]

That wouldn't happen in a vaccum. Something will make this happening and thus it woll have larger social ramifications.

 

[Bill Cameron]

No, Bill, you feel, but I don't. You feel so strongly, that just by stating your feelings you feel as if you were presenting a strong argument.

Wiliam,

Actually it's the other way around, as will become clear in this post.

You feel something isn't fair and should be changed.

I know that fairness doesn't enter into it and that's why it won't be changed.

That is what you feel to be true. I respectfully disagree, based in more than just my feelings.

Sorry, but no. Your opinion is based entirely on your feelings and little else.

Granted, but "allowed" doesn't mean "right".

Here's the first bit of the romantic nonsense that's clouding your judgment. In the real world "allowed" is always the same as "right".

The spirit of the Cup...

And there's the other bit of romantic nonsense effecting your judgment.

There is no "spirit" of the World Cup. It's a business venture run by business men to make money. FIFA is a business venture run by business men to make money. Professional sports is a business venture run by business men to make money. Even the Olympics is business venture run by business men to make money.

Unlike you, I know that foreign-born players are necessary because because the business men running footie teams to make money use whatever foreign-born players they can afford. You can bleat about the "spirit" of the game and what is "fair" all you want, the bottom line and the actions taken daily by club owners to protect and grow that bottom line is all the proof I need for my assertion.

... is that it is a contest between footballing nations, represented by teams of their players.

The Cup is no such thing. It's a contest between business entities based in certain nations and nothing more.

If the players are actually mercenary...

They are actually mercenary, or haven't you been paying attention?

... then it is the money, not the people that it is being represented.

As I explained above, they've never represented nations or people. Sure, the advertising likes to claim otherwise but that only to get romantics like you to tune in and care.

Presently mercenary players are a mockery of the spirit of the contest.

That "spirit" only exists in their ad copy and your fantasies.

You are outraged by the letter of the rules being mocked?

Outraged? Hardly. I was bemused when FIFA admitted it won't or cannot enforce it's own rules.

I am outraged by the silently ignoring of the spirit behind the rules...

Once again, there is no "spirit". You're confusing advertising with actuality.

... what is much worse than the disrespect of any rule, since it leads to outright emptying and de-souling of the sport.

And having the world champion team in a sport which runs the only real world championship flout a rule in order to win doesn't lead to the "outright emptying and de-souling of the sport"?

It's time to acknowledge reality and see things as an adult does. Footie will never require so-called national teams to employ only native-born players because that will effect the bottom line of the business ventures run by business men to make money.

We're talking about businesses here and not some feel good, fuzzy wuzzy, romantic notions. Money trumps all.

Welcome to the real world.


Bill

 

[Workable Goblin]

We're talking about businesses here and not some feel good, fuzzy wuzzy, romantic notions. Money trumps all.

This is not actually true, or at least not some of the time. The lunar landing program (beloved as it is by some) is a perfect example that, sometimes, money does not trump all.

 

[Bill Cameron]

This is not actually true, or at least not some of the time. The lunar landing program (beloved as it is by some) is a perfect example that, sometimes, money does not trump all.

TIL,

Please re-read the sentences you quoted. To make things easier, I'll even bold the word you need to pay attention to.

We're talking about businesses here and not some feel good, fuzzy wuzzy, romantic notions. Money trumps all.

I'm talking about business, not politics and not government programs, business.


Bill

 

[Fiji]

the lunar landings are a perfect example of money trumps all.
People often have the impression that the US just burned the cash at some mystical altar and was then granted the lunar landings as a reward.
That cash actually went somewhere. Into people's pockets and into the reserves of many many companies. The economy in general and high tech companies in particular got a serious boost.

The same is true for countries who want to host a world cup/European cup/the olympics. Such a country get's to subsidise it's football teams by giving them new stadiums, subsidise it's contracters who get to build those stadiums, subsidise it's banks who see more cash flowing all over the place and reduce unemployment. And none of that countries trade partners get to complain about protectionist measures since, "hey, it's not subsidies, it's all for the world cup, you know!"

 

[Workable Goblin]

TIL,

Please re-read the sentences you quoted. To make things easier, I'll even bold the word you need to pay attention to.

We're talking about businesses here and not some feel good, fuzzy wuzzy, romantic notions. Money trumps all.

I'm talking about business, not politics and not government programs, business.

I understand that perfectly well and it's still not (entirely) true. Usually money trumps all in business, but sometimes businesses will make quite stupid or at least money-losing decisions for rather silly reasons. Eg., Sam Walton originally had a policy of "Buy American" for Wal-Mart, which was obviously money-losing in comparison to sourcing everything from the cheapest suppliers anywhere. Ofc, they will sooner or later crack down and switch back to profitable things (or go bankrupt), but governments will often do that too--look at the space program funding cuts starting in the late '60s.

the lunar landings are a perfect example of money trumps all.
People often have the impression that the US just burned the cash at some mystical altar and was then granted the lunar landings as a reward.
That cash actually went somewhere. Into people's pockets and into the reserves of many many companies. The economy in general and high tech companies in particular got a serious boost.

I know perfectly well that money spent on the space program doesn't get burned at some mystical altar, did you see my user title? I picked that for a reason.

The money spent on the lunar landing program had a relatively small impact on anything except for rocket design, besides. High-tech companies, for example, got as big or bigger a boost from the construction of lots of computer-guided Minuteman missiles--a program which continued for some time after Apollo was done. And the government could probably have picked lots of other programs to spend the money on--or done nothing, which might have helped Vietnam and the Great Society succeed.

Anyways, the point is that sometimes governments and businesses will sometimes choose paths that cost much more money for the silliest of reasons, not to say that they will always do so or that they will consistently do so. Bill, your suggestion that the World Cup will quite rapidly become a cesspool of corruption is on-target, I just feel you made a slightly too-broad statement saying that business will always choose the most profitable path.

I agree that the OP's suggestion is silly though. WI it was modified to say, "All footballers on a World Cup team must be citizens of the relevant country"? Few countries would have much objection to granting citizenship to celebrity players, so it would avoid the corruption of the natural-born route while still ensuring that only French players play on the French team, English players on the English team, etc. Would this be any better? (Or did I unknowingly copy the actual rules?)

 

[boredatwork]

well, the commentators might begin to have something resembling a valid point when they talk about 'national' play-styles.