Player eligibility

[Uppercut]

These things cant be looked at in purely emotional strain. In today's world the dynamics of moving populations across national boundaries make that kind of thinking completely archaic. We have to be practical. If one is eligible for a country's passport, for example, he should be eligible to play for them too.

Someone mentioned citizenship and paying taxes etc. These are more or less same kind of thought processes. What we need to curb is complete chaos where a person can keep hopping from country to country as a footballer does between clubs.

As for the county (or equivalent for other countries) goes, a two year residential qualification, a work permit kind of a regulation (for those who are forced to move to a county for professional reasons) and a student permit (for those studying in Schools/Coleges in particular counties can be thought of. Again the idea is to frame regulations that are fair in the modern context without leaving too much by way of lopholes to be exploited by 'fair-weather-birds'.

Its not possible to have any regulation which will please all or which will be completely free of loopholes. One has to try and get the best workable one.

But no regional or nationalistic jingoism in todays context will work.

PS : And yes, once having played for a country, changing countries should be very very difficult indeed and only very special circumstances should allow for that and the qualification criteria should be far stricter.

I don't actually agree with any regional qualification rules, I believe one should be able to move to any county they like simply because county cricket is by and large the only professional cricket available to someone. As i mentioned above, professional relationships sometimes become untenable, a cricketer could be subject to horrendous harassment at work and be faced with the prospect of either having to live through it or finding a whole new profession. No principle of supporters wanting the team to be local is worth forcing someone to make that choice (not to mention restraint of trade laws). The GAA can do it successfully because its players are completely amateur, county cricket would have to do something similar if it wanted to implement qualification rules.

The international context is completely different, because noone forces you to play- if it becomes untenable, you can always quit and go back to county cricket.

 

[SJS]

I don't actually agree with any regional qualification rules, I believe one should be able to move to any county they like simply because county cricket is by and large the only professional cricket available to someone. As i mentioned above, professional relationships sometimes become untenable, a cricketer could be subject to horrendous harassment at work and be faced with the prospect of either having to live through it or finding a whole new profession. No principle of supporters wanting the team to be local is worth forcing someone to make that choice (not to mention restraint of trade laws). The GAA can do it successfully because its players are completely amateur, county cricket would have to do something similar if it wanted to implement qualification rules.

The international context is completely different, because noone forces you to play- if it becomes untenable, you can always quit and go back to county cricket.

Its true that a player maybe harassed but its also true that a player may use the 'pretext' of being harassed to jump around for a few more quid. Players are pretty strong themselves nowadays and they can harass a management as well. Richards, Botham and company were not all victims in their tiffs with their county managements.

County cricket is financially very fragile and same is true for most domestic teams across the world. Its not like football clubs where they can just shell out the greenbacks and buy out players when their home grown stars decided they find grass greener elsewhere.

 

[SJS]

It should be possible to protect the players interests to an extent. For example a player whose contract is not renewed should find it easier to shift while it should not be the same with some one who has a contract and thereby a minimum guaranteed income.

 

[Uppercut]

Its true that a player maybe harassed but its also true that a player may use the 'pretext' of being harassed to jump around for a few more quid. Players are pretty strong themselves nowadays and they can harass a management as well. Richards, Botham and company were not all victims in their tiffs with their county managements.

County cricket is financially very fragile and same is true for most domestic teams across the world. Its not like football clubs where they can just shell out the greenbacks and buy out players when their home grown stars decided they find grass greener elsewhere.

The key difference is that if a player harasses management, noone's going to stop the manager from going to work somewhere else. Harassment was only an example of a reason why someone would feel the need to find a new job. They could be unsettled, maybe their wife has been offered a new job in another county and wishes to move? Maybe, for whatever reason, they no longer feel safe living where they do? I'm sure you've moved jobs for reasons other than money before. To say that most players are thick-skinned enough to take whatever their county throws at them isn't an appropriate defence. It would be nice if everyone who played for a county had some relation to the place, but it's nowhere near worth what it curtails. Certainly not.

 

[GIMH]

Bit of a moot discussion anyhow, British law, nevermind EU law, would never allow geographical restrictions on a professional sporting team from within the land. The only thing that can be restricted is non-EU nationals.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's an interesting analogy, certainly. Conjures up images of same-*** unions being held in front of a packed MCG with attendant cries of "no ball" as the controversial Sri Lankan lesbian takes her mark...

I don't think it quite holds water tho, because national sporting teams represent a particular country & its sporting hopes whereas gay people who marry are (one supposes) generally representing nothing more than their love & commitment to each other.

Well, most analogies don't bear close examination.

I can't help but feel that some safeguards should be put in place for the make-up of international teams. Without any we could quite feasibly have (say) a UAE test team composed entirely of top-notch foreigners flying flags of convenience, which somehow seems to mock the concept of sporting competition between nations. There's nothing morally objectionable about it in itself, of course (aside from sixth-form gripes about the nature of capitalism, obv), but personally I feel representing a country is different to representing a club/state team within a country. Any limit one imposes on non-natives is going to be arbitrary (as is how one defines a non-native, frankly) but test cricket should be about more than who can afford to pay for the best players

Personally, your scenario is a bit doomsday. Sure, in a totally unregulated free market, it might be a possibility but I doubt it's all that likely. Anyway, surely the market would drive that sort of thing; if it goes that way, it'll only be because it's what the majority want. And if the majority want it, who are we or anyone to get in the way? If the Graeme Smith XI from England plays against Michael Clarke's UAE side, it's well-attended, the players are happy, admin are happy, etc. then what's wrong with that? In that environment, those harking back to when cricket used to be about where you were from would be viewed as fogeys.

I say, remove restrictions and let the market decide. I strongly suspect that the status quo will remain, with a few freak exceptions. The informal rules and pressure from the more tribalist types will keep stufff in check, I reckon. Plus, everyone knows that stacking teams with top players doesn't guarantee top-shelf competition in and of itself so those teams of superstars, as they lose matches and the standard of cricket drops, will do much to ensure the idea doesn't gain much traction.

I guess that's why I don't really see the point of regulation of who plays Test cricket. For the above reasons plus it's such a minority event and even with no restrictions, likely to remain so (with small increase, maybe). As I said, if any individual country wants to put into place any restrictions on foreign players, go ahead. That's what a free market is all about. But I don't believe for a second there should be any restriction on players trying to play for another country. If they take a risk and it doesn't come off, so be it.

 

[_Ed_]

England player eligibility issues is nothing new. 4 of the players who played this summer should **** off back to their homeland.

Should Andrew Symonds go back to England then?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Should Andrew Symonds go back to England then?

If he's not going to play cricket anymore, yes.

 

[_Ed_]

Haha, good call.

 

[Craig]

IMO I find the regulations to be clear as mud

FFS I don't see how a cricketer who is Australian, but holds the passport of convience (IE UK), is suddenly not Australian and is now British and not Australian, AFAIK we still have dual nationality, despite the fact he is still required to vote and pay taxes in Australia.

I think it is rubbish that a guy like Ryan Harris has to give up a contract with Sussex (and on a fair coin I would guess), because he despite holding two passports he is now considered British. FFS the **** is Australian.

 

[Goughy]

IMO I find the regulations to be clear as mud

FFS I don't see how a cricketer who is Australian, but holds the passport of convience (IE UK), is suddenly not Australian and is now British and not Australian, AFAIK we still have dual nationality, despite the fact he is still required to vote and pay taxes in Australia.

I think it is rubbish that a guy like Ryan Harris has to give up a contract with Sussex (and on a fair coin I would guess), because he despite holding two passports he is now considered British. FFS the **** is Australian.

Defines a **** to me. Only hold a passport for a country you feel a local citizen of. Otherwise GAGF

 

[BoyBrumby]

Defines a **** to me. Only hold a passport for a country you feel a local citizen of. Otherwise GAGF

Harsh I'd say. If one's eligible for a passport via parentage or grandparentage and it opens up new labour markets I don't think there's any moral problem in exploiting it.

I don't think we should conflate citizenship with sporting loyalty. I think it's perfectly possible to be a low-abiding, tax-paying British subject and passionately support another country's team.

 

[Goughy]

Harsh I'd say. If one's eligible for a passport via parentage or grandparentage and it opens up new labour markets I don't think there's any moral problem in exploiting it.

Not at all. I know a lot of people that have British passports that have no loyalty to Britain or links.

People use British passports like currency. Its a joke.

Owning a passport of a place is a privilege that grants certain benefits. To use it in a mercenary fashion with no ties or obligations is not right.

Being a citizen of a place should mean something. I took a different passport and I consider that choice to be a big deal.

Ive no problem with people that are eligible for a British passport to use it and be a citizen and an active part in the nation.

To take a passport purely for the advantages it can give you with no responsibilities or loyalties attached is wrong. Nothing to do with sporting loyalties but not abusing the privilege.

 

[Chemosit]

Whatever the rules, I think they should be the same across the board. Currently there is a 5 year period where a player must wait after playing for a senior team from a Test nation before they can switch allegiance. FTR playing for an A-team does count as does U19.

Going the other way, a player can play for an Associate while he 'qualifies' for a Test team through a separate residence rule then straight away switch to that team. Even if he now only plays 1 or 2 matches for the A team of that country he is ineligible to play for his previous team for 5 years.

With the above in mind I do wonder how much the selections of Joyce and Dalrymple were motivated by a dog-in-the-manger attitude by England, especially after the latter received the call up pretty much the same time Kenya expressed an interest in his services.

I have no problem with the 5 year rule should it work the same way for everyone as I think it provides enough of a deterrent to stop people changing nationality unless really motivated to do so.

 

[Uppercut]

Whatever the rules, I think they should be the same across the board. Currently there is a 5 year period where a player must wait after playing for a senior team from a Test nation before they can switch allegiance. FTR playing for an A-team does count as does U19.

Going the other way, a player can play for an Associate while he 'qualifies' for a Test team through a separate residence rule then straight away switch to that team. Even if he now only plays 1 or 2 matches for the A team of that country he is ineligible to play for his previous team for 5 years.

With the above in mind I do wonder how much the selections of Joyce and Dalrymple were motivated by a dog-in-the-manger attitude by England, especially after the latter received the call up pretty much the same time Kenya expressed an interest in his services.

I have no problem with the 5 year rule should it work the same way for everyone as I think it provides enough of a deterrent to stop people changing nationality unless really motivated to do so.

In other words: lose the rules specifically designed to **** Irish cricket in the ass.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Not at all. I know a lot of people that have British passports that have no loyalty to Britain or links.

People use British passports like currency. Its a joke.

Owning a passport of a place is a privilege that grants certain benefits. To use it in a mercenary fashion with no ties or obligations is not right.

Being a citizen of a place should mean something. I took a different passport and I consider that choice to be a big deal.

Ive no problem with people that are eligible for a British passport to use it and be a citizen and an active part in the nation.

To take a passport purely for the advantages it can give you with no responsibilities or loyalties attached is wrong. Nothing to do with sporting loyalties but not abusing the privilege.

I find it hard to believe they have no links to Britain, if their passports have been acquired legally.

I don't really know what you mean by "an active part in the nation" or "responsibilities or loyalties" either. As I said in my previous post, provided one's pays one's taxes and abides by the law, I have no issue with any British (or EU, if it comes to that) citizen living in the UK, whether they "feel" British or not.

 

[Richard]

No! If he considers himself a Kiwi, he has as much right to be in the NZ side as anyone else. Your nationality is more than where you've been living recently.

That's true, but purely considering yourself a Kiwi is not enough in my books - anyone can do that if they want to, and likewise can say they do. For mine, to play for NZ you should have lived there if you've the choice over it - considering yourself a citizen is not enough, you have to actually prove it by residing.

Who's to know what would happen in that few years? He could move back and continue to play domestically for two and a half years, the break his leg and never be able to play cricket at the highest level again.

Don't see the significance of that TBH.

Also, does your option only apply to test-playing countries? Because in a lot of places, cricket is amateur. Basically, you're telling those cricketers from an unfashionable country playing first-class cricket to either find a new profession or never play for their country again. Not good for the spread of cricket, realistically.

Not entirely sure how that works.

 

[Richard]

None of that makes cricket in any way different from other professions. Pilots, for example, earn a lot of money but I think you'll find there aren't many pilots who don't love what they do yet fly in many countries. Of course, we're talking private industry here and they don't represent a country per se (some airlines do, less than there used to be though) but I think that's not really that important a distinction.

The only way in which sport differs from other professions is surely that of the fans/pundits/spectators. And, if I was a player, I'd obviously take the views of those people into consideration but the ultimate decision for how my career goes would be up to me. Let any country impose any qualification rules they want, sure, but if any player was prepared to throw their hats in another country's ring, there should be no restriction on them from doing so as there isn't with most other professions. Certainly, no player should be subject to some arbitrary rule(s) imposed by misty-eyed nostalgiacs just because it isn't confluent with their cricketing worldview.

Trouble is, so much of cricket is about misty-eyed nostalgia. It's the game it is because of that. The whole "playing for your country" thing is supposed to be a massive thing, more so in cricket than anywhere else (in virtually no other sport does the international game so completely dwarf the domestic one).

The fickle nature of cricket fandom means that anyone who does well for your international team is pretty well invariably - and rightly - readily accepted (any England supporter who seriously doesn't welcome the success of a D'Oliveira, Lamb, Smith or Pietersen simply because they're South African is a curmadgeon of the worst type) but the question I'm asking is should they even be given the chance to?

For mine, it's either forget the "playing for your country" stuff and simply rename cricket teams more accurately, or actually impose qualifications that mean you are doing what you're being described as doing.

The whole 'it devalues the meaning of international cricket if players can country-hop' reminds me of the argument used against gay marriage, that allowing gay people to be married devalues the sanctity of the marriage institution. In the same way that there are plenty of heterosexual couplings which do that (Brittney's right to 24-hour-long marriage to that guy in Vegas must be sanctified, after all), there are plenty of examples of guys playing for their country of birth who do their level best to devalue the 'institution' of international cricket.

When it comes to corrupt or unethical behaviour, whether you're playing for your country of birth has no bearing and forcing people to pick a side and stick to it, conversely, does nothing to guarantee the protection of the institution, only instilling a false sense of security if anything. Hansie Cronje would be the archetypical example of what I'm talking about, really; well-liked, professional, talented, corrupt beyond belief. Not that I'm a fan of the institutionalism or nationalism associated with international cricket but I just find such an argument to be specious.

I don't think I suggested that there aren't many other things which taint cricket far more than the being-discussed, not for a second.

 

[Richard]

Rubbish. I know people that are American as you can get, but have lived in China since they were kids. A lot of people move around a lot with their parents as kids, or even as part of their work, but you'll find that most of them still identify with their country as birth as being their 'home country.'

I'm sure they still identify themselves as American (and Americans in general are bigger on that than most other nationalities in my experience) but I'm afraid if they'd lived in China most of their lives, regardless of whether it was because their parents worked there or because they'd chosen to themselves, they'd be Chinese to me. This wouldn't matter a jot under almost any circumstance, as normally the only person your nationality matters to is yourself. It's only when international sport comes into it that it starts to matter, and for mine if you're going to represent the US of A you have to have lived there for a substantial amount of time.

 

[Uppercut]

That's true, but purely considering yourself a Kiwi is not enough in my books - anyone can do that if they want to, and likewise can say they do. For mine, to play for NZ you should have lived there if you've the choice over it - considering yourself a citizen is not enough, you have to actually prove it by residing.

So you're saying, someone's nationality is the place they like to live?