In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I will be running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?
However, I will begin with the stories that have hit the headlines over the last few days, perhaps affecting the run-up to what Hodgson himself has called his most important week in management. Earlier today I wrote about the plight of Joe Hart, one not entirely of his own doing. The reasons that Jack Wilshere has been in the headlines, however, is wholly the Arsenal man's fault. He hasn't had the best of fortnights, with allegations of smoking following a photo of him caught outside a nightclub with a cigarette, prompting widespread criticism, including from his manager. Then this. On Wednesday, Wilshere, in an interview, made his views on England (sort of) clear. He stated that only English people should play for England, making an implicit argument that FIFA's residency rules are wrong. This has led to widespread criticism of his remarks in the footballing world, and many comments (made both seriously and in jest) likening his comments to the racist rhetoric of the English Defence League and the British National Party.
Before we completely condemn Wilshere's comments, we really need to take a more detailed look at exactly what was said and what we can imagine was intended to have been said. Despite the complaints of many, labelling the Englishman a racist, I refuse to believe that was the intended message of his statement. Wilshere's statement of 'just because you've lived in England for 5 years, it doesn't make you English' doesn't help his cause much, as it certainly sounds off, but I think most reasonable people understand the intent behind his words. The idea that the finer points of a nation (being the cultural influences and lifestyle) can be picked up and internalised within 5 years is unlikely, and this is what I think Wilshere is referring to. He himself said that this was not a dig at any individual player (meaning the recent comments over Manchester United's Adnan Januzaj), nor was he saying that those born outside of the country should be instantly considered ineligable. The midfielder explained that the target of his comments were adults that arrived in this country, having been brought up and spent their formative years elsewhere, and therefore have an attachment to another county.
Being a Politics graduate, I hate it when sportsmen dip their toes into political waters, using terms and concepts that they don't wholly understand. The idea of nationality and nation is something far deeper than something you have on your passport, and, in this respect, I understand exactly what Jack Wilshere has said (albeit disastrously from a PR standpoint). Being from a specific country means more than just the specific rules and regulations. It is getting in touch with the nation, rather than the state. This means getting a real feel of English life (queuing, tea, complaining etc.), and really attaching themselves to the culture and heritage of England. In footballing terms, it is like making a transfer and then learning about the past legends and overall history of the club you have joined. However, unlike another club, whose history can generally be learnt in a couple of days, the history and culture of a state and nation is extremely difficult to learn, even more so to take on as your own. However, it could certainly be argued that a significant portion of the English culture is tolerance, with cultures from far and wide encouraged to add to the 'melting pot' style feel of British life. To that extent, I think that Jack Wilshire is wrong with his comments about Britishness, however I do understand the frustration that he feels over adults coming over and claiming to feel the same attachment to a country in five years that Wilshere has had to cultivate over 20. As a child, your formative years are generally when you form your strongest attachments, and begin to get a sense of who you really are. That is why Wilshere later made it clear that he had nothing against those who moved here from an early age, as they have had the experience of growing up in the country and gathering all the necessary national characteristics and feel an attachment to them. Perhaps the Arsenal player was simply attempting to question the FIFA eligibility rules. Nevertheless, a footballer getting involved in immigration policy, philosophy (yes, I do mean you Joey Barton) and politics in general is not advisable.
So does Wilshere have a point? By looking at FIFA's rules regarding eligibility, we can see there there are certainly areas that need tightening up. Whilst there is a rule that states that to play for any country, you must hold a passport from the state that you wish to represent. In order to gain a new nationality, you must either: be born in the country, have a biological mother, father or grandparent born in that country, or have resided in the country since the age of 18 for 5 years continuously. It is the latter that the midfielder was complaining about. I think he has a point. No-one can garner sufficient information of a nation's history and culture in 5 years to be able to strongly identify with it. I think that the rule would be far more accurate and appropriate if we said that anyone wanting to claim a new nationality must have lived in the country for 5 years before the age of 18, or 15 years over the age of 18. That should enable those that truly identify with the country, i.e. those that go through their formative years there, to represent the nation they want, whilst preventing those who simply want to represent a competitive team or, in the case of athletics, get better funding, with no concept of what it is to be 'British'. Wilshere should perhaps have said that the rules need changing-not by seeming to claim that only those that were born here are eligible. 'England for the English' is a headline often seen on BNP propaganda, and not an organisation that Wilshere will want to be associated with, especially if he is genuinely attempting to present a reasoned argument to change FIFA's rules.
However, if he is looking to change the rules, there will be many in this country wanting to oppose him. Now, I am by no means saying that any of the people mentioned do not feel a strong sense of attachment with England, merely that they were born in another country, and have now gone on to become highly successful at their sport. In many sports, England are heavily reliant on individuals that were not born in this country, and perhaps would not even fit the rules as I have suggested them to be. In cricket, both Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott were born in South Africa. Both are now considered critical to the success of the batting lineup, and both were integral parts of the successful Ashes winning team this summer. In athletics, poster boy Mo Farah was born in Somalia, and he was one of the British faces of the 2012 Olympic Games last year. In golf, Justin Rose, like cricketers Pietersen and Trott, was born in South Africa. In both rugby forms, there are a multitude of names that are from Australasia and South Africa, with rugby union's Manu Tuilagi arguably the most high profile. Even in football, future talents like Saido Berahino (born in Burundi) and Wilfried Zaha (born in Ivory Coast), who are both widely considered English, were in fact born elsewhere. I dislike the idea that goes around, somewhat cynically, that 'if they are good, they can be English'. It seems too much like glory supporting. Personally, as long as those individuals truly feel like they identify with England, I am happy to have them representing us, however, this identification may be difficult to prove when determining whether someone should receive a passport.
Jack Wilshere's comments were ill-concieved and poorly delivered. He did not say exactly what he intended, and as a result left himself open to wild accusations of racism from the PC brigade and sections of the media, and more reasonable criticism from the majority of the footballing world. That being said, I do understand where he was coming from, as there do appear to be faults with the current residency part of the FIFA rules of eligibility. I have set out what I believe to be better to satisfy both criteria, to allow those that genuinely have a connection with a country from a young age to play for the country to which they have become attached, whilst denying those adults that have no concept of being part of the nation that they compete for. However, when applying any rules over nationality, we run the risk of alienating people who genuinely feel a strong connection to a nation. Therefore, perhaps it is best to have rather broad rules, as I would rather let 10 people who don't care about England represent us than deny a single person who really does identify. On a very basic level, people who value and identify with the shirt that they are playing for will perform to their potential. This will eventually show who cares and who doesn't, and bring the best performers to the top. I think that is how Wilshere should have prefaced his statements.
No comments:
Post a Comment