Counterattack: Is The FIFA Ruling Allowing Player Switching Good?

Is the new FIFA player switch ruling, removing the age limit and a few other restrictions, a good idea?

Greg Lalas: Yes.
FIFA is evolving to account for changes in the way we live today. People move, people relocate, they marry people from far-off lands.
Most of these "hyphenated" players, if you will, have spent their lives living between two cultures, never feeling fully a part of either one. The new FIFA rule allows them more choice.

Andrea Canales: Choice is one thing that was in fact allowed by the previous FIFA guidelines, but the latest ruling goes too far - there's choice, and then there's making a mockery of the whole idea of representing a country. It's not just that Arturo Alvarez hasn't ever lived in El Salvador, it's that he represented the USA on the youth level for years. He wasn't straddled between two worlds, he was an American who wasn't a citizen of El Salvador when he pulled on the USA jersey in all those matches. Was the player switch rule that restrictive in the first place? I don't believe so. Countries shouldn't be like clubs, where a player suits up in one color one year and another the next.

 Lalas: Previously the choice was restricted to kids. Obviously an 18-year-old kid shouldn't be held fully responsible for his decisions. When a country asks a teenager if he'd like to play internationally, he's obviously going to say "Yes."
Now the same can be said for adults. If a 25-year-old, for example, is asked to play in a friendly for his country, has he really represented his country? Isn't representation imply some sort of consequence, something at stake?
So, since the nations themselves often don't take friendlies seriously --e.g., the Danish "national team" that always seems to face the US in January--then why should that 25-year-old be punished, in a way, for playing in that game? Like the teenager, he obviously isn't going to say "No." That's both disrespectful and risks the wrath of fans and coaches. So he says "Yes," and he plays. But the game means nothing. So it's right for FIFA to not impose a kind of commitment because of a meaningless friendly.

Canales: That's not entirely true. Previously the ruling was that youth international games combined with friendly appearances would captie a player. Youth international games alone didn't do it - if a player was a citizen of both countries at the time. And the cut-off age was 21 for a decision - which isn't exactly a callow youth.
If the friendlies are so inconsequential, all the more reason for players to decide carefully if they want to be involved. The bottom line is, when does representing a country matter? If we say it matters every time the uniform is pulled on, then there has to be some standard to have the players involved stay loyal and not just switch whenever World Cup action comes calling. Otherwise, we can just say everyone is a citizen of the world, let's not even play countries - let's group by who likes the color blue better than green.

Lalas: But FIFA has done exactly that: Representing your country matters when you play in a full international in a FIFA-sanctioned tournament. The rest is, in essence, just training.
And come on, 21 is still pretty green.

Canales: So that means the Olympics are training. The youth World Cups are training and at 21, you still don't know what country you really want to represent? That seems bogus.

Lalas: In essence, that's what it is. Youth World Cups are, in many ways, training. Same with the Olympics. What FIFA has done is slyly lift the importance of the full international tournaments--the World Cup, Euro Championships, Copa America, Asian Cup, African Cup of Nations, and the CONCACAF Gold Cup. Let's be honest, these are the most coveted trophies.
Oh, and the Confederations Cup.

Canales: I'd argue that FIFA has in fact diminished the importance of everything else, and confused the premise for fans to go and cheer for their youth national team players. What's the point when they could play for the opposition in a couple of years? Also, it's an artificial leveling of the field. A bunch of players developed elsewhere are suddenly switching to a smaller country - yet that country hasn't improved their development program at all - and maybe now they won't bother, but just focus on getting other players to make the switch. It's one thing for a club to develop a player, but in the case of US Soccer, youth residency is an expensive proposition carried by the federation - and now many of those players nurtured there could be lost.

Lalas: That's true. FIFA has diminished the other tournaments. But let's remember that this rule is going to affect a very small percentage of players. Yes, we'll read about the Jermaine Joneses and the Bobby Zamoras, who pledge themselves to new countries, but they are the widest exceptions.
Plus, to take the other side, don't you think a young Trini kid who sees Bobby Zamora in a Trinidad & Tobago shirt will be more inspired than if he sees Chris Birchall?
 So is it artificially leveling the field, or is it improving the longterm prospects for smaller nations?

Canales: If it's not going to affect that many players, then that's another argument for not bothering to make the rule change. Is it worth devaluing those other tournaments just so a few players can play in qualifying games? Many are switching to countries who still won't make the World Cup - so what's really the point? Why diminish the whole importance of growing up in a system and coming up through the ranks of a country's teams? And personally, I find "Memum" Birchall's story more inspiring than Bobby Zamora's. Birchall at least speaks in a Trini accent, which is how he was discovered.

Lalas: Those many switching to countries who "still won't make the World Cup" might change that declaration. For example, Arturo Alvarez. Could he be the difference for El Salvador? What if he scores a goal against the US on Saturday and they win? Then they are full of confidence and they go on to qualify. Would you consider it bogus?

Canales: Yes, it is somewhat bogus - obviously Alvarez isn't the only player on the squad, but he is clearly US-developed. If we're looking at the World Cup to represent countries, then how can one overlook all the years that Alvarez played in the US system and represented the US in the youth ranks? Basically, it's the US giving an assist by handing over a valuable asset to El Salvador.
That's not the same thing in the other direction as Jose Francisco Torres, because he was developed by his club, not the Mexican federation.
Of course players want to play, who can blame them? What this ruling is basically saying is that other countries who are poor should just get their top athletes to other countries at a young age and take advantage of the facilities and programs there - and then come back and switch whenever they want.

Lalas: I guess I disagree that a national program development is different from a club team development, in the sense you are using. I don't see how Torres, being developed by a Mexican club, which receives money and support from the Mexican Federation, is any different than Alvarez, who was also developed by his youth club and the national team program. And that kind of club-development stuff has gone on for years: Thomas Dooley, Earnie Stewart, Roy Wegerle--all developed by other countries.
Just because they didn't play for the country they were developed in, does that make it okay?

Canales: It's very different, as clubs benefit directly from developing good players, wherever they come from. National team youth programs, however, don't make any profit - it's all geared for future investment. And Pachuca knew full well they were taking on an American, whereas Alvarez wasn't a citizen of El Salvador until this year.
Torres also made his switch and decision before he was 21 - as did Guiseppe Rossi and Neven Subotic.
Basically, we're back to square one, where I believe the old system gave players choice, but still maintained a certain integrity and continuity to country status, and the new ruling doesn't. It diminishes the importance of youth soccer, acts as a disincentive for countries to develop their own programs and finally, makes a mockery of the concept of a national team. When Alvarez steps out on the field versus the USA, he'll line up against players he lined up beside for many more times in the same national uniform.

Lalas: Fair enough. And I see the new rule extending flexibility to hyphenated players who have been pushed out of one nation's plans--either because of form or politics--giving them another chance to play at the highest level possible. I am Greek-American. I was born and mostly raised in the States, was technically developed in the US system, played for the regional team and all that. But I would've played for Greece and felt perfectly comfortable, because my Greek heritage and those summer afternoons on the dirt fields of Athens also had an effect on my development.
Not that Greece would've ever called me in.

Canales: Lots of Greek-Americans participated in the Olympics for Greece - and under the system I prefer, you could've switched to Greece as long as you didn't play in a US friendly and made the choice by 21.
I just think FIFA loses credibility by mucking around with their own eligibility rules. Whatever they do, they need to stick to it, because it makes it unfair when people have the bad luck to be affected by a rule one year and not the next. Everyone should understand that there are consequences for choices.
I wouldn't want the USA youth development to become protectionist, choosing only kids for residency who aren't eligible to leave for other countries, but it would also make a sad sort of sense.
Whatever my personal disagreement on the FIFA ruling, as a journalist, I do find it intriguing to see how it will affect teams in different regions.

Counterattack runs every Thursday on Goal.com