Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
I would stop at #1. #2 and #3 are too remote IMO. Actually, I see problems with #1 too. Take Robyn Regehr for example - he was born in Brazil, but played all his minor hockey in Canada.
I think a good question would be:
Where did you play the majority of your minor soccer before age 18?
|
Well, to use the Regehr example... he lived in Canada for more than 10 years and his parents and grandparents (as far as I know) are Canadian... which leaves him two choices: play for Canada or Brazil.
Take Miroslav Klose now... he was born in Poland, played most of his minor soccer in Poland, but his family ancestry is German Pole, and they fled communism. Should he have to play in Poland? That's why there's rule 2 and 3.
Lets say I wake up tomorrow and I'm a soccer phenom. I played my whole life in Canada, but my ancestry is German-Italian. My grandparents were born there and I have papers to prove it. I don't want to be stuck playing CONCACAF qualifiers and play my club career in the MLS or to play with teams like Fulham or Sunderland at best because I'm Canadian and lack International experience of much note and end up with a lesser career. So I opt for Italy to get more exposure and play in the Serie A, and in doing so, play in UEFA and FIFA tournaments. Superficially, I'd fit right in. I'd have to get better at my Italian, but many of them speak English and I could learn the basic language I'd need in a matter of weeks. To me, there's nothing wrong with that, and I don't fault Hargreaves for doing it.
Well... lets say, I really want to play with Ronaldo, Deco, Joao Moutinho and company... Sporting Lisbon is interested, so I go play for them, refuse Canada, Italy and Germany if and when they inquire, and then when my 5 years are up, I play for Portugal. I have zero ties to Portugal. This is essentially what Jonathan de Guzman did to Canada, and this I have an issue with.