So Who Should Play for the Azzurri? (22 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
Or at least a $100 gift certificate to Olive Garden.
Good call.
Absolutely. No idea why he wasn't chosen. Zanetti would fix their midfield problems without a doubt because he has the positional sense and smarts to make things work. Ambrosini is an okay player, but he doesn't have the same tactical nous.
Good call.
Absolutely. No idea why he wasn't chosen. Zanetti would fix their midfield problems without a doubt because he has the positional sense and smarts to make things work. Ambrosini is an okay player, but he doesn't have the same tactical nous.
It should be a criteria for selection. What decides where some1 plays is their own choice. It's an unfair advantage when u have teams like France, where the majority of their players come from former french colonies, otherwise they wouldn't have a team good enough to compete. They get the best of an entire continent than w/e is left in France.
Thats my point. There is no such thing. Yet according to FIFA, if Billy Bob from Alabama lives in China long enough to get a passport, he is chinese and therefore elgible for their nation team.
Being able to play football for Italy because you are of Italian ancestry is hardly as radical as what Hitler was planning on doing (if that's your joke).
Thats my point. There is no such thing. Yet according to FIFA, if Billy Bob from Alabama lives in China long enough to get a passport, he is chinese and therefore elgible for their nation team.
Hey -- those same principles are at the foundation of the Aryan race, afterall. 
And you have a problem with that? I posed the question earlier in the thread - for how many years or generations does someone have to have lived in a country to be eligible to play for the NT?
Because if you think 'blood' alone is all that matters, then countries with any colonisation/immigration history should only be made up of natives (American Indians, Aborigines).
Because if you think 'blood' alone is all that matters, then countries with any colonisation/immigration history should only be made up of natives (American Indians, Aborigines).
Let's not kid ourselves. Sports is entertainment. And there's no reason an entertainer can't seek gainful employment by naturalizing as a citizen of another country. What makes football some special blood bond that requires a genetic test in order to play?
We live in a world of globalization where labor cuts across national borders all the time, and we in fact largely encourage it. Hell, the English Premiere League essentially outsources most of their football as it is.
But if I have what it takes to become a citizen of Finland and earn all the rights of employment as a Finnish citizen -- be subject to its military service laws, pay its taxes, etc. -- it would be ridiculous if I cannot play football for my adopted country.
I could be drafted by the national military and shot in the head in military service for my new homeland, but I can't put on a football jersey for them because of some genetic ruling? How ridiculous is that?
We live in a world of globalization where labor cuts across national borders all the time, and we in fact largely encourage it. Hell, the English Premiere League essentially outsources most of their football as it is.
But if I have what it takes to become a citizen of Finland and earn all the rights of employment as a Finnish citizen -- be subject to its military service laws, pay its taxes, etc. -- it would be ridiculous if I cannot play football for my adopted country.
I could be drafted by the national military and shot in the head in military service for my new homeland, but I can't put on a football jersey for them because of some genetic ruling? How ridiculous is that?