Surely it’s not worth a national associating refusing a players wishes?
Yet again you are applying logical decision making to predict an FAs future actions when the FA in question has a proven record of acting in an illogical way already. They’re killing the cow to get the milk with Keita. It’s ridiculous how they’re acting and might mean his career (and service to them) is cut short and less effective than it could be. Also do we actually have any indication Keita wants to make him and his family very unpopular by refusing to play? I’m sure he’d proud to represent his country and wants to continue. We just need them to act more professionally. But making threats based on them acting professionally in the future when they don’t now doesn’t make sense to me.
1 Like
I think national team managers using recovering players and thus making them more susceptible to injuries is pretty widespread now.
But who will bell the cat???
At some point some club manager or owner will have to lodge a complaint with FIFA or UEFA.
2 Likes
An association can’t force him to play if he says he’s injured. A medical team can’t diagnose a tight hamstring, they rely on the players feedback and if he says he isn’t fit, he won’t play.
No authority is going to side with an association pushing to play a player who is injured. His well being supersedes any obligation to play because of who holds his registration. The issue is whether he’s not standing up to them strongly enough and whether the club can do more to help protect him or work with Guinea to manage it. Bayern seem to have gotten away with taking a hard line stance recently without punishment.
Ultimately, if they keep playing him when he’s not fit, he’ll keep missing games for them as well as us and so it’s in their interest too.
There are ways to work the system, both cooperatively and uncooperatively and I’m sure we’re exploring both. I don’t see him retiring from international football but if he chose to, I don’t think there’s a single case of a national body refusing to allow a player to do that.
But it comes down to Naby to make the best decision for his career.
1 Like
See Matip, above
1 Like
But that was down to not following the procedure rather than Cameroon refusing to accept it.
He missed two games whilst it was cleared up and still hasn’t played for them since taking that original decision.
I May be wrong, but wasn’t there a situation where some of Naby’s family were threatened when he pulled out of an international? I seem to remember something like that.
No, Matip followed the guidance when a player wants to retire from international football. Cameroon called him up anyway but did not put in the written notification in the correct timeline (hence why their complaint to FIFA failed).
Not quite the same explanation in the article I just read that referenced the FIFA case at the time.
Either way, it was an admin issue and he hasn’t played for them since he chose to retire and it proves players can retire from international football against the wishes of their national team without the player or club being penalised.
Ultimately, why would a nation call up a player that doesn’t want to be there and can play as such to make his point if needs be.
How does it?
Because Cameroon messed up his call up this conflict was never tested/resolved. It remains the prevailing view among sports lawyers that the player and/or club is liable to a penalty if a player refuses a valid call up, regardless of whether they’ve indicated their desire not to be considered.
1 Like
Sounds very unethical to me.
1 Like
“Should he wish not to be called up for a certain match or matches or for a certain period of time, he must inform the association of which he is a national, in writing, of his intention before being called up.
“Furthermore, only the player himself is entitled to renounce representing his national team. This declaration shall be submitted by the player to the association concerned in writing.”
Quote from FIFA in the report into the incident in an article over on TIA. Strongly suggests a player can refuse a call up or declare he no longer wants to be considered providing it is done in writing at the appropriate time.
This is the only case like this I’m aware of and he hasn’t played for them since. So in that sense, he’s either retired or they’ve just coincidentally chosen to not pick him ever since.
1 Like
I agree. I’d like to see it challenged but I think it would need to go outside of FIFA jurisdiction for that to be done successfully (to the CJEU or ECHR for example).
1 Like
It’s not in the regulations. It’s deliberately set out in the commentary only because it doesn’t have legal force, it’s merely to provide a mechanism for players to provide such a notification so all parties know where they stand in sufficient time before a potential international commitment.
Cheers for quoting a TIA article to me though.
1 Like
Why should he retire? He is the best footballer of the nation. The whole nation relies on him. Lots of pressure on him. But also probably very proud to be able to represent his country. He would always start the games if he is at least 75% fit and the manager would ask him too.
Who are we to want him to put his club over his nation?
5 Likes
You’re welcome. But for clarity the quote was from FIFA and is readily available on many other sites.
I don’t really care about the legal faff behind it all. It’s fairly obvious that if a player doesn’t want to play for his national team anymore then he won’t and no one will force him to on the threat of refusing him to play at club level.
1 Like
I know where the quotes from, I’ve been familiar with FIFA regs for over a decade. Kind of needed to be. But no worries if you “don’t really care about the legal faff behind it all”. Probably why you’ve fallen into error.
2 Likes
What I mean is you can set out all the semantics of the legal aspects but there’s one case where a player that’s “retired” but has been called up and missed games because he didn’t go.
He also hasn’t been called up since or if he has, he’s been able to get out of it without issue. Whether that fits with the regulations or not it is an international retirement by any other name.
Congrats on knowing FIFA regs though.
1 Like
Thanks, in a conversation about the Matip situation it helps to know what happened and the position under the regs.
I think that’s about the 20th time I’ve set it out. Hopefully the last.
1 Like
Relevant to this is that it was the manager who pushed for this action against Matip, and he was fired shortly after the tournament Matip elected to skip. It was he specifically who chose to pursue this option and could have dropped it any time if it were a misunderstanding over missed paper work. It wasnt though as even after Matip made his intentions clear he refused to back down.
There is sense to the argument of questioning what benefit a team gets from forcing a player to play for them who doesnt want to, but what this case showed was that IF they did, the club that employs him loses out, as we did with Matip.
Also relevant is that matip was one of about 10 players Cameroon called up who rejected the call. This might explain why in this case they felt compelled to take such unusual steps. Amusingly, despite going into the tournament with a very depleted team, they won the bugger anyway, and then the dick manager got fired shortly afterwards anyway.
2 Likes