Slightly more contentious was when they introduced the Grandparents rule, but at least there is still a bloodline there. The one I have a real problem with is the residency rule, which, in football (soccer) means that after 5 years of staying in a country, you become eligible to represent that Nation. Other sports - rugby and cricket, in particular - have even shorter periods of qualification - 3 or 4 years - under the residency criterion.
This is now being widely abused by virtually all nations. Passports of convenience. What is the point of having Nation v Nation if everyone can freely migrate from country to country, many of them representing more than one country during their sporting career? Surely club sport satisfies this need - national sport should surely be different?
In cricket, Kevin Pietersen's recent experiences with the England team have hit the headlines, and a current hot topic in Scotland is Australian Scott Johnson's status as Head Coach - and soon to be Director - of Scottish Rugby. He has surrounded himself with fellow non-nationals too.
The Times had a very considered piece on this very topic recently. Under a seemingly, semi-nationalistic headline, it gave a very considered view of the history of sporting migration in the context of the ever-changing world map of Nations:
![]() |
| (click on image to enlarge) |
There - I've said it now. That one's been bugging me for a while.
