See Debatepedia's Global Climate Change Debate Series with the UN Foundation's The People Speak. Press release.
Debate:Irish football team, united
From Debatepedia
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland currently have a football team each. Should they combine? |
This article is based on a Debatabase entry written by Alex Deane. Because this document can be modified by any registered user of this site, its contents should be cited with care.
|
|
[ ]Argument #1 | |
YesThis would be a tremendous symbol of fellowship. It would follow the lead of Rugby Union, in which Ireland has only one team and players from Ulster (Northern Ireland) play alongside those from the Republic, regardless of religion or whether they’re from the North or South. Sport can be a tool of peace and soccer is tremendously popular on both sides of the border. Seeing their heroes play alongside those from “over the border” will shape the attitudes of the young and help shake off inherited prejudices. This move could do more to revive the peace process than any negotiation or diplomacy. |
NoMany people don’t feel that fellowship. You can’t force commonality and you shouldn’t try. Unionists will view this as nationalism by the populist back door. That’s a national border around the province, and such borders determine soccer teams everywhere. Why should Ireland be any different? Sport in the island of Ireland is politicized enough as it is and is used on both sides of the border as a sparking point for ugly nationalism – doing this can only make it worse. |
|
[ ]Argument #2 | |
YesCombining the talents of North and South will improve the team. Both nations are performing weakly at present. Historically, Northern Ireland have had one or two stand-out players surrounded by poor performers, whilst the Republic’s team is normally quite solid but lacking quality in depth and missing star players. Putting the best of both teams together would greatly enhance Ireland’s chances of reaching the final stages of international competitions, and even of winning. And of course the players will be able to get along - most of them already play together for English and Scottish club sides. Again by way of comparison, the Irish rugby team would be much weaker if split. |
NoBoth nations do better than the proposition are suggesting: each has qualified for the World Cup three times. Not a bad showing. Combining the English and Scottish teams would probably lead to a better squad. But nobody would dream of doing it. Why? Because they’re different nations. So it is here, too. Furthermore, the idea that a united team will perform better than the two teams currently do is based on the players getting along. What if the things that divide them mean that they don’t? Then instead of two teams turning in erratic performances including some successes, there’s only one team, and it’s a flop! |
|
[ ]Argument #3 | |
YesThere will be a huge amount of attention paid to who gets picked: the idea that prejudice rather than ability will determine things is absurd, particularly in the professional coaching and playing era. As for the chance that players will act up after the change: international players will buckle down sharpish or lose their high-status positions at the top of their profession. The idea that players would rather squabble than perform at their peak is absurd – or rather, is no more absurd in an all-Ireland context than it is anywhere else. Of course there are preening prima donnas – but they always find excuses to pout. We don’t base big choices like this on the potential for sulking. |
NoIt is claimed by some that the management in the Irish rugby union establishment favour players from the Republic and marginalise Ulstermen. That squad, supposedly the model of success, is not without its tensions. How much more will that be the case if the players moved into a team are used to working in a totally different setup, and have tribal loyalties fundamentally opposed to that of half their new team? Disputes about selection could make relations between the two parts of the island worse rather than better. |
|
[ ]Argument #4 | |
YesOf course there’s a lot of rivalry now: it’s always that way with neighbours. You can’t oppose a plan based on future benefit by pointing to current problems – we know they exist. The benefits of this plan are long term and depend on management and organisers having the vision to overcome short term prejudices. |
NoThis might be a good idea if there were some level of support in one part of the island for the other side’s team when playing third parties. The truth is the opposite. Many Ulstermen cheer for anyone playing the Republic, and vice versa. |
|
[ ]Argument #5 | |
YesThe talent pool in the island of Ireland is too small to be split up as it is now. Players in Ulster, particularly, are deprived of a chance to shine: moreover, their island is deprived of a chance to utilise their talents. |
NoThe Republic of Ireland has a population of 6 million. That’s only 4 million short of Greece’s 10 million, and Greece managed to win Euro 2004. The Republic of Ireland funds sport more than the north does. Improving organisationally with better youth coaching and grass-roots football may be the answer, rather than trying to jam two countries together. If you don’t improve underlying problems, then they’ll continue whether you combine the teams or not. |
|
[ ]Argument #6 | |
YesThe best players are more important than worse ones. International football isn’t about equality handouts, it’s about winning. Players in both nations would (or should) want to play in successful sides. The focus should be on helping the best of Irish players to excel. It’s true that some journeymen will lose out: but seen another way, isn’t it more the case that for a while, ethnic strife let some weak players get international game time, a situation now being put right? |
NoFor every George Best, there’s a whole squad’s worth of players who won’t get to play at a national level any more. Narrowing the opportunities available to players to perform in an international side is against their interests. In particular, it’s likely that the squad would be mostly Republic players and a couple of Ulstermen – the plan simply denies a playing population that currently has its own full team of the chance of any international games. |
|
[ ]Argument #7 | |
YesClub football has been an international game for fifty years. National coaches don’t find it difficult to pick players who compete in other national leagues. The best Brazilian footballers play for clubs all over the world, yet they don’t have any trouble putting selecting a great team. Most of the Irish players, from north or south, play for clubs in England and Scotland, so comparing their abilities is actually quite easy. |
NoIt’s easier to pick a team when there’s a league dedicated to the area from which you are drawing players. That’s the case right now in Northern Ireland and the Republic. The players can be judged more easily against one another and administration is easier because it’s run by one body. |
|
[ ]Argument #8 | |
YesAs to which administrative body would get the job of running the Ireland team, who cares? This debate is about a big, broad principle – the constitution of the football administration is not important. It could even lead to the creation of a new body to run the Ireland team, with the two existing bodies continuing to run the domestic leagues. |
NoThere are currently two administrative bodies in the island of Ireland with a history of bad feeling – which will get the job of running the Ireland team? Whichever is chosen, the other is sure to adopt spoiler tactics – and will probably appeal to the nationalistic tendencies your plan intends to minimise. Doesn’t the collapse of the campaign for an All-Ireland league show the absurdity of the idea of an All-Ireland team? |
References:Motions:
In legislation, policy, and the real world:See also on Debatepedia:External links and resources:
Books:
| |
Categories: Debatabase | Culture | Sport | Europe (EU)








]