New Zealand Football CEO Andy Martin. Photo / Greg Bowker
New Zealand Football CEO Andy Martin. Photo / Greg Bowker
New Zealand Football engages two legal firms to present appeal over Deklan Wynne’s eligibility which has been matched by Oceania Football Confederation
New Zealand Football's fate over the Deklan Wynne eligibility saga is likely to be decided at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.
It's hard to see any other way for a positive resolution.
If NZF decides it has a case - head Andy Martin indicated yesterday it did, with some caveats - its only realistic chance of getting the decision quashed and re-igniting New Zealand's 2016 Olympics hopes is surely through the CAS.
After Martin confirmed yesterday that NZF had engaged two legal firms to act on its behalf, the Oceania Football Confederation put out a statement a few hours later which seemed to be a counter joust.
The OFC announced it had appointed leading New Zealand solicitor Mai Chen "to advise the OFC disciplinary committee, and on any appeals process". It's game on.
Logically, there seems to be no conceivable way that the OFC would uphold an appeal against its own decision-making processes. Hence NZF's only recourse would be to the sports court based in Lausanne.
As Martin detailed, there are several planks to the NZF appeal. Firstly, it believes it met the eligibility criteria for the tournament in Papua New Guinea.
Martin said that according to criteria outlined by the Pacific Games council, every member of the Oly-Whites squad was eligible to play in the tournament.
A second element is the nature of Vanuatu's appeal and the subsequent action by the OFC. NZF argues that wasn't done within agreed guidelines and it thought the protest was being referred to Fifa. Martin added that it wasn't aware of the OFC disciplinary committee hearing (which decided NZ's fate) until after it had concluded.
Indeed, the time line as outlined by Martin seems slightly shambolic but that might be irrelevant - what matters is the outcome.
Also, the Herald understands the OFC will argue that NZF had two hours, in the wake of Vanuatu's appeal, to produce evidence of Wynne's eligibility and failed to do so.
The third element is around the Fifa statutes on eligibility. They are not completely unambiguous and can be open to legal interpretation.
The OFC decided South African-born Wynne belongs in the category of players who require five years of residency beyond the age of 18 (clearly impossible for a 20-year-old).
Meanwhile, under another provision, NZF believes two years of residence and citizenship is sufficient.
Again, it is difficult to see the OFC changing its interpretation, so any change in the status quo is dependant on a CAS case.
Meanwhile, it is curious that Wynne was deemed eligible to play at the recent Under-20 World Cup, as the full player list was sent to Fifa weeks before the tournament and any eligibility challenges had to be made before the start.
However, with hundreds of players to verify, perhaps Fifa just checked citizenship and birth dates, without looking into ancestry (or lack of) which may have been the deal breaker in this case?
Either way, the final responsibility rests with the relevant national associations and that is why NZF is paying the ultimate price. Sure, there has been nothing underhand here and no attempts to "cheat", as Martin was quick to emphasise. Wynne is a straightforward case of a footballing prodigy made good in his adopted land.
