Eligibility for national sides has always been an issue in cricket. Indeed two of the 22 cricketers to have played in the first ever test match went on to represent other countries. Billy Midwinter went on to represent England (having represented Australia in the inaugural test match) whilst Tom Armitage went on to play for the United States, having batted in England’s middle order during the first ever Ashes test.

There is no shortage of players who have represented more than one country over the years, at all levels of international cricket. This has caused many to question the eligibility criteria. But is it any wonder that in our ever more globalised world the delineation of nationality is becoming more difficult?

The ICC doesn’t help this lack of clarity. Understanding the eligibility rules for playing international cricket makes finding a general solution for the Navier Stokes equation in three dimensions look like little more than a Sunday newspaper’s brain teaser. Take for example the case of Italy.

This summer Italy were unable to play Gareth Berg in ICC Division 1, which acted as the European qualifier for the recent WT20 qualifier in the UAE. Despite his ineligibility for this tournament, Berg played a critical role for the Italian’s in the UAE. Berg was eligible in the UAE due to his Italian passport. The reason he was ineligible in Sussex was because Berg did not satisfy the ‘Development Criteria’ required of every player at ICC Division 1, despite both tournaments being preliminary rounds of the same global event.

There is method behind the seeming madness of having ‘Development Criteria’. The ICC is trying to ensure that the players in the national side come through the national system, or contribute towards the development of cricket in their country. But how can it be right that Italy could have been hindered in their quest for a spot at the WT20 2014 because of this rule. Berg’s nationality was no more in doubt in the summer of 2013 than it was in November 2013, and Italy was still in qualification for the same tournament. Indeed, were it not for Jersey’s captain choking in the semi-final in Sussex, Italy would never have been in the UAE (where they finished just three places off a berth in Bangladesh).

Sticking with the Italian theme, Jade Dernbach (often called a South African Brit by England’s opponents), needed his Italian passport in order to travel to the UAE with England in 2012, since he didn’t have a British one. Many were left asking how Dernbach could qualify for England without a British passport.

There is a discrepancy between eligibility for Full Members and leading A&As. This will be no surprise to anyone with any knowledge of cricket outside the top tier. However it is interesting to note that the aforementioned Dernbach would not have been eligible for Italy in Sussex in 2013, despite his citizenship (because of the ‘Development Criteria’).

More interestingly still his compatriots Kieswetter and Pietersen would have had to wait significantly longer for their international debuts for England. Indeed had England been subject to the same eligibility criteria as its European neighbours KP would not have been available for the 2005 Ashes.

There are many observing this mish-mash of rules who would suggest that a clean cut requirement of a passport in order to be eligible to represent one’s country. This is immediately appealing, however beyond the populist appeal lies some real issues. Italy are the leading non-HPP A&A side in Europe. They also happen to be a country where gaining a passport is relatively easy. Many observers of European cricket would suggest that these two factors have a causal relationship.

However there are deeper issues with the requirement of a passport, than simply the relative ease of acquiring one. Consider the following two players and decide for yourself who is more eligible: a) A first generation immigrant who came to the country during his infancy who has learnt the game in his/her ‘naturalised’ country and who has represented their country at U15/17/19 level; b) a passport holder who has played/learned all his cricket in a full member country.

It seems obvious that in our globalised world the first of these two players is the ‘more’ eligible (if that phrase has any sense at all). However a further issue is raised by the eligibility of our first hypothetical player. He/she qualifies on the basis of residency, so what if they leave the country, even if temporarily? Does that player lose their cricket nationality?

According to current regulations that player becomes ineligible as soon as a year passes where they do not spend at least half the year in that country. Many will see this as fair since their eligibility was based on residency, but again I would suggest that this player has contributed more to cricket in that country than a foreign-based passport holder. Indeed is this long-time resident not more (to continue the Italian theme) Italian, than his foreign-based compatriot (again allowing for a spectrum of eligibility)?

This article hasn’t even touched on the issues arising from the likes of Ed Joyce, who have reverted to their ‘initial’ nationality. But it is clear that the definition of eligibility (and indeed nationality) is extremely complex. I do not envy the ICC in making decisions on what constitutes eligibility, however there are some issues which do certainly need addressing.