Krish Giria & Stuti Gupta<\/strong><\/p>\n Abstract:<\/strong> The Sports Ministry has recently proposed the \u2018Sports Passport\u2019 framework under Section 20 of the Passports Act, 1967 which would allow eligible PIO and OCI athletes to represent India in international football. This piece argues that the Sports Passport exposes an internal inconsistency within FIFA\u2019s framework. FIFA\u2019s Eligibility Rules (Article 5.2) require a player to \u2018hold a nationality\u2019 through two routes: automatic acquisition, or the naturalisation process. And, the two routes operate through the respective national laws. However, the FIFA 2026 Regulations specify a \u2018passport\u2019 to be the only proof of one\u2019s nationality. This piece argues that FIFA\u2019s Regulations effectively collapse the Eligibility Requirements under Article 5.2, creating a parallel route that allows for countries to bypass Article 5.2 and the corresponding national law. Using India\u2019s Sports Passport and the recent statement by the Ministry of External Affairs affirming that a passport is not a proof of one\u2019s citizenship, among others, the piece argues that a Sports Passport exploits the loophole, i.e. issuing a passport to gain eligibility under the Regulations, while bypassing Article 5.2 and the conventional processes of granting Indian citizenship. This piece concludes that such an inconsistency, as long as it remains unaddressed by FIFA, invites strategic reading of FIFA Regulations leading to Article 5.2 becoming obsolete.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In June 2026, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (\u201cSports Ministry<\/strong>\u201d) has reportedly submitted a proposal<\/a> However, this framework coupled with the recent statement<\/a> by a Ministry of External Affairs (\u201cMEA<\/strong>\u201d) official stating that a passport is not a proof of citizenship, exposes certain inconsistencies in the Rules Governing Eligibility to Play for Representative Teams states the Eligibility Criteria<\/a> (\u201cEligibility Rules<\/strong>\u201d) and Regulations for the FIFA World Cup 2026<\/a> (\u201c2026 Regulations<\/strong>\u201d). This article critically analyses the internal inconsistencies within FIFA Rules and Regulations in the context of the recent Indian developments.<\/p>\n First, the piece highlights the apparent conflict between FIFA Eligibility Rules and the FIFA Competition Regulations. Second, it lays down the consequences of such an inconsistency by using the Indian \u2018Sports Passport\u2019 framework, and the connected developments.<\/p>\n Article 5 (Principles) of the Eligibility Rules lay down the criteria. Article 5.1 reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1.<\/em> Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the association of that country.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n For further clarification, Article 5.2 reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c2. There is a distinction between holding a nationality and being eligible to obtain a nationality. A player holds a nationality, if, through the operation of a national law, they have:<\/em><\/p>\n a) automatically received a nationality (e.g. from birth) without being required to undertake any The 2026 Regulations<\/a> simultaneously lay down the Eligibility Criteria under Article 22.1 which requires for the players to \u2018hold the nationality\u2019 of their country, and that all players shall be eligible per FIFA statutes. However, under Article 24.5, the Regulations state that every player on the final release list shall \u2018prove their identity, nationality and age\u2019 by producing their \u2018legally valid individual \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0passport, \u2018and\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0any player who fails to submit these documents will be barred from representing their nation at the 2026 FIFA World Cup.<\/p>\n Interestingly, this is not a standalone instance. In fact, FIFA\u2019s Commentary<\/a> on the Eligibility Rules (\u201cCommentary<\/strong>\u201d), specifically the section on Article 5 in Point No. 7, states that FIFA Competition Regulations have \u2018consistently\u2019 stated that the \u2018proof of nationality\u2019 is only provided through the holding of a \u2018permanent international passport\u2019.<\/p>\n In comparison, the Eligibility Rules and the 2026 Regulations (along with the Commentary) have taken a substantively different stance on \u2018nationality\u2019. The Eligibility Rules specify two routes of automatic acquisition (including jus soli<\/em> and jus sanguinis<\/em>) and the naturalisation process. On the other hand, \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0the 2026 Regulations \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0treat a mere passport as the sole and sufficient proof of \u2018nationality\u2019. FIFA has in effect collapsed the Article 5.2 Eligibility Requirements by making one\u2019s eligibility dependent solely on the issuance of a passport. The Regulations then provide a way for countries to circumvent Article 5.2, by simply issuing a passport.<\/p>\n Before FIFA states for a passport to be the \u2018only\u2019 proof of nationality, it offers some explanations in the Commentary. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In the Section titled \u2018Meaning of nationality\u2019, it cites the Nottebohm<\/em><\/a> case to define \u2018nationality\u2019 as the legal bond between an individual and the State, in context of public international law (\u201cPIL<\/strong>\u201d). However, FIFA materialises this definition in Point No. 6 which states, \u201cOne of the many mechanisms available to a state to legitimise the nationality of an individual is to grant citizenship<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n Despite such distinction drawn by FIFA, the Eligibility Requirements under Article 5.2 effectively use the conventional citizenship acquisition mechanisms. The same is corroborated by the Commentary in \u2018Meaning of holding a nationality\u2019 which confirmed for Article 5.2 to include processes in line with jus soli<\/em> or jus sanguinis<\/em> or a combination of both under the first route i.e. automatic acquisition, and naturalisation process under the second route. There have been no conclusive justifications for FIFA\u2019s choice of listing down citizenship methods as part of \u2018holding a nationality\u2019.<\/p>\n Subsequently, FIFA cites the Court of Arbitration for Sports (\u201cCAS<\/strong>\u201d) ruling in Arturo Miranda<\/em><\/a> which observes that there is clearly room in international law, and in the municipal law of some<\/em> countries, to draw a distinction between \u201ccitizenship\u201d and \u201cnationality\u201d. Thus, FIFA acknowledges the distinction and that some countries\u2019 municipal laws make such a distinction, and the others do not.<\/p>\n Despite recognising so, FIFA Regulations state for a passport to be the only proof of one\u2019s nationality. This attribution is problematic. There are countries that do not recognise a distinction between \u2018citizenship\u2019 and \u2018nationality\u2019 in their municipal laws, and issue \u2018permanent international passport\u2019 to non-nationals or non-citizens, for example Latvia<\/a> and Estonia<\/a>. Further, some other countries<\/a> that recognise such a distinction, issue such passports to nationals who are not citizens and \u2018non-nationals\u2019.<\/p>\n FIFA has completely ignored such complications in various countries\u2019 policies on issuance of such documents, and has rather taken an inconsistent stance i.e. of recognising nationality to be the broader category of which citizenship is a part, and at the same time, reducing \u2018nationality\u2019 to a mere passport. This creates an anomalous situation, which this piece aims to analyse through the recently proposed Sports Passport framework in India.<\/p>\n The Sports Passport aims to allow the eligible PIO and OCI athletes to represent India in the international football tournaments. This move comes against a precarious backdrop for the Men\u2019s National Football Team after failing to qualify<\/a> for the 2027 AFC Asian Cup. Meanwhile, Indian origin players continue to represent other countries<\/a> at the FIFA World Cup, and amongst them is Tahsin Jamshid<\/a> who still holds an Indian passport, while simultaneously possessing a Qatari Mission Passport, making him eligible to represent Qatar in the World Cup. Clearly, this framework is reflective of the Indian Government\u2019s (\u201cGoI<\/strong>\u201d) initiative to tap into the global Indian diaspora for a larger talent pool<\/a> and improved competitiveness in the international arena.<\/p>\n Notably, at the centre of this proposal<\/a> is reportedly Section 20 of the Passports Act, 1967<\/a> (\u201c\u00a720<\/strong>\u201d). Given the Sports Passport does not fall under any of the categories, i.e. a) ordinary passport, b) official passport, c) diplomatic passport, as listed under Section 4 of the Passports Act, 1967 (\u201cPassports Act<\/strong>\u201d); it is safe to presume that the Sports Passport will \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0be issued under \u00a720 which enables the GoI, in its discretion, to issue passports to non-citizens,\u00a0 if it finds it necessary in \u2018public interest\u2019 to do so. The \u2018public interest\u2019 qualification has not been defined, but \u00a720 passports are majorly used in \u2018rare exceptions<\/a>\u2019. Nevertheless, the GoI can certainly exercise its discretion to issue Sports Passport to non-nationals under \u00a720.<\/p>\n Interestingly, \u00a720 uses the term \u201cnot citizens\u201d. However, the Compendium of Instructions\/Guidelines Relating to Issue of Passports in India\/Abroad<\/a> (\u201cCompendium<\/strong>\u201d) uses the phrase \u201cnon-nationals\u201d in context of \u00a720. Certainly, with this delegated legislation, the GoI\u2019s stance on the difference between \u2018nationality\u2019 and \u2018citizenship\u2019 becomes evident, i.e., \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0there remains no distinction between \u2018citizens\u2019 and \u2018nationals\u2019 in the context of \u00a720. Therefore, although the GoI might grant Sports Passport to non-citizens, such players would still not be eligible under Article 5.2 of Eligibility Rules and the corresponding national law. Clearly, the Sports Passport aims to operate on the FIFA Regulations, by circumventing the conventional municipal law.<\/p>\n In fact, the aforementioned Eligibility Rules under Article 5.2 explicitly state that the two routes operate through \u2018national law\u2019. Correspondingly, the routes involve all 5 conventional processes<\/a> of acquiring citizenship in Indian law i.e. the CA. Thus, for the purposes of representing India, a player \u2018holds the Indian nationality\u2019 under Article 5.2 to be eligible for international representation, only by acquiring Indian Citizenship under the CA.<\/p>\n This stance on there being no effective distinction between \u2018nationality\u2019 and \u2018citizenship\u2019 has been confirmed multiple times. Firstly, the Delhi High Court in Namgyal Dolkar<\/em><\/a> observed that the concept of \u2018nationality\u2019 does not have legislative recognition in the CA.<\/p>\n Secondly, the landmark judgment in State Trading Corporation of India v Commercial Tax Officer<\/em><\/a> is inapplicable to natural persons. Although the Court upheld the distinction between \u2018nationality\u2019 and \u2018citizenship\u2019, this ruling was made in the context of whether companies can be considered as \u2018citizens\u2019. The majority held that a corporation cannot hold citizenship as it is not a \u2018person\u2019 within the meaning of the CA.<\/p>\n Thirdly, OCIs are considered neither Indian citizens nor Indian nationals. Under Section 7A<\/a> of the CA, OCI Cards are issued to foreign nationals who have a certain link to India, for instance being eligible to obtain Indian citizenship at or any time after the commencement of the Constitution, among others like by descent and marriage. For OCI cardholders to be citizens, they are required to renounce their foreign citizenship. This scheme has been consistently followed under the CA via Section 9<\/a> of the CA which states for any voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship to result in termination of their Indian citizenship. Section 9 has in fact held to be a complete code under Bhagwati Prasad v Rajeev Gandhi<\/em><\/a>. Clearly, there exists no distinct concept of \u2018nationality\u2019 as envisaged by the ICJ in Nottebohm<\/em> under the Indian Citizenship law. One can either be an Indian citizen or not be an Indian citizen at all. There exists no category of an Indian national who is not a citizen. .<\/p>\n Fourthly, the Sports Ministry in its Circular No.F.45-5\/2008-SP-I, explicitly stated that only Indian \u2018citizens\u2019 can represent India in international sports and the same has been upheld by the Delhi High Court in Karm Kumar v Union of India<\/em><\/a>. In fact, the same policy was followed during the intake of Ryan Williams<\/a> for his debut with the Blue Tigers. Williams had to renounce his Australian passport and obtain Indian citizenship via naturalisation to debut with the Indian Team. Certainly,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2018citizenship\u2019 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0remains a prerequisite for representing India in international football fixtures. The GoI chose to not issue a \u00a720 Passport for Williams, and rather enforced its conventional policy. The GoI\u2019s stance seems clear, i.e. a passport alone does not suffice, one needs to be a citizen to represent India.<\/p>\n In fact, a recent statement<\/a> by the MEA has expressly clarified that an Indian passport is not a proof of one\u2019s Indian citizenship. The statutory backing for the statement is primarily \u00a720 which provides that the GoI may issue a passport to a person who is not a \u2018citizen\u2019 of India if it finds it necessary in the public interest. Furthermore, the GoI in the Compendium has stated that a passport is \u2018largely an identity and travel document\u2019, and it is issued to \u2018persons\u2019 which includes Indian citizens. Thus, Indian citizens are a subset of all those who can obtain an Indian passport. Rather one\u2019s citizenship is only governed by the Constitution of India<\/a> and CA, and no other process or statute outside of these can grant or prove one\u2019s citizenship.<\/p>\n In sum, the Sports Passport scheme is exploiting a legal loophole presented by the FIFA Regulations that surpasses Article 5.2 and the CA; thereby creating a paradoxical situation. A player can represent India by holding a mere passport per FIFA Regulations, and simultaneously, not be an Indian citizen, i.e. not \u2018hold a nationality\u2019 per Article 5.2 and the concerned Indian Citizenship Law.<\/p>\n In conclusion, the FIFA Regulations help governments circumvent FIFA\u2019s Eligibility Requirements, thereby de-incentivising countries from following their own Citizenship Law requirements. There exists a parallel regime for countries: the conventional citizenship\/nationality route, and the issuance of a passport route irrespective of Article 5.2 and their respective municipal laws stating otherwise. This is the creation of internal inconsistencies within FIFA Rules and its Regulations. India aims to exploit this loophole via the Sports Passport.<\/p>\n This is not a problem unique to India. Any country that seeks to revive its international standing in FIFA tournaments by widening the eligible talent pool, can easily bypass Article 5.2 by simply issuing a passport under the Regulations. The existence of this parallel regime, without FIFA ever resolving the question of which route governs eligibility, allows countries to fulfil Eligibility Requirements through a selective reading of the FIFA Regulations in isolation from Article 5.2. Consequently, these Requirements are fulfilled only on paper, and never in effect.<\/p>\n FIFA has offered no clarification that checks its Regulations from collapsing the Article 5.2 Requirements into a mere passport rule. Until FIFA takes an initiative to resolve this inconsistency, Article 5.2 will remain binding only when countries choose to be bound by it, and India\u2019s Sports Passport is proof of exactly that. Other countries, watching, will not need much convincing to follow.<\/p>\n Krish Giria<\/strong> is a III Year B.A.,LLB at NLSIU<\/p>\n Stuti Gupta <\/strong>is a III Year B.A.,LLB at NLSIU<\/p>\n Krish Giria & Stuti Gupta Abstract: The Sports Ministry has recently proposed the \u2018Sports Passport\u2019 framework under Section 20 of the Passports Act, 1967 which would allow eligible PIO and OCI athletes to represent India in international football. This piece argues that the Sports Passport exposes an internal inconsistency within FIFA\u2019s framework. FIFA\u2019s Eligibility Rules […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7071616,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[110534],"tags":[48981,21928,208687,13782,12685,11572,3749,934],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-7071615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-sports-law","tag-anomaly","tag-eligibility","tag-fifas","tag-framework","tag-law","tag-policy","tag-review","tag-school"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lawschoolpolicyreview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/football.avif\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n
\nI. Introduction<\/strong><\/h5>\n
II. Internal Inconsistencies: FIFA Eligibility Rules v. 2026 Regulations<\/strong><\/h5>\n
further administrative requirements (e.g. abandoning a separate nationality); or
b) acquired a nationality by undertaking a naturalisation process.\u201d<\/em>
<\/em>
In sum, Articles 5.1 & 5.2 state that a player that holds a permanent nationality is eligible to play for a representative team, and one \u2018holds a nationality\u2019 per the operation of a national law through two routes: first, automatic acquisition; and second, acquisition by naturalisation. Therefore, for a non-Indian citizen to play for the Indian team, they are required to go through the naturalisation process to acquire the requisite citizenship per the Indian national laws i.e. under Section 6<\/a> of the Citizenship Act, 1955<\/a> (\u201cCA<\/strong>\u201d). However, the 2026 Regulations portray a different picture.<\/p>\nIII. India\u2019s Sports Passport: Exploiting the Loophole in FIFA\u2019s Framework<\/strong><\/h5>\n
IV. Conclusion<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\nRelated<\/em><\/h3>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"