Krish Giria & Stuti Gupta

Abstract: The Sports Ministry has recently proposed the ‘Sports Passport’ 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’s framework. FIFA’s Eligibility Rules (Article 5.2) require a player to ‘hold a nationality’ 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 ‘passport’ to be the only proof of one’s nationality. This piece argues that FIFA’s 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’s Sports Passport and the recent statement by the Ministry of External Affairs affirming that a passport is not a proof of one’s 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.

I. Introduction

In June 2026, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (“Sports Ministry”) has reportedly submitted a proposal to the Prime Minister’s Office (“PMO”) for the consideration of a ‘Sports Passport’ framework, allowing the eligible Persons of Indian Origin (“PIO”) and Overseas Citizens of India (“OCI”) athletes to represent India in the international sports tournaments, including football among others.

However, this framework coupled with the recent statement by a Ministry of External Affairs (“MEA”) 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 (“Eligibility Rules”) and Regulations for the FIFA World Cup 2026 (“2026 Regulations”). This article critically analyses the internal inconsistencies within FIFA Rules and Regulations in the context of the recent Indian developments.

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 ‘Sports Passport’ framework, and the connected developments.

II. Internal Inconsistencies: FIFA Eligibility Rules v. 2026 Regulations

Article 5 (Principles) of the Eligibility Rules lay down the criteria. Article 5.1 reads as follows:

“1. 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.”

For further clarification, Article 5.2 reads as follows:

“2. 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:

a) automatically received a nationality (e.g. from birth) without being required to undertake any
further administrative requirements (e.g. abandoning a separate nationality); or
b) acquired a nationality by undertaking a naturalisation process.”

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 ‘holds a nationality’ 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 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (“CA”). However, the 2026 Regulations portray a different picture.

The 2026 Regulations simultaneously lay down the Eligibility Criteria under Article 22.1 which requires for the players to ‘hold the nationality’ 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 ‘prove their identity, nationality and age’ by producing their ‘legally valid individual      passport, ‘and      any player who fails to submit these documents will be barred from representing their nation at the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Interestingly, this is not a standalone instance. In fact, FIFA’s Commentary on the Eligibility Rules (“Commentary”), specifically the section on Article 5 in Point No. 7, states that FIFA Competition Regulations have ‘consistently’ stated that the ‘proof of nationality’ is only provided through the holding of a ‘permanent international passport’.

In comparison, the Eligibility Rules and the 2026 Regulations (along with the Commentary) have taken a substantively different stance on ‘nationality’. The Eligibility Rules specify two routes of automatic acquisition (including jus soli and jus sanguinis) and the naturalisation process. On the other hand,      the 2026 Regulations      treat a mere passport as the sole and sufficient proof of ‘nationality’. FIFA has in effect collapsed the Article 5.2 Eligibility Requirements by making one’s 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.

Before FIFA states for a passport to be the ‘only’ proof of nationality, it offers some explanations in the Commentary.      In the Section titled ‘Meaning of nationality’, it cites the Nottebohm case to define ‘nationality’ as the legal bond between an individual and the State, in context of public international law (“PIL”). However, FIFA materialises this definition in Point No. 6 which states, “One of the many mechanisms available to a state to legitimise the nationality of an individual is to grant citizenship”.

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 ‘Meaning of holding a nationality’ which confirmed for Article 5.2 to include processes in line with jus soli or jus sanguinis 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’s choice of listing down citizenship methods as part of ‘holding a nationality’.

Subsequently, FIFA cites the Court of Arbitration for Sports (“CAS”) ruling in Arturo Miranda which observes that there is clearly room in international law, and in the municipal law of some countries, to draw a distinction between “citizenship” and “nationality”. Thus, FIFA acknowledges the distinction and that some countries’ municipal laws make such a distinction, and the others do not.

Despite recognising so, FIFA Regulations state for a passport to be the only proof of one’s nationality. This attribution is problematic. There are countries that do not recognise a distinction between ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationality’ in their municipal laws, and issue ‘permanent international passport’ to non-nationals or non-citizens, for example Latvia and Estonia. Further, some other countries that recognise such a distinction, issue such passports to nationals who are not citizens and ‘non-nationals’.

FIFA has completely ignored such complications in various countries’ 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 ‘nationality’ to a mere passport. This creates an anomalous situation, which this piece aims to analyse through the recently proposed Sports Passport framework in India.

III. India’s Sports Passport: Exploiting the Loophole in FIFA’s Framework

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’s National Football Team after failing to qualify for the 2027 AFC Asian Cup. Meanwhile, Indian origin players continue to represent other countries at the FIFA World Cup, and amongst them is Tahsin Jamshid 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’s (“GoI”) initiative to tap into the global Indian diaspora for a larger talent pool and improved competitiveness in the international arena.

Notably, at the centre of this proposal is reportedly Section 20 of the Passports Act, 1967 (“§20”). 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 (“Passports Act”); it is safe to presume that the Sports Passport will      be issued under §20 which enables the GoI, in its discretion, to issue passports to non-citizens,  if it finds it necessary in ‘public interest’ to do so. The ‘public interest’ qualification has not been defined, but §20 passports are majorly used in ‘rare exceptions’. Nevertheless, the GoI can certainly exercise its discretion to issue Sports Passport to non-nationals under §20.

Interestingly, §20 uses the term “not citizens”. However, the Compendium of Instructions/Guidelines Relating to Issue of Passports in India/Abroad (“Compendium”) uses the phrase “non-nationals” in context of §20. Certainly, with this delegated legislation, the GoI’s stance on the difference between ‘nationality’ and ‘citizenship’ becomes evident, i.e.,      there remains no distinction between ‘citizens’ and ‘nationals’ in the context of §20. 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.

In fact, the aforementioned Eligibility Rules under Article 5.2 explicitly state that the two routes operate through ‘national law’. Correspondingly, the routes involve all 5 conventional processes of acquiring citizenship in Indian law i.e. the CA. Thus, for the purposes of representing India, a player ‘holds the Indian nationality’ under Article 5.2 to be eligible for international representation, only by acquiring Indian Citizenship under the CA.

This stance on there being no effective distinction between ‘nationality’ and ‘citizenship’ has been confirmed multiple times. Firstly, the Delhi High Court in Namgyal Dolkar observed that the concept of ‘nationality’ does not have legislative recognition in the CA.

Secondly, the landmark judgment in State Trading Corporation of India v Commercial Tax Officer is inapplicable to natural persons. Although the Court upheld the distinction between ‘nationality’ and ‘citizenship’, this ruling was made in the context of whether companies can be considered as ‘citizens’. The majority held that a corporation cannot hold citizenship as it is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the CA.

Thirdly, OCIs are considered neither Indian citizens nor Indian nationals. Under Section 7A 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 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. Clearly, there exists no distinct concept of ‘nationality’ as envisaged by the ICJ in Nottebohm 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. .

Fourthly, the Sports Ministry in its Circular No.F.45-5/2008-SP-I, explicitly stated that only Indian ‘citizens’ can represent India in international sports and the same has been upheld by the Delhi High Court in Karm Kumar v Union of India. In fact, the same policy was followed during the intake of Ryan Williams 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,           ‘citizenship’            remains a prerequisite for representing India in international football fixtures. The GoI chose to not issue a §20 Passport for Williams, and rather enforced its conventional policy. The GoI’s stance seems clear, i.e. a passport alone does not suffice, one needs to be a citizen to represent India.

In fact, a recent statement by the MEA has expressly clarified that an Indian passport is not a proof of one’s Indian citizenship. The statutory backing for the statement is primarily §20 which provides that the GoI may issue a passport to a person who is not a ‘citizen’ of India if it finds it necessary in the public interest. Furthermore, the GoI in the Compendium has stated that a passport is ‘largely an identity and travel document’, and it is issued to ‘persons’ which includes Indian citizens. Thus, Indian citizens are a subset of all those who can obtain an Indian passport. Rather one’s citizenship is only governed by the Constitution of India and CA, and no other process or statute outside of these can grant or prove one’s citizenship.

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 ‘hold a nationality’ per Article 5.2 and the concerned Indian Citizenship Law.

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, the FIFA Regulations help governments circumvent FIFA’s 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.

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.

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’s Sports Passport is proof of exactly that. Other countries, watching, will not need much convincing to follow.

Krish Giria is a III Year B.A.,LLB at NLSIU

Stuti Gupta is a III Year B.A.,LLB at NLSIU