One of the more remarkable aspects of the current campaign by the Irish Football Association to have Fifa intervene on its behalf to stop players born north of the Border from playing for the Republic is the claim repeated by the association's chief executive, Howard Wells, on RTÉ radio at the weekend. Wells said he and his colleagues were only looking to have the international federation apply its rules equally in relation to its members.

Of course, it doesn't take a particularly in-depth analysis of Fifa's workings to realise that some members are more equal than others. Wells effectively admitted as much when he referred to the IFA's privileged status as one of the four "British Associations" as one reason for not having a unified Irish team.

Since 1946 the four have been allowed to nominate one of Fifa's eight vice-presidents - Africa, Asia and South America also get one vice-president apiece - while each is represented on the International Football Association Board, which gives the British 50 per cent of the votes on the game's ultimate rule-making committee.

Wells's apparent inability to sense the irony of the case he was making was truly perplexing. At one point he argued that Fifa's proposal to allow those born on the island of Ireland to choose which national teams they would prefer to play for would undermine the internal eligibility arrangements agreed between the British associations. The four have had a gentlemen's agreement since the early 1990s to apply the Fifa rules as if they were really four different countries because the rules, needless to say, don't actually apply to them.

Wells cites Fifa's Circular 901, the organisation's reaction nearly four years ago to an attempt by Qatar to make a mockery of the regulations on international eligibility by granting citizenship to a number of Brazilian players so they could play football for the country's national team.

In the document Fifa make the point that for a footballer to "change" his nationality specifically in order to play for another country is in breach of the spirit of its regulations. It lays down specific criteria that should be met to avoid such abuses and these essentially amount to what is known here as "the granny rule" or a requirement of two years' residency.

The intention, it is made crystal clear, is to "ensure that a player has a clear connection with the relevant country". They do not mention that as a result of particular political "complexities" in several parts of the world there are exceptions.

The circular was intended only to address a flagrant abuse of Article 15.1 of Fifa's statutes, which, under the heading "principles", states that "any player holding the nationality of a country is eligible to play for that country".

Nationality is the key here, and passports, dismissed by the IFA as irrelevant to the current dispute are the generally accepted norm of demonstrating that.

By citing Circular 901, indeed, Wells seems to be drawing a direct comparison between Brazilians being enticed to play for a Middle East state, with which they have absolutely no connection, on the basis of financial reward and young men from the nationalist community in a town like Derry wishing to play for a country to citizenship of which they are entitled from birth.

It suggests he is either being disingenuous or is staggeringly ignorant of the historical context of the community in which he is currently working.

The former seems far more likely, though when Wells, an Englishman, suggested on Sunday that if there were freedom of choice for players (it seemed that he meant within the four "British Associations") then "everyone would play for England if they thought they were going to get a better crack of the whip", it was hard to avoid the conclusion that someone should take him aside and have a quiet word.

He mentioned the IFA's work in the area of anti-sectarianism, and much credit is due to both the association and its main supporters' organisations for the progress made in this area over the last few years. Presumably, though, no one involved in the organisation seriously believes the problem has really been solved.

A large proportion of the nationalist community continue to believe they are treated unfairly at the hands of the IFA and there are many stories of Catholic footballers concluding they are not appreciated in quite the way their Protestant counterparts are.

There is a significant geographical aspect to it as well, one touched on by Stephen Kenny when he was manager of Derry City and observed that those in power in Belfast seemed to regard Derry as the North's fifth-most-important population centre rather than its second.

Darron Gibson's uncle Paul McLoughlin recalls that his nephew's defection was prompted by being told by the manager of his Northern Ireland team that if he went on a trial to Manchester United on a particular date he would never play for the North again. Predictably, the youngster was distraught, but he went to Manchester, signed for United and started playing for the Republic instead.

Wells maintains the current dispute is not about Gibson, and as someone who had opted to play for the North before being alienated, the midfielder really is a poor example. What it is about, as the Belfast Agreement puts it, is the right of people born in the North to be "accepted as British or Irish, or both, as they may so choose".