In the midst of heated debates and discussions about the state of the England national side, Jack Wilshere has thrown some more fuel onto the fire with his recent press conference remarks.
The Arsenal midfielder said that "being in England for 5 years does not make you English" - a comment which has seen a tremendous amount of backlash in the media.
Perhaps this is representing a shift into the way that the FA is thinking, on the day that a commission has been announced to assess ways to improve English football.
There is no coincidence that the comment comes at a time when Roy Hodgson has stated that he is interested in talking to Manchester United sensation Adnan Januzaj.
The Belgian-born youngster is yet to set an allegiance to a national side, and could be eligible to play for England.
Wilshere was quick to rule out that he was speaking with Januzaj in mind.
Kevin Pietersen was among some of the high-profilers to join the debate, asking Wilshere over twitter whether people like he and Mo Farah were classed as "foreigners".
The gunner responded by saying that the question "was about football!" and went further by tweeting about his respect for people like Pietersen, Farah and Wilfried Zaha.
The midfielder exclaimed that "English people should play for England" and "going to a new country when ur an adult, & because u can get a passport u play 4 that national team - I disagree".
These comments have once again sparked discussion about the perceived lack of English talent coming into the Premier League, with seemingly more gifted players now being swept in from abroad on much lower transfer fees.
Wilshere believes that if you are good enough then you will make it to the top, perhaps the Premier League is just not suited for the majority of English talent coming through?
Clearly, at the heart of this issue is the state of grass root level football and a much deeper discussion about the core of football education and development.
A fundamental question, however (that the FA will need to deal with), is whether it would be acceptable to improve the national squad with players that become eligible through the FIFA ruling , rather than players who were born an bred in England.
Arsene Wenger backed his player's comments, stating that he always felt an Englishman should manage the England side, before walking into a contentious issue.
"If we are not clear on (the issue) then the national team will become like a club".
This point is very intriguing, considering the general feeling that there is a lack of commitment shown by English players.
This summer's Under-21's tournament revealed a lack of desire for younger players to play for the team after earning a senior cap- such action in Spain would have been dealt with severely.
This question is certainly not just restricted to football, and goes into the political mine-field of core attitudes and values.
Arsene Wenger said "One of the tasks of the modern politicians will be really to define what is the nationality of a person, because some people feel differently to their passport" and this is a major talking point.
If you believe that being born in a certain country gives someone a stronger attachment or right to identify with that country, then perhaps it is a no brainer - you represent where you are brought up from.
But if you believe that this is not the case; then the question is, how long could it be before someone can be a 'part of' the place they have moved to?
Should we take national identity at face value in football, and just have national players that have been raised in their home country for the majority of their lives?
Or should we look more to the feeling of a player's willingness, desire and passion to play for another country?
Write for GiveMeSport! Sign-up to the GMS Writing Academy here: http://gms.to/130seMa