What if NZF or some wealthy entity built a brand-new academy facility for national age group teams, with all sorts of training gear, pitches, sports scientists etc etc... and they then selected players from around NZ, and those players were expected to move to that facility in order to be part of the squad in preparation for qualification and World Cups... would it be "unfair" if a player chose not to take up that offer because they didn't want to move from their home city?
The only time we qualified for an age-group World Cup prior to Australia leaving Oceania was in 1997 - the entire squad was expected to reside in Auckland, those from out of town were billeted, and the squad trained most days each week etc... that approach paid off then... in 1999, the squad that played when we hosted were based in Auckland... again, relatively successful at the time (notwithstanding the 5-0 pounding by Uruguay)
The point is, surely, that having the squad together and training in one location is surely beneficial? Do you think the Clarefontaine centre is regionally prejudiced against youngsters from other parts of France?? or that the Ajax academy is being unfair by basing itself in Amsterdam??
Speaking to some of the guys who were in those "successful" squads in the late 1990s, they talked really positively of the experience they had training regularly and living in the same city, and didn't see moving to Auckland from elsewhere as a problem... they still went to school etc, so not as though they were deprived of a normal life... and their football improved...
can't see now why using such an approach should be such a point of antagonism...