With the Rugby Championship underway in the Southern Hemisphere, and the English Premiership now restarted in the north, the club vs. country battle is fiercer than ever.

Leicester’s Matt Toomua and Tatafu Polota-Nau, Saracens’ Juan Figallo, and Bath’s Francois Louw all played for their English clubs this weekend, just one week on from representing their countries on the other side of the equator. The player welfare concerns this raises hardly need explaining but the worst part is that most of them will do it all again this week as they return Down Under.

The club/country relationship is governed by World Rugby Regulation 9. Its essence is that all countries have the right to have their players released to them during the specified international periods. However, the way that this is currently being interpreted within the Gallagher Premiership varies greatly – at the cost of the players’ welfare.

Regulation 9 Explained

Regulation 9.2 states:

“A…Club is obliged to release a Player to the Union for which the Player is eligible when selected by such Union for a National Representative Team…”

This “Right to Release for Matches” applies to the “Rugby Championship Release Period” (Regulation 9.5). According to Regulation 9.8(c)(ii), this period:

“shall operate each year for an eight-week period. It shall commence on or around the third weekend in August and shall conclude on or around the first weekend in October each year.”

Indeed, this year, the period runs from 18 August to 6 October. Regulation 9.8(c)(iii) then states:

“Subject to…Regulation 9.33 during the Rugby Championship Release Period Unions may only exercise the Right to Release pursuant to this Regulation 9 for six weeks out of the eight-week period.”

Of course, throughout the Rugby Championship, there are two rest weekends and six match-days. However, it is important to note Regulation 9.33, entitled “Cross Hemisphere Player Release”. It states:

“Where the Right to Release for Matches is exercised for Players pursuant to the Rugby Championship Release Period and such Players are contracted to Rugby Bodies or Clubs in the northern hemisphere then the exercise of the Right to Release pursuant to this Regulation 9 may be exercised for eight weeks out of the eight-week period.”

Therefore, contrary to much of what has been said by Premiership clubs in recent weeks, the Rugby Championship Unions have the right to have their Premiership players released to them for the entire tournament. This is presumably intended to account for the long-distance travel which would otherwise be required.

Importantly, these guarantees are protected by Regulation 9.3:

“No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club whether by contract, conduct or otherwise may inhibit, prevent, discourage, disincentivise or render unavailable any Player from selection, attendance and appearance in a National Representative Team…when such request for selection, attendance and appearance is made in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9. Any agreement and/or arrangement between a Player and a Rugby Body or Club or between a Union or an Association and a Rugby Body or Club (and/or any proposal made and/or attempted to be made howsoever communicated) which is contrary to this Regulation 9.3 is prohibited”

The consequences for breach of Regulation 9 are set out in 9.34 and 9.35, showing that a Premiership club could be liable to sanction by the RFU in the form of a financial penalty, a deduction of league points, or even relegation. The RFU could itself also be liable to sanction by World Rugby for any Premiership club’s breaches pursuant to Regulation 18.

Premiership Clubs’ Compliance with Regulation 9

As suggested above, compliance with this regulation varies significantly across the Premiership.

Leicester Tigers

“Leicester are clearly not complying with the requirements and are acting in full disregard of their players’ welfare”

Leicester Tigers announced during August that their Australian internationals, Matt Toomua and Tatafu Polota-Nau would be required to return to Leicester on rest weeks of the Rugby Championship, which coincide with weeks one and four of the Premiership.

Indeed, both participated in Leicester’s heavy opening weekend defeat at the hands of Exeter. This came just seven days after they had both represented Australia in the second Bledisloe Cup match in Auckland, New Zealand – also a heavy defeat.

The day after the Test (Sunday 26 August), they returned to Australia with their team, before flying on to London. They probably arrived in the UK late on Monday 27. They then had four days to get over the jet lag caused by an 11-hour time difference, train with their Leicester teammates (for the first time in over a month) and make the three-and-a-half-hour coach journey down to Exeter.

After the 40-6 thrashing by the former champions, the two Wallabies will have travelled back to London to catch another flight to Australia in time for the match against South Africa in Brisbane this Saturday.

In all, the two players will have each travelled in excess of 23,800 miles by air, over more than 48 hours, and across countless time zones – in the space of two weeks. Oh, and they’ll do it all again in another two weeks’ time for week four of the Premiership.

The fact that Leicester are making their players return at all is in breach of Regulation 9.33 (above). Though Australia head coach, Michael Cheika, must have consented to the arrangement, there is no way that he would not prefer to have kept the two in Australia. Indeed, if there is an ‘agreement’, it is of the sort prohibited by Regulation 9.3.

What’s more, there is a large body of scientific evidence which suggests that long-distance air travel can have negative effects on athletes’ bodies. Indeed, anyone who has ever travelled to Australia or New Zealand will know that it can be particularly uncomfortable, not to mention the jet lag. One would imagine that the effects on the body will only be worse if you are six-foot-tall and weigh over 17 stone. Trying to stick to a strict nutrition plan over a 24-hour (plus) journey must also be difficult.

On top of this, travelling so much in such a short space of time takes a mental toll. Coming straight off a bruising and demoralising defeat to the All Blacks, the stress and fatigue of travelling half-way around the world to play in the Premiership is the last thing either of these players needed. And, having suffered yet another brutal defeat, you would imagine that getting on a plane to face South Africa is not particularly high on their priority lists either.

The Preamble to Regulation 9 recognises that:

“the Right to Release for Matches should be exercised reasonably and with due regard to the proper interests of the welfare of Players”

And that:

“the implementation of the Regulation necessarily requires communication and consultation between different stakeholders particularly in regard to Player management and welfare considerations”

Leicester are clearly not complying with these requirements and are acting in full disregard of the players’ welfare. It will be interesting to see what they demand of Gaston Cortes, their new prop, who has just been called up by Argentina.

Saracens

Saracens’ case differs slightly in that their Argentine prop, Juan Figallo, was called up for just one game (against South Africa in Mendoza, Argentina, on Saturday 25 August). Nonetheless, he was still on the bench for Saracens’ game against Newcastle last weekend despite his 7,100-mile flight just days before. In fact, soon after coming on, he left the field injured.

Though Saracens have not committed a breach of Regulation 9 per se, their selection of Figallo in these circumstances is, to this author, not in keeping with the spirit of the Regulations as outlined by the Preamble (quoted above). With all the talk about protecting players and reducing playing times, this would have been the perfect opportunity to give Figallo a weekend off.

Bath

Bath, too, are being affected by The Rugby Championship. Francois Louw, like Figallo, played in Mendoza. Unlike Figallo, though, he played the full eighty minutes and was then on the bench for Bath just five days later for their clash with Bristol.

South Africa head coach, Rassie Erasmus, has suggested that he will be able to select Louw for the first four rounds of The Rugby Championship, perhaps implying that some arrangement has been made with either Bath or the player himself. As explained above, such agreements are expressly prohibited by Regulation 9.3.

Wasps

Wasps’ situation differs again. It has been revealed by Dai Young that the club has an agreement with Erasmus whereby full-back Willie le Roux will play three Rugby Championship games before returning to England and may also play one more Test in November.

Such an arrangement is clearly preferable to making the players fly to and from the Southern Hemisphere every two weeks, but it is also in violation of Regulation 9.3. Given that Erasmus has consented to the deal it could be argued that there is no prejudice, but the real harm is that to the player. Earning international caps is the greatest honour a player can receive; denying a player the opportunity to win as many as possible is grossly unfair and selfish.

Sale Sharks & Gloucester

Nonetheless, there are some clubs who appear to be fully complying with Regulation 9. Sale Sharks have resigned themselves to the fact that they will be without Faf de Klerk until October, while Gloucester seem have put no restrictions on Franco Mostert’s participation for South Africa.

These clubs are to be applauded not simply for complying with the regulations, but for doing so in the best spirit possible; allowing their players to take full advantage of international opportunities.

Conclusions

“Leicester, Bath and Wasps should all be sanctioned in some way”

The opening weekend of the Gallagher Premiership has seen multiple breaches of World Rugby Regulation 9. In the cases of Leicester, Saracens and Bath, the welfare of their Rugby Championship players has been entirely disregarded in a way which is at odds with the spirit of the Regulation. Wasps, though they have tried to protect their player’s welfare, have also acted outside of the rules.

The Preamble to Regulation 9 outlines its importance. Releasing players for international matches benefits everyone – the players “fulfil their aspirations” and:

“it improves the quality and experience of Players, increases their value and enhances commercial returns in respect of merchandising, broadcast, sponsorship and gates thereby contributing to the interests of the Rugby Body or Club that Player represents”

It is in the interests of the sport as a whole that this Regulation is respected. As such, this author argues that Leicester, Bath and Wasps should all be sanctioned in some way. Bath and Northampton have previously been fined £60,000 for allowing their players to play for Wales outside of the November international window. A similar, financial sanction would be appropriate here. The South African Rugby Union could also be sanctioned itself, for entering into agreements with Wasps and Bath.

The reality is that there will likely be no sanctions. But this would be deeply unsatisfactory: these teams are potentially gaining an advantage over those like Gloucester and Sale who are respecting Regulation 9, by recalling their star players as they see fit.

That said, some might say the advantage gained is minimal. Each of the players recalled this weekend either lost or got injured. This statistic perhaps goes some way to illustrating the very point being made: the players will be well below their best when they are put through such an ordeal. World Rugby, and the RFU, must take action.