Pacific Rugby Players Welfare (PRPW) has announced its intention to petition World Rugby for drastic changes to its international eligibility rules. The desired amendment would allow players who have already represented a ‘Tier 1’ nation, such as New Zealand, to switch allegiance and represent a ‘Tier 2’ nation, like as Samoa, Tonga, or Fiji.
Until 2000, players with dual nationality were able to switch unions freely, and there was an array of All Blacks who later went on to play for Samoa. However, under the current rules – World Rugby Regulation 8 – players are only eligible to represent one nation throughout their careers, aside from a narrow exception relating to Olympic Sevens. But now, several high-profile international stars, including All Blacks Charles Piutau and Ma’a Nonu, want to represent the nations of their Pacific Island ancestors (Tonga and Samoa).
The concern now, as it always has been, is that the Pacific Islands are losing their strongest talent to richer unions such as New Zealand, England and France, which is limiting the success of their national teams. The ‘player drain’ is a real problem which, as this author argues, will not be solved by flying in in some big names who are no longer being picked by their first-choice nation. What’s more, it would damage the integrity of international rugby and create more problems than the current rules already do.
This is not the first time such a petition has been made, however. In 2010, the Pacific Islands made the same request to the International Rugby Board (now World Rugby) but were turned down. Many of the reasons for this refusal, as will be explained, remain valid today and, to this author, it appears unlikely that the request will be successful second time around.
Why the petition should be rejected
The Essence of International Rugby
International rugby, and international sport in general, is special. Representing one’s country is the pinnacle of most rugby careers. This is because it is unique; because it brings huge national pride; because it is something you have dreamed of since you were a kid. If international rugby is to retain its special status, it must retain its unique character. In fact, this is reflected by the World Rugby Regulation 8 Explanatory Guidelines, which state that players must have a:
“genuine, close, credible and established national link with the country of the Union for which they have been selected. Such a national link is essential to maintain the unique characteristics and culture of elite international sporting competition between Unions.”
As Dzankic has explained, the principle of ‘genuine ties’ means that:
“a sportsperson needs to prove they are ‘more closely connected with the population of the State conferring nationality than that of any other State’”
By allowing players to represent multiple nations, World Rugby would be devaluing international caps, and the international game as a whole, bringing it closer to the club game and further away from the nationalistic endeavour it always has been.
Many sports, including soccer and Davis Cup tennis do not allow players to switch allegiance at all once they have played a competitive international match. The logic is not difficult to understand: if you are that passionate about representing your country, why would you ever give up on that dream to play for another? There are plenty of star players who don’t – Fiji’s Joshua Tuisova, Nemani Nadolo, or Leone Nakarawa, for example. Of course, there are many individuals who have dual nationality, but there is something special about sacrificing yourself to represent just one nation. It marks your dedication and passion; qualities which enrich and give meaning to international sport.
“If international rugby is to retain its integrity and its value, then the traditional, restrictive model of eligibility must be upheld.”
Definition Difficulties
Aside from the ideological affront the law change would pose, arguably the greatest difficulties would come in trying to define what that new law would be.
Presumably, the basic eligibility requirements would remain. A player would be eligible for the country of their birth, the country of their parents/grandparents’ birth, and countries for which they have fulfilled the residency criteria. But what next?
As suggested by PRPW, there would need to be a ‘stand-down’ period – a period of time which must have elapsed between the player’s last Tier 1 cap and their first Tier 2 cap. PRPW have highlighted Rugby League’s eligibility system, which allows players to represent both a Tier 1 and a Tier 2/3 nation. In that case, players can move freely between the two, provided they give three weeks’ notice. The RLIF’s rules, however, also allow players to switch between Tier 2/3 nations, provided they only change once in a four-year period.
In other sports, such as handball, where rules exist to enable players to switch international allegiance, the ‘stand-down’ period tends to be three years. This is in accordance with the Olympic Charter (bye-law to Rule 41).
For this author, however, three years is insufficient. A three-year lay-off allows athletes to change countries between consecutive Olympic Games or, in rugby’s case, World Cups. Three years would also be less than the length of time required by World Rugby Regulation 8 to gain eligibility on residency grounds (5 years from 2020). This would be deeply unsatisfactory.
Once that was settled, the next question would be whether players could only move down from Tier 1 to Tier 2, or whether the switch could also work the other way, allowing those who have represented Tier 2 nations to step up to Tier 1. If players are only able to move down the Tiers, as suggested by PRPW, the problems would be threefold.
Firstly, creating a law which sets out who the Tier 2 nations are would be fraught with difficulty. For many years the Tier 1/2 terminology has been thrown about with little clarity over who falls into each category. Its most recent use by World Rugby sets out the ten Six Nations and Rugby Championship teams as being Tier 1, and the remaining ten teams from the 2015 World Cup as Tier 2. The remaining ‘high performance unions’ are classed as ‘Emerging Unions’, selected for their potential to qualify for the 2019 and 2023 World Cups. These are: Brazil, Portugal, Spain, Germany and Russia. This model appears to be based on the wealth of the unions, with World Rugby investing directly into each of these 25 nations.
But would the proposed law change be limited to this Tier 1/2 classification? What about the ‘Emerging Unions’? What about the unions below them? What about the fact that Italy – a Tier 1 nation for the purposes of investment – sit below Fiji, Japan, Tonga and Georgia in the world rankings? If this law change is about improving results, then there needs to be a change in the Tier system. However, if – as this author argues – it is about the wealth inequality of the unions, then the problem will best be solved through financial support and administrative assistance.
Secondly, if the Tier 2 unions were to be fixed for the purposes of this law, World Rugby would merely be entrenching the problem; reinforcing their status as secondary members of the international game. And if the categories were variable, then what would the criteria be for moving through the tiers?
Lastly, if players can only move down the tiers, there could be issues of discrimination under labour laws, particularly in the EU. Players from poorer unions could argue that they would be worse off as they would be unable to switch to richer unions. This was a point raised by the IRB back in 2010 and, though there is relatively broad scope for differential treatment being justified as necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate aim, it would at best be another hurdle for World Rugby to jump over and, at worst, a significant stumbling block.
On the other hand, if Tier 2 players could become Tier 1 players, there is certainly an argument that ‘poaching’ would become worse than it already is. At present, richer unions are enticing players overseas, with the promise that they will one day earn international honours. Of course, once players have been capped by a union, they are off limits. If the rules were changed, caps would suddenly be no bar to poaching. As a result, money would become the controlling factor even more than it already is. Indeed, such exploitation has been seen in handball when World Championship hosts Qatar unexpectedly reached the final with only four Qatari-born players in their team.
Furthermore, could players change nation more than once? Could players change between Tier 1 teams? Or between Tier 2 teams? There would be many big questions to resolve, plenty of which have no clear answer.
An Unsustainable Solution
Above all other reasons, however, the petition is inappropriate as a way of solving the problems which face Tier 2 nations – particularly those in the Pacific Islands. It is a short-term, unsustainable move which would be largely circular. For example, if the law change was made so that Tier 1 pacific islanders could be picked for Tier 2 nations, the following would be entirely foreseeable.
Many islanders, or those with islander heritage, would set out to make it as an All Black or Wallaby safe in the knowledge that they could one day turn out for their home nation, even if they had earned some caps then fallen out of favour. In the meantime, the game in their home countries would not be developing properly: for many, it wouldn’t be the priority. Bringing in superstars – like Charles Piutau – who have served their ‘stand-down’ time might make an instant impact on the pitch, but someone would have to make way – perhaps someone who has spent all their career coming through the Tongan development pathway.
That is not the way to build a sustainable player base. In order to really build up pacific rugby, serious investment is needed, with planning from the ground up, rather than the top down. A Super Rugby team in the pacific would be a great place to start.
The notion of players returning to play for what is essentially their second-choice union sits very uncomfortably and reflects an arguably selfish attitude. It would be a short-term fix to what is a long-term problem.
“It would be a regulatory nightmare which would cause disruption throughout the game.”
Unintended Consequences
Although the biggest concerns will be over how such a move could adversely affect the Tier 2 nations in the long-term, there could also be unintended consequences elsewhere.
One such issue could be that of central contracting. With players able to change allegiance, unions would try to tie players down with central contracts. In England, where such a move has been strongly resisted by Premiership clubs, there would be no end to the upheaval it would cause. At the same time, of course, there would be the question of whether such contracts would be effective, or whether World Rugby Regulations would take precedence. It would be a regulatory nightmare which would cause disruption throughout the game.
The Olympic Sevens Loophole
By virtue of Sevens becoming an Olympic sport at Rio 2016, and therefore having to comply with the Olympic Charter on eligibility, a loophole was created allowing players to switch allegiance.
If a player has been captured by one union under World Rugby Regulation 8.2 but hasn’t represented them for three years and is a national of another country, they may change their affiliation to that other country by playing for them in at least half of the Olympic qualifying events (World Rugby Regulation 8.6-8.16).
Tim Nanai-Williams did this in order to represent Samoa at the 2015 World Cup, having previously played for New Zealand Sevens, while Cooper Vuna now represents Tonga, having played two XVs tests for Australia.
As Sevens becomes increasingly specialised, it is likely that this loophole will become less and less significant but, for someone like Charles Piutau (who was part of the New Zealand team that won the 2011/12 Sevens World Series), it remains an option. With three years now having elapsed since his last New Zealand cap, he will be able to use the Tokyo 2020 Sevens qualification tournaments to make his switch to Tonga. That is, if he has given up on his All Blacks ambitions altogether – it was only in March 2016 that he stated:
“I’ll see how I feel at the end of my Ulster contract, but the plan is to go back to New Zealand and have another crack at the All Blacks”
Conclusion
It is easy to empathise with the PRPW players. There are many who feel a ‘genuine tie’ to the countries of their ancestors, and they only want these nations to thrive in the game they love. Indeed, as the above demonstrates, the concept of dual nationality does not fit well with the traditional model of international sport.
And yet, that is what makes it so special: you play for the one nation that means most to you. The fact is that, if international rugby is to retain its integrity and its value, then the traditional, restrictive model of eligibility must be upheld.
It is a model which has, for decades, worked for rugby nations like Argentina, Uruguay and Georgia, who have always been able to retain their best players and select those only with the most genuine of ties to their country. Perhaps the Pacific Islands are disproportionately affected because their citizens are such natural born rugby players, but it is not an issue seen world over.
In any event, the real problem is the ‘player drain’, not the rigid eligibility rules. Any change to World Rugby’s regulations should be aimed at stopping the former, long before it considers the latter. The inequalities of wealth within international rugby union are a long-term problem which need more than just a short-term fix.