Aussie Player Exodus

[Adam84]

I think 5 years is better than 3 but the whole thing is just a reflection of migration being a part of life where people relocate for opportunities and sport is no different.

It seems to me like most people have issues with the residency rule where migration is viewed as non-traditional or to more monoethnic countries.

My issue is when that migration occurs specifically so that individual can then become eligible for the national team, or when it involves recruiting minors/school kids and taking them away from their homes and family. I have concerns about the level of recruiting Japan is doing at the schoolboy level in the pacific islands, and the impact that is having if it carries on unregulated. FIFA have rules on that kind of recruiting, and i think soon World Rugby may need to consider similar.

 

[Braveheart81]

My issue is when that migration occurs specifically so that individual can then become eligible for the national team, or when it involves recruiting minors/school kids and taking them away from their homes and family. I have concerns about the level of recruiting Japan is doing at the schoolboy level in the pacific islands, and the impact that is having if it carries on unregulated. FIFA have rules on that kind of recruiting, and i think soon World Rugby may need to consider similar.

This is the downside with extending out the residency requirement.

It brings forward recruitment and makes it more necessary to target players at a younger age.

I don't think it's that easy to differentiate between a player moving for pro rugby and then staying on long enough that qualifying becomes a reality vs recruiting someone at a national level to play for 5 years so they become qualified (like Scotland has done).

Schoolboy recruiting is a big issue but one that is hard to resolve. It's hard to balance the opportunity it offers the player to get a good education (and later a professional career) etc. versus considering whether the player is being exploited. Maybe World Rugby's position needs to neither a national body nor a club can have a contract with a foreign child under the age or 16 or 17?

It's a catch-22 being that the biggest thing that holds back the international competitiveness of PI rugby is the same thing that allows PI players to change the lives of themselves and their families through a lucrative professional career.

 

[Bandar]

My main issue (other than child exploitation) are players who have no ties to a country and will leave as soon as they retire. Ricky Flutey lived in England for about 5 years, CJ Stander is the latest - moving 'home' to South Africa.

It's hard knowing where to draw the line because genuine migration is such a big thing these days.

 

[Braveheart81]

My main issue (other than child exploitation) are players who have no ties to a country and will leave as soon as they retire. Ricky Flutey lived in England for about 5 years, CJ Stander is the latest - moving 'home' to South Africa.

It's hard knowing where to draw the line because genuine migration is such a big thing these days.

I don't see how you can possibly prevent that.

 

[Adam84]

This is the downside with extending out the residency requirement.

It brings forward recruitment and makes it more necessary to target players at a younger age.

I don't think it's that easy to differentiate between a player moving for pro rugby and then staying on long enough that qualifying becomes a reality vs recruiting someone at a national level to play for 5 years so they become qualified (like Scotland has done).

Schoolboy recruiting is a big issue but one that is hard to resolve. It's hard to balance the opportunity it offers the player to get a good education (and later a professional career) etc. versus considering whether the player is being exploited. Maybe World Rugby's position needs to neither a national body nor a club can have a contract with a foreign child under the age or 16 or 17?

It's a catch-22 being that the biggest thing that holds back the international competitiveness of PI rugby is the same thing that allows PI players to change the lives of themselves and their families through a lucrative professional career.

I don’t necessarily buy into the narrative about “opportunity it offers the player to get a good education”, there may be situations where thats the case, but there’s plenty where they’ve been recruited purely for their footballing talent and wont leave with a good eduction.

Just have a listen to the podcast and Taniela Tupou speaks about his scholarship to New Zealand and he would just sit in the back of the classroom, not speaking English and having no idea what was going on, and then going to the toilets and crying at lunch. He might have finished school, but did he really get a good education? He admits he never really worked on learning English until coming to Australia because at school he had other Tongan kids to hang out with.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

I think Riley etc have already closed door to return to Aus by declaring for Japan.

Declaring doesn't mean anything. It doesn't count until you get capped.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Who am I to prevent a person from Melanesia, Micronesia or Polynesia migrating to another country for opportunities to improve their families lives? In Fiji, international remittance from labour is only second to tourism. That shows how huge this is.

We need to create opportunities so players in their "prime" stick with the second tier nations. Opportunities like Super Rugby, Super Rugby squad development opportunities, profit share on test matches, firm agreements on test match schedules, agreements with nations to tour etc.

People also need to move away from the black or white view. People can identify with more than one place. Personally, I'm born and raised in NSW but moved to QLD for uni. I stayed for work and now am a Reds member. I'm a bigger tahs fan but I support the Reds every other week. I guess you could say I identify as both a Waratahs fan and a Reds fan.

 

[Adam84]

I don’t think anyone is against players having the opportunity to migrate to another country for opportunities. Players can still play professionally without trading the country they represent. There is certainly a grey zone about when a player should be allowed to switch allegiances though, just hard to nail down what that is.

I also want to ensure children and minors protected in the process as the recruitment of talented players creeps into the younger age bracket.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

I don’t think anyone is against players having the opportunity to migrate to another country for opportunities. Players can still play professionally without trading the country they represent.

But that is not quite true. You are limited. Would have RA forked out top dollar for Marika Koroibete or Filipo Daugunu? Of course not.

I also want to ensure children and minors protected in the process as the recruitment of talented players creeps into the younger age bracket.

Agree whole heartedly.

 

[Braveheart81]

But that is not quite true. You are limited. Would have RA forked out top dollar for Marika Koroibete or Filipo Daugunu? Of course not.

Absolutely. While there is big money in the international game, the lure of representing a tier 1 nation will always be valuable.

Qualifying for a new country through residency generally comes with a significant financial reward.

 

[Adam84]

But that is not quite true. You are limited. Would have RA forked out top dollar for Marika Koroibete or Filipo Daugunu? Of course not.
.

This isn’t stopping them from migrating to other countries for opportunities though, and doesn’t limit their earning capacity internationally. Potentially it limits their earning capacity in specific countries, but in Marikas case he will earn more by moving overseas away from his country of test eligibility.

 

[Dan54]

Yep but bottom line we keep only talking about PI countires it seems. Does anyone think Genia shouldn't of played for Wallabies? I had mate who moved to NZ at 2years old from England and had never been bac and still hasn't at 68 years, but noone will ever convince him if he had been good enough he would of played foranyone but NZ.
And before anyone says well if they were bought up there it different, it's not, his family chose to live in NZ for lifestyle etc same as a rugby player might also chose to live inAus /NZ etc etc for lifestyle, and earning ability is also part of that lifestyle choice.

 

[Rebel man]

Yep but bottom line we keep only talking about PI countires it seems. Does anyone think Genia shouldn't of played for Wallabies? I had mate who moved to NZ at 2years old from England and had never been bac and still hasn't at 68 years, but noone will ever convince him if he had been good enough he would of played foranyone but NZ.
And before anyone says well if they were bought up there it different, it's not, his family chose to live in NZ for lifestyle etc same as a rugby player might also chose to live inAus /NZ etc etc for lifestyle, and earning ability is also part of that lifestyle choice.

It is different Genia lived most of his life here and was born to an Aussie mum and PNG farther. People have an issue when nations start recruiting.

It’s like cricket people had a problem with Pietersen and Archer and not Labuschange because Labuschange’s family moved him out here for a better life despite not being born here he progressed through the Australian development pathways. Where as Pietersen and Archer were developed by foreign nations and recruited by England to play cricket. That’s what annoys people the recruiting aspect

 

[Derpus]

Rebel Man is right. International rugby is still tied to a sense of nationalism (obviously) and so it grates when someone is poached for the single purpose of playing test match rugby for a nation they very clearly don't have any real ties to. In a sense it dilutes the purpose of test match rugby. If you can just represent whoever, how does it differ from the club game?

On the other hand, the rules permit it within certain parameters so it's hard to get too irritated by players and nations taking advantage of those rules to their mutual benefit. As BH points out, migration is a huge part of life in our globalised world and people will move to places where opportunity beckons. Plus, there is no clear line between what is a sufficient connection to a country to represent it and what is not.

I think contracting with children is questionable ethically even where those kids aren't moving nations. See the whole Suaalli debacle. I think poaching children before they've left school or are mature enough to make those kinds of decisions is clearly an abuse of the system and should be legislated against.

 

[Braveheart81]

It is different Genia lived most of his life here and was born to an Aussie mum and PNG farther. People have an issue when nations start recruiting.

It’s like cricket people had a problem with Pietersen and Archer and not Labuschange because Labuschange’s family moved him out here for a better life despite not being born here he progressed through the Australian development pathways. Where as Pietersen and Archer were developed by foreign nations and recruited by England to play cricket. That’s what annoys people the recruiting aspect

Pieterson's mother was born in the UK so under rugby's rules would have been eligible for England immediately.

Archer's father was also born in the UK so he too would have been eligible immediately in rugby.

The ICC has a residency requirement for eligibility which is three years (previously four) but they don't have the parent/grandparent rule rugby has.

Cricket also allows switching allegiances far more easily.

 

[Braveheart81]

On the other hand, the rules permit it within certain parameters so it's hard to get too irritated by players and nations taking advantage of those rules to their mutual benefit. As BH points out, migration is a huge part of life in our globalised world and people will move to places where opportunity beckons. Plus, there is no clear line between what is a sufficient connection to a country to represent it and what is not.

This is the crux of it. I don't think you can ever create a concrete set of rules that resolves something that is entirely subjective.

 

[Rebel man]

Pieterson's mother was born in the UK so under rugby's rules would have been eligible for England immediately.

Archer's father was also born in the UK so he too would have been eligible immediately in rugby.

The ICC has a residency requirement for eligibility which is three years (previously four) but they don't have the parent/grandparent rule rugby has.

Cricket also allows switching allegiances far more easily.

Mate KP has no ties to England he was supporting the Springboks in the World Cup over England. It’s just like they tried to recruit Steve Smith when he left school as he had an English grandparent

 

[Rebel man]

Rebel Man is right. International rugby is still tied to a sense of nationalism (obviously) and so it grates when someone is poached for the single purpose of playing test match rugby for a nation they very clearly don't have any real ties to. In a sense it dilutes the purpose of test match rugby. If you can just represent whoever, how does it differ from the club game?

On the other hand, the rules permit it within certain parameters so it's hard to get too irritated by players and nations taking advantage of those rules to their mutual benefit. As BH points out, migration is a huge part of life in our globalised world and people will move to places where opportunity beckons. Plus, there is no clear line between what is a sufficient connection to a country to represent it and what is not.

I think contracting with children is questionable ethically even where those kids aren't moving nations. See the whole Suaalli debacle. I think poaching children before they've left school or are mature enough to make those kinds of decisions is clearly an abuse of the system and should be legislated against.

Look I agree fully with this

 

[Braveheart81]

Mate KP has no ties to England he was supporting the Springboks in the World Cup over England. It’s just like they tried to recruit Steve Smith when he left school as he had an English grandparent

Sure but all I was saying is under rugby's rules he could have turned up and been selected for England on day one because he already qualified.

Also, he was recruited to England to play county cricket by Clive Rice, the South African running Nottinghamshire. I don't believe there was any involvement by the ECB in the recruitment.

Pietersen absolutely moved to the UK for opportunity.

As I said above, it's impossible to create rules around subjective matters such as emotional ties.

 

[Rebel man]

Sure but all I was saying is under rugby's rules he could have turned up and been selected for England on day one because he already qualified.

Also, he was recruited to England to play county cricket by Clive Rice, the South African running Nottinghamshire. I don't believe there was any involvement by the ECB in the recruitment.

Pietersen absolutely moved to the UK for opportunity.

As I said above, it's impossible to create rules around subjective matters such as emotional ties.

He was recruited to play county cricket as a path into the test side. It is a clear issue and it is something that angers fans. I get there will always be loopholes. But it does devalue representing your nation. The ECB changed their requirements for Archer to qualify for the World Cup and Ashes