By Shannon Fraser
May 5th 2009 @ 12:39am
Related coverage
Australian rugby can better manage the player drain
South Africa's Schalk Brits, right, under siege from Rocky Elsom, left, and Luke Burgess during Rugby Test against Australia at Subiaco Oval in Perth, Australia, Saturday July 19, 2008. AP Photo
According to dictionary.com, the term ‘sabbatical’ means “any extended period of leave from one’s customary work, especially for rest, to acquire new skills or training”. It would seem that the concept of a rugby sabbatical has become more alluring in the modern era of professional rugby.
Whether the appeal is for players to broaden their lifestyle experiences, escaping the public pressure, to perform or simply the lure of the Euro, Pound or Yen, it’s present and it must be addressed.
The notion of playing overseas is not foreign to the Australian rugby fraternity as players have been taking this path for many years. However, it has in the past been more associated with finishing off careers as opposed to building or prolonging them.
Some might say, a superannuation payout.
Wallaby Rocky Elsom has recently taken a break from Super 14 to experience Northern Hemisphere rugby at Irish club Leinster, while French Top 14 club Perpignan secured the services of All Black Fly-half Daniel Carter on a six month contract. Springboks lock Victor Matfield also spent time at Toulon on the Mediterranean between international seasons/
It’s fair to say that these are three of the games’ heavyweights in their respective countries.
Leading unions are under pressure to allow their players to play overseas in foreign competitions and still remain eligible for national representation. The South African Rugby Union have provided this option for their players; whilst the Australian and New Zealand Rugby Unions have condoned the choice to play overseas between internationals in fear it will erode their provincial and domestic competitions.
Or have they?
The ARU have shown in the past that they are serious about maintaining the strict eligibility laws of only selecting Australian-based players for the national team. In November 2008, Wallaby superstar, Matt Giteau, was tempted by opportunities in France, bringing to an end his Super 14 involvement.
The ARU held tough on their policy at the risk of losing the one of the game’s most influential players.
But that was then, and this is now.
Rocky Elsom could become a test case for the ARU to relax the rules should they allow him to remain in Ireland and be eligible for the Wallabies.
The New Zealand Rugby Union have also recently become more ‘flexible’ with their interpretation of their own ruling by allowing Luke McAlister to side-step the criteria that overseas-based players must play a full Super 14 or NPC season before being considered for national selection.
Are the flood gates about to open?
Should the Australian and New Zealand Rugby Unions unconditionally relax the law surrounding rugby sabbaticals, I think we might witness an even more considerable exit from Super 14 into Japan and European competitions.
An opportunity to potentially increase net salary, experience living in another culture and taking on a new challenge, while still be eligible to represent your country? Sounds appealing.
This could be setting a dangerous precedent.
Should not our Test players be giving back to the nation they so proudly represent by contributing to the development of the provincial and domestic competitions and the next generation of players?
There are, of course, international exceptions to the rule.
Take nations such as the Pacific Islands of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa, as well as Argentina, who need their stars playing off-shore to improve the strength of the national teams. The infrastructure for high standard competitions is absent in those countries, so players are directed overseas for opportunity and development.
As a result of the current restrictions placed on those wishing to ply their trade overseas, rugby sabbaticals in Australia are more associated with players finding the lure of playing overseas so strong that they forego the opportunity to represent or continue representing at the international level.
Former Waratah and Wallaby lock Dan Vickerman recently left Australia to pursue studies in England, while in-form Brumbies fullback Mark Gerrard has recently signed in Tokyo with NTT Communications for 2009.
Our recent past has also seen players like Joe Roff, Sam Cordingley and Scott Staniforth all put international duty on hold while they took a sabbatical into Northern Hemisphere rugby, only to return to the Wallaby playing ranks some years later.
Are rugby sabbaticals an unavoidable evil?
I believe this situation could be appeased should the games’ administrators implement strict conditions on those wishing to take a sabbatical.
This is not to simply allow all who express the desire the right to leave, but more to relax the policy for those who have already substantially “given back to the nation they so proudly represent”. For example, those who have accumulated sixty Test appearances or more could be eligible to apply for a six month sabbatical leave between international seasons.
The appropriate conditions for such sabbaticals may be best arranged so that the time overseas becomes part of the ensuing contract.
The players heading overseas, therefore, are legally bound to return to their provinces and clubs at the conclusion of their overseas commitments. This ensures that they are not lost to the provinces or national team whilst bringing back their experience to further develop and enhance Australian rugby.
We would all love to return to the days when every player solely wanted to for his country for as long as possible.
However, the market forces have changed the rugby landscape and, for better or worse, a system of controlled and conditional sabbaticals may the best way for Australia to maintain a position a rugby super power as well as rewarding players with the opportunities that come with playing foreign rugby.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(14)
Brett McKay said | May 5th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Shannon, I don’t know that the flood gates are about to open, for Australia and New Zealand specifically, but we may see a policy change that allows players to remain eligible for national selection as long as they play Super rugby or the muted Trans-Tasman alternate competition.
In fact I think if the TT comp becomes reality, the policy change will be pretty much a given, which would allow a fifth Aust team – let’s say Melbourne – to recruit NZ and PI players. Likewise, someone like Daniel Halangahu (who I know has just re-signed with NSW) may feel that he’ll get a better go playing 10 for a NZ team than he would being chopped and changed from bench to starting team for NSW.
And also, if someone is returning from the NH, I don’t have too much problem with them slotting straight back into the national team, should their form warrant selection (as may well be the case for McAlister and Elsom).
peeves said | May 5th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
I think it would make sense to have a rule that NH playing Aussies can only earn test selection in a world cup year.
This would mean that the Wallabies would not be weakened, but the fact that the S14 or TT (if it eventuates) would be a much easier avenue to earn test selection would make sure we retain good players.
I people are going to go north we may as well not weaken our national team, specially during a world cup year. If Gregan or Larkham are still playing in 2 years time and we have a serious deficit in their positions, why not call them back as cover? Just an example.
It is just logical and in time it may even help us to world cup victory.
Hoy said | May 5th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Staniforth went overseas because he was overlooked at the Tah’s. Not for a sabbatical.
Who Needs Melon said | May 5th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Shannon,
Lovely article about a very tricky and delicate situation.
I like your suggestions too… perhaps with some caveats.
“Those who have accumulated sixty Test appearances or more could be eligible to apply for a six month sabbatical leave between international seasons”. I agree with but think the numbers should be tweaked – i.e. you earn 6 months sabbatical after, say, 30 appearances and a year after 60 or something like that. There have been suggestions that Australian selectors have selected people in the past to ‘lock them in’ to playing for Australia. Could there be a chance that the quota games system would be abused so that selectors keep players ‘on ice’? You’d think the chance of this would be small.
Hoy,
Not sure what the point of your comment is. Staniforth could probably have got a gig at a different Australian Super team – perhaps on a lesser contract. Like everyone else he played overseas because, for him, the incentives to do so were higher than the incentives to stay. I think the point of Shannons article is to imagine if he had been offered a contract with Qld when the Tahs “overlooked” him that said that, after playing for us for a year, you can play overseas for a year but then you’d have to play for us again (AND still be eligible for the Wallabies perhaps?) that might have been a great incentive and we would have seen more of Staniforth in Australia. I think an arrangement such as that might have been good for EVERYBODY.
Doger said | May 5th 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Shannon, the cornerstone of your article seems to be that these players somehow owe us something.
“Should not our Test players be giving back to the nation they so proudly represent by contributing to the development of the provincial and domestic competitions and the next generation of players?”
No, they owe us nothing. It’s the administrators and coaches whose life span is much longer than a player, that may, if you believe in the Collective, owe something back to the game.
sheek said | May 5th 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
If the ARU relented on their policy of only Australian-domiciled players being selected for the Wallabies, then we would end up like the Socceroos – with most of our leading 30-40 players overseas.
This is a brutal truth. For whatever reasons, mostly because of greater population & financial resources, the big money is obviously in the UK & France.
The ARU is obliged to produce a meaningful domestic comp in Australia, but that’s another story. The Saffies have successfully brought players back from Europe for the Boks. However, I think it is easier to return players to SA from Europe, than it is to return them to Australia or NZ.
I can accept some relaxation on this rule (Australian-domiciled players for selection) for long-serving players. But whether the benchmark is 60 tests, or some other criteria, I don’t know.
Also, whether players ought to be granted a mid-career ’sabbatical’, is another factor that requires some further thought. Joe Roff for example, took off the 2002 season to play in France, before returning to the Wallabies in 2003 with mixed success.
How did Australian rugby reach this mess? Well, it’s not a total mess yet, but it’s going to require some courageous & wise decisions to take rugby union out of the wilderness it has/is falling into.
Ruckingisfun said | May 5th 2009 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
Key considerations surely must be:
1) Players have relatively short playing careers
2) Security in your career is a big issue
3) There are so many test matches being played now – and players being rotated – that a large part of treasuring the jersey is diminished (not gone – only diminished)
4) From reports the ARU contracts seemed to be loaded up with match payments – so if you don’t get picked there is a hefty chunk of your earnings gone – not too secure
5) unlike NZ and SA – there is no domestic national competition in place to help subsidise payments to the professionals – or give a small wage to up and comers
With all of this its reasonable to assume you are going to lose quite a few players – is that so bad – it works for brazil and Argentina in the soccer world
Doger said | May 5th 2009 @ 8:08pm | Report comment
Sheek, I don’t believe that we would loose 30 to 40 players to the NH. Apart from the fact that there are not that number of places available the money in the most part is on par with what can be had here.
And allowing for the free movement of players (labour) would bring rugby into line with any other type of career.
The ARU decided to open up one of its top jobs to the international market, in line with every other corporation in Australia, but it feels the need to coral its cattle.
I think it’s more just a case of keeping everyone held by the short and curlys.
pothale said | May 5th 2009 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
“For whatever reasons, mostly because of greater population & financial resources, the big money is obviously in the UK & France.” – Sheek.
I think Ireland is now on a par with the UK, Sheek, in terms of financial power, and of playing opportunities – Munster and Leinster are two of the top teams in Europe. Ulster apparently had a substantial offer for Halanghahu turned down – but I suspect this wasn’t just about money. Matt Williams isn’t a great draw as a coach, never mind the playing squad potential. However, there are, of course, more English premiership teams in the market.
Munster will be letting go somewhere between 9-11 players at the end of this season. They’ll be on the hunt during the off-season – Jean de Villiers is one of their targets, for example. And they have the bucks and pedigree available to get him.
France have the biggest amounts of money – witness the current flow of players from Ireland clubs and the UK to France for next season, with bigger financial payouts available. How long this lasts is another question. The French (FFRU) have stated publicly the need for rules to change and that limits should be brought in on the number of foreign players.
It’s interesting, nevertheless, that the French clubs have gone after English players in particular this season, despite their availability restrictions due to commitments to be available for the England team – something that SA, NZ and Aus players would not have to do.
True Tah said | May 5th 2009 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
I think the flow of Aussies to Europe is overstated – lets face it, French clubs will consider two things: reputation and cost.
Reputation – NZers and South Africans are going to be a lot more sought after than Australians.
Cost – Aussies are likely to ask for high prices, when Islanders/Georgians/Argentines are a hell of a lot cheaper.
James Mortimer said | May 5th 2009 @ 11:49pm | Report comment
I think the term sabbatical has to be taken with a grain of salt.
The reality is, that if players with years ahead of them have an option of moving overseas, why would they not. A test quality player could stand to make as close to a million dollars for a few years work, and if they can come back to play for their country – all power to them.
In the case of New Zealand’s players, McAlister was always going to be a slightly different case, based on the standing in which he was held before he left, and on the fact that 10 and 12 are two of the weaker positions in their game.
He still needs to go through “a phase”, but I think it is overall good business by the NZRU.
After all, is not McAlister going to be a better player with exposure to a coach like Saint-Andre?
But there will still be merits. If McAlister doesn’t perform for the Baa’s-baa’s and Junior AB’s (his stipulation before earning test colours again) Henry is no chump, and won’t select him.
If anything, it will put pleasent pressure on someone like Nonu, who may have relaxed and thought the All Black number 12 is his.
I personally think it would be a travesty if the All Blacks selected from outside NEw Zealand ranks.
There was another article to this point on another good rugby site a while ago:
http://www.heavensgame.com/global-news/mike-rogers/player-drain-or-leaky-tap.html
But, beyond the topic at hand, I think that we have seen the worst of it. The NZRU has signed most key all blacks till 2011 and beyond, and French clubs will have tighter restrictions on their “foreign quota”. Add to this the financial crisis, and I don’t think we will see money bandied around like that again for a while.
More to the point, if the South African domestic teams are playing in the north anyway soon……. (sorry, I’m stirring)
Knives Out said | May 6th 2009 @ 12:28am | Report comment
‘After all, is not McAlister going to be a better player with exposure to a coach like Saint-Andre?’
In short, no. PSA has been borderline disastrous over the past few years. I do believe in the cross-fertilisation of coaching, nonetheless.
Knives Out said | May 6th 2009 @ 12:29am | Report comment
.. What I mean is exposure to new coaching – not cross-fertilisation, although I do believe in that between rugby organisations.
adam said | August 22nd 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
why all the photos of schalk brits