- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
However unlikely it might be, the prospect of Australian-born Blair Connor popping up in the French national team highlights a key flaw in the ARU’s new player sabbatical scheme.
It might secure the continued commitment of the biggest names – or at least only their short-term absence from Australia – but what will its effect be on the rest?
Based on the current chatter among players, and the flush of activity among agents scrambling to get their guys contracts overseas before competition from all of the big names seeking post-Rugby World Cup departures kicks in, sabbaticals aren’t going to help.
If anything, they are going to increase the exodus of players I call ‘middle management’, while some of the bigger names are still planning to leave anyway, based on the lists of available players being circulated by the agencies among European clubs at the moment.
With the minimum wage in the Top 14 currently sitting at €120,000 a season, is it any wonder that there is a rush on now to grab post-World Cup contracts?
Inevitably, when the argument around sabbaticals has been raised, advocates have pointed to the precedent set in New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, South Africa.
The comparisons are not valid.
Both countries have a level of playing depth, and competition for places, far in excess of what we have.
SA Rugby has not shelled out ridiculous money to prevent its top players going offshore. It knows the country has the depth to cover these losses internally, both at Super Rugby and Currie Cup level. By not resisting the desire of the top players to grab the inflated wages offshore, the South Africans have bowed to the reality that these guys were going to go anyway.
At least, by allowing dispensations, the players are not lost to the Springboks (if needed), while the playing standards domestically remain relatively strong due to their depth. The departure of the big names provides the opportunity for the next tier to step up and take over the provincial leadership reins.
So the formula is working for South Africa.
New Zealand also bowed to reality, but in a slightly different way.
Like South Africa, the Kiwis have the depth to compensate for offshore departures. Unlike South Africa, they have a geographical advantage with relation to the club game in Europe.
It’s not as easy – nor as attractive – for players to return to New Zealand regularly to play Tests from European bases as it is for their South African counterparts.
New Zealand also calculated, correctly one suspects, that the privilege the All Black jersey carries for young Kiwis would still hold most players in the country until the prospects of making it (or continuing to wear it) were all but extinguished.
Hence they won’t pick overseas-based players as a rule, although they did bend that slightly when Sonny Bill Williams was in Japan a couple of years back and they ‘borrowed’ him for the Bledisloe.
Yes, New Zealand has created sabbaticals, but these remain rare; and have almost exclusively been the domain of long-serving stars, to reduce the threat of these players being hit with the opportunity they simply couldn’t refuse.
Dan Carter was first.
He was in his prime. Losing him long-term would have been a disaster, so they took a pragmatic approach, which was smart given Carter was the best player in the world.
Carter couldn’t be picked from overseas but was allowed to play in France for six months. He used his second sabbatical, this year, to have his first proper pre-season in nearly a decade.
Others to have the leave are Richie McCaw, who used his to go travelling, Ali Williams, who later left once he’d reached his use-by date, Ma’a Nonu, and more recently Conrad Smith.
I’ve no doubt the ARU ‘model’ has been predicated on the Kiwi one.
One fact it doesn’t appear to take into account though, is that sabbaticals have not been the panacea for the problem of Kiwi players going overseas.
Look around the clubs in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France or Japan and there are Kiwis everywhere.
Some go when they’ve run their race in New Zealand, others because they feel the All Black door is closed, or because they are Pacific Islands internationals anyway – so the lure of the All Black jersey doesn’t apply.
The allowance of selected sabbaticals has not prevented the New Zealand game from bleeding its middle management. If anything, it has actually increased the blood flow, because those who represent the middle band know that they have to take the overseas contracts when they come, as the opportunity may not be there indefinitely (as it is for high-profile players).
The player turnover, in Super Rugby but especially among their NPC teams, is significant. This is where the danger lies in the recent rule change.
For all of the good intentions, it’s pretty obvious that the fear of losing Israel Folau and the marketing icon he has become has played a big part in all of this.
Formulating a policy change of seismic proportions based on the potential threat of losing one player, however big he is as a star, is fraught with danger.
Unlike South Africa or New Zealand, Australia doesn’t have the depth to cover the loss of its middle management. And the new allowance for sabbaticals, which one assumes will only be made available to either star or long-term players, has instantly made the next tier of player more vulnerable.
This is, of course, unless the ARU figures on a widespread authorisation of sabbaticals, which would defeat the purpose of their introduction in the first place.
If the likes of Folau and potentially Quade Cooper were not costing so much, and this is even with the allowance of a sabbatical, would Australia have retained the likes of Ben Mowen?
Probably.
Even though he was the incumbent Wallaby captain, Mowen was offered a $30,000 ARU top up, which compared to the figures that are bandied about for the likes of Folau and Cooper, was a tad insulting.
Hence he took the big money on offer at Montpellier. Who can blame him?
The French club is now getting the benefits of a guy at the height of his career, while Australia, and particularly the Brumbies, have lost out big time.
Just how much his leadership and organisational skills are going to be missed in Canberra will become apparent pretty quickly next year.
With the ARU’s limited funds, and its contracting policy clearly weighted towards the needs of a select few at the higher end of the profile range, the lack of financial regard for the rest will drive the middle management into the arms of overseas clubs in increasing numbers – especially if you look at the Kiwi example.
Or even more pertinently Argentina.
Their issues, in terms of the way the plundering of players from overseas (especially French) clubs has effected, is arguably more in line with the challenge that the ARU faces than the circumstances with regards to either South Africa or New Zealand.
Argentina lost its star players, but many of its foot soldiers as well.
It couldn’t replace either, and is now at the mercy of the French clubs, forcing Los Pumas to field virtual ‘B’ teams in the June Tests in order to get their European-based players released for the Rugby Championship.
The new ARU scheme could mean the biggest stars stay – after being away for a season or two with their sabbaticals – but for every one of them retained, there will be a fair few among the next tier who are lost for much longer. And Australia can ill afford to lose them.
Rugby is, after all, a team game.
Without the work of the rest, the stars can’t and don’t shine.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.