- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The winds of change may be blowing for Australian rugby’s Wallaby selection policy. Wallaby Bernard Foley has signed a two-year deal with a Japanese club after the Rugby World Cup later this year.
He is about to sign another contact with the NSW Waratahs to play for them between the Japanese seasons.
While the ARU has not publicly declared its position regarding Foley, the Waratahs are keen to keep him, despite his move to Japan. With the Japanese rugby season running from August to March, the possibility exists for Foley to return to Australia and play for the Waratahs between Japanese rugby seasons.
There have been suggestions that the ARU should follow the Waratahs lead and continue to select Foley for the Wallabies. However, the problem is that for at least some of the Tests, he would be a overseas-based player.
It is claimed by some that in a global market, it is only common sense to have a more flexible contracting model and allow foreign based players to play for the Wallabies.
I disagree.
The ARU has already watered down it original policy by changing its player contracting protocols in August 2014.
That change saw the introduction of ‘flexible contracts’ for a select number of players who commit their future to Australian Rugby on long term-deals.
From 2016, the ARU has the ability to offer players the opportunity to play one season in a foreign domestic competition during the course of a long-term contract with Australian Rugby.
The policy of not selecting foreign based players is there for very good reasons.
National coaches need stability and sufficient time with their squad in their preparation for Test matches.
Once you select a player based abroad, you begin to lose control of the players because you are relying on the goodwill of overseas rugby clubs to release them.
I cannot see professional French or Japanese clubs wanting to spend up big on Australian players only then to gleefully see them off at the airport in the midst of their season, to jet halfway round the world to play Test matches every time we want them.
National teams should contain players who will give everything to don the international jersey. Those that stay are making that statement.
Rugby should not all be about the individual and that individual’s self-interest – and certainly not international rugby.
When it comes to the Wallabies I am a socialist – of paramount importance is the interests of the collective – and if that is at the expense of a few individuals, so be it.
While players will always be tempted to go for big money in places such as Japan or France, there needs to be a deterrent – and depriving those players of the right to represent their country – is that necessary deterrent.
If a player really does want to play rugby for Australia, he will abide by his country’s wishes as to where he can play.
If players want to take the money, then go – and god bless.
But that is not in the interests of Australian rugby and allowing them to be selected from overseas isn’t either.
Surely, we are not at the point where the primary focus is now on what an individual player gets – rather than on what he can give.
New Zealand maintain their policy of not allowing foreign based players to represent the All Blacks. While we do not have to slavishly follow everything the Kiwis do, we need to think carefully as to why they maintain such a policy.
Tradition and ambition have always been the hallmarks of the All Blacks. It has served them well to date.
What benefit to Australian Rugby is there by allowing players to play overseas in the knowledge that they remain eligible for the Wallabies?
Does it strengthen our Super Rugby sides? No.
If you can still be selected for the Wallabies while playing overseas, more and more players will take the euro, pound or yen and reduce the quality of the Super Rugby competition, the Super Rugby teams and the fledgling NRC.
Does it strengthen the Wallabies? No.
While there may be some short-term gain, the culture of the Wallabies would change over time. And not for the better.
We end up with a swathe of journeymen, and that will create a number of headaches for the national coach. If there are disputes with overseas clubs, then this will affects planning and preparation, because of the risk that the coach may not have the players when he wants them.
Fatigue may also become a factor as players would be required to fly from Europe to Australia and other countries for Test matches, and back to Europe for club games, all within very short time windows.
Ironically, in the earlier stages of professional rugby, all we heard about was the welfare of the professional player demanded that the number of games they played be limited.
How the wheel turns.
Do the players learn anything that will enhance their contribution to the Wallabies by playing overseas? No.
Does it benefit the Australian rugby faithful? No.
Does it benefit grassroots rugby? No. But it could, possibly.
Former Wallaby Coach Bob Dwyer made the observation in late 2014 that by selecting overseas-based players for the Wallabies, the ARU could save millions of dollars in player payments which it could invest in the grassroots of the game.
Grassroots rugby in Australia is a constant struggle and exacerbated by the removal of funding to the Shute Shield clubs in Sydney and the Brisbane Premier Grade Clubs, not to mention other imposts on the wider grassroots rugby community.
Dwyer estimated the ARU could save $3 million a year by selecting overseas-based players such as Kane Douglas, Ben Mowen and Sitaleki Timani.
However, while this may enable the ARU to contract fewer players, the fact remains that any savings and re-allocation to grassroots rugby would require agreement from RUPA, the professional rugby players association, as there is a requirement that the ARU pays a certain percentage of income to the players.
Unlike Dwyer, I am not convinced this association would look to the greater good, and we could easily see a result where more money is to be shared by the remaining professional players with nothing for grassroots rugby.
Dwyer stated that “If they agreed to consider selecting players playing outside of Australia and thereby cut down the percentage of the distribution, I don’t see why the players union wouldn’t agree to it because it benefits the players.”
Yeah sure Bob – it benefits the professional players. Not grassroots rugby.
I cannot see RUPA wanting to agree to reduce the percentage of money that goes
to the professional rugby players, just because there are less of them.
I do sympathise with Bob’s goals, but self-interest is a bitch to deal with.