IRB must help smaller nations keep players

so raci..t , assuming NO white players would be amongst the best players. Basically a stupid idea in that you are promoting no tribalism. In your ideal world we wouldnt have countries having teams anyway, since you want no boundaries no limits. It might as well be a glorified club system, you go to any club that pays you the most. I would rather retain national identity and a feeling of belonging than the ultra capitalist souless picture you paint where nationalities are fading away, the individual is the be all end all, nothing is greater than yourself.

Sheek, it is not difficult to learn a second, third, etc. language, and even easier if you only want to learn the phonetics of other languages. And it can even do a lot of good to your brain when it can move from one to another.

Spencer, that is fine; actually a very good idea; I'm all for it. So if a player is a citizen of more than one country, then there should be no restriction where that person can play. He/she should be allowed to play for any of those countries of which/he/she is a citizen, without the IRB saying he/she can play for only one of those countries. The Olympic uses this policy, and it works well. IRB can do the same.

I would suggest you do some homework and see where the majority of the All Blacks players are born and raised I think you'll find the majority are kiwi born and most of those not born there have lived in New Zealand since a very young age.

Spencer, I take your point but I see a couple of problems with your proposal. First, citizenship laws differ markedly from country to country. Some countries' citizenships are much easier to obtain by birth or descent than others and possessing citizenship by birth or descent is no guarantee of identifying with that country's culture and values. Some countries base their citizenship on the principle of place of birth (jus soli) while others base it on the principle of descent (jus sanguinis). To give you an example: If you were born in the United States to two Dutch parents then you are a dual US-Dutch citizen (even if you were raised in the Netherlands and identify with it rather than the USA as your country). But if you were born in the Netherlands to two American parents you are solely a US citizen (even if you were raised in the Netherlands, went to Dutch-language schools there and identify with the Netherlands rather than the USA is as your country). This is because US citizenship and Dutch citizenship operate on completely different principles. Or another example: if you were born in Australia, have one Italian grandfather but do not speak a word of Italian or identify with Italy in any particular way you are a dual Australian-Italian citizen. But if you were born in Australia, have four French grandparents, were raised in a francophone family and identify very closely with France you would still not be a French citizen but solely an Australian citizen. This is because Italian law extends citizenship by descent to grandchildren (and beyond) but French law does not. And there are also differences when it comes to citizenship by naturalisation. Some countries have a longer residency requirement than others (eg Germany 8 years, Australia 4 years) and some make you renounce your former citizenship before allowing you to be naturalised, ruling out the possibility of dual citizenship (eg Germany) while others let you keep it which allows for dual citizenship (eg Australia). When citizenship laws vary so greatly around the world and where it's possible to possess citizenship of a country with which you don't identify (or have no legal claim to the citizenship of a country with which you do identify) is it right that eligibility should depend on the vagaries of citizenship law? A second problem has to do with the fact that not all countries in international rugby are sovereign states in international law possessing their own citizenship. What do you do with England, Scotland and Wales? There is no such thing in law as "English citizenship", "Scottish citizenship" or "Welsh citizenship"; but there is "British citizenship". And what do you do with Ireland which is a single team representing both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (i.e. two different legal citizenships -- Irish and British -- among that team)? And what about other national teams such as the Arabian Gulf representing several independent countries (although from what I can gather the Arabian Gulf team is currently in the process of splitting up into separate national teams)? Or what about teams that represent dependent territories such as Bermuda (there is no such thing in law as Bermudan citizenship)? While you certainly *could* make it a requirement that players possess the citizenship of the country they want to represent, given the way citizenship laws operate differently around the world that is still no guarantee that you are committed to the culture, values and laws of your country of citizenship. And it's hardly a level playing field. There would be a lot of people outside of Italy eligible for Italian citizenship but not so many for countries (such as Britain, France, Australia) who are less generous than Italy in extending citizenship by descent.

I think that a person should be a full citizen of a country before he/she represents that country in sport. Citizenship requires a commitment to the culture, values and laws of your country. When you represent your country you are "REPRESENTING" your fellow citizens and shared culture. Belonging to a country (a national) is an important institution in human existence. I don’t believe that it is in anyway an outdated notion. It should promote sharing and interchange and doesn’t imply aggression or difference, although I accept that “nationalism” is misused to this end, on occasions. Is it really too much to require a person to be a citizen before representing your country? I don’t think so. I am proudly Australian, and although I have lived in various other countries for the past 15 years. I would never consider “representing” another nation.

Apelu T, I agree with you - let people play for whoever they want. But with one significant concession - we need more 'Michael Jones' & George Smiths'. Damned if I can cope with those multi-syllable names..... ! Sometimes you have to imitate an apoplectic fit in order to pronounce them... !!!

Very clever Joh..you cunning old bugger.

This issue has been raised many times, and it's probably a good idea to keep it topical. Based on the actions of the IRB to date, it seems like it has only one interest: protect the rugby interest of the so called founding nations and white teams like Argentina and European and whoever has the potential to provide a bigger returns. If anyone is serious about making rugby a truly global game, then one thing needs to happen: reform the IRB; make it more democratic, with all members having equal rights and equal votes. The issue of eligibility in sport is something that has always puzzled me because it means control. Why should someone, like the IRB, have to control where I want to play and when I want to play for whoever I want to play for? Isn't that a restraint on where I can sell my resource, my talent? If so, which I believe it is, isn't that against national and international trade laws? And why hasn't anyone challenged this infringement on a basic rights at a court of law? To me, these eligibility requirements in sport is another face of the old imperialistic traditions of the West. They make these ancient laws to ensure they continue to hold the power, and are inimical to any change that could challenge their position. I'd say let the individual decides where he/she wants to play; stop being control freaks. We live in different times. Now, we can be anywhere in the world in matters of hours, not months. Further, the lines between nationalities/ethnicities are slowly fading away, which I think is a good thing. We want the best players to be playing rugby. A team can only have 22 players, so I'm sure, the rich countries cannot buy all the best players at anyone one time, even if they can afford to. National bodies can decide who they want on their teams. So what if, in the long run, all the national teams are made up of Polynesians, Aboriginals and black Africans? As a rugby fan, I just want to see the best players on the field. As a person, I just want to see players not interfered with with their rights to trade their talents and maximise their earnings. Don't we all want that for ourselves? We don't need these imperialistic eligibility laws in sports.

They've already started doing this by changing the way that funds are being dispersed. Before the last WC tier1 nations would be allocated funds to develope rugby in their zone. This would ultimately leave control of who going where and who gets funded in the hands of the wealthy rugby tier 1 nations. What effectively happened is that a lot of players were being identified and then some of these funds would then be used to develope them and then they would end up as with their entire families as economic refugees playing in another country. In other instances families that were genuine economic refugees would be identified if they had a talented kid and aome of these funds were then spent on their developement. Luckily this has all stopped and the IRB is no longer using this model. Countries being developed are now in charge of where the money goes.

On those figures you're at least 200 years old :-D Frivolity aside, point taken.

By the same token, living all your life in a country isn't a guarantee that you will have 'fully understood' it either, or that you feel a sense of nationality with it. Studies on culture shock actually indicate that a period of 1-2 years if perfectly adequate to become normalised in most societies. I'm Australian by birth (and have spent 99% of my life there), Chinese by heritage, but I'm most comfortable in Canada (where I spent only 2 years), and it's there where my allegiance lies. Is the selection criteria aimed at fostering 'national identity' or artificially constructing competitiveness?

What I would like is the residency rule to increase to 6 years. 3 years isn't enough time to fully understand a new nation, let alone contemplate feeling the nationality of another country. I also think players who play 7s for a country can change to another nation for the full XV man version, but may not play 7s for that country and can only play for another nation they were eligible for before they played 7s for the original nation.

I dont think this is a good idea, all thats going to happen is a bunch of retired rugby players turning up for a 2nd tier nation, like some harlem globe trotter team made up of aussies and all blacks etc just to play in a world cup. Which is not good for the sport, and will turn it into a joke.

I actually have to disagree. I dont think there is any issue. The reality is that today we live in a globalised world ... people change where they live for various reasons, and change where they live much more than in the past. A good example was Sonny Bill WIlliams .. who could represent New Zealand because of Birth, Samoa for heritage, Australia for residency, and France for residency. Im an Australian, but have lived in Paraguay for 4 and a half years. Last year I made my test debut for Paraguay, having fulfilled the IRB´s 3 year residency requirement to represent a country in test rugby. The requirements to play for a international rugby are to be born in a country, have a parent or grandparent from a country, or be resident in a country for 3 years or more. After you have represented one country, in Sevens, 15´s or a country´s ´B´ team you can never represent another country. I think the system is fair as it has flexability ... and recognises globalistation. Only being able to represent one country also makes you really think before deciding if you want to put your hand up for test selection. If someone has lived in a country for 3 years, and decided to call that place their home ... why shouldnt they be able to represent that country if they are among the best available players? The system works both ways. In the last world cup, more of the Samoan test team was born in Australia or New Zealand that in Samoa, but due to the family heritage rule their team was strengthened by the current regulations. The other point is that under the old regulations, if a player decided to sit out of test rugby for 3 years .. they could represent another country ... as Tuigamala did .. playing the 91 world cup for NZ and 99 for Samoa. That might have been good for Samoa, but the reverse is also true ... today, exciting young players who are selected for 7´s or 15´s for Fiji, Samoa or Tonga, can no longer decide to "sit out" in the hope of one day becoming an All Black. In the past this happened. These countries now have stronger development competitions and are blooding young players precisely so that they will always be qualified for their country. Anyway, with the advent of professional rugby, IRB funded development competitions, and the World 7´s circuit, there is no longer as much of an incentive for players from smaller countries to swap for the rewards of playing for richer countries, instead it is better for them to play test rugby in a world cup, get recognised, and then get snapped up by a european club for lots of cash. In regard to Beast ... he has fulfilled all IRB qualifications to play for South Africa .. namely 3 years residency. The issue with Beast is actually one of political interference, with the government saying that only South African Passport holders should be allowed to play for South Africa. As he Beast said "I am a South African at heart. I love this country. It has become my home. It is everything to me. Wearing the green and gold of the Springboks is a huge honour for me. That jersey is part of me. The green and gold flows in my blood. I feel just as much pride as any other guy in the team" In todays world .. it is really up to the individial player as to which country to represent. If you are Tongan, Fijian, Zimbabwean ... whatever .. and you decide to live in Australia or South Africa or New Zelaand ,, and think you are good enough to play for their National teams .. go for it ...

well that half the All backs and wallabies Shunted then hahah

You could allow a player to turn out for a Tier 2 nation if not selected by a Tier 1 nation within the last 12 months, or for a WC. That would help a little.

Well, what are you suggesting exactly? It's easy to say that the IRB must do "something"; coming up with a workable solution is much harder. This situation arises because certain players qualify on eligibility grounds for more than one country and then of their own free will *choose* to play for one country to the exclusion of another. You either have to either (1) tighten the eligibility rules so that it's harder for players to qualify for more than one country, (2) give players an incentive (probably financial) to choose to play for the smaller rugby nation rather than the larger, more successful one or (3) allow players in certain cases to play for more than one country. The whole problem is also tied to the phenomenon of migration away from smaller poorer countries to richer, larger ones. Why do you think so many Pacific Islanders come to Australia and NZ? Or Zimbabweans to South Africa? For the view? Put yourself in the situation of someone like who is eligible to play for more than one country. What do you do? If you're the Beast why would you choose to play for Zimbabwe when you can play for the Springboks? Or if you're Jonah Lomu why would you choose to play for Tonga when you can play for the All Blacks? Or if you're Lote Tuqiri why would you choose to play for Fiji when you can play for the Wallabies? Or why would Will Genia choose to play for PNG rather than Australia? If these players are good enough to make the Springboks/All Blacks/Wallabies then why should they play their international rugby for smaller countries which would mean they get fewer international games and against lesser quality opposition at that? And then to add to that they would probably earn a lot less money as a player. No-one forced any of these players to play for the international teams they did; they freely chose it and they did what most other people in their position would have done. Currently you can qualify for a country on any one of the following: (1) Birth: Your country of birth (2) Parents: Either of your parents' country of birth (3) Grandparents: Any of your grandparents' country of birth (4) Residence: A country in which you've lived for three years As you can see your nationality as defined in law is irrelevant. You can play for a country without being a citizen of that country and you can be a citizen of a country without being eligible to play international rugby for it. You can't tighten (1) -- it's the bedrock of eligibility. Tightening (2) or (3) would only harm the smaller nations. The only rule change I could see that might help the smaller nations is tightening (4). But how long would you want to make the residency period? 5 years? 8 years? 10 years? More??? Another possibility would be to distinguish between time spent in a country as a child or youth as opposed to an adult, making it harder for people who move to a country as an adult to qualify on residency than it is for people who move there as a child or youth. The other matter that would need to be addressed has to do with financial incentives. The way professional rugby players are paid doesn't help players choose to play test rugby for a smaller nation. But I don't see that changing.

Agree, and think that developing nations (in terms of rugby) should be allowed to have players of their country who have played for Tier 1 nations to be eligible to play for the developing nation afterwards, or even before, so they don't hold out from playing for their developing country in hope of being selected for the big guys. This happens a lot in NZ where Islanders turn down spots for their country of heritage (Samoa, Tonga, Fiji) in the hope that they will be selected for the AB's. If they were not penalised for having played for the smaller country then those teams would be boosted by players who are playing at the top level and thus be more competitive. I also think that it is not just the availability of players but also the resources - some of these teams have very little money so can't afford to prepare players well.