I can’t help but feel very sad about the whole Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu saga. Many people, myself included, sympathise with his point highlighting the lack of rest days that the Tier 2 nations have compared to the Tier 1 nations. And that is a valid criticism of the IRB.
However, his personal attack on Welsh referee Nigel Owens and his strong use of inflammatory language against the IRB was way out of line and makes him look far from the barrister that he is.
I believe it also reflects badly on Manu Samoa because it makes them look like really sore losers.
Would Fuimaono-Sapolu have gone on his personal attacks if Manu Samoa had beaten the Springboks? I don’t think so.
There is also something not right about Fuimaono-Sapolu’s continued linking of the Manu Samoan RWC plight with massive social and political moments in history. There were real victims and people were really treated like crap back then.
Comparing that to participating in a tournament that is the pinnacle of your chosen profession with all your ‘family’, staying in 4 star hotels BUT playing a game earlier than the Tier 1 nations, is a stretch.
Fuimaono-Sapolu claims that the link between the two is that the underlying principle is “I am allowed to treat this person like shit. So there’s a parallel, albeit a very small one”.
I suppose it’s all a matter of perspective.
The IRB is far from perfect.
But to accuse them of treating the minnows like ‘slaves’ is harsh. So is claiming that they treat Tier 2 nations like shit. The IRB has done plenty for Pacific Rugby.
We can always debate whether it’s enough, but you can’t accuse them of not contributing anything.
A small list of IRB contributions to Pacific Rugby:
– Funding the Pacific Rugby Cup & The Pacific Nations Cup.
– Funding the participation of the Fiji, Samoa & Tongan U.20 teams at the World Champs.
– Funding the International Sevens Series.
– Help with funding the construction of the High Performance Unit (HPU) in Samoa.
– Providing gyms with analysis tools.
– Providing referee & coaching workshops.
– Funding 6 matches played around the world by Tonga A.
How ironic is it that Samoa probably got the best grant from the IRB with a contribution of over GBP £1million for their HPU?
Last year the IRB provided Pacific Rugby with about $20 million.
So it’s a bit hard to claim getting the ‘slave’ treatment when you see some of the things that the IRB has done for Pacific Rugby.
Now, I can understand Fuimaono-Sapolu stating that these tweets were done when he was ‘tanked’ and in the ‘heat of the moment’. It happens.
We all say things we don’t mean when we’re really cranky. But Fuimaono-Sapolu is now standing by those comments (except his ‘racist’ call on Owens, which he has deleted) and is now taking a defiant stand against the IRB by telling them to ‘bring it’.
Fuimaono-Sapolu sounded very confident that he had nothing to worry about when, upon getting told that he had a case to answer, he tweeted that given the circumstances and context, it was an easy case. Problem is that he never showed up for the case, which is why he is now banned from all rugby until he does in fact formally confront the IRB.
Fuimaono-Sapolu reasoned that he didn’t even know when and where his hearing was being held, but that sounds hollow. Especially when asked if he would have attended if he did know the details or his hearing. He answered with: “Perhaps”.
Fuimaono-Sapolu now seems to be taking the martyr stance, which is very bold. He has a lot of support, which makes this a classic David and Goliath story.
However, it’s a tricky thing taking the martyr stand.
In order for that to work the public has to have sympathy for the martyr and his cause along with identifying with the ‘injustice’ caused.
Fuimaono-Sapolu started well when he highlighted the injustices of the short game turnarounds, but then I reckon he starts to lose the ‘moral argument’ when the attacks start getting out of hand with the historic comparisons, the drunken tweets which looked more like sore grapes than principled statements, then the no-show at his own hearing, which makes him look cowardice (not saying he is, just that it looks that way, especially after all his taunting of the IRB).
The thing I see now is that if the IRB do change the match turnarounds for the 2015 RWC, Fuimaono-Sapolu and his supporters will claim the credit for it, thus completing his martyrdom (that’s if his ban still stands). Never mind that perhaps it was always going to happen.
Would that make all his other outlandish comments not matter any more?
Depends on which side you’re on.
Questions
Roar Rookie
look up eliota on youtube,then go to (eliota fuimaono sapolu message)which goes for about 41 seconds.the COMMENTS under it,will give u all the ANSWERS
Ben S
Roar Guru
'Samoa is in the IRB’s eyes an utterly insignificant and wealthless state and so they wouldn’t dream of giving them any commemoration of their national tragedy' You are an embarrassment.
Tissot Time
Guest
Good points johnnoo. Those huge ocean voyages have selected out the strongest and fittest and this is reflected in the physical stature of Polynesians today contributing to their sporting prowess.
Colin N
Guest
"- Samoan players were fined $10,000 for using safety equipment, while England got nothing for cheating." Manu Tuilagi wore a similar mouthguard and has also been fined. You can't compare two incidents which are different.
Damien
Roar Guru
Comon KPM thats harsh to say the IRB don't care about the victims of the tsunami. "As agreed with the Samoa Rugby Union, the date was respectfully commemorated with a public address immediately prior to kick-off and also the wearing of black armbands to remember those who tragically lost their lives." Thats how the IRB in conjunction with the SRU commemorated the the day. If we follow Eliota's logic then the SRU must also think that 'our dead aren't good enough'. I think we're almost done with this topic even if we still disagree. Looking forward to the quarters though : Ireland, France, SA & NZ to progress I reckon..
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Damien and Johnno sorry for slow reply and thanks for well-made and good points. 'Your point about having an extra week sounds good to me but I wonder how much extra is that going to cost. The Pacific Nations can barely afford to attend the RWC as it stands now. ' This is exactly where the IRB should step in with more money to add an extra week, which they have by the way, knowing that the alternative that is making it impossible for a minnows side to qualify, turns the tournament into nonsense and is preposterously unfair. The other solution is to increase the number of teams to 24, 6 pools of 4, in order to keep the same number of weeks, one which I personally think is preferable as it also grows the game as well. The issue of changing identity is more subtle than it would first appear. If all countries were equally rich, then there would be no need for a player to change national allegiance. However, what happens now is that some countries are so much poorer than others that players choose to play for the rich team. In Australia anyone who plays in Super 15 must declare their availability to the Wallabies, except marquee players. So the big nations take players who might well have opted to play for the islands if the playing fields were level. It is because of that uneven situation that the whole notion of players switching countries changes, because they are only being allowed back what would have been theirs naturally. I think E F-S is right about the Tsunami. Samoa is in the IRB's eyes an utterly insignificant and wealthless state and so they wouldn't dream of giving them any commemoration of their national tragedy, while the U.S. is the richest and most powerful country in the world and so they do. Probably they lost as many people in proportion too.
johnnoo
Roar Pro
Good points KPM. I hope the IRB realise they better start treating the pacific islands nations with more respect. So much talent there. And USA and russia and canada will be only to happy to grab and form a super league style rugby board and get all the pacific islanders to play in there club comps
Andre
Guest
I agree there is a disconnect with the SRU & its players especially Eliota. I do think SRU probably do support his view, like many people...but SRU need to think about the political side of this with the IRB. Theres a fine line between pointing out these inconsistencies and playing the victim card. You have to question now, if the SRU are not backing him 100%, is he now making a point just to make a point now? He is fighting for a team's future who arent supporting his views. Nonetheless...Eliota has lost me at "Our dead not good enough". Im starting to now think STFU mate.
johnnoo
Roar Pro
But Damow ith this issues of eligibility, this is how i see it. The Paicifc islands and melanisan and polynisan players phase complex link with rugby for multiple reasons mainly being a small percentage of human population, but the reality is these 2 human genetic groups are naturally most of the time more talented at contact sports than any racial group on earth. University studies hove found an American Samoan per head of population is far more likely to play in the NFL than a white male. And it is staggering the amount of NFL players are form American samoa based on there tiny population. France is now realising this and setting up development clinics in places like Tahiitii to tap intuit he polynisean talent there. And Australia and NZ for years have had fantastic injections and still do of pacific island talent(eg radike samo, jerry collins, will ofhangaoue, quade cooper, ill tabu, and in rugby league to noa nadruku , and ate just some of many examples. Plus all the pacific islanders heritage who were born in australia or NZ (jonah loom, usage, SBW simply to name a few). And all rugby club comps around the world get great value from pacific islander players. The iRB even said so that one of the reasons why they have only 1 country policy with pacific islanders is so that they can encourage them to play there trade in euro leagues. Effectivly I interpret that as squeezing australia and NZ form poaching them. But the point is the iRB knows it's clubs get high value form them and many euro rugby nations do to, and japan(get great value) and usa and russia will soon benefit form pacific islander players to. So the pacific islanders(melaniisan and polynesian) are a blue chip investment I think genetically the best race of people for contact sports as demonstrated by the contribution to both rugby league and union and have to be looked after and recognition of the special and unique and complex contribution they make to rugby union. Samoa wanted the rule where player can play for them as long as they have had 1 year not playing for there adopted country, and other layers who were born in Autralia or NZ or any other of the pacific island coutnries if they met the eligibility requirement ( parent or grandparent rule eg SBW, or jonah loom let them play for there pacific island nation.Sounds good to me. Rugby league is very flexible with it's eligibly and you should see the samoa national rugby league national team list. it is a NRL standard 1st grade side, fantastic for rugby league. We have to recognise the speical contribution these tiny islands make and the IRB should not take them for granted or more will go and play rugby league to get a better eligibly deal and made to feel more welcome. I would be bending over backward si f i was head of the IRB to make the pacific island my no 1 priority based on the amazing human genetics they statically offer to contact sports like rugby union league and americna football. i could also add sumo wrestling many sumo wrestlers form Hawaii , and Samoa for example. And also in entertainment wrestling (the rock American Samoa). SO lets look after pacific island rugby IRB and Damien, do not let the pacific islands be lsot to rugby league , or make the pacific islands the west indies of rugby union. Amzingly talented african heritage players of the west indies neglected.
Damien
Roar Guru
Not trying to sound like an IRB spokesperson but they really are copping it from both sides. The Big Nations are crying poor that the IRB takes to much money away from them and the small nations (Samoa) are saying that they don't support them enough. How much the IRB should support the Islands is like asking how long is a piece a string. The draw for instance. The IRB had to fit 40 games into 23 days. Aparently 63 drafts were done because it was such a nightmare logistically. So in the end the IRB had to accomodate the TV Stations who wanted the big games on the weekends. After all they are the ones forking out the big bucks. Your point about having an extra week sounds good to me but I wonder how much extra is that going to cost. The Pacific Nations can barely afford to attend the RWC as it stands now. The point about Tier 2 nations getting more competition is valid and was addressed by the IRB and a new schedule was aggreed upon in 2010. http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2037367.html The eligibility issue I reckon is basically an ideological argument. For me it should be you get to choose the country that you are elligible to represent and that it. You can't get 2 bites at the ultimate prize in rugby - Test Matches. It also must be pointed out that the Pacific Nations Unions aren't exactly saints either. I believe alot of Eliota's issues would have been dealt with better had there been better communication between the SRU and Eliota. The relationship between the players and admin is complicated from what I gather. Such as after the Springbok game there was no 'farewell' occasion for the Samoan players. The SRU didn't sort anything out and the players kinda of just disbanded on their own which is disappointing. They also had to pay their own way back home. Their wage was $1000 a week so most of them used their RWC wage to buy their return tickets. The Fijian Camp has a similar situation. Notice how Deacon Manu ( who is by far Fiji's best prop and is the also the Captain ) was missing in the Wales Test. As you'd know the Army has weaselled themselves into the Fiji Camp and word was they wanted to give 'real' Fijians a go against Wales which is why there were so many new faces in that game. Too much politics happening in that camp. The uncoordinated Cibi before the game showed us that Fiji had their minds elsewhere and the scoreline showed that. Tonga's not innocent either but you get the picture. I say this not to put down the Island Unions but to try and show that some of the frustrations that players have are against their own Unions rather than only the IRB. All I can say that I hope that this saga can be resolved with some sense of civilty. Unfortuantely Eliota's latest tweet claiming that 'our dead aren't good enough' for the IRB will make that almost impossible. That one of 'our own' would drag the memories of the tsumani victims into this whole mess actually hurts. http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/our-dead-not-good-enough-new-antiirb-twitter-rant-20111006-1lbb5.html
Damien
Roar Guru
Sorry but I can't take credit for that. Don't know anything about that. Try posting it again..
Asdf
Guest
Thanx for getting my message deleted. Too much for you?
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Damien of course we can respectfully disagree and I take on board your point. My sense is Samoa have little to lose. Their only exposure to top flight tournaments is the RWC, and they are cunningly crippled by the weaker major powers in the IRB to prevent them from competing there. Nor is there a question of what the IRB won't do in Samoa. It doesn't seem to have much effect anyway (Samoa have actually been competitve for a long time) and they have been due more high level rugby for a long time too. E F-S has little to lose either. The IRB may ban him from rugby for a little, but it could not do it for a lot as it will look like yet more bullying of the minnows. The longer the process is drawn out, the more publicity it and the issues surrounding it receive, all to the IRB's detriment. Besides he is clearly brave enough not to care. As for his methods, the extremity of his language draws attention to the extremity of the IRB's bullying of the minnows, as if he is driven to such a position it must reflect an extreme injustice: certainly that may be his thinking behind it. And one has to say it has worked. The IRB are rarely ever attacked and if so in the most moderate terms, and ineffectually. It's original to strike so savagely. As roarer Johnno said in this connection 'all revolutions are bloody'. It has drawn attention and perhaps encouraged others who would wish to speak their minds, as the ex prime minister of Japan did when saying the major IRB nations 'passed the ball around their own hands' i.e. keeping rugby from everyone else. This is perhaps the beginning of a reaction against the IRB that began in more moderate terms with the 'putting rugby first' issue after the last RWC. Especially with the Olympics and more government attention to rugby, the behaviour of the strong towards the weak will receive more and more attention and the minnows may no longer be happy with being trampled on. Olympic commitees will be very disturbed if they suspect a sport is run only by the powerful and instead of warmly opening itself to the world deliberately keeps it out of elite competition and cheats it out of results to protect some of its members. The IRB should therefore be very careful and E F-S represents an increasingly powerful voice: the concept that the game should be open and fair to all weak or strong. Even better they could, for example, give Samoa more competition, a fair draw, access to players who change nationality. Then no one would be right to criticise them.
Damien
Roar Guru
KPM. We'll just gave to respectfully disagree with each other on those points. However I just feel that Eliota's methods may highlight some issues in the short term but will hurt Samoa in the long term. Just my 2 cents..
kovana
Guest
The 'Naked' Samoan returns.. :D
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
A list of how the IRB cheated Samoa out of a playoff chance: -Not allowing players to swap countries to keep the team weak. -A deliberately unfair draw to make it impoosible for them to win enough matches. -Extremely biased refereeing. -Lack of regular international competition at high enough level. E-S is damn right and is fully justified in his polemical way of making his point otherwise it would have been IGNORED. 'Comparing that to participating in a tournament that is the pinnacle of your chosen profession with all your ‘family’, staying in 4 star hotels BUT playing a game earlier than the Tier 1 nations, is a stretch.' Yes, because playing a game earlier means you have been CHEATED out of a chance at the playoffs! And that goes for the IRB investment too: means nothing if they then cheat the team out of a chance!
Louis
Guest
Im sorry but I have lost all respect for Samoan Rugby. This guy whinges and whines, though forgets the facts, Samoa weren't good enough. Even with all their thuggery aganst RSA, who might I add kept their discipline magnificently, they still fell 8 points short and never really looked like winning. Yea owens didn't have the best game but no calls he made defined the match. The red card was justified look it up in rugby rule book. Their captain and this tweeting lunatic are a disgrace who show no respect for the opposition and have no grace about them what so ever. Blaming the schedules a bit weak as well Namibia was a short turn around, but it was Namibia. And fiji are pathetic and not really challenging at all. Wales beat them technically and tactically, so stop being a bunch of sore losers and get over your elimination from the rwc 2011. 4 more years Samoa, and thank god for that.
Damien
Roar Guru
Some countries have more resorces than others. It may not be fair but not everything in life is fair. The Olympics is never played on a level playing field either. Why shouldn't countries use every advantage they have to compete in whatever chosen sport they choose to direct their resources. The Pacific Island Rugby teams don't seem too shy to use their physical gifts when they're smashing other teams up. They may not have the big money but they sure as hell have the big hits. The IRB are not the only ones that are slaves to money. We all are. Thats why young polynesian rugby players play rugby overseas. The money is better there. Its also why if they get the oportunity to play for a 'richer' country most if not all we choose to switch allegiances. The moneys better. Also on the voting issue : You think a country like Fiji should have the same clout as NZ when you can't even compare what they bring to the rugby table. I don't think thats fair. Put it this way. Say we both are partners in a business which you and your brother founded. I come along and join your business but you have to continually invest money into my section of the business because even though I try hard I just can't keep my section running. I'm a great worker and bring alot of good vibes to the table but I just can't get my section going without your help. Come time for our AGM is it right that I have the same power that you and your brother have even though I came on board years after the business was founded, not only that I'm always in need of money ? Will you and your brother seek to try and lessen your power so that I may have more of a say in how the business is run ?
Tasi
Guest
If we never have a level playing field, then what's the point in having a World Cup every four years? What's the point in stringing tier two nations along if the (enforced) inequalities will continue? What's the point in finding a world champ if the cards a stacked against non-SANZAR/five nation teams? Perhaps rugby IS an elitist game played by the wealthy classes. Because even you've already shown an inclination of prejudice by providing votes to one set of nations (NZ) and no vote for others (Fiji)? An old-boys club? Looks like it. If money talks, then we are slaves to money. Hah... Eliota had it the wrong way... the IRB are the slaves!?!
Damien
Roar Guru
Kelefua Eliota's choice of words don't suit most people's sense of fair play. A close friend of mine also talked about if his message was tame it would have been lost but i have trouble with this 'means justify the end' arguement. Just doesn't seem right. Its all a matter of perspective I suppose. But you are right though. The Kiwis are putting on a great show.