There have been a number of articles and comments about the Rugby League World Cup on The Roar this week.
Though I originally decided to stay well clear of the debate – as some of the comments on both sides of the argument have bordered on the absurd – I do just want to make one point in response to a particular criticism of the tournament.
There has been a lot of bashing of the RLWC, with it common to hear the event labeled as a farce, a joke, irrelevant and not really a World Cup.
The main basis for those sentiments seems be based upon the eligibility laws of the tournament, and the perception some countries are trotting out ‘rented’ players.
On Monday, Roarer Cameron Treloar wrote a piece in which he said the RLWC was a farce. Though Cam and I came to somewhat of a truce, I thought I’d repeat here the comment I posted on his article:
“Cameron, I think you – and other detractors of the Rugby League World Cup – are looking at it in slightly the wrong way.
When comparing it to similar tournaments like the rugby union or Football World Cups, though it has obvious name similarities, it’s not an apples and apples comparison.
The aforementioned World Cups are true representative tournaments, with players representing their country of birth (or long-term inhabitance).
The intent of the Rugby League World Cup, outside of the Australian, English and New Zealand teams, is not really about representative football, it’s about growing the game past its existing strongholds.
Yes the eligibility rules are lax, but that’s because the tournament is about growing the game, giving it a higher profile in countries in which it has a low one, and possibly even expanding the game’s footprint.
These are not new strategies, nor ones exclusive to rugby league. And when other codes have tried such objectives, they’ve been met with derision as well.
When the Swans moved to Sydney, the sentiment was Aussie Rules will never take off in the town, but the code had a long-term vision that involved short-term pain for long term gain.
When the AFL expands, new teams are given salary cap concessions and priority draft picks, which some fans have also called ‘farcical’, but such measures are taken because growth sometimes has to be artificially achieved, while in its infancy.
I look at the eligibility rules of the RLWC in much the same manner. They may seem farcical to you, but it’s simply a way to kick-start interest in areas rugby league is far from dominant.
Rugby league may still not take off in any of these countries, but surely it’s worth a shot? After all, in this competitive sporting landscape, if you’re standing still, you’re going backwards.”
The point about artificial growth is an important one, because it’s certainly not unique to rugby league. Not only does the AFL employ similar tactics with their new clubs, but rugby union does as well.
Super Rugby franchises the Western Force and the Melbourne Rebels are allowed more overseas players than the other three franchisees. This helps the Force and Rebels, who simply don’t have the local talent to fill their squads just yet.
‘Generous’ eligibility laws in the Rugby League World Cup, salary cap concessions and priority draft picks in the AFL, and additional overseas player rules in Super Rugby, all have relatively the same objective: helping new teams, and artificially growing the respective games in new geographical locations.
Though it doesn’t guarantee success, or the desired growth, it remains a smart strategy.
Nicky C
Guest
Nail on the head. I Enjoy the RL World Cup for what it is - But trying to build international sport from the top to the bottom has never ever worked. I am Irish (sorta - but probably a lot more than that team that got pumped at thomond park) and care very little for these aussies and wiganers wearing the emerald green. The whole tournament lacks authenticity and I feel sorry for the international sides who produce their own players (France, PNG etc.) as they don't get the recognition they deserve. France could be the Italy/Argentina of RL if they were given a bit more support from the 'big 3' Still, I thought the first half of England and Fiji last night was a cracker!
c
Guest
one of the most recognizable part Samoans I am aware of is tim cahill and he has been a superstar in every sense of the word for the game I follow :)
david
Guest
i didnt know anyone watched that
david
Guest
thats complete bull lol
Birdy
Guest
Billo; if you're going to have a rant, get your facts right. All the 'South Africans' in the England cricket team do not just qualify on residency. They all have at least one English parent apart from Trott who can, nevertheless, trace his English heritage back centuries from all four grandparents.Now if you're looking for a stronger argumnet - have a gander at the Wallabies.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
In fact Hosey G , 8 of the USA squad were born in the USA.PLus 2 from Samoa(assuming American Samoa). So the figure of 4 you quoted according to the RLWC13 site is utterly incorrect.The bulk of the Fijian squad were born in that country.And the figure for Tonga is higher than the one you quoted. Please check before generalising.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
I will type slowly .Bristol not a rl city,no rl heritage or tradition,gets 8,000 at a match,which surprised many.Considering it also involved teams from USA and Cook Islands with absolutely no ties to mother England. The Tahs in a state of nearly 7 million people ( with a long history and tradition) in 2013,which according to me is about as up to date as one can get, averages a little over twice that amount.And all that with Mr Folau as an added bonus.With a home supporter base. That is taking things into perspective,regardless of whether it is a WC or S15..
Dublin Dave
Guest
Let me be clear. I am not denying the right of any player in any sport to represent a country other than his place of birth or residence if he has a genuine connection to justify it and demonstrates his commitment on the field to earn it. Nor am I decrying the practice per se. All I am saying is that as a way to build a sport, grow a team's strength and maintain a high level of performance relative to other countries, then stocking the team up with players "recruited" from abroad will not work in the long term at representative level. You HAVE to grow your own talent, or at least most of it. Yes; the Irish soccer team has for decades made generous use of what we accurately and affectionately call the "Granny rule" but the best players in the team WERE and are usually the home-grown ones. And if they weren't, then the team was pretty crap. The best English born players with Irish heritage usually play for England.(Rooney, Keegan, Keown, Callaghan, McDermott etc) What we are left with are the rejects and occasionally, very occasionally, a good player who was not spotted early enough by the big clubs and who was snapped up by the Irish before their club careers took off (Mark Lawrenson). In today's world, that happens less and less given the globalized and inflated nature of the transfer market. Sometimes the "rejects" were pretty fair players but rarely as good as the best from their native countries. And if you think that cobbling together an entire squad (with one exception) of players from outside the country and sticking green shirts on them is likely to increase a game's standing over here, even if they managed to string a win or two together, which it appears this "Irish" team can't, then you're very much mistaken. Don't take my word for it; just count the crowd at Thomond Park this Saturday. I could be wrong :) But I doubt it.
DR
Guest
Hi Ryan, Thank you for your reply. While i understand your points i don't really follow why it would weaken SOO? It may affect the Kangaroos but not SOO particularly if you remove Kiwis and English from the equation? As pot stirrer mentioned above, i would personally have no issue with that idea even if they were playing for NZ. Cant see why that would detract from the spectacle and interest. When you consider the likes of Tamou and the furore around Inglis it has hardly detracted from the occasion? I would suggest it has added interest. Of course this is based on the assumption that those players would prefer to play for others rather than Australia but it would be a start. All of that means nothing if as you say they are not just playing games but making those fixtures meaningful. Tricky. I believe the only way to give additional rep footy a fair crack is to create a specific window. My idea would be to reduce the NRL to 20 rounds and i would personally like to see a 20 team competition. Home and away biannually. I've never personally liked the current format where you play some twice and not others. Silly. Anyhow I think this is quite easily done. Keep the same finals format. This easily creates a two month period for SOO and internationals. During SOO i would run an adjoining rep series of a NZ selection vs Polynesian All Stars. I believe this would be quite popular. Who wouldn't want to see Manu and Aquila in the same team ? Exciting and scary at the same time. Throw in other age grade comps etc and it could be quite popular. Move on to a trans Tasman test and you could introduce a pacific nations cup, English tours etc. England could tour NZ while Oz plays in a pacific tournament and swap every year and location. I would be keen to see Great Britain return too. Possibilitys are endless in my opinion and exciting from my where I sit. My fear for this World Cup as that its success will be short lived and once the winner ( kiwis ) has been decided back to the grind so to speak. The sport must capitalise on the momentum it has built with this tournament and that means making internationals a priority rather than an afterthought. A concession needs to be made somewhere and it needs to be at club level from my perspective. Rugby league has far more potential then what it is currently displaying and such a massive advantage to have international footy compared to AFL. Plenty of reasons not too. Money being a main obstacle but i don't see why you can't sell out small to medium sized grounds and not have a decent audience. World Cup seems to be working so why not? Anyway, hopefully you can understand my dribble and where I am coming from. Writing was never a strength!! Love your thoughts if you have time. Oh and GO KIWIS!!! ;)
Hosey G
Guest
The matches have been pretty good but I find it hard to take it as represting their country when, for example, Irealnd have 3 players who were actually born in Ireland in their entire squad, Italy 4, USA 4 and I'm not sure about Italy but I'm sure it was in single figures. Even Tonga only had about 3. And it didn't display the figures for Scotland. It is a bit of a farce when to qualify for Italy you must have had to eat at an Italian restaurant in the last 3 years.
deanp
Guest
Indeed. You've hit the nail on the head there Ra. Why on earth would an Ozzie, born and raised, want to play league for a country he has grown up in, went to school, learnt the game in, made a very good living from the game in this country, when he could play for another country he has never lived in. Obviously it's the dosh.
Ken
Guest
As a Samoan it's funny having a troll make up facts about my country ,why do people come on her and make up facts to try and win a argument it's pretty pathetic lol
Otagoz
Guest
Yes, as a pakeha (ageing) it amazes me as well. My Maori, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian mates at school and varsity were NZers but proud of their Polynesian roots/ancestry. New Zealand has always been pacific island centric back past my 40s50s60s schooldays. The alternate All Blacks haka is actually specially written and is an amalgam of all the islands' cultures with the wording and movements. Powerful stuff!
Otagoz
Guest
Pretty sure concord oval only takes about 17000 safely! Maybe a sellout crowd ?!!!!
DR
Guest
Thanks Ryan, I have a detailed response but my kids are running riot so will post later!
Pot Stirrer
Guest
What if, if they fit the criteria for SOO by haveing lived in NSW or QLD since they were 13 they could play for either state but they could still play for their country of heritage as long as they nominate it when they sign thier first contract @ 18.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Hey DR, Sorry, didn't mean to ignore your question, and no, it's not stupid at all. I'm not sure relaxing the eligibility of State of Origin would strengthen the International game, but it would certainly weaken SOO, and considering that is crown in the jewell of rugby league, I'd be wary of messing with it. The issue at present is obviously that SOO is so appealing, popular and massive, that everyone wants to be a part of it. But what makes it special is the passion and the exclusiveness of it. Remove that, and you may remove what makes Origin what it is. The key is making other representative games/teams more important. Perhaps, as Origin is being played, there is another rep competition on at the same time, giving it greater significance. If Origin moved to Sunday, could Friday and Saturday night also have some form of rep games being played, making a weekend of it, over three weekends? Just spitballing, and I'm sure there are issues with such a plan, but for those that aren't (or shouldn't be) eligible for SOO, there needs to be something else they can aspire to. At the moment, there is vacuum.
DR
Guest
Stupid question i guess?
Reality
Guest
Ok I had never heard the phrase "ecological fallacy" used before, I thought you were talking about climate change :) I know that vast areas in the north were poor, as were the areas in the south too. My comment at the end wasn't really anything to do with my argument, it was a "side note", so as a proud Northern Englishmen I can say that once upon a time nothern towns were the power houses of the economy. Sadly not the case anymore. "It was harder for the players in the north to miss out on money from work" really? I know that is often paraded as a fact but I fail to see why it was harder for the northern worker over the Southern worker, or Welsh, Scottish worker for that matter. The northern clubs felt an injustice as they formed the majority, but were ignore by the RFU. I admire the way RL was founded, I appreciate sticking it to the "man" as much as anybody else, but you have to accept that there was a corporate/financial motive in the splt. This may have accompanied a sense of injustice (which there was, the Northern clubs were treated very badly and with double standards) but you can't ignore the money trail!
Reality
Guest
Why is it dumb? Because it's the truth? I shouldn't have used the word boys as it implies that RL men didn't fight, which is obviously not true. I was talking about the establishments, not the players, poor use of a comedy analogy perhaps. But it is true that RL kept on when RU closed down for the war effort. RU only started to recover in the 1930's by that time the damage was done. That is a fact, go check it out. And for the record I don't dislike RL at all, I grew up playing both and appreciate both for what they are. The "class" thing is a red flag to me, I despise pigeon holing people based on their background.