Rugby union is still seen as being in an early stage of professionalism. It has only been 18 years since the first fully professional rugby union contracts were signed.
Since then, the rugby landscape has changed significantly. Where in the amateur era foreigners moved to adopted countries mostly due to job opportunities and naturalised themselves to their new countries, the ‘poaching’ phenomenon has become standard practice for many clubs – and to a lesser extent countries – in the professional era.
You could argue that most countries to an extent are guilty of this, however you may want to differentiate between intended poaching and opportunistic poaching.
Intended poaching is the setup of active programs by clubs and national unions, whereby the national union of the clubs assist and set out stipulations in regards to how many players may be encouraged to join forces with these clubs.
Financial assistance can also be part of the assistance from the national unions, directly or indirectly.
This entails the active search and identification of young talent that can be poached in the prime of their young careers after representing the top under age competitions in their countries of birth.
It is however not limited to youngsters, it could be established players after only a few years in the professional arena, to senior players close to the end of their stellar careers.
Opportunistic poaching is the lesser of two evils as the clubs are approached by the agents of the respective players who seek higher salaries and often goes hand in hand with players realising their chances of representing their countries of birth are thwarted with obstacles.
Many youngsters leaving school may decide to leave the country of their birth from the outset and move abroad in the hope of securing contracts in other markets. In most cases these players are not established and therefore have to grind out an existence before making a name for themselves.
It is hard to blame a player who decides he wants to go abroad for more money, new experiences and a better lifestyle.
It is however harder to swallow the active intended poaching that reduces talent pools, and weakens domestic rugby for those countries who are net exporters of rugby players.
It is hard to argue that the Pacific Islands, New Zealand and South Africa are by far the biggest exporters of natural rugby talent, and considering the size of their pools, it is likely that eventually it will impact their domestic competitions and ultimately their national teams.
New Zealand and South Africa have the largest pools of talent. with a population of just over 4 million, New Zealand does well to have the depth they have at their disposal. South Africa, even though they have 50 million population, suffer as roughly only 20 per cent of their population is actively involved in the code.
The Pacific Islands collectively have less than 2 million between them.
The Pacific Islands do not have the resources to finance professional rugby and therefore their situation is unique. They rely entirely on the IRB to protect them, and let’s be frank about it – not much is being done to protect them. As tier two nations, they suck the hind tit of the donkey.
South Africa and New Zealand have taken different stances whereby SARU have a policy of selecting overseas players to represent their national team, whereas the New Zealand Rugby Union have not.
The jury was out as to which policy was the correct one, but based on recent results in Super Rugby and Test rugby, it seems the New Zealanders were right.
While it appears professionalism hasn’t changed too much, will this continue to be the case?
National unions now face challenges and decisions that will impact the future of the sport within their boundaries. If they fail to address these issues the future looks bleak.
The biggest priority would be for them to protect their top 45-60 players. Central contracting is a must, player management will be more important than ever and securing long term commitment form these players a necessity.
The SARU will not be able to continue selecting overseas players to represent their national team, there are a number of factors coming into play. Their European players will suffer from fatigue due to them playing all year round, and it is impossible for SARU to manage players paid by overseas clubs.
Further to this, availability becomes an issue. Club bosses are up in arms over the unavailability of the players, and the arrogance of tycoons with egos bigger than their wallets are demanding the return of their players or compensation by the national unions.
As Toulon Chief Morad Boudjellal recently retorted.
“The IRB decided the rules. That’s fine but I’m not here to fund South African and Argentine rugby and I will not.”
Now if there is a Frenchman who needs a timely reminder that he is not funding anyone, but rather an active intended poacher of talent, it would be him.
Regardless of my feelings toward Mr Boudjellal, it does bring up an interesting conundrum.
As law is not my forte, what would the consequences be if the French courts rule that the IRB laws do no usurp French labour laws?
Will this alter the course of professional rugby to the point where national unions have no protection against the poaching phenomenon?
Think of the Pacific Islands, there is no way they can compensate clubs to release their players.
The idea of a global season has been thrown about often enough, yet it as not come to fruition yet, and I highly doubt it ever will.
So unless national unions step up to protect their players chances are that over the next decade the wealthy club owners will simply buy the best players available and Test rugby will be compromised as they will have to contend with all these issues highlighted above.
chris
Guest
It is wrong to refer to labour law in this instance. Toulon's owner has not raised his issues with Lobbe, Botha or Habana. He claims that his issue is with the IRB mandating the release of these players. The legal question is about the power of voluntary bodies (the IRB) to make rules that govern the conduct of its members even if it happens to undermine the member's ability to make money.
chris
Guest
Or they can say the clubs can organise their season as they see fit, provided that the international players are made available for June, Rugby Chapionship, EOYT and six nations. The clubs are free to set-up any competition within that framework.
chris
Guest
One of the common fallacies that get brought up in this discussion is that there is only one system in the south and one system in the north. I live in Cape Town, here I get to see my local side, the Stormers/Western Province play 8 home games in Super Rugby plus 8 currie cup games, probably a Currie Cup knock-out game and a test or two. I get plenty of very good rugby to go to and almost all those games mean something to me. Things are different in Australia and New Zealand in the south. And in Europe there are just as many differences between Ireland and France.
chris
Guest
The European clubs have many advantages that you mention, but the greatest one is the different requirements of their fans. If you transplanted the T14 to South Africa or New Zealand with all its money and big stars it would be a complete flop. We have no interest in seeing a neverending slog between provincial towns which has more to do with some rich businessboy's ego than about the quality of play. It works for their fans, but would never work here.
BBA
Guest
I thnk that is the outcome that the Toulon president wants as well. If you take my money, and the big dollars you need to give up your international aspirations as well. Dont know what he might have said to initially entice them and whether he is going back on his word or not. However this is a big issue, otherwise clubs like Toulon will want to tie up players and lock out representative rugby. If domestic clubs cant compete on the money of Toulon than this representative rugby is their only carrot.
Daws
Guest
"...they suck the hind tit of the donkey." New vernacular acquired.
Bakkies
Guest
Actually Bournemouth negotiated a sell on clause which is ridiculous because he left that club without playing a serious match for them at 12 to join Southampton. That's ludicrious.
Bakkies
Guest
The transfer system is ridiculous. Often a third club that a bloke is signed for is paying money to his original club a deal has been made to pay them money even though he left that club while on contract to join his second. This happened in the Lallana transfer where part of his transfer fee was kicked back to Bournemouth even though he was transferred from Southampton. It's a ridiculous set up and it led to an average player being overvalued. No wonder clubs are heavily in debt. The worst case scenarios are clubs not being able to pay their rivals transfer money due to lack of funds which leads to huge political problems (see NewCo Rangers and their Scottish membership meetings) and dirty money under the table deals (see Barcelona). The transfer windows are basically stock markets. Instead its humans instead of cattle or horses being brought for ridiculous sums and conditions. No sane person would want to see that kind of nonsense in Rugby and the fans suffer.
Bakkies
Guest
Each game? You need to watch more La Rochelle, Clermont, Montpellier and Bordeaux games.
Garth
Guest
And they are letting control of the game slip into the hands of wealthy businessmen whose primary concern is their bank balance, not the club they have hijacked, nor the sport we all love. In NZ we have (mostly) gotten over players leaving for the money. Control of the game here remains with the National Union, not a billionaire or two, and that's the main thing.
In Brief
Guest
Statistics and lies, what's the quote? All anyone need do is watch a Top 14 match to rediscover the meaning of banal, tripe, dull, turgid and other rarely used adjectives.
Garth
Guest
The Blues and the Auckland provincial side are not clubs, they are representative sides, similar the AB's but on a lower level. The progression is as follows. CLUB < PROVINCE < SUPER RUGBY < ALL BLACKS. How hard is this to understand?
In Brief
Guest
Like it or not the Wallabies are the most recognisable rugby team in Australia, followed by the Super Rugby franchises. The shute shield is about as popular as a turd in a pool, and the NRC is the future.
Garth
Guest
They would prefer to set penalty clauses to discourage a player from representing his nation.
In Brief
Guest
Actually it is, and I still watch a fair bit of it. . But particularly in the top 14 passion trumps skill, each game is lttered with basic mistakes and a total lack of ambition. The excitement is generated by the importance of winning, the personalities on the sidelines and the money involved, not the actual play on the park.
Garth
Guest
With an Argentinian team about to join SR and the large PI presence in the Anzac teams (NZ in particular), yes it is. At the very least SR has set the standard. As for Eastern Europe, France and it's money is closer.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
While I do agree it is sier said than done. There are problems here in that rugby has to compete for television with AFL and NRL which both are looking at billion dollar tv deals. The A League is coming along in leaps and bounds but their competition is our summer but the AFC games go on for most of the year as AFC competition or friendlies. A concern that does not impact on either SA or NZ rugby
Cadfael
Roar Guru
How do transfer fees work? They did have them in rugby league but they got thrown out in the Tutty case in the late 60s, In the EPL, if a player has completed his contract, he is a free agent. The only time transfer fees come into it is if he still has time to run on his contract.
Old Bugger
Guest
Why is my comment being moderated?
Old Bugger
Guest
Well its that generalizations about SH rugby being all about the running game etc are a load of bollocks All Bent. Considering the mega attacking Toulon of the NH comp were on par with some SH sides. Each team is different in the SH, just like in the NH. It might have something to do with arbitrary lines on a global map NOT dictating playing style or it might be that the SH sides are often coached by SH coaches and full of SH players ONLY. What's my point?? SH must certainly have some serious impact on global rugby, notwithstanding the RWC successes since 1987, that NH rugby clubs and unions see fit to pursue SH talent to not only play for but also coach NH clubs and national teams. So, why dont you tell me if you think SH rules??