However unlikely it might be, the prospect of Australian-born Blair Connor popping up in the French national team highlights a key flaw in the ARU’s new player sabbatical scheme.
It might secure the continued commitment of the biggest names – or at least only their short-term absence from Australia – but what will its effect be on the rest?
Based on the current chatter among players, and the flush of activity among agents scrambling to get their guys contracts overseas before competition from all of the big names seeking post-Rugby World Cup departures kicks in, sabbaticals aren’t going to help.
If anything, they are going to increase the exodus of players I call ‘middle management’, while some of the bigger names are still planning to leave anyway, based on the lists of available players being circulated by the agencies among European clubs at the moment.
With the minimum wage in the Top 14 currently sitting at €120,000 a season, is it any wonder that there is a rush on now to grab post-World Cup contracts?
Inevitably, when the argument around sabbaticals has been raised, advocates have pointed to the precedent set in New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, South Africa.
The comparisons are not valid.
Both countries have a level of playing depth, and competition for places, far in excess of what we have.
SA Rugby has not shelled out ridiculous money to prevent its top players going offshore. It knows the country has the depth to cover these losses internally, both at Super Rugby and Currie Cup level. By not resisting the desire of the top players to grab the inflated wages offshore, the South Africans have bowed to the reality that these guys were going to go anyway.
At least, by allowing dispensations, the players are not lost to the Springboks (if needed), while the playing standards domestically remain relatively strong due to their depth. The departure of the big names provides the opportunity for the next tier to step up and take over the provincial leadership reins.
So the formula is working for South Africa.
New Zealand also bowed to reality, but in a slightly different way.
Like South Africa, the Kiwis have the depth to compensate for offshore departures. Unlike South Africa, they have a geographical advantage with relation to the club game in Europe.
It’s not as easy – nor as attractive – for players to return to New Zealand regularly to play Tests from European bases as it is for their South African counterparts.
New Zealand also calculated, correctly one suspects, that the privilege the All Black jersey carries for young Kiwis would still hold most players in the country until the prospects of making it (or continuing to wear it) were all but extinguished.
Hence they won’t pick overseas-based players as a rule, although they did bend that slightly when Sonny Bill Williams was in Japan a couple of years back and they ‘borrowed’ him for the Bledisloe.
Yes, New Zealand has created sabbaticals, but these remain rare; and have almost exclusively been the domain of long-serving stars, to reduce the threat of these players being hit with the opportunity they simply couldn’t refuse.
Dan Carter was first.
He was in his prime. Losing him long-term would have been a disaster, so they took a pragmatic approach, which was smart given Carter was the best player in the world.
Carter couldn’t be picked from overseas but was allowed to play in France for six months. He used his second sabbatical, this year, to have his first proper pre-season in nearly a decade.
Others to have the leave are Richie McCaw, who used his to go travelling, Ali Williams, who later left once he’d reached his use-by date, Ma’a Nonu, and more recently Conrad Smith.
I’ve no doubt the ARU ‘model’ has been predicated on the Kiwi one.
One fact it doesn’t appear to take into account though, is that sabbaticals have not been the panacea for the problem of Kiwi players going overseas.
Look around the clubs in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France or Japan and there are Kiwis everywhere.
Some go when they’ve run their race in New Zealand, others because they feel the All Black door is closed, or because they are Pacific Islands internationals anyway – so the lure of the All Black jersey doesn’t apply.
The allowance of selected sabbaticals has not prevented the New Zealand game from bleeding its middle management. If anything, it has actually increased the blood flow, because those who represent the middle band know that they have to take the overseas contracts when they come, as the opportunity may not be there indefinitely (as it is for high-profile players).
The player turnover, in Super Rugby but especially among their NPC teams, is significant. This is where the danger lies in the recent rule change.
For all of the good intentions, it’s pretty obvious that the fear of losing Israel Folau and the marketing icon he has become has played a big part in all of this.
Formulating a policy change of seismic proportions based on the potential threat of losing one player, however big he is as a star, is fraught with danger.
Unlike South Africa or New Zealand, Australia doesn’t have the depth to cover the loss of its middle management. And the new allowance for sabbaticals, which one assumes will only be made available to either star or long-term players, has instantly made the next tier of player more vulnerable.
This is, of course, unless the ARU figures on a widespread authorisation of sabbaticals, which would defeat the purpose of their introduction in the first place.
If the likes of Folau and potentially Quade Cooper were not costing so much, and this is even with the allowance of a sabbatical, would Australia have retained the likes of Ben Mowen?
Probably.
Even though he was the incumbent Wallaby captain, Mowen was offered a $30,000 ARU top up, which compared to the figures that are bandied about for the likes of Folau and Cooper, was a tad insulting.
Hence he took the big money on offer at Montpellier. Who can blame him?
The French club is now getting the benefits of a guy at the height of his career, while Australia, and particularly the Brumbies, have lost out big time.
Just how much his leadership and organisational skills are going to be missed in Canberra will become apparent pretty quickly next year.
With the ARU’s limited funds, and its contracting policy clearly weighted towards the needs of a select few at the higher end of the profile range, the lack of financial regard for the rest will drive the middle management into the arms of overseas clubs in increasing numbers – especially if you look at the Kiwi example.
Or even more pertinently Argentina.
Their issues, in terms of the way the plundering of players from overseas (especially French) clubs has effected, is arguably more in line with the challenge that the ARU faces than the circumstances with regards to either South Africa or New Zealand.
Argentina lost its star players, but many of its foot soldiers as well.
It couldn’t replace either, and is now at the mercy of the French clubs, forcing Los Pumas to field virtual ‘B’ teams in the June Tests in order to get their European-based players released for the Rugby Championship.
The new ARU scheme could mean the biggest stars stay – after being away for a season or two with their sabbaticals – but for every one of them retained, there will be a fair few among the next tier who are lost for much longer. And Australia can ill afford to lose them.
Rugby is, after all, a team game.
Without the work of the rest, the stars can’t and don’t shine.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Thanks for getting back to us in/outsider. Have just emailed provale and asked them to clarify the matter (minimum wages for foreign players). I think its important for any young southerner who's considering moving to france to pursue their rugby career to know where they stand financially. Again I have aread on quite a few occasions that young fijians wings for example were not earning 'that much', I.e. 5000 euros/month.
The Insider
Guest
Apologies Roarers that I have just had the chance to review your posts. Re: the French Top 14 wages, think you will find that is the minimum for any overseas players signed. They have to have a minimum level because there are rules in place as to how many any club can sign. In terms of getting guys released from France, think the ARU would find that difficult to achieve as - obviously - have Argentina. My understanding is that, without IRB funding to compensate the clubs, they wouldn't have access to their French-based players for the RC. The rugby is also quite different. Gits has had a blinder since he's been in France, but he has been playing behind the best forwards in the comp, and in a star-studded backline, so it's not a surprise to see him excelling like he has - & good on him for it. To think he would come back and be able to do the same for the Wallabies is unrealistic though. The circumstances are different, look at the difference between the Waratahs' Israel Folau, and the Wallaby version through the RC. As mentioned by someone previously, I also think being available for Australia might also impact on what players can get from the clubs, hence I suspect a lot of players would simply declare their retirement from international rugby in order to maximise their earning power, if the ARU changed its rules. I also suspect that, in the long term, the ARU might also face issues with both of its SANZAR partners if such an exodus, as would be likely, proved to weaken he competitiveness of our teams, and it undoubtedly would. NZ and SA have the depth to cover their losses. Unfortunately, at this stage anyway, we don't.
roardog
Guest
nickoldschool we miss his honest approach to our beloved sport a kid that was running the streets in 34 deg heat when he was 15 ,how we miss an honest toiler that achieved the ultimate through guts and determination and hard work.
ozinsa
Guest
ShaneD you've hit the nail on the head. Given the current money problems we can't afford to risk SANZAR revenue by diminishing the product further. What about transfer fees? I know there is likely to be a legal stoush but I'm not sure I understand why/how it works in soccer but won't fly in rugby or RL.
Gary Russell-Sharam
Guest
Totally agree NOS we do miss him and his ethic and his play.
Bakkies
Guest
Strong handed? The had to have an off season.
Bakkies
Guest
6 month deal worth a lot of coin. Perpignan couldn't afford to sign him again when he had his next paid holiday. Nonu didn't exactly go to Japan for the craic
Shane D
Roar Rookie
The NZ sabbaticals are offered to longer serving players. It's at the players discretion how they use it. Smith & McCaw took it as a chance to rest & recover. Carter & Nonu took it as a chance to earn some cash & experience a different culture.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
It would be interesting to see if the players currently overseas have a clause in their contracts regarding eligibility. The clubs have signed these players on the understanding that they are not going to be going back to Australia to play tests. I would think they would get an improved contract due to that. The French clubs esp are notorious for making it difficult for their overseas players to be available (sudden injuries, retirements etc). Anything outside of the dedicated test window is a no go which reduces the ARU's opportunities to play additional games to raise funds. It is interesting that both Wales & England have recently changed their selection policy to exclude players from outside their country. They are a 30 minute flight from France how is the ARU going to go!
Shane D
Roar Rookie
Will the Super 15 teams remain competitive without the cream of the crop? More importantly offering a diluted competition to the broadcasters will result in a reduced income stream from them. Why would Foxtel pay for a competition in which Australian teams are not going to be at their strongest? The super 15 can demand good funds from the broadcasters as it is a premier competition. Change that & you put the deal at risk. SA can get away with it to sone extent due to their depth but even then the super 15 teams are showing strain at the loss of top players.How long until the power of the players overseas clubs see them 'retire' from international rugby in order to be fresh for their clubs?
AndyS
Guest
Big presumption that Australia would fare any better at the negotiating table than Argentina. Why haven't the UAR negotiated those clauses then? The reasons for the Argentinean record this year are obvious. We should absolutely follow suit when we also want to only be occasionally competitive.
Rock
Guest
Your comment is flawed IMO. Losing to Ireland and Scotland with a 'B' Team due to them being strong handed by French clubs. Obviously going down this route for Australia would require negotiations with European clubs and this reflected in the players contracts, however I think this could be done as the prospect of losing a class player for 4 weeks during the June test window is a whole lot better then not being able to recruit them at all. Then the other matches Argentina lost in the Rugby Championship were against the top 3 (at the time) teams in world rugby. They were at full strength and come close to beating Australia in Perth and South Africa on both occasions and were very competitive against the All Blacks. I think this shows that by being able to select their international players there team improved out of sight.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
agree scrounger, would even go further, I think oz rugby is missing Mowen the man/player, not only Mowen the captain/leader. Its rare during a lifetime to come across someone who's quality in his job (here rugby) and has an irreproachable attitude, accepts to sometimes be on the sideline, doesn't seek headlines and limelight, doesn't mind 'flashier' colleagues either even if they aren't better. With Mowen Oz rugby had all that, plus as you say he had leadership skills. He is 28-29, has accepted a lucrative contract in Montpellier: many before him in a similar situation took it easy, enjoyed a pre retirement stint a their new country with the wife and kids. Not Mowen, and that's why his new Montpellier supporters like in him, the bloke doesn't cheat, he delivers. Pity the ARU didn't realise this beforehand, am sure they could have shown a bit more love and kept the man here.
AndyS
Guest
Imagine you would say the same for Argentina, except they are 1 from 9 this year having lost to both Ireland and Scotland to slump down the rankings. Relying on overseas players isn't working out real well for them.
Bomb78
Guest
Agreed USACenter! Let eligible players know that they can be picked at any time from any team in the world, and help them to have release clauses for national duty written into their contracts in Europe or Japan. The Wallabies are on a hiding to nothing - the elephant in the room not mentioned in the article is the effect the NRL has on player stocks in Australia. It's just another adversary for the ARU to combat.
Scrounger
Guest
I don't know about Mowen's leadership being missing next year. WHAT ABOUT NOW!!! WBs a shambles in terms of leadership on the field and off it the ARU are doing their best "Fawlty Towers" impression.
Magic Sponge
Guest
Exactly right Pulver like most corporate types are purely superficial and pr like. basically the clubs that have been ignored are now being slugged to invest in this nrc comp with no tv coverage or help from the aru. But we do not have any depth to cover a 6th rugby team as per the performances of the reds and rebels indicate.
Rock
Guest
I disagree ethan, especially 'I don’t think it was badly handled by the ARU. And if we started picking players from overseas, all our best players would leave for good, like the soccer players. We certainly don’t have the depth for this. Super Rugby would suffer permanently.' You are not going to get the majority of best players going overseas, the ARU & Super Clubs will still have the money to compete for the 'stars', but you will have a few of the middle 'toilers' playing their trade abroad for much better coin. Super teams may suffer initially however I think it would be a very short period if any. Being able to select from abroad would vastly improve the Wallabies stocks, especially in the forwards where lets face it, could use vast improvement. Some of the forwards plying their trade in Europe at the moment would significantly improve our scrum and when the policy is changed Australian rugby will be better for it.
roardog
Guest
ethan in any business its called forward thinking something that Pulver doesn,t seem to have and we aren,t even a chance in the World Cup without his Leadership , i wonder if the ARU can buy out his contract. ??
ethan
Guest
Players were going to go overseas after the world cup anyway, Sabbaticals might just shorten their stay. I don't think they are a bad idea. While the stars are gone, some of the middle-men might see an opportunity to use it to push their case on Australian shores, meaning we won't lose to many of them. Without the stars, the quality of our super rugby sides will drop a bit, but like I said, they were going to go anyway. It might just mean the drop in quality is for a shorter period of time. I don't think it was badly handled by the ARU. And if we started picking players from overseas, all our best players would leave for good, like the soccer players. We certainly don't have the depth for this. Super Rugby would suffer permanently. As for Mowen, he found himself in a very unique position - captain of the WBs in his first season playing with them. The ARU top up scheme didn't have terms for this because it was such an unlikely scenario. IMO, they dealt with it horribly. Surely they could have understood his captaincy meant he would be a part of the team for years to come, and that he was absolutely vita to the team. A special consideration needed to be made.