International eligibility rules: Who should play for your country?

Representing your adopted country in any sport has always been a highly divisive and touchy subject.

With rugby being the parochial, tribal sport that it is, Roarers have often had highly entertaining discussions about the matter as there are strong cases for both arguments.

“Who should have the right to wear the national jersey, should you be born in a country to represent it, can residents yet non-citizens represent their new country, how long is long enough etc. Should the son/daughter or even grandson/granddaughter of someone born elsewhere be eligible to wear their parents/grandparents colours?”

The list goes on.

Needless to say our answers are always colourful and passionate as it’s clearly impossible not to be emotional on the subject. Our answers are who we are, what we stand for, they are the result of our very own story, our upbringing, our values and our soul.

From countries and managers being labelled ‘poachers, disgraceful, opportunists’ to players being called ‘mercenaries’ or ‘traitors’, we have seen it all. Problem is, after years of debating the topic, most of us still feel torn and unsatisfied with the answers. Personally, I still don’t know what to think or worse, what to feel, when I see a player representing his new country.

Last week, when I came across an interview with former French winger Emile N’tamack (aka Milou), I thought “ok, I know now. He is right: people wearing the national jersey should not only be proud of their colours but should also represent the country’s people and values, its culture and diversity. They should fit in, already be part of it”.

I really felt N’tmack had chosen the right words when he said: “Playing for France means you represent a lot of things: country’s name in the sport arena obviously but also French values and cultural diversity which are as we know already rich in our country. I’d rather lose the ‘French-way’ than win thanks to foreigners.”

“Sure the world has changed but are people going to identify and support a team with many foreigners? Not long ago, we had a go at our footballers because they didn’t sing ‘La Marseillaise’ and I can’t imagine Rory Kockott singing it either with the Bleu jersey on.

“Even though he has the legal right to represent France, he just can’t consider himself to be a French citizen nor can he forget his South-African roots. Sure, I get that some players are desperate to play a RWC – even if it means playing for Peru!”

I have to say what Milou, the son of French-Cameroon parents, said felt right at that time as he represents what France like England or Australia are, truly multicultural countries. We Aussies, Kiwis, English, French, Americans etc come from culturally diverse countries shaped by waves of migrations.

In this respect we already have plenty of diversity to include in our national teams. Basically, there is no need to pick players who moved to our countries only a few years ago and may have done so for ‘the wrong reasons’ – i.e. playing a World Cup for a country, no matter what country it is.

It did sound simple, clear and full of common sense and for once I felt I had finally found ‘my side’. Well that was until last night when I came across this video.

In this video, one of the purest, rawest sporting moment I have ever seen, we see Scott Spedding, Bayonne’s South-African born full-back, giving a post-match interview after Saturday’s Top 14 game.

At the time of the match, Spedding isn’t on the list but we all know PSA has to find a replacement for injured Brice Dulin.

In the first part of the interview, Scott doesn’t know he has been picked, no one knows actually. When the journo asks him if he still has some hopes, Scott replies that yes, he still dreams of representing France but knows he is an outside chance as he has never been picked before.

Then Patrice Lagisquet, one of France’s coaches, tells us that Philippe Saint-Andre has just made up his mind, Scott is in the group. What happens next at the dressing room when Lagisquet announces to Spedding that he’s in the group is simply beautiful and doesn’t need an explanation – or a translation.

Every rugby nation has its own Scott Spedding. Clyde Rathbone, ‘Beast’ Mtawarira, Brad Barritt etc have similar stories. Can we ‘guarantee’ that all players representing their new country do so for ‘the right reasons’? No we can’t.

Does it mean we should prevent guys like Scott from playing for their new colours? I think not and I for one would be extremely proud to have a guy like him wearing the Bleu jersey.

We are in a world where most professional sportsmen are blasé and see representing their country has a burden rather than a privilege especially if it doesn’t enhance their ‘brand’ or earn them big dollars.

A few months ago, Samuel Eto’o, one of the highest paid football stars on the planet, lead a strike over bonuses to ensure he and his Cameroon team mates would get as much as possible during the month-long FIFA World Cup.

That’s what Cameroon jersey meant for him, a way to make a few extra bucks. French basketball NBA star Joachim Noah said ‘no’ to France at the last world cup preferring to ‘rest’ before the new NBA season and be ready to play for his American franchise. Again, money talked.

For this reason I think we should welcome guys like Spedding whose reaction to what was merely ‘a training camp invitation’ for his new country is refreshing. Isn’t it what we all want, players who would give anything to play for their team, club or country?

Give me Potgieter or Spedding to represent my club or country over players who may be born in the same land but with whom I have nothing in common.

So what to do to ensure the Speddings of this world can play but the potential fraudsters and opportunists can’t? Currently, IRB eligibility regulations state that:

8.1 a player may only play for the country in which:

a. he was born; or
b. one parent or grandparent was born; or
c. he has completed thirty six consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing.

All possible loopholes can’t be closed and it’s clear that no matter what’s in the next regulations we will always get the odd case that leaves a bad taste.

Personally, I would increase the residency rules to five years. For the record, Scott Spedding moved to France at 21 and is now 28. I would also remove the grandparent rule as it is or at least include a clause stating ‘grandparent and three years of residence’.

This would prevent players such as Sean Maitland to play for a country he barely knew. Even sons of immigrants should in my opinion have lived in the country of birth of their parents for at least one, preferably two years before becoming eligible.

Again, I think it’s great that new migrants or descendants of immigrants can one day represent their new country but it’s in the interest of the game itself to keep national teams coherent. No regulations will ever fully prevent rugby federations from ‘fabricating’ a side whose sole objective is to win, no matter who’s in it.

In this respect I believe we supporters are the ones who have to voice our opinions when we think the players chosen do not represent us.

From what I have seen on social media in the last 24 hours, many French have welcomed Spedding and already consider him one of ours.