There is an inevitability that professional rugby players and their agents will seek more lucrative pastures, for many the lure of representing their national teams no longer outweigh the lure of the almighty Dollar, Euro or Yen.
There is very little that can be done to retain our best players at home, and even if we begrudgingly let them go, it is really not up to us, but a personal decision for each and every player.
The debate in regards to whether it is for the money, new experiences or for a better life in another country is as debatable as the intention of the poaching rugby clubs and unions.
There is one truth though, and that is the Southern Hemisphere countries are on a hiding to nothing when it comes to losing quality players to Europe and Japan.
I fully understand and accept that a player who has already represented his country for a number of years is looking towards retirement and therefore wants to experience new cultures or find his bucket of gold at the end of the rainbow before it is too late. There are of course also those who have done their time and come to the realisation they are not destined to represent their countries.
However, the biggest concern I have is the sheer number of youngsters now being poached, which does suggest there is more to it than just experiencing a new culture or filling the pockets before the inevitable retirement.
South Africa have lost a good number of youngsters over the past few years, and so much so that Jurie Roux from SARU made an announcement in 2012 that the South Africa Under-20 team have been nominated as their second team.
This effectively rules out any South African Junior Springbok to represent other nations from 2012.
In 2012 four young players left South Africa, CJ Stander, Sebastian Chaves, Danie Poolman and Quinn Roux. For all practical purposes they are all lost to South African Rugby as their selections at Under-20 level was prior to 2012.
In 2013 three youngsters left South Africa, Jandre Marais, Cornell du Preez and Gerhard van den Heever, and they are also potentially lost to South African rugby for the same reason.
In 2014 seven players left South Africa, and three of these players did not represent South Africa Under-20s. Tim Swiel declined a call up, as he wanted to keep his options open due to a dual passport, Rossouw de Klerk and Rynier Bernardo were never selected, and although Peet Marais did represent South Africa at Under-20 level he did so in 2010, hence he cannot be seen tied to Springbok rugby.
Allan Dell and Paul Willemse have both represented South Africa at junior level in 2012 and Johan Goosen has already been capped by the Springboks.
There has already been confirmation that Jacques du Plessis and Steven Kitshoff are leaving at the end of this season, but luckily they have represented the Under-20 team in 2012 and 2013.
The problem, however, is that with SANZARR not having an Under-20 competition, it limits the number of potential stars that can represent South Africa on an annual basis as the Junior World Cup squads only consist of 30 players.
Whether to a larger or lesser degree, New Zealand and Australia find themselves in the same predicament as South Africa.
It therefore becomes imperative that SANZAR urgently consider an Under-20 competition to grow the base of players representing their countries at junior level in order to allow them to secure more future players on an annual basis.
If you consider that a fair percentage of players will spend more than one year at Under-20 level it is likely that the numbers of newly capped Under-20 players are significantly less than 30 per year.
If SANZAR implemented an Under-20 Rugby Championship it would afford them the opportunity to play an additional six matches at Under-20 level and therefore select more juniors to the international arena.
In doing so, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Argentina will secure more of their young stars. We cannot compete against the Northern Hemisphere as far as remuneration for players are concerned, we therefore need to stop the bleed at the source.
Irish rugby players benefit from a tax perspective in that their earnings are exempted from income tax if they finish their careers in Ireland.
It is perhaps an option worth considering for the Southern Hemisphere nations as well. Whether the South African, New Zealand and Australian governments will agree to it, is of course another point of debate. But realistically, being exempt from income tax will hugely benefit our unions.
This will not stop the exodus of our players going overseas – the fact that Springboks are still selected for duty even if they play outside South Africa has opened the flood gates even more – but tax incentives should help to keep experienced players. Additionally, an Under-20 Rugby Championship will reduce the number of young talent poached for the exclusive use of representing adopted nations.
Interested
Guest
Hi Are these players tied to SARU or can they still play for other nations? When did the u20 rule come into effect?
Interested
Guest
Hi, I want to clarify something...when did the u/20 rule come into effect? After the 2012 Junior World Cup? I noticed that Allan Dell was selected in the Scotland squad for the November tests last year but was subsequently injured. So i'm assuming only players that played in the 2013 Junior World Cup and onwards are tied to SA rugby then?
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
When Super rugby teams are eventually increased to 8 teams per nation in (which is an absolute certainty or else Super Rugby will be replaced with a Champions League) then this will allow Super Rugby and Third Tier (ITM Cup, Currie Cup, NRC) to be played at the same time. This will fulfill the vital gap in local broadcast matches and development needed. A 12 team league in each country playing a double round robin. Player salaries will be low because Super Rugby teams will remain the Professional prize.
Ozee316
Guest
Agreed. The ITM cup is seen as the best place for an 18-20 year old rising star to cut their teeth before going pro. Mix it with seasoned guys a few years older, take a year or so to cement a starting place. It's the best way to blood young players and SA and NZ have been doing it for decades. That doesn't mean that the timing of the Currie Cup or ITM Cup are ideal. The reason BB has a good point is because young players not yet in Super Squads are languishing in club teams and other development squads with little rugby of high intensity until August.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
There are already Super Rugby Development teams in NZ. They play curtain raisers to home fixtures in early rounds such as the upcoming weekend. It would be not difficult to have these teams play a double round robin at home and the best 2 teams play off against SANZAR opposition in a MINI Super 8 including NZ - 2 teams SA - 2 teams AUS - 2 teams ARG - 1 team JAPAN - 1 team Such a competition could be finished before the June International Window when the JRWC occurs. The only issue with it would be the same as mentioned above that it would actually cost money because people don't generally buy tickets to watch these matches and the costs of broadcasting and holding and matches would outweigh revenues. But benefits could include the the ability to sign up more players to contracts in Super Rugby. Pacific Island players would not be excluded I feel as these are not National teams and the competition should be franchise v franchise. The nature of development teams would mean that it would be more of an U23 team than an U20 team because a strict cut off date would not suit a Development squad which might like to keep a player there until 21 or 22. On the other hand, If the NRC, ITM Cup and Currie Cup were moved to begin in March then they would serve as de facto development competitions for U20 talent beneath Super Rugby like the Toyota Cup in the NRL. The timing of these competitions is suitable for broadcasters but not for rugby development because junior members have nowhere high level to play until August every year. That is 8 months to wait.
BL
Guest
What about the Under 20 Australian Coaching staff performance over the past 15 seasons ? since Speed Kennedy and Geoff Richards et al ! - Regrettably, our Under 20 teams have not been able to beat time in a band since 2000
JimmyB
Guest
Cheers fella.
Bakkies
Guest
Anyone who has access to hola to get RTÉ player or other sources should try and get this Friday's Ireland v France unders 20s match which is broadcast live. A good indicator at where teams are at in regards to development
Jimmy by memory it id Jersey Rugby Football club.
NaBUru38
Guest
I'd rather have an 8-team U20 Super Rugby, with two teams per country: o- Argentina: Buenos Aires and Interior. o- South Africa: Southeast and Northwest. o- Australia: South (NSW, Canberra, Victoria) and North (Queensland, Perth) o- New Zealand: North and South. They would play two groups of four, then a final match. That's five rounds held in a month, with rotating venues each year.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Actually in the amateur era it was quite common for players to represent multiple nations.
SamSport
Guest
Players are being lost to this. But more importantly, we're seeing more and more international players who have only a passing affinity to the country they're supposed to represent. That's the more serious concern. If we want international rugby to just be an extension of club rugby (money rules, rather than heritage) then why even have a three year rule? Just make it a month. In the amateur era it was far less common to have international players that did not grow up or learn there rugby in said country than now. That says it all really.
JimmyB
Guest
Bilton, who's this Hammond fella, where's he playing?
Bakkies
Guest
The problem would be cost and affects on tournaments like the NPC and Currie Cup. Currie Cup have under 19s and under 21s. Sides like WP would be hit like Leinster would with selections.
Eddard
Roar Guru
You just answered your own question. In the case of Zimbabwe or Namibia I'm talking about guys that would be eligible through a parent or grandparent. As for the rest, how many players that would have otherwise made the Springboks currently play for other test teams? Does the fact journeymen like Scott Spedding and Rory Kockott now represent France bother you so much that it's worth hoarding every single player you possibly can? I hope Australia and New Zealand don't follow suit but it wouldn't surprise me if they did. I do like the under 20's Rugby Championship though.
Think about the logic of your debate. How on earth is a South African ever going to qualify for Zimbabwe? There is no professional rugby there, the guy is never going to move there, so even if he could qualify, how the hell is he going to do it if he has no reason to live there for three years? But for the sake of second tier nations who have no professional structures to their rugby and there is a grandparent ruling or such, then I have no problem with that. It isn't the second tier nations that is a problem.
Eddard
Roar Guru
My emphasis is on growing the global game. I wouldn't care if switching nations was only banned between tier 1 countries. But that isn't the case, and I think it's utterly ridiculous that a guy who represents South Africa at 19, and then never gets near Springbok selection wouldn't be able to represent a nation like Zimbabwe or Namibia several years later. The PI's would lose out big time if Australia and NZ adopted this policy because their best players will always have New Zealand or Australia as their first choice if they are eligible (and many of them are). So guys with legitimate ties to both Australia/New Zealand and Samoa/Tonga will play under 20's for the former and then never be able to represent their other country, even if they never get near the Wallabies or All Blacks. I think that's wrong.
Eddard, I think you are placing more emphasis on SA, NZ and the PI's to develop talent for other nations than for them to protect their own player base for selection purposes. Nobody is saying players can't go make a living elsewhere, but we seriously need to look after ourselves.
Eddard
Roar Guru
So you want to stop a few lower level kiwi players from going on to represent 6 nations teams. In the process you won't significantly hurt these teams but you will hurt the island nations. If the New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, the Australian under 20's became the two countries respective 2nd teams, then it would greatly hurt the test teams of Samoa and Tonga down the line. Or what about all the players in Europe who maybe miss out on playing for France, England or Ireland but might otherwise be able to represent Spain or Portugal etc? This increases the competitiveness of the global game, which is a good thing for rugby.
Charl
Guest