The Australian Rugby Union has announced a major overhaul in its player contracting policy, with elite players based overseas to remain eligible for Wallabies selection.
Announced today, and effective immediately, players who have appeared in over 60 Test matches for Australia and have had a contract with Australian Rugby for seven seasons will remain eligible for Wallabies selection, even if they are plying their trade overseas.
This is a major departure from the former hardline policy of not selecting Australian players based overseas, and could see the return of players like Matt Giteau to the national fold.
Another adjustment to the current policy is players who choose to return to Australia on a two-year deal with a Super Rugby club will immediately become available for Wallabies selection.
This brings Australia’s policy more in line with South Africa and Argentina’s policy, though those nations don’t have a cap on the number of games or seasons you have to play.
Players currently over the threshold plying their trade overseas include Matt Giteau and Drew Mitchell. Both are now available for Wallaby selection.
The adjustment to the policy was approved by the ARU Board and endorsed by Super Rugby CEOs.
ARU CEO Bill Pulver said the policy change was an important strategic decision, and was in the best interests of the code in Australia.
“This is a pivotal moment for Rugby in Australia, where for the first time in its professional history, the ARU will allow overseas-based players who have made a significant contribution to Australian Rugby to become eligible for the Wallabies,” Pulver said.
“It’s a decision that recognises the changing dynamics of a global Rugby market for professional players. Combined with our other recruitment and retention strategies, we feel this decision allows the ARU to assert more influence over player movement and contracting in Australia and abroad.”
Pulver said there were short and long-term benefits to be had as a result of the change.
“Those players who satisfy the 60-game and seven-year threshold have already invested heavily and contributed considerably to Australian Rugby over a long period of time,” he said.
“The policy also encourages those players who have not yet reached that point to commit exclusively to Australian Rugby in the prime of their career. In this way, we believe the policy supports Super Rugby by encouraging our top players to remain in Australia for longer.
“It also means we can invest more money into our younger players in the long-term, while ensuring our most experienced players leaving for overseas can still contribute to the overall success of the code in Australia – on and off the field.
“We believe having the option to select overseas-based players to represent the Qantas Wallabies, provided that they have made a commitment to return to Australian Rugby, will encourage the repatriation of Australians currently playing in foreign competitions and increase the pool of talent available to Australian Super Rugby teams and the Wallabies.”
Wallabies coach Michael Cheika said greater competition for positions would inevitably benefit the national side.
“It’s important to first and foremost recognise those players who are currently making a daily contribution to Rugby in Australia, but at the same time not discount those elite-level and experienced Test players who have already invested so much into the code over a long period,” Cheika said.
“From speaking with many of them, I know they still have a huge desire to represent Australia, and would do so to the very best of their abilities if ever called upon once again.
“In the end, we want the best players being rewarded for playing the majority of their career in Australia, and this is an important step to the future growth and success of the Wallabies.”
ROAR POLL – WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ARU’S MOVE?
Ross
Guest
Bravo Pulver on this prudent way to allow overseas clubs to pay the salary of Australian stars in their final years while the ARU retains rights (courtesy of the IRB) to play them in their most financially meaningful matches (Wallabies games). I think the 60+ caps with 7+ years stipulation will mean some players staying a year longer than they currently do in future years. It probably won't mean much to the RWC (this year), but it might. The more interesting development, is the ability for returning Australians to be picked by the Wallabies as soon as the ink has dried on a new Australian contract that includes at least 2 years at a Super Rugby club. Amazes me how much is written about the 60+ caps clause, or the Giteau clause, and not much at all written about returning players clause, what I would call the Douglas clause. You may well see Cheika get his man in the coming weeks if Kane Douglas commits to the Waratahs in a 2 year deal starting in the 2016 season. That would make him eligible for the RWC. There would be other players out there of interest to cover positional depth, especially in the forwards, as we approach the RWC that may do a deal to come home. These changes could help our biggest need for this years' RWC, the tight 5... Ross
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
"However, if you took all the best NH players and put them in just 15 team" And that's exactly the point Birdy. They're spread across 40 teams. A player who looks good isn't playing them in 15 teams, he's playing those best players sprinkled across 40 teams. What's the quality of the other 25 teams worth of players who are playing alongside that top 15 teams worth of players in various teams? It's a lot easier to look good against a team with 5 really good players and 10 average players, than it is playing a team against 10 really good players and 5 average ones. I liken it to how the Melbourne Club Rugby comp the Dewar Shield has been. The best players are just as good as Sydney and Brisbane. It's the weakest 5-10 in each team that are the difference. They are the weak links that can be exploited.
Mike
Guest
I agree, very possible.
Birdy
Guest
I know that you're one of the world's leading experts on European rugby, Taylorman, but you might have a slightly rose-tinted view of the general standard of Super XV against the best of Euro rugby. Obviously, the weaker sides in the Celtic, Aviva and French leagues could not compete with the Super Rugby sides - you wouldn't expect them to as you're talking about 40 teams as opposed to 15. However, if you took all the best NH players and put them in just 15 teams, there would be many games that would be a toss-up. Even at the moment I'd take any of the top 4 in England to beat the Force, for example. I was also quite surprised to see Daniel Bowden at fly half for the Blues seeing as he couldn't hold down a first team spot at Leicester (or even London Irish). There's been a number of SH player successes in the North, but also a lot of duds. Stephen Donald was something of an embarrassment at Bath; and it's amazing how many return to the SH from a stint 'up north' and secure a SR contract fairly easily - some of whom I'd never heard of, and I follow European rugby (particularly English rugby) quite closely, although not, of course, with the wit, wisdom, sense of balance and deep knowledge that you bring to the discussion.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
Only if the players want to come out of retirement. Just ask Fiji, Samoa & Tonga how easy it is for the French clubs to convince players to remain retired.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
Has anyone even asked if Giteau is keen to play? His employer may very well just waive a wad of cash at him with the suggestion he stays retired.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
Because Australian & NZ players tend to get a premium in their NH contracts as they are not going to unavailable for their clubs during the World Rugby test windows. If they retire from test rugby that premium will remain, if they don't then the contracts may just reduce a touch.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
Retired.
Colin N
Guest
Possession stats really aren't good indicators. Saracens regularly have less possession and territory than their opponents but win. In the Quins-Sarries match earlier in the season, Harlequins had 65 percent possession and 66 percent territory - Saracens won 39-0. Perhaps more pertinently for this argument, against England in November Australia had 66% possession and 70% territory yet lost 26-17 due to the Australian pack struggling at the set-piece.
Colin N
Guest
Shows how much you know about European rugby. Wilkinson has retired.
Tinfoil Hat
Guest
Won't that depend on the the selection policy. They could end up like SA and keep picking the current team
Tinfoil Hat
Guest
Has he come back as a better player though? Or just an injured crock?
Mike
Guest
Sandstone Birdy. Good Sydney sandstone.
Mike
Guest
I wonder. Weren't the ABs winning their tests with a very lop-sided possession count against them a year or two back? Everyone was talking about how they let their opponents have the ball and then fed off their mistakes. I am not taking sides on you two arguing over Giteau, just saying that I am not sure that possession percentages do actually equate to which pack is the strongest. It may equate more to who kicks it away.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
I liked that Taylorman, it was very good.
Nay, outstanding.George
Guest
You can kiss goodbye to the local comp & the viability of 5 Super 15 sides. With this new ARU policy Australia can only field a minimum of 3 competitive Super 15 sides if not only 2. A very bad decision.
Mike
Guest
And have niggled Richie McCaw at least once. :D
Mike
Guest
"Watch them fall away down the rankings" Errr, like the Boks who do this to a far greater extent than ARU proposes, and who are currently 2nd in the rankings? Sorry, I am not endorsing one way or another, just saying that its not always as clear-cut as we like to think.
Mike
Guest
What's the story with Dan Palmer?
Mike
Guest
"means most senior wallaby will leave as soon as they get to 60 tests and 7 seasons." That's doubtful. The reality is that once they leave, they are much less likely to be selected for the Wallabies. It comes back to the same question that has applied for many years now - how to balance the desire for the Gold Jersey vs the money? This will shift the balance a little in favour of leaving, but I suspect not much. And against that must be balanced the effect that being eligible for the Wallabies may have on the money being offered from overseas - clubs have to allow for the fact that they might lose the player for crucial matches.