Rugby league quotas are nothing more than claptrap and codswallop

With not only the 2017 Rugby League World Cup on the horizon, but also talk about the rebirth of rugby league’s Emerging Nations Championship, you’re going to hear more faff about domestic quotas in coming months.

That’s if you didn’t already encounter a doomsayer following Scotland’s gallant recent Four Nations draw with New Zealand.

“Hmph, they’re not really Scotland are they?” came the moans as the referee’s whistle still glistened with spit.

The inference being that the Scots didn’t field a terribly large amount of players who reside north of Hadrian’s Wall.

Or more is to the point, many didn’t even live north of the equator.

It’s another example of the code’s supporters being able to find misery in even the most inspiring moments.

Remember the amazing feats of the USA and Italy at the 2013 Rugby League World Cup?

For many it was a revelation, while for an invested core it was blasphemous – for the same reason Scotland was criticised.

Some are suggesting 50 per cent or more of competing players should be living in the country they represent, playing in their domestic competition.

And I’m here to give you ten good reasons why it’s a load of codswallop.

1. How is soccer’s domestic quota going for it?
Let’s be fair, not too many people gave two shakes about the Socceroos before the 2006 World Cup. It’s taken a decade of relative success and three straight appearances in the Copa Mundial for the most popular code in the world to gain traction in Australia.

The Socceroos’ 2006 squad contained just three out of 23 players who were playing in Australia. They made the round of 16 versus Italy and that set the ball rolling. In 2010 just two Socceroos were based in Australia. Then in 2014 – in what was billed as a revolution – an amazing six players out of the 23 played for Australian clubs. The Socceroos collected exactly zero points.

Why must we apply restrictions on our own game, but it’s fine for a globally dominant game to do otherwise?

2. A World Cup is about the fans, not the players
The most noble reasoning for a domestic quota is that it rewards the pioneering players who help build the game from the grassroots up in expansion areas. Domestic players in many countries not only play the game, they also chip in for team equipment, help mark the fields, man the canteen, and hand out flyers to attract new recruits.

But you cannot promise a guy a spot in the World Cup just because he’s a good bloke. Sometimes it takes stars at the elite level to shine a light on the levels below. While gaining more athletes is desirable, flushing out fans is what makes the game sustainable.

3. And fans are not fools
One of my other favourite sports is basketball. Would I ever expect the best Aussie hoops players to come predominantly from the NBL? Or would I expect anyone deadly serious about the game to already be in the Americas or Europe, grinding it out against the toughest in the business? A domestic quota is patronising on many levels.

4. Inherent unfairness due to population
In the case of Scotland, it sits smack-bang above the birthplace of rugby league, England. England just happens to have a population almost exactly ten times that of Scotland, with the number of clubs and professional opportunities in the sport multiple times that of its northern neighbour.

Why should any Scot worth his salt be staying at home when there are better opportunities a few hours down the freeway? Or, to take another angle, should a place like the Cook Islands, which is home to just 10,000 people, be looked down upon for selecting heritage players from Australia and New Zealand?

5. Inherent unfairness due to history
The major premise of the domestic quota is about making things fairer. But there are so many larger factors at play.

For instance, how about a competition that is 100+ years old competing against domestic leagues less than a decade old? We live in a global community these days and restricting ourselves to arguments about domestic quotas is retrograde.

Let’s not forget that rugby league in Australia took the best part of 90 years for full-time professionalism and it’s always been one of our most supported codes. What chance would a place like Lebanon have?

6. Inherent unfairness due to money
Aside from being surrounded by the best coaches and best infrastructure that exist in rugby league, the reason so many Australian-based players will be selected for non-Australian teams is money. Pure and simple. If players are already in Australia, teams and players don’t have to fork out for their airfares before the World Cup or Emerging Nations.

And in a sport where money is never in abundance, that makes cold, hard, rational sense.

It could mean a saving of $100,000 or more for a 25-man squad, money that could then be better invested in the domestic competitions a quota would supposedly benefit. In some African countries which hope to have a presence at the Emerging Nations, a plane ticket to Australia is many more times than annual wages. Domestic quotas will only keep first world nations on top longer.

7. Trust people to tend to their own backyard
One thing about international rugby league: the administrators of most countries do not get paid a cent and they know the local landscape intimately from juniors up.

They know whether their country can afford to bring five or ten or 15 domestic players, or whether that will send them bust. They know what standard their domestic players are at compared to others globally. They know the political landscape at home and how many players they need to bring to ensure there is a development path, to retain sponsors, and stay in the good books with key people.

If they only need to bring one domestic player to keep everyone happy and it still means they can play at their best, let them make that call, not leave it to an office-bound boffin 10,000 kilometres away.

8. Safety is no joke
Armchair critics will find this one tough, but putting a bunch of 80kg amateurs (or 130kg unfit weekend warriors) up against a squad of 105kg professionals who train like madmen in one of the world’s toughest sports is not a great idea.

Yes, we love the romanticism of it and the far-flung possibility of an upset, but it doesn’t wash in a modern world. People will get seriously hurt, which is not good for recruiting new players, not good for sponsors, not good for insurance and devastating to the families of the players themselves.

9. Against the core ideals of the game
Many a player from a downtrodden past, bereft of role models, has given themselves a new lease of life through rugby league. It is both a brutal and supportive environment that quickly teaches the benefits of sacrifice, hard work, selflessness, perseverance and honesty.

A quota system teaches people that it’s okay to be almost good enough, but that someone will give you a leg-up at an opportune time. And if that player doesn’t train to be chosen purely on the basis of being among the ‘best of the best’, it sets a low bar for others who are following in their footsteps.

10. The Nathan Cayless example
Quota systems are largely suggested by those who oppose the concept of heritage players – players claiming a national jersey through parentage or grandparentage. But unless you are in the shoes of that player, it’s dangerous grounds to be calling their allegiance (or lack thereof) into question.

Nathan Cayless captained New Zealand to one of the most memorable World Cup wins in 2008. Born in Sydney, educated in Sydney and a previous Australian Schoolboys representative, but his dedication to the Kiwis was never in doubt.

Then there are others like Kristian Freed (USA) who have pledged their allegiance based on an ill or already deceased family member, and since given back to their country of choice by investing in the grassroots.