International rugby league eligibility rules get a little fluid around world cup time, and the pall that fluidity casts asks some very strong questions about the core motivation behind representation. Pride, loyalty, and sacrifice.
Can a player who was passed over by his first choice nation truly offer the same level of commitment to performance, the same level of accountability to his second choice nation? These questions will possibly forever haunt a Rugby League World Cup’s search for relevance with first and second generation New Zealanders, Englishmen, and Australians littered throughout the second tier nations.
Consider Markia Koroibete, Fijian born and raised. His inclusion in a Kangaroos squad would most certainly have been questioned by many Australian rugby league commentators, yet there are next to no misgivings with his Wallabies selection. That same level of rugby union tolerance and acceptance was of course extended for many Pacific islanders, born and bred, that achieved the pinnacle of All Blacks or Wallabies selection.
Rugby league’s inherent tribalism is its very own toxic paradox. In order to grow the international game you need the quality and competition of international matches to be of the highest possible level. The only immediate answer to provide that level of competition is looser eligibility laws to secure extra playing quality, which unfortunately in turn has an adverse effect and dilutes the meaning of these desperately meaningful games.
Wayne Bennett’s struggle in attempting/succeeding to drag England back to a true world cup threat is a classic example. The decline of the English Super League forced the pragmatic super coach’s hand to seek out high quality NRL players with English descent to make themselves eligible.
He was bashed from pillar to post during his two-year English campaign for that endeavour, yet New Zealander/Queenslander/Australian/Samoan Ben Te’o debuts for the English Rugby Union with barely a whimper.
So this innate unwritten rule of tribalism extends deep into rugby league’s roots. This year though rugby league may have been stumbled across a way to circumvent this roadblock and perhaps provide the jet fuel required to take it’s international game off of the ground.
In an ironic twist The Pacific island nations diaspora’s brave defections have set a tone. Despite not being born and raised in Tonga/Samoa/Fiji the decision of certain players to forgo the riches on offer with tier one nations, and to represent one’s heritage is pure, and seems to resonate with the collective rugby league community. Pride, loyalty, and sacrifice.
To watch Jason Taumololo pull on a Kiwis jersey now would look out of place. His tears spilling onto his Tongan jersey after a monumental victory over the Kiwis was arguably the image of the World Cup. There could be a strong argument made that Taumololo is a modern-day Arthur Beetson and that the international game in the Pacific just had it’s 1980 State of Origin moment.
(NRLPhotos/Scott Davis)
Hopefully the relevant rugby league administrations respect that moment for what it is, and capitalise on the momentum that these Pacific island players have created. Somehow though Sydney myopia bubbles to the surface and already the talk is all about Sydney stadiums and scheduling. Todd Greenberg is throwing cold water on talk of more international Test matches.
I can still see the Tongan flags waving in Hamilton, as an impartial supporter I would definitely tune into a Kiwis vs Tonga grudge match any day of the week. Striking while the iron is hot though has not historically been a strong suit with rugby league.
Pickett
Guest
Well said Barry.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Tonga should be a T1 nation, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.
Rob9
Roar Guru
I have very different perception of the media coverage and commentary on these issues than yours it appears. Firstly, yes you must have missed it. And as rugby has become a blip on the radar in this country, that’s not suprising. Again, a change to eligibility criteria doesn’t come to fruition without some significant forces at play – one of which (and probably most substantially) is public opinion which has been more than vocal (and represented through the media) when questionable eligibility-based selections have occurred. Although significant enough to bring about change, I agree this commentary hasn’t been as vehement as what has been said regarding the eligibility rules that have impacted this RLWC. Again, I’d say this has something to do with the fact that eligibility-based selections, while not uncommon in Rugby, are nowhere near as prominent as they were in the makeup of most teams at this most recent RLWC. I’d also disagree that media coverage of the Fifita/Taumololo defections was overwhelmingly positive. I remember a number of NRL 360’s in the wash up where it was the topic of debate. And this really only scratched the surface of the public opinion which was so clearly split on whether this was good for the game or not.
Fred
Guest
True it was, but the first Pacific Test in Penrith a few years back I believe was just Samoa v Tonga
Terry Tavita
Guest
what you want him to do? wait around till he gets picked by kangaroos again?..which is highly unlikely..try putting yourself in his shoes first before splurging off..
Martin Millard
Roar Pro
I didn't compare the Fifita/Taumololo defections to Koroibete/Teo selections. I was actually comparing Koroibete/Teo selections to similar ones in League like Semi Radradra (Kangaroos), Chris McQueen (England), Nathan Fien (New Zealand). They were actually addressed as polar opposites. Tier 2 being selected by Tier 1 vs Tier 1 choosing Tier 2. I was also comparing the different codes reactions to these style of selections. In my opinion RL thrives on tribalism more so than RU and as such has a nastier reaction to those selections. I heard no strong reservations by RU commentary or media about Koroibete and Teo, maybe I missed it but I could list heaps of similar RU selections over last ten years, it just seems just par for the norm now. The Fifita/Taumololo issue was addressed separately in which I said that their defections could actually prove a massive benefit for RL to grow their international game if acted upon. Ironically Fifita/Taumololo turning their backs on their birth nations to represent their heritage actually resonated strongly with RL media and commentators unlike the Tier 1 robbing of Tier 2 which has an icky mercenary feel to it.
Rob9
Roar Guru
To suggest that eligibility issues in Rugby cause nothing more than a whimper is just plain wrong. It's a huge issue of conjecture in that code. Hence the residency rule being extended from 3 to 5 years following the next RWC. There's regular discussion/commentary on the top tier nations draining the PI's of talent and the numerous examples of 6 Nations teams picking up Kiwi or South African players on the grounds of heritage or residency. The key difference is, there are few (if any) teams in international rugby that are almost exclusively made up of players who are selected because of one or both of the eligibility rules. So of course it's not a dominant topic of conversation as it is in international rugby league. And the most heavily criticized eligibility rules that allows players to flip flop between nations doesn't exist in rugby. And comparisons between Fifita/Taumololo vs Koroibete/Teo are apples and oranges. A- because Koroibete and Teo had never represented another country in their new code. and B- neither had been picked for one country to then turn their back on this selection to represent another
Johhno
Guest
Two switches allowed per career is not undermining a players loyalty to either a Tier-1 or Tier-2 nation. A two switch policy allowable per each players career would be more generous than like 99% of organized sports on planet earth..
Terry Tavita
Guest
i think the credibility issue exists only on the minds of the naysayers..never saw any credibility issue with tonga at the recent world cup..all those boys are proud tongans..
Martin Millard
Roar Pro
I believe that was also a triple header, that is alot of money to split between six teams and far more complicated. If Tonga and NZ can pack out a stadium in NZ by themselves then surely a better choice?
Paul Nicholls
Guest
Let’s be honest, eligibility rules for world cups in any sport are a bit ‘loose’ As long as the players don’t feel like frauds and the fans are happy with it then I think it’s all good. Seeing all the Tongan fans and flags around Sydney the last few weeks shows that RL World Cup has well and truly arrived.
Fred
Guest
Martin, there are also large numbers of Pacific Islanders in Western Sydney, which is why there've been good crowds at the Pacific Tests when they've been held in Penrith and Campbelltown. It was a great atmosphere this May in Campbelltown.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Well said Barry. It's amazing the lengths that people will go to imagine that something is wrong. Rather than being on the back foot all the time, rugby league administrators, managers and those in the public eye really ought to take the initiative and promote and publicise their creativity and adaptability to the world around them.
Nat
Roar Guru
Agreed. If they want to grow the international game then you must take the highest quality product to the source and that is NZ. Bring across more young PI boys who have only ever known RU. Success this year has gained attention but it's a start only. Although it has to be on FTA to gain commercial benefit. Sry mate, I'm the wrong man to be seeking Fitler support. Qld to the core! :)
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
That's right. There aren't any problems that won't be fixed by simply playing more Test matches. To go even further, there isn't a problem in the first place, other than not enough Test matches.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Sorry another thought just struck me... I think this world cup showed clearly that eligibility laws and tribalism are completely unrelated. For example: could the Tongan players that came from other nations have played more proudly? Could the Tongan fans have cheered more vociferously? Ditto, Fiji and Lebanon and several other nations that had players representing their "second" nation. The tribalism and passion of players and fans was the absolute joy of this world cup.
The Barry
Roar Guru
The eligibility rules don't change or become more fluid around world cup time, we just notice it a little more. I think the question of players commitment to their "first" or "second" nations were well and truly answered at this world cup. Nationality and national identity are far more fluid as concepts now than at any time. I think rugby league has found a solution that supports this idea as well as leveling the playing field in its international competition. I get that the dual eligibility laws aren't everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's pretty tough to put a logical, objective argument forward that these laws haven't massively benefitted rugby league through this tournament. Credibility seems to be a word that comes up often, but I can't see how having a clearly defined and articulated set of rules and adhering to those rules (even if you don't agree with them) damages credibility in the slightest. Credibility would be damaged if it was one rule for this country / player and a different one for those but not when rules are applied and adhered to.
Justin Kearney
Guest
Well written martin. We didn't expect anything else from NSS but it was nice to see you put him back in his box.
Ken
Guest
I don't think the eligibility rules are too far wrong. The only real problem is players switching very late, historically after not making a T1 team or, this time around with JT & Fifita, deciding after being selected for a T1 team they would rather play for their heritage team. As long as they are eligible I don't have a problem with switching but it was embarrassing that they could do so after the teams were due in camp. So for mine, bring in some sort of time requirement for nominating your current country of choice. I see 100 days is listed above that's probably sufficient. From the original article though you gave an example of Koroibete. He was aligned to Fiji during his time in RL so his eligibility for Australia was never an issue. If he had nominated for the Roos though it would have been a talking point - just like it was for Radradra (who moved to Australia much later). It should be noted the majority of the sentiment during Semi's debut was 'good on him, but it's too bad Fiji doesn't have more appeal' rather than a tribalistic 'we don't want him'. Is this truly not seen at all in RU circles though as well? I'm only a part-time follower of the cousin code but I thought there were occasional murmurs of discontent, with the All Blacks especially, vacuuming up talent from the islands. When a Fijian born player plays for the All Blacks against Fiji, surely there would have to be some mixed feelings from the crowd? Pride at their success vs resentment that they are playing for the other side.
Martin Millard
Roar Pro
Hi Nat, I went a little easy on the RU drones in this one, even conceded a point or two to them. I think you're right, more NZ and Pacific Island games needs to be the overall takeaway from this world cup. There are large numbers of Pacific Island ex-pats in NZ so it seems obvious to hold the matches there rather than Western Sydney. If you can fill stadiums for these games and get good TV ratings then the money is there to pay the players. Dirty ARL politics will no doubt hold up and stagnate the opportunity. Lebanon were a bolt from the blue and Fittler appears to be a large contributor to that, good omen for NSW this year?