Fake news: 'Poaching' allegations the latest slight against the All Blacks

The Brad Shields and Pete Samu debate has been used to perpetrate the New Zealand poaching myth… again.

This propaganda has a clear agenda, but unfortunately misinformation, gullibility (manipulated by the media) and bias cloud sensibility when it comes to this issue. I wrote a previous piece about this issue but wanted to revisit the topic with more ‘facts’. This was not in order to persuade people as to the lack of validity behind the poaching propaganda (facts don’t have the same clickbait value emotive headlines do) but for my own benefit.

Warning: this article isn’t for the faint-hearted, or for those that don’t like to read!

According to an article penned by Cleaver and Singh, “Of the 1133 men who have represented the All Blacks (in matches as well as Tests), just 32 were born in the islands – Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and American Samoa”.

Of course, as that article was published in 2014, it’s somewhat out of date.

Research conducted by Hautahi Kingi found that since rugby turned professional, New Zealand has selected 165 local-born players and 29 born overseas.

In the same era, Argentina selected 294/4, Australia 136/43, England 177/44, France 235/24, Italy 134/59, Ireland 135/43, Scotland 100/76, South Africa 210/10, Wales 153/40. These stats beg the question as to why New Zealand is the only country constantly accused of being the poacher of world rugby?

Forty-three Wallabies have been foreign-born, but New Zealand is the poacher! Forty-four men born outside of England have played for the ‘roses’, but it’s New Zealand that pilfers outside talent.

The agenda being promoted is quite clear. The rugby community desperately need an answer as to why New Zealand is so good. And as acknowledging (and complementing) the work NZR has done in development (especially at grassroots level) seems too difficult, the easy road is generally taken… they’re good coz they steal players!

If this was a Tui ad, the “Yeah, right” would appear now.

At at June 2018, there have been a total of 1171 All Blacks, from James Allen (number 1) to Karl Tu’inukuafe (number 1171).

From that 1171, there have been a total of 37 Pacific Island-born players – 14 Samoan-born, 11 Tongan-born, 10 Fijian-born, and two born in American Samoa. A grand total of 37 Pacific Island-born players. For a country that is reputed to purge the Islands of their talent, the number isn’t probably as high as most would expect it to be.

The All Blacks perform the Haka. (Photo by Mark Nolan/Getty Images)

But the stats don’t tell the whole story. Every one of those 37 Pacific Island-born players selected for the All Blacks, played in New Zealand before wearing the black jersey, often at school level. Many of them also immigrated with their families when they were children.

Here’s the breakdown:

– Walter Batty (344), born in Tonga, moved to New Zealand as a child and attended Auckland Grammar.
– Frank Solomon (387), born in American Samoa, moved to New Zealand to study at 15.
– David Solomon (415), born in Fiji, and attended primary school in NZ.
– Arthur Jennings (659), born in Fiji but “schooled in New Zealand from an early age”, attended Northcote College.
– Bernie Fraser (797), born in Fiji and “raised in New Zealand”, he attended St. Paul’s College in Auckland.
– John Schuster (889), born in Samoa and “came to New Zealand as a teenager”.
– Ronald Williams (894), born in Fiji.
– Va’aiga Tuigamala (900), born in Samoa and attended Kelston Boys’ Grammar in Auckland.
– Olo Brown (910), born in Samoa, and attended Mount Albert Grammar School in Auckland.
– Eroni Clarke (919), born in Samoa, “before coming to New Zealand at an early age” and attended Henderson High.
– Alama Ieremia (942), born in Samoa and moved to Wellington to attend university at 18.
– John ‘Tabai’ Matson (950), born in Fiji, and attended Christ’s College in Christchurch.
– Charles Riechelmann (962), born in Tonga, and attended Auckland Grammar School.
– Isitolo Maka (972), born in Tonga, “raised in Auckland and had attended Sacred Heart College”.
– Jolie Vidiri (973), born in Fiji and moved to Auckland when he was 21 (in 1994).
– Pita Alatini (979), born in Tonga but moved to Auckland when he was “a child”.
– Kupu Vanisi (981), born in Tonga but immigrated with his family “in his youth”.
– Jerry Collins (1002), born in Samoa but came “to New Zealand with his family as a toddler”.
– Rodney So’oialo (1028), born in Samoa, “came to New Zealand at an early age”.
– Joe Rokocoko (1032), born in Fiji and immigrated “with his family at the age of 5” (14).
– Mils Muliaina (1033), born in Samoa and “moved with his family to Invercargill, New Zealand, at the age of three”.
– Saimone Taumoepeau (1045), born in Tonga and “emigrated to New Zealand at the age of 20”. New Zealand citizen.
– Casey Laulala (1048), born in Samoa and attended Wesley College in Auckland.
– Jerome Kaino (1050), born in American Samoa and immigrated with his family “at the age of 4”.

[latest_videos_strip category=”rugby” name=”Rugby”]

– Sivivatu Sitiveni (1052), born in Fiji before “moving to New Zealand when he was 15”.
– Sosene Anesi (1054), born in Samoa.
– Sione Lauaki (1055), born in Tonga and attended Waitakere College in Auckland.
– Chris Masoe (1059), born in Samoa, and “came to New Zealand in his teens”.
– Isaia Toeava (1064), born in Samoa and attended De La Salle College in Mangere.
– John Schwalger (1071), born in Samoa but moved to New Zealand with his family as an infant.
– Frank Halai (1128), born in Tonga and attended Wesley College in South Auckland.
– Malakai Fekitoa (1131), born in Tonga and “In 2009, he arrived in New Zealand from Tonga as a 17-year old”.
– Nepo Laulala (1139), born in Samoa and attended Wesley College in South Auckland. Resident since 2007.
– Waisake Naholo (1142), born in Fiji and attended Wanganui City College. New Zealand citizen.
– Seta Tamanivalu (1148), born in Fiji and attended Saint Kentigern College, Auckland from 2010.
– Ofa Tu’ungafasi (1150), born in Tonga, “moved to New Zealand in 2006” when he was 14. New Zealand resident since 2009.
– Vaea Fifita (1158), born in Tonga and attended Tamaki College in Auckland. Resident since 2013.

If theres a player with a Pacific Island name that isn’t on the list, he was born in NZ. Making him a citizen by birth, which of course means he wasn’t poached at all.

The 2018 All Blacks squad consists of three foreign-born players (not including Shannon Frizell, who was born in Tonga, but who is yet to get capped). As previously mentioned, Jerome Kaino (moved from American Samoa aged 4). Waisake Naholo and Vaia Fifita both 17 when they moved to New Zealand “to further their education” (23).

Waisake Naholo (Photo by Tim Anger)

The truth of the matter is that the majority of foreign-born players are products of the New Zealand rugby system. In fact there are very few foreign-born players who didn’t attend school in NZ. But that doesn’t fit the agenda of the poaching myth propaganda.

Jonah Lomu (Auckland) and Tana Umaga (Lower Hutt) are two names that are often bandied around as players who were poached. But the most interesting case is that Keven Mealamu, who was born in Tokoroa.

Stephen Jones, the master of objectivity when it comes to New Zealand and the All Blacks, once wrote that “Mealamu was poached from the island of Tokoroa, not knowing that Tokoroa is a small town in NZ…”. So you see how easy it is for rumours to get started!

Now the article was obviously pulled – I’ve searched for hours and hours, and can find nothing! Including an apology. So the man who once claimed New Zealand was “Rugby’s less-civilised nation” is given a platform to perpetuate his own bias against NZ, and isn’t even held accountable when he gets it wrong.

Call me old fashioned, but that’s just not right.

The poaching propaganda being perpetuating by the media is actually quite troubling because it implies one of two scenarios.
1. The notion that “…NZ is importing children and their families with the hope they might be a rugby star one day”.
2. The claim “that a white player that descended from immigrants is somehow more of a New Zealander than a brown player descended from immigrants…”.

Obviously the first scenario is a bit tongue-in-cheek. NZR would need a psychic on the books if this was the truth! Teenagers are offered scholarships, it’s true, but not children. But it’s also true that high schools from the Islands tour both New Zealand and Australia with one of the priorities being to obtain scholarships for their students.

While I have no problem with this, surely the exhibition of talent in order to profit from scholarships needs to be taken into consideration before laying all the blame on New Zealand’s shoulders. It’s also true that two French clubs, Brive and Clermont, have built rugby academies in Fiji “in a bid to secure a steady stream of young talent”.

But I’ve never actually read anything condemning that particular practice or anything accusing the FFR (Fédération Française de Rugby) of poaching. Perhaps if France had held the number one spot in world rugby for the last eight years the accusations would start.

The second scenario is particularly disturbing because it smacks of white privilege. When people (and let’s face it a lot of the accusations hail from the NH – please note the lack of a generalisation here) accuse New Zealand of poaching, they are ignoring NZ’s history as a country settled by Maori and then colonised by the English, because the implication is ‘real’ NZers are white.

That’s ignorant, arrogant, disrespectful and quite frankly, insulting. Post-colonial immigrants have arrived on our shores from across the globe for decades.

Including from the Pacific Islands. “As a colonised, pacific nation, we are multi-cultural. Most of us are fiercely proud of the ethnically diverse makeup of our country and indeed the All Blacks. And I for one think that diversity strengthens our team. And of course, that’s the issue isn’t it!”.

The All Blacks (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

The 2013 census showed that 7.4 per cent of New Zealand’s population considered themselves to be Pacific peoples. Now that may not seem a high number, but when you look at it in the context of population, it was the fourth largest group in NZ.

Many of those who identify with being “Pacific people’s” are first or second generation NZers. In fact, “62.3 per cent of people who identified with at least one Pacific ethnicity were born in New Zealand”. But still, the propaganda persists… “If your name sounds remotely Samoan, Tongan or Fijian, you must be from there”.

Something else that is ignored is the contribution New Zealand is making to the global game. In Rugby World Cup 2015 there were more Kiwis involved than any other nationality – both in terms of players and coaches.

Where were the accusations of Pacific Island teams poaching NZers? There were 13 NZ-born players in the Samoan squad, and there were eight NZ-born players in the Tongan squad. And yet not once did I read an article condemning them. And to be honest, I’d never want to.

I have no issue with players wanting to represent their heritage country, whether that be Samoa, Tonga, Ireland or England. And to me it’s not relevant whether it’s because of a heart-felt yearning, lack of progression opportunities in the birth country or money.

Regardless, in Rugby World Cup 2015 there were 42 New Zealanders playing for other countries (13 for Samoa, one for Wales, eight for Tonga, three for Scotland, 7 for Japan, one for France, four for Australia, three for Ireland, one for Romania, one for England) (29), and a fair few New Zealand coaches to boot. Where are the articles about New Zealand’s contribution to world rugby?

Why do journalists (including our own) only seem interested in perpetuating myths? Many journalists are only interested in one thing – clickbait journalism aimed at appeasing advertisers and getting their articles picked up by overseas publications. Writing anything complementary about the All Blacks isn’t going to achieve that!

The All Blacks are the best of the best. (Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)

When it leaked that Ronan O’Gara was in negotiations with the Crusaders, the headline in the Independent was: “Ronan O’Gara to be poached by top New Zealand Super Rugby outfit”.

Why was it necessary to use the word “poached”? A position was vacant, he applied, and he was successful with his application. But the Independent tried to throw some shade onto it with the connotation that the Crusaders lured him away without his consent.

In comparison, when Joe Schmidt took the position of Head Coach for Ireland, the headline in the Independent was: “Joe Schmidt appointed new head coach of Ireland”.

Why was O’Gara poached and Schmidt appointed? What’s the distinction? When Gatland went to Wales, the headline in the BBC was: “Gatland unveiled as Wales coach”.

The difference in the choice of language is alarming. Yellow journalism at it’s best. It’s designed to perpetuate the propaganda of NZ’s poaching. The fact it manages to manipulate so many people is surprising when most of us come from countries where the education system teaches critical thinking.

Use of language is important. And the use of the word “poach” is designed to vilify New Zealand rugby. But come on guys, fair is fair.

Why is New Zealand the only country that is consistently singled out for “poaching” when so many other countries are doing it, and many are in fact worse?

One word… dominance.