“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean” – Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking Glass” (Lewis Carrol)
The World Rugby (WR) Rules of Eligibility allow Southern Hemisphere players to represent Northern Hemisphere countries through ancestry or residency qualifications that are entirely artificial. They create no substantive national connection. They are a fiction, concocted to enable these countries to punch above their true rugby weight.
When WR allows these Northern countries to claim that players are “Irish” or ‘Scottish” – when they clearly are not – they are no different from Humpty Dumpty.
The rules apply both to players that have not represented their Home Country and players that have. They used to restrict players to one-Test-country-for-life. WR now permits a relative “free trade” position. By a majority, of a single vote, they decided that players who have played for their Home Country – in either XVs or 7s – can now switch to a second country (on a once-only basis).
The ancestry qualification requires a player or (a minimum of) one parent or grandparent to have been born in the second country (a stand-down period of three years applies during the transition).
This has allowed the likes of Australians Jack Dempsey and Sione Tuipulotu now to play for Scotland. Both had one Scottish grandparent – a fact that was emphasised during the recent Australia V Scotland Test match, when the TV camera regularly picked out the presence, amongst the spectators, of Tuipulotu’s granny, whom someone had shouted a trip from Australia for a much-publicised appearance at the Murrayfield match.
Australian-born Scotland captain Sione Tuipulotu celebrates after scoring against the Wallabies at Murrayfield on November 24, 2024. (Photo by Ross Parker/SNS Group via Getty Images)
Players that can’t dust off an Irish or Scottish grandparent or parent can resort to residency. Whilst WR did increase the residency requirement from 36 to 60 consecutive months (effective from 31 December 2020), it continued to see no threat to fairness – and no compromise to the concept of a “national” team – by allowing Test qualification on residency alone.
The Argentine ex-Puma, Augustin Pichot, agitated for major restrictions to these unjust rules (during his tenure as WR Vice-President). He wanted Test qualification solely to be based on country of birth. He was duly seen off – but was thrown a bone by a WR voting cabal that seems to have been centred on the Northern Unions. WR extended the three-year residency period to five years (60 continuous months) – which the Northern countries have found ways to accommodate.
Examples (amongst many) of Southern players qualifying for a Northern country’s Test side – by residency alone – are Ireland’s Bundee Aki, James Lowe and Jamison Gibson-Park who were signed from New Zealand’s elite professional rugby system. All were playing for New Zealand Super Rugby franchises. They had played in matches above this level in New Zealand (such as Maori All Blacks) when targeted by Ireland, subsequently becoming eligible for Irish test selection via residency.
Former World Rugby vice chairman Agustin Pichot wanted stronger eligibility laws. (Photo by Atsushi Tomura/Getty Images)
Front rower, Finlay Bealham, and back, Mack Hansen, both Australians – and developed in Australia – qualify for Ireland by ancestry. Bealham has one grandmother from Enniskillen in Northern Ireland. Hansen has one Irish parent. Both were playing at elevated level in Australia before being rostered into the Irish system. There is now a regular flow of familiar faces turning up on our screens in Scottish blue or Irish green, whereas a short while before they were wearing black, or gold, or Springbok green.
The need to serve out five years of residency has accelerated the pace of the capture process by the current most predatory unions, who scout younger players so that the minimum residency requirement of those players will have been fulfilled by the time they reached a typical age for Test rugby. An 18-year-old capture can represent a second country by the time he is 23.
France: Some current examples
Whilst France does not appear to be quite as rapacious as Scotland or Ireland, (even if the addition of only a few impact players is all that it takes to distort competition at Test level), programs like the French one, don’t just capture foreigners that are Test-level-ready. There is a whole hinterland of players who have or will fulfill the five-year residency requirement (if they don’t have ancestry) and thus qualify for test selection, if good enough. Three French examples (based on residency) are informative:
• Macarius PEREIRA is an ex-student of Brisbane’s St Joseph’s Nudgee College and a front rower with such outstanding promise that he was hooked by France after half a season in a Brisbane Colts Team. He is now in the French Development Program.
• Emmanuel Latu-Meafou was born on 12 July 1998 in New Zealand to Samoan parents before moving to Sydney, Australia at two years old with his parents. Meafou first played for National Rugby Championship professional team Melbourne Rising and Shute Shield side Warringah and NSW Country Eagles. He then left Australia for France in December 2018.
In April 2023, prior to making his debut for France, he was contacted by Eddie Jones to play for Australia ahead of the 2023 Rugby World Cup. He declined the offer.
• Tevita Tatafu was called-up to his Japan’s wider training squad in April 2021, ahead of British and Irish Lions Test. On 24 May, he was named in the 36-man squad for the match against the Sunwolves and tour of Scotland and Ireland. He had previously made three appearances for Japan in 2016, debuting against Korea in the 2016 Asia Rugby Championship. He was selected in the 2024 Autumn series French Team.
Over 400 Pacific Island rugby players are currently based in France and backed by a Pacific Island player support group.
New Zealand-born, Australian-raised lock Emmanuel Meafou was picked up by Toulouse and now plays for the French national team. (Photo By Ramsey Cardy/Sportsfile via Getty Images)
No comparison with the amateur era
WR seems unwilling to make an effective stand against these loopholes that artificially strengthen the Northern Unions’ Test match assets – whilst simultaneously depleting those of Southern countries.
In the current professional era, what was once a trickle has become a river, disingenuously dignified by the new buzz word “pathway”; a rite of passage for those players preferring to gain bigger Northern bucks than hang around in their home country. Doubtless, many people see it as an ‘achievement’ for a player to achieve “dual national” Test representation. To this writer’s mind, the process backing it is cynical and unethical.
Whilst the likes of New Zealand and South Africa may currently have sufficient players to withstand the Northern steal (but will that last?) this, even now, risks being existential for Australia, with its smaller reserve of players. This also applies to the Pacific Islands, who regularly lose their best players to the North
It is difficult to determine the number of potential players that are in the national programmes of these countries – being banked for future use.
The difference in Jack Dempsey playing for Scotland and representation by players like Sione Tuipulotu is that Dempsey previously played for Australia at Test level. He now plays for Scotland on the basis that his grandfather emigrated to Australia from Glasgow – and because WR, in its wisdom, has decided to allow a Test player to switch from his Home Country, to represent a second country.
Sione Tuipulotu and former Wallaby Jack Dempsey following their loss to the Springboks on November 10, 2024 in Edinburgh. (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)
In the past, Rugby occasionally allowed ancestry or residency as sufficient qualification for a second country. These fictions might have passed muster in the amateur era, but they are abused in the professional one.
In terms of winning the World Cup, Scotland, Ireland and France may see themselves as “also-rans” but they have performed creditably in all World Cups (especially France). In their minds, the lack of a World crown seems to create some spurious right to stack their team via the ancestry and residency fictions.
These unions are certainly zealous in their modus operandi. So much so that, at one point, the Scottish Union was publicly shamed via their “Granny Gate” scandal. The country of “Flower of Scotland” was caught with its hands in the till; or at least without its spectacles. It was unable to produce valid granny documentation backing the eligibility of certain potential test players (earning it a good wrist-slapping with a wet handkerchief).
That is what happens when you will do anything to recalibrate the dials. Suddenly, you do not know what is up and what is down – particularly when it comes to hemispheres. You do not know what fair-play is and what is not. All you know is that you should be up there on the podium, hoisting the Cup. And that’s not happening.
What is a “national” team?
In their zeal to stack their teams, the main Northern offenders have entirely lost sight of what a “national” team means.
In rugby terms, “nationality” reflects the collective endeavour of a nation; the year-on-year school and club Saturday rugby games; the weekly contests in outlying farming districts, Indigenous rugby groups; the investment in development. Home grown players are deeply immersed in this process.
Nationality is not a Scottish or Irish scout, waving a check in front of a Southern player’s face and promising an El Dorado to entice him to change countries.
Nationality is “we” and “they;” nationality is “us” and “them”.
Emigrants from the principal Northern rugby nations have usually done so with the aim of starting a new life, taking on the nationality of the new country and, in all meaningful senses, closing the chapter on their old country.
If they have not retained investments in their former country has that country any claim for taxes against them? Do they retain a right to vote in their former country? Have they gone through a naturalisation ceremony in their adoptive country?
What is this magic connection that allows them to retain an ancestral right to play for the former country?
If we are talking a parental or grand-parental connection, how much less a right/connection do offspring have in respect of the “old country” – when they have never lived there?
Former Chiefs centre Bundee Aki has become one of Ireland’s great modern players. (Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)
Ireland, Scotland, and France seem to think nothing of undermining the resources of Southern rugby countries, to their own advantage.
Regardless of whether players like Jack Dempsey would have gained further Test selections, Australia needs to be able to call on all players, front-line ones, and reserves. They are all integral to our rugby family. When Aki and Lowe were recently awarded Irish citizenship, one wonders how deeply they could have contemplated what the ninety percent of their life’s iceberg, New Zealand represents. One would have to think that they are complicit in the Irish media’s efforts to smooth over the cracks in the charade by which Ireland claims a right to capture these players.
Can the countries that systemically depend on the foreign player process be said to be morally depleted by the process?
Does it amount to cheating?
These Northern countries cannot be blamed for attempting to grab players via the lax rules put in place by WR. But they have now systematised the process by which they scout, groom and appropriate foreign Test potential. As an example, we find this introduction to the “Scottish Qualified Programme” which (we are told) “is a player centred initiative designed to identify, develop and support Scottish Qualified players living outside of Scotland”.
Similar systems and programmes exist in the other first tier Northern Countries – even if foreign-player capture in England and Wales is currently not a major issue.
The least one can say is that the foreign-player harvest is specifically aimed at strengthening these countries’ national team beyond what they can achieve with domestically developed players. In fact, the nonchalance displayed towards a locally bred potential Test player in replacing him with a newly arrived foreign one is ruthless and cruel. Doubtless it demoralises all cast-aside local players.
One recalls the reaction in Ireland when their Olympic gold-medal swimmer, Michelle Smith was flagrantly evading drug tests. The suspicion and embarrassment in Ireland were palpable. The rugby eligibility arrangements are not of the same odour, but there may be an argument that the stacking of teams is comparable to the records achieved by swimmers wearing full-body swimsuits, before they were banned after the Beijing Olympics, in 2009. Similarly, today’s Test wins of the Scotlands and the Irelands may come to be seen as tainted.
Does anyone think that Ireland can do as well without, say, Aki? Would Scotland fare as well without Duane Van der Merwe?
South African-born Duhan van Der Merwe celebrates after scoring against the Wallabies on November 24, 2024, in Edinburgh. (Photo by Ross Parker/SNS Group via Getty Images)
The Akis, the Dempseys, the Lowes, the Tuipolotus and all the other foreign players who have qualified via a fig leafportal are not Scottish or Irish “nationals”; they are mercenaries.
How many foreign Test and potential Test players, amongst current players, have been captured by second countries?
The below count of foreign players is based on the respective national squads for the 2024 November Test series. Inclusion in the “foreign” list is subject to the following definition:
- It is not based on a player’s country of birth but on the country in which he was developed as a player. Countless players find themselves leaving their birth country at a youthful age, for family or other non-rugby reasons.
- The count omits players whose development has taken place within two or more countries within the United Kingdom – say England and Wales – i.e. these players have moved about within the UK. They have not been sourced in the South. This sort of local migration is a frequent occurrence.
- For the same reason, the count does not include Australasian players who have had a developmental link in both Australia and New Zealand and/or the Pacific Island nations. As also suggested below, the capture of these players should be determined by local rules.
On this basis, the count is as follows (with excuses, in advance, for any errors):
Scotland – 17 out of 45;
Ireland – six out of 35;
France – roughly three out of 42 (but this number conceals huge numbers of foreign players being “banked” within the French program, via the rich French clubs. At any future time, the French team could suddenly have, say, six foreign players, or more).
Wales – Two out of 35
England – One out of 36
Southern Countries
Based on the above definition, none of the Australian, New Zealand, South African or Argentine squads had any foreign players in their Autumn series (although a few players – such as Tupou (Australia) and Stiti (NZ) – had mixed educational backgrounds).
It is often incorrectly alleged that Australia has captured numbers of Pacific Island players at a late stage in their rugby development. This has not been so. The pastoral nexus between Australia/New Zealand, on the one hand and the Pacific Island nations on the other very frequently means that Pacific Island players have lived and gone to school in one of these two nations from an early age (if they were not born there). This fact may irk the Northern countries, who enjoy no nexus whatsoever with the Pacific Island states that they frequently pillage, but who tend to cite the Australia/ New Zealand situation as a precedent for their own far worse behaviour. This is one major reason why the lax WR residency qualification is vital for them.
In the medium term, the high capture reflected in these numbers for the likes of Scotland and Ireland – the systemic pillaging – will distort relationships between rugby nations and produce widespread cynicism in the ranks of the public.
The WR board has a duty to ensure this does not happen. No one should view rules allowing foreign countries to plunder a Southern-player-super-market as a proper discharge of WR’s duty to oversee the maintenance of fairness and equity. When it comes to Pacific Island players, sitting shivering over a fire in a Northern winter, there is a slightly ugly undercurrent to this process.
David Pocock moved to Australia at a young age from Zimbabwe. (AAP Image/David Gray)
What must change?
What should be done by WR to repair these rules – in a world where the moral corners and angles are constantly being shaved or ignored?
It first needs to be clear which player migrations do not infringe fairness. For example, it would be unworkable to restrict representation rights to a player’s country of birth. Many players find themselves changing residency at an early age. To take two examples amongst many, both David Pocock (Australia) and Manu Tuilagi (England) changed countries for reasons unconnected to rugby, when very young.
Secondly, many player biographies reveal that changing between neighbouring countries, whose economic and social circumstances are intertwined, is a naturally occurring process that may need to be viewed with greater tolerance than the naked pillaging between North and South. These situations could be regulated by a subset of rules only applicable as between those countries. The United Kingdom countries and Ireland are one group; Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Island nations are another.
The earlier years of many Australian and New Zealand players of Pacific Island origin began in, say, New Zealand, after which they changed to Australia; or vice versa. The same applies regarding players starting in Wales, say, and ending up in another UK country.
Summary of Changes to Rules and Underlying Principles
- The rules need to revert to limiting players to one-test-country-for life. If an exception is required for second tier teams – such as the Pacific Island teams or Japan etc – this should be allowed in suitable form.
- “Nationality” – a player representing the country to which he belongs and in which he has been developed – is a fundamental principle that should never be diluted.
- There is no argument, based on fairness, that can justify players having a second bite at the cherry of international rugby because they have not succeeded in doing so in their first country.
- Residency should never be a ground for test qualification of players that spend several years playing for a club or franchise in a second country (this may be subject to exceptional circumstances based on compassionate grounds).
- Ancestry is also an entirely false basis on which to ground a right to play for a second country. It is a hollow claim based on nothing. The rugby countries solemnly seeking to invoke it as a ground for qualification know this perfectly well – as does WR. They live in fear that the balloon will be pricked; WR likewise.
- There is no defendable argument that the rules should be flexible for commercial reasons or because of “trade practice” considerations (provided players may be traded at super rugby level it would be unlikely that a limitation on playing for a second country would be struck down, by law, as a restrictive trade practice)
Provision for Transfer Fees – WR Regulatory limitations on a Free-for -all
Why has the capturing of a test level player not been systematically subject to a transfer fee – of a sufficiently realistic level (a) as to fully compensate the development of that player in Home Country and (b) to constitute something of a deterrent to capture by the Northern country?
The concept of compensation for a player’s development by his Home Union (either directly or through clubs and other entities in his first country) is in fact covered in considerable detail in the WR Regulations.
This writer’s interpretation of these complex regulations is that:
- They do not restrict established players, whether test or otherwise, qualifying to play test rugby for a second country;
- The rules on Transfer Fees are weak (despite being detailed) regardless of whether a player is on or off contract at the time of his transfer; a Transfer fee, payable directly to the Home Union, is either not available or their level is too low to serve as a deterrent.
If WR will not countenance blanket change to the above regulations, then it should at least:
- increase transfer fees to a swingeing level; and ensure that their payment is compulsory;
- render them retroactively payable to a player’s Home Union in the event of that player being selected – at any later time – to play for his second country.
- ensure that the fee should be payable regardless of whether the player was on or off contract to his Home Union prior to his transfer to the North.
- require that the fee payable to the Home Union be in addition to any fee due to that player’s club or super rugby franchise in his Home Country
Newly elected World Rugby Chair Dr. Brett Robinson on November 14, 2024 in Dublin. (Photo by Charles McQuillan – World Rugby via Getty Images)
A Subset of Local Rules Within Natural Economic Groups of Countries
WR should oversee local variations within natural geographic groupings, such as the Home Unions/France, on the one hand, and Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Island Nations on the other (this has already been mentioned above).
Now is the time to change
When ‘Flower of Scotland’ chokes the throats at Murrayfield, do we really believe that the line “we can still rise now and be the nation again” is a sincere reflection of the Scottish team about to enter battle? When they sing ‘Ireland’s Call’ at Lansdowne Road, isn’t it a little ironic that six or more members of the team are ring-ins? Similarly, when the Stade de France reverberates with the intensely nationalistic ‘Marseillaise’- with its first line “Allons enfants de la Patrie” (“let us go forward, young of our country”) these words mock the process.
It is incumbent upon World Rugby to keep fairness front of mind. An even playing field between hemispheres is essential. With a newly elected Southern Hemisphere WR chairman (Dr. Brett Robinson), a new chapter should begin. If, behind closed doors, the likes of private equity group, CVC – with its buy-in to the Six Nations Championship and UK rugby – agitate for an artificial “balancing-up” of competition between Northern rugby nations (by artificially maintaining the strength of the smaller nations) WR must not be complicit.
The aggressive capturing of players has become normalised; a battle within a battle to see which Union can swipe the best players. This is a fundamentally selfish dog-eat-dog ritual, pursued without any concern for the plundered nations. It is time to draw the curtain on such a tainted process.
Anthony Abrahams AM*
*Anthony Abrahams was an Australian rugby representative from 1967 -1969. He is known for having led a stand of seven Wallabies against playing against apartheid South Africa. He worked as an international lawyer, based in Paris, between 1970 and 1994. During his first years in Paris, he played for the Racing Club de France (latterly known as Racing Metro)
