Fiji head coach John McKee has called on World Rugby to review its eligibility laws after Wasps number eight Nathan Hughes snubbed the chance to play for them at the World Cup so that he can rewpresent England once he is qualified next year.
McKee told the Daily Mail: “We’re disappointed he’s not going to be available for us at the World Cup. I travelled around England and France in March and April — meeting about 40 players and coaches face to face — but when Nathan said he wasn’t going to be available I decided not to catch up with him in person.”
As thing stands players can represent any country they have lived in for three years or more, provided they have not previously been capped by another nation. It has led to an influx of players to the cash-rich Northern Hemisphere game, all hoping for a shot at international glory with their adopted countries.
“The Fijian union would definitely be supportive of an extension to the residency rule,” said McKee. “There’s a massive threat to the Pacific Islands with players moving offshore. I don’t think it should be scrapped completely, because people migrate for genuine reasons, but it could definitely be looked at.
“Professionalism has brought a lot of change and now we’ve got guys moving to France at 18 years old who go on to play for France. It’s for the Rugby Football Union or the French Rugby Federation to decide whether, in five or six years time, they want their team made up of Pacific Islanders or English and French players. That’s a question for the unions. What do the public want?”
McKee knows that as things stand, players will always be tempted towards the more lucrative opportunity to play for a Northern Hemisphere nation, with the likes of Fiji and Samoa – for whom Hughes is also eligible thanks to his grandmother – lagging well behind in financial terms.
“For any player who has a choice between two countries, there will always be financial considerations,” said McKee. “Those finances will always lead a player to England over Fiji because we don’t have that sort of money and can’t compete.
“Players don’t play for Fiji for money — they do it for the pride of representing their country. There are lots of factors — we’ve got other talented players and we move on.”
World Rugby chief executive Brett Gosper has admitted that it is a rule that will be reviewed and could be changed soon, in response to the increasing number of players becoming eligible for one or more countries.
“When that [residency rule] was determined, I don’t think there was quite the flow of players in international movement that it’s become in recent years, through Europe and Japan, and so on,” Gosper told Fairfax Media.
“I know that [World Rugby] president [Bernard] Lapasset has indicated that this may be something we need to look at again in the future, and look at whether the three-year residency is enough to ensure the integrity of the international game.
“You want to preserve the specialness of the international game and therefore while club sides are gathering all-stars from around the world, and top international players, I think there is a feeling that there has to be some steps taken to ensure that the profile of the national team has that integrity.”
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
33 replies on “Fiji coach calls for change to eligibility rules after Hughes snub”
Stop moaning about it and change it. It’s not as though the SH hasn’t benefitted from such poaching for some time now. It’s now reached the point where it’s merely 2nd generation for them, so it’s no longer residential, whereas the NH is still mostly in the 1st gen phase.
Until it’s changed, then I expect the NH to do what is right for them. I seriously dislike project players, but Hughes doesn’t fall into that category. He’s a hell of a poach, but those are the rules, and that’s what should be played to. Hughes will play for England, likely still with some pride, but most importantly for him, for his family, and there’s no way I’m criticising him for that.
What’s the diff between so called SH ‘poaching’ & ‘expect(ing) the NH to do what is right for them’?
What rules were ever broken by the SH & can you name all these ‘poached’ players I keep hearing about (almost as often as the Armitage thing)?
And BTW Hughes couldn’t make The Blues S15 side hence he’s here. Another SH 2nd string poach by NH England then?
Pots & kettles. You’re having a giraffe fella.
I think I’ve missed something here. Why can’t these players play club rugby in the NH and line their pockets whilst also representing their country of birth at the world cup?
I remember there was a bit of a stink raised a couple of years ago about Top14 sides signing pacific island players on the proviso that they did not play internationals and stayed with their club all season. That doesn’t seem to be relevant here because wasps will be without Hughes for internationals whether he plays for England or Fiji?
Change the rules so you only qualify under 2 criteria: i) nationality of you or your parents (not grandparents), ii) moved abroad, with family and for non-rugby related reasons, while still school age ie under 16-18. In the meantime, at the very least, increase the qualifying period from 3 to 5 years.
Just a thought but its not as if England are struggling to fill the position is it?
Apart from the obvious there is Waldrom and Ewers (and yes I do see the irony with those two!), whilst young Beaumont seems to one for the future too.
Yet another imported ‘English’ mercenary from the other end of the World as per Waldrom….. Ewers et al.
No doubt he’ll to wear the red rose and sing the tribute to the Kraut Trout to the tune of ‘Heil dir in siegerkranz’ otherwise known as ‘The Hymn to the Kaiser’.
Just name the so-called Pacific players poached by New Zealand…..you won’t find many as they were of Islander descent but were all born in New Zealand.
Jerome Kaino, Malakai Fekitoa, Isaia Toeava, Chris Masoe, Sitiveni Sivivatu, Mils Muliaina, Joe Rokocoko, Rodney So’oialo, Jerry Collins were all born in the pacific islands.
I don’t agree with Hughes playing for England, I feel unless someone moves to whichever country before they are 16 then they should represent the country where they grew up.
However to state that New Zealand don’t do it is utter rubbish, because almost everyone does it.
Admittedly they haven’t picked as many in recent years but this is possibly due to, as DanD put it, all their pacific islanders being 2nd/3rd generation and born in the country now.
Muliana lived in NZ from the age of 2.
Rokocoko lived in NZ from age 5.
Jerry Collins was a boy when his family moved to NZ.
Whilst all the others you listed went to secondary or even primary schools in NZ.
So it seems the NZ players you highlighted grew up in NZ well b 4 they turned 18.
That is totally different to England’s ‘Martini’ policy of taking adults who were grew up in the SH but couldn’t get into the SA, Aus or NZ sides because they were not good enough.
At times Lancaster’s squad has been 1/3+ born outside the NH!
Easter has complained about it, Corry has complained about it so even ‘real’ Englishmen feel this is wrong.
Still when you sing your national anthem to a women with the surname Saxe-Coburg-Gothe-Battenburg who married a penniless ‘royal’ exile from his own nation then no wonder you pick anyone for your rugby team.
’tis somewhat muddled thinking to consider the Queen to be German – particularly in this context of countries of birth and naturalisation.
I appreciate that facts can often spoil the prejudices from time to time, but it is worth remembering that the Queen was born in England, to English-born parents, and had 4 English-born Grand-Parents.
However, if it is just the family name that confuses you, then you do know that the Anglo-Saxon people derived from Germanic tribes don’t you? Of course it includes the famous Anglo-Saxon/German families of Baldwin, Warburton and Halfpenny.
Proper English bloodlines would be the likes of North, Cuthbert, Priestland, Webb, Lee and Jenkins of course.
Heaven knows what sort of rugby eligibility rules we would see if we had to go back further than Grand-Parents to find out peoples “true” nationality!
Well there’s no actual archaeological evidence of the ‘English’ (or British) generally being of Anglo-Saxon decent either. It’s mainly according to the Venerable Bede’s word that this idea exists at all.
To the best of my knowledge however, Bede didn’t state whether the Queen was a rugby fan or not, German or otherwise.
Oh no, Don.
Don’t know so much about archaeology, however Bede is backed up by the most obvious link – the language, and is latterly supported through DNA.
You’re not telling me that you’re really all Germans (or ‘Huns’ in the W Wars) are you? Seem a bit odd if the England 2nd 15 squad were labelled after the latter wouldn’t it?
Regds DNA for example, in Surrey, it’s the same as that in Ireland. Also I dare say that DNA, in the N’thern 1/2 of England @ least, likely supports some Scandinavian origin, hence it was formerly known as ‘Danelaw’.
As I understand it however, Archaeological evidence is usually required to establish national id. Although there are scattered remnants supporting Anglo/Saxon trade or even some minor settlement, there is NO actual proof of Germanic ‘invasion/s’ or origins of or for the ‘British’ people. On the other hand, there is strong archaeological evidence in York of Viking settlement & indeed the name Eric Bloodaxe may be familiar to you.
There was a TV documentary some yrs ago about the biggest archaeological dig, in the world (not just in Britain). It’s conclusion did not support any Anglo/Saxon invasion of the UK. There was no proof of any battles fought (like was @ Hastings v Wm the Conqueror) which is the norm with invasions. People don’t like ’em & so resist! Also there is the ? of what happened to the indigenous pop in case of said invasion/s? Did they emigrate? Were they annihilated & or sold into slavery (like the Carthaginians), or were they ‘absorbed’ as per the Normans?
DNA didn’t seem to answer these ?s.
There was evidence of a change in customs, dress, even culture around the time we’re blogging about, but that’s not evidence of peoples’ national origins.
The Oxford Dictionary of British History may help, but I have absolutely no idea what the Fijian coach thinks of all this.
Fair enough they grew up there, I didn’t know that. I was merely replying to the statement that ‘they were all born there’, when that blatantly isn’t the case.
Overall I feel that someone should either be born n the country selecting them or their parents are from there or that country helped to develop them up through the age grades.
Ouch Enoch. You sure know how to ‘pull’ yr punches.
Altho I haven’t specifically researched all yr stats, I don’t doubt their authenticity. I am aware that most of the ‘PI’ ABs either emigrated as babes or, as you state, went to school in NZ – unlike Hartley, Barritt, the Vunipolas, Tuilagi, Rokoduguni or even Waldrom etc for England.
This ‘poaching’ bizzo has long been thrown @ the ABs; as an excuse for others’ teams not playing good enough rugby. V probably. Esp so as the current likely AB 1st team, Kaino apart (emigrated @ 4) & incl Arron Smith, Nonu & Savea who, altho NOT Pakehas, are ALL indigenous.
So how do likes of Kit (above, as he seem to), or Jones of the S Times, justify OPINIONS like; ‘NZ has ALWAYS been a prime harvester of foreign talent’?
It’s a cyclical thing. Auckland is the biggest Polynesian city in the world & ‘migration from the islands to NZ is a fact of life’. Jones is just having his usual (ho hum) ‘controversial & influential’ larf… with hardly a murmur about his favourite, adopted lilly whites of course.All more good, subjective grist to the Mills & Boon mill no doubt.
Play better rugby via better coaches. That’s mainly all there is to it.
I never stated NZ were the worst offenders, I was merely naming some players not born in NZ because Enoch said they were all born there. I do think NZ do it but not much and nowhere near as much as others.
I actually think England are by far the worst offenders of picking foreign born players, we don’t even pick good players just very average ones (Botha, Hape, Flutey etc) which just makes it so much worse in my opinion.
I took it that Enoch meant that ABs of PI decent either emigrated pre school, or were schooled there, or that (but) ‘they were all born in New Zealand’, which is the case. Not that, according to current rules, it matters. As NZ haven’t breached rules, the term ‘poaching’ is inappropriate, inaccurate or plain hypocritical.
I was mainly aiming my comment @ the S Times rugby correspondent, Jones because of his obvious bias & exaggeration on this matter. Nothing new there of course.
In a wider context, the PI’s have long been decimated or worse by pro rugby, but this was bound to happen after 1995. The IRB/WR have sat on their hands & done little to recognise this ww issue let alone attempt to redress it.
In a free economy bus world however, any advantage within the ‘rules’ is deemed ‘acceptable’ (altho I personally adhere to this view). Therefore, this anti? AB ‘poaching’ stuff is likely just that & therefore piffle.
When you’ve heard it as many times as I have (z z z z z z z z z) it seem becomes boring & seems like sour grapes or excuses for others’ playing stds not being up to scratch… & it seems to have no sell by date.
Sometimes Don P I don’t think you actually read the comments you reply to…
Only Sometimes Henry? You’re being kind again! I can tell!
But I read & re-read yr comment. Honest.
Mike Catt, Matt Stevens, Stuart Abbott, Perry Freshwater, Ricky Flutey, Lesley Vainakolo, Henry Paul, Mark Van Gisbergen, Dylan Hartley, Manu Tuilagi, Billy & Mako Vunipola etc.
I didn’t read yr comment b4 this post, but pots &lkettles apply. England have used the so called SH poaching of the PI’s as an excuse for playing sub std rugby.
Many of the above PI’s went to school in NZ & Roco went there as a 3 yr old! Most of the current AB team is Pakeha & if you can name many PI/Maori players in the 1st team I’ll be surprised.
I didn’t make a comment before that post and I wasn’t defending England I think they’re far from innocent on this front. Enoch said he dared anyone to name any NZ players from the pacific islands because they were all born there, so I just named some who weren’t born in NZ.
Mike Catt, Matt Stevens, Stuart Abbott, Dylan Hartley didn’t qualify by virtue of the 3 year rule, but due to their heritge, which was not what the Fiji coach was complaining about.
Manu Tuilagi, Billy & Mako Vunipola, all schooled in the UK, so how is that different to your justification of NZ above?
Quite frankly you could have kept Freshwater, Flutey, Paul, MVG and Vainakolo. They added little to nothing.
It is easy to come up with names such as those in Don P’s post above, but its not a valid comparison. Benjit adds some common sense Tuilagi and the Vunipola’s who are linked by the fact that their family brought them over as kids. Ironically, their family all came over as Rugby players whilst retaining their ability to play for the countries of their birth.
The big difference though is that everyone else on that list,a s far as I can see, have come across to play in Europe of their own accord. NZ, by contrast, has scouts in the islands inviting the promising rugby players across to be schooled in NZ.
How so? Be specific.
As for the scouting in the Islands thing. Hav u been reading Jones again? How does this so called ‘scouting’ contention a/c for the AB’s test team l/up having only 1 player not born in NZ then (Kaino, emigrated @ 4!)?
U’r having (another) giraffe… & splitting hairs brother. 1 rule for England? Try some balance or common yrself.
I was responding to another blogger, not the Fijian coach.
And as you’re aware these blogs can & do take on a tangent & momentum of their own.
Regds ‘Manu Tuilagi, Billy & Mako Vunipola, all schooled in the UK, so how is that different to your justification of NZ above’?; they’re the exception so technically in that respect there is no diff, but you’re picking an isolated 3 compared with the vast majority who played for Endland who WEREN’T ‘schooled here’.
As aforementioned I’ve heard this ‘poaching’ bs in England as a sour grapes & implied excuse for NZ’s superiority in rugger for 100 yrs now. Then Englanders like you attempt the hypocritical justification of ‘poaching’ yr selves after having slagged NZ off for the same allegation. Bit pathetic that’s all.
BTW in NZ you”ll likely find that the NZ immigrant ABs’ were just that i.e. all immigrants.
Well England picked Freshwater, Flutey, Paul, MVG and Vainakol – but that’s besides the pt.
Your 7s coach spent a lot of energy trying to get Hughes to play for NZ, and I’m sure had Kirwan (who’s really showing himself to not have a clue for talent) had offered him a full contract, the ABs would have come sounding him out too. Hughes didn’t come to England to play for England, he came to play for a club. Ewers and his family were chased out of his home country likely under life threatening conditions, if you want to equate that to poaching, well I pity you.
Another Wasp player was chased by the ABs, Alapati Leuia, just because he chose to play for Samoa, doesn’t lessen the fact that NZ would have happily poached him.
A further point, Fiji, and NZ, and Aus, all have the Queen as the head of state, so it’s not as though the anthem he’ll be singing is irrelevant to him
As stated, I’m all for changing the rules, I think 3 years before the age of 18, 6 years after (each day before counts double) sounds good, but let’s cut out the moaning part, and do something. Rather than having an Aussie (he is an aussie right?) who are hardly free and clear of PI poaches, moaning at the NH about it.
I’d also keep the grandparent rule, yes it can be abused, but it’ll allow those who still hold onto their heritage (lets say those 2nd/3rd generation PIs in NZ) to play for the country they feel close to.
Don’t see how Kirwan fits into this as he was coach of the Blues? Maybe the ABs would have come sounding him (Hughes) out too if only he’d had a S15 1st team place. Don’t know about the 7’s coach, Gordon Tietjens btw, as he sounds out lots of talent, presumably with more of a clue than Kirwan. I can only speculate that Hughes would have stayed in NZ if he’d had more S15 game time, but isn’t it poss that this was a factor in his moving here? Pundits are already talking him up as a future England player. Maybe he’ll need to watch those red cards, then who knows?
I never mentioned Ewers, so yr contention regarding him is groundless.
Rgds Alapati Leuia, he played for the Hurricanes as I recall. Again I can only speculate that if he’s been offered an AB place he might have given it @ least a few seconds consideration. Yr contention; ‘doesn’t lessen the fact that NZ would have happily poached him’ is speculation, not fact. The ‘p’ word is inaccurate & irrelevant. Check the rules, read my other post.
And I can’t get into someone’s head like you, so can’t tell if anthem singing is relevant or ‘irrelevant to him (presumably Leuia?)’.
As for ‘let’s cut out the moaning part’, NZ have had this ‘poaching’ issue chucked @ them for yrs by …. NH types like YOU! Perlease.
Agree, that the IRB/WR, ought to act/have acted globally on eligibility tho.
Finger pointing when it comes to selection of “foreign” players really gets everyone nowhere. EVERY big team has done it, so no one has a leg to stand on.
Personally I think the residency rule should be 5 years if you move to a country after the age of 18. But that is the only change I’d make.
Agree, particularly with yr 1st para, but it doesn’t stop the mud slinging it seems.
Why would Hughes want to play for England over Fiji? It’s not financial because his wages are paid by his club in either case?
Test players get paid an additional salary by English rugby for playing. Significantly more than he would for Fiji. Current agreement with the RFU sees each player get around £15,000 a test match… Plus bonuses for achieving trophies.
Well he can forget his trophy bonuses if he plays for England can’t he???
Ha fair enough, though I’d still say its more likely than playing for Fiji (just)!
I remember a quote from Ospreys Josh Matavesi saying he has to pay for his own flights to go and play for Fiji. Great dedication in a world of money chasers.
One positive way to improve this situation would be to actual support the unions of the Pacific Island nations by giving them some decent games to earn some revenue from. Inclusion into tri nations?