CEO of the Australian Rugby Union, Bill Pulver, has announced a radical change to their policy on picking players based overseas, in which certain key players will be eligible for selection should they ply their trade outside of Australia.
Internationals with at least 60 caps, that have played for at least seven seasons in Australia, will henceforth be eligible for selection, regardless of where they play their club rugby.
It is a big change from the ARU’s previous zero tolerance policy on overseas stars, and opens the door for a return for the likes of Toulon stars Matt Giteau and Drew Mitchell, and post-Rugby World Cup, Will Genia, James Horwill, Quade Cooper and Adam Ashley-Cooper – although the former three remain short of that 60 cap threshold for the time being.
Wallaby head coach Michael Chekika said: “It’s important to first and foremost recognise those players who are currently making a daily contribution to rugby in Australia, but at the same time not discount those elite-level and experienced Test players who have already invested so much into the code over a long period.
“From speaking with many of them, I know they still have a huge desire to represent Australia, and would do so to the very best of their abilities if ever called upon once again.
“In the end, we want the best players being rewarded for playing the majority of their career in Australia, and this is an important step to the future growth and success of the Wallabies.”
CEO Bill Pulver added: “This is a pivotal moment for rugby in Australia, where for the first time in its professional history, the ARU will allow overseas-based players who have made a significant contribution to Australian rugby to become eligible for the Qantas Wallabies.
“It’s a decision that recognises the changing dynamics of a global rugby market for professional players. Combined with our other recruitment and retention strategies, we feel this decision allows the ARU to assert more influence over player movement and contracting in Australia and abroad.
“Those players who satisfy the 60-game and seven-year threshold have already invested heavily and contributed considerably to Australian rugby over a long period of time.
“The policy also encourages those players who have not yet reached that point to commit exclusively to Australian rugby in the prime of their career. In this way, we believe the policy supports Super Rugby by encouraging our top players to remain in Australia for longer.
“It also means we can invest more money into our younger players in the long-term, while ensuring our most experienced players leaving for overseas can still contribute to the overall success of the code in Australia – on and off the field.”
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
25 replies on “ARU announces major change to overseas player policy”
Things I like this approach – we invest in you, we expect your loyalty up to X caps to repay the money and time we invested in you. Once you’re an established elite player you can go where you like and we can then invest in the next generation.
Things I don’t like – we we’re now a feeder league for the bigger leagues in the world.
This latter could causes further issues for Aussie rugby – watch the “best” in the world in league or watch the Nth best in the world in Union cos the best are all in England or France or Ireland….
Things I personally really, really dislike about this – Aus chances of winning the group of death at RWC just massively increased…
Seems like Giteau is the only one that’s going to benefit from this right now, but I agree that he is a huge boost to their RWC chances. 60 caps seems like a bit of an arbitrary figure though – what happens if you move abroad with 59?! And what happens if you’re a key individual that’s struggled with injuries (e.g. David Pocock)?
Any number of caps is going to be arbitrary, but if I were being cynical I’d say it was awfully close to Drew Mitchell’s 61 caps.
Agree with you both – an arbitrary num and seems designed to get the Toulon stars on board for RWC. Once you set a number though all sorts of shenanigans can start unfolding e.g. what about the guy who’s hovering around 48 caps? Do you not pick him for friendlies to persuade him to stay a bit longer for big games, etc?
Be interesting to see if any knock on effects for England – will the PRA now start lobbying for the same rights?
Yes – it looks a pretty astute move at first sight, but could end up being abused.
I can’t see a similar thing working with England (or France, though I’m not sure what their overseas policy currently is). There doesn’t seem to be a culture of English players moving to France towards the ends of their careers – they seem to go either much younger, after only earning a handful of caps, or when they’re no longer getting picked for England. There’s one notable exception, of course, but didn’t he retire from international rugby before going?
England have already got this in the in exceptional circumstances law though haven’t they, they’ve just put lesson onus on it? Same for Gatlands law here in Wales. It Effectively ended Dwayne peel and Micheal owens international careers, despite them playing well for Saracens and Sale, but I think welsh coaches would rather lose a foot than leave out Jamie Roberts or Jon Davies, even Mike Phillips still gets into the match day squad. I understand the Australia’s stance tho, if Rob horne adam ashley cooper and joe tommane are the incubent wingers but there aren’t many knocking on the door to fill that role, but in france drew mitchel and digby ioane are both in great form, and Matt tomooa is currently injured, if Leleafano gets injured as well they’ve lost their 2 regular inside centre options, Kurtly beale and Mike Harris could be called in but, Giteau and Berrick Barnes are both in great form. Why not call them up.
If they had a couple of world class props playing in Europe suddenly available, I’d be more worried. This shouldn’t change England’s stance.
The new scrum laws suit boys like slipper, kepu, sio and Alexander though, and with steven Moore back at hooker they will be far more solid than in the autumn. I think its to get Drew mitchel, Giteau and maybe ioane and barnes back to the fold. I still think that england should play Robshaw 6 Morgan/Vunipola 8 and Armatage 7. be a really solid mobile back row, break downs would be a nightmare.
Barnes and Ioane don’t have 60 caps but I definitely agree that this is targeted at Giteau and Mitchell.
As for the England back row I don’t think Armitage is being picked so I’m going to ignore him, I think they should give serious consideration to putting Vunipola at 6 and Morgan at 8. If you look at Vunipola’s work rate recently, always high on the tackle count etc and he’s a lot fitter now, consistently playing the full 80 mins, I think he could play well at 6. It would give us an insane amount of ball carrying ballast as well. Just a possibility to think about. Or maybe have one on the bench and bring them on for whoevers at 6 and play them both for the last 20 minutes.
All this stuff’s been gone over a 1000 times before, but it depends on whether you want to win the WC. Will Oz benefit, or not? V lightly. Besides rules can be changed back again if they actually PROVE detrimental.
Wales & SA allow their players to ply their trade away from home. Has it affected them appreciably? England & NZ don’t. England suffer more as they ignore proven, quality players in France.. an hour away. It’s not necessarily their only issue IMO, tactics & skills being others, but In the end money talks and rugby is a sports/business. However, there’s no definitive evidence of a likely mass player exodus from England. Besides, are there that many who are good enough to play abroad anyway?
Some flex is needed rather than sticking fingers in dikes in an attempt @ forestalling an as yet unproven fear of players exiting England. The numbers actually affected are likely minimal anyway.
Oz, unlike England, seem unafraid of going for it in an attempt to win the W. Cup. Good on ’em I say, but not too much.
“Wales & SA allow their players to ply their trade away from home. Has it affected them appreciably? ”
Don, can’t speak for SA but in the case of Wales an unequivocal “Yes, massively”. Most of our best players now player overseas. Our club attendances are down (the stars are gone) and our success rate is way down (we don’t have the quality we used to have). We have more overseas players than before to make up for this quality gap – less options for Welsh youngsters. We cannot compete with France purely on cash (Ireland are trying). Anything extra e.g. “play in Wales to play for Wales” would have helped keep the quality at our clubs when decisions were marginal e.g. 500K to play for France, no Wales caps or 350K to play for Ospreys with chances of Wales caps.
My response didn’t take.
Was reffing to Int’al level mainly (as per ARU ruling).
Do you think Wales punched above their weight then, in the 6N anyway? Their record is pretty strong there. Need to check on no. of Wales Int’als playing abroad, although you’ll likely know, as you state that club rugby is so affected by this factor. That being so, it’s indeed of concern. And I do recall yr mentioning English clubs signing some Welsh youth, thus circumventing their future availability for Wales. Ditto.
In the end £ (& player no’s to a large/some degree?) talks. However, I think better basic skills coaching, beliefs, tactical innovation/ nous, prompt adaptation to new rules & a country’s coordinated rugby structure are also important factors in helping to negate esp £’s effect. Otherwise England should win everything.
French clubs have been prominent in Euro Rugby, but France are relatively poor Int’ally these days. For me this is likely down to some/ many (?) of their indigenous players being denied higher opportunities, but also down to their sub standard coaching @ the higher level.
The SH have also suffered player drain for yrs to the NH now, not least NZ, but I just don’t think there’s a blanket answer as to whether countries should impose a black & white rule & bar players’ playing abroad ‘to protect their game’.
For sure, it would be ideal if the IRB (WR) could enforce a player country of birth rule w w, but it’s not going to happen. Not least due to restraint of trade. Also (& I know that you’ve poo-poohed this idea prev), I think that circumstances, such as geography, are different for countries in the SH, as the drain is north. So potentially getting players back in time, game ready, for a test could be A factor. Additionally, IMO the lure for players to stay in NZ for higher honours is perhaps more ingrained due to the game’s place in the country’s conciousness than up north & so, of course, rugby is by a way the no.1 sport.
For England in particular, with its wealth of resource, a couple of guys playing their biz in France & being picked for this WC isn’t nec a threat to their future. Can always alter rules later if needs be..
Dunno, could be wrong, but these are some of my thoughts anyway.
Don, I do think Wales punch above their weight. I think that we’re on a bit of a knife edge at the mo with the migration of our top players abroad leading to reduced quality at home which may have a knock on effect on the profile of the sport and hence future star development. I can’t guarantee that but it is my worry and if I was England I’d rather avoid that worry than pick one player from overseas.
Agree with you that domestic structures are part of the package of keeping players at home – some Welsh players have stayed due to the “resting” and the Irish do similar. Of course, the massive tax bung that the Irish govt give to their sports stars who stay home helps a lot.
England have the rule primarily because the clubs wanted a deal – if the RFU wants them to have X players on Eng qual in each squad then what they demand in return is a package of rewards for that – one of which is making it a wrench to leave that club for more money in France by ruling you out of English selection.
This is why the “exceptional” part of the rule, the letter of it, is largely irrelevant as it’ll be decided if it was a worthy “exception” when the clubs negotiate the next deal and they will not care about any legal interpretation of “exceptional”. If they think the RFU has made their (the clubs) position worse by picking Armitage then they could (and will in my opinion) say “sod you” to the RFU and stuff their clubs with as many overseas players as they want. They could also remove early access to English players for training camps, etc.
I think the main diff with the SH isn’t so much the geography as the central contracting and the lack of having to fight off soccer as a main competitor – except for Aus of course where they have 2 or 3 sports bigger than RU and are really struggling to remain financially competitive in the player market – hence the rule change. The “play here to play for” rule is only as good as the participation – it was/is getting to the point where playing for Aus isn’t good enough when players can 2X or 3X their salaries up north so the rule broke. In NZ I’d say that not being an AB is still enough of an incentive to stay home.
Often don’t have the time (or always the inclination?) to check info out, but, acc to; http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/matchcentre/wales_seniors.php, more Welsh players than I’d prev supposed play ‘abroad’.
I.e.; Jamie Roberts, Mike Phillips, George North, Dan Lydiate, Paul James, Richard Hibbard, Leigh Halfpenny, Jonathan Davies (Eng born??), Luke Charteris play ‘away’, mainly in Fr, some in Eng .
Don’t know abt Nicky Smith, Tyler Morgan, Kristian Dacey or Jake Ball (Eng??)? Site didn’t say (!), but presume they’re ‘local’?
Diff to say how much this may affect Wales Int’ally, but yr views on domestic game make sense to me.
See the pattern with you Alex dev into, well, us prev (bit ironic). However, in the end, IMO, it’s down to what we, here, believe rgds this rule abt how ‘away’ players affect the game Int’ally. We just go over the same old ground really & try to convert others to our way of thinking. Becomes wearying & often pt’less (I should know). Some times not though.
However & although I empathise with yr concerns regarding the Welsh game, I wonder if Wales’ & England;s circs are the same. England do have more £, resources than Wales, or anyone else & as prev mentioned, it’s not certain whether their players would all exodus England for Fr, not least because they may not be good enough. They can better replace potential losses than Wales, but their main issues must be in their coaching levels & (too many?) club/s v country. If there were an unacceptable level of leakage abroad, then they could, in theory, revert back to where they are now – if that makes sense?
Could it be that yr views on this issue are partly influenced by what’s happened to Welsh dom rugby? Dunno, but however, (ill) logical we are, we all come from some sort of base conditioning methinks.
Gotta go. Time again!
I said “other nations would bend the rules given half a chance” recently on this blog (ref to overseas player rules) and Australia just have. Now we should get ours into the squad ASAP. Ironically the ones we need are in the same french club as the australian players being touted by Cheika.
To do otherwise would be a mistake. There are No dangers lurking over the horizon for us as RFU can cite its own rules “extraordinary circumstances”. I call that covering every angle and amazing foresight!
Alex said – “To do otherwise would be a mistake. There are No dangers lurking over the horizon for us as RFU can cite its own rules “extraordinary circumstances”. I call that covering every angle and amazing foresight!”
Yep, stick to the rules and nothing can go wrong cos that’s all that matters. Disgruntled club owners, future negotiations of the RFU/PRL agreement will all be fine because the RFU can say it stuck to the rules. It’s exactly the same when you get clamped – you don’t mind at all because thems the rules.
Has Australia moved the goal posts ref ARU/PRL ? Yes with potentially 4-5 world class players to call up for the group of death (containing England and Wales) Worried…? I am.
Will other nations (probably incl Wales &NZ) modify their attitudes too? Probably …..watch this space!
Should England in a WC year? Yes
The motivation and reason why? To win the World Cup.
Nuff said even for Brighty to understand!
Unfortunately not being a Club owner I don’t need to worry about how it might affect my chances of winning the championship (if I were one however that would be more than great with an extra challenge to rise to)
As don P agrees there is no evidence of an impending mass emigration of players.
Just like footy players we’re not that keen on living and playing away from home anyway for a plethora of reasons – among others a language barrier & cultural differences)
So what to do? Take advantage of a pre-existing RFU (that’s ERU) ‘get out of jail free card’, get on with it and win the World Cup and then carry on afterwards just as we left off.
There is no get out of jail free card. The clause is irrelevant. Annoy the clubs and lose access to the players as already explained in language even you should be able to understand Alex.
No evidence of an exodus? Of course not. Because the current setup has prevented it.
Carry on as normal afterwards? Dream on. As made clear by some UK based english players and club owners – mess with this arrangement and nothing will be the same again. See how well France do in international rugby nowadays?
Brighty you miss the point. The current system has already made allowances for particular extempore scenarios. The recent spate of injuries to the England squad during the 6 Nations was one such and the World Cup whichever way you look at it is another. It is a one-off and by DEFINITION “extraordinary”. Even you can grasp that one. We do share the English language (what a drag that must be!) The PRL laws are all a question of semantics which people interpret and reinterpret nowadays all the time in business, law and yes even in sport (particularly if it means winning a WC bcos if one country doesn’t you can bet ya bottom dollar all the others will)
One way or another England will get around it and boost their WC prospects accordingly. Nothing illegal will have been committed.
We can all worry about the club system and how it is affected or not afterwards (the final of the WC) and I’m of the opinion that it won’t be. There won’t be a precedent for wholesale desertions as you imagine there will be bcos there will be no legal justification for it ie. no “extraordinary circumstances” to cite bcos they’ll just be playing rugby 9-5 as per usual – nothing extraordinary about that that I can see. Unless u know something I don’t (quite possible!)
Anyway I’m curious to know what your real agenda/fear here is! Might it not be the prospect of England getting their hands on two world class players (possibly a third) one of whom would help resolve the English back row difficulties! Is that a worry for you? Heaven forbid the nightmarish possibility of England winning a second World Cup.
No, you miss the point. You seem to think that because it is a rule then everyone will be happy with the decision. That is massively naive. It’s legal for me to blast music out of my house until 10:30pm every night so does this mean my neighbours will happily sit back and smile while I do it? Your focus on the legality of the issue means you do not understand the actual issue.
The rule is irrelevant. Owners, coaches and players are on record that a World Cup is not exceptional circumstances. It does not matter that you think it is. It matters what they think. It does not matter what the law thinks as the law will not be deciding the next participation agreement. It is not only about player exodus. It is about access to players. Clubs agreeing to min nums of English players in squads for development. Look at Toulon when that rule is ignored and then look at the french national side.
An agenda? Hilarious. Yes, by making my comments on here I successfully persuade england to not pick Armitage and hence I improve Wales’ chances. I, and this blog, are that influential. Well done for spotting it……
Ps. An event 8 years in the planning that happens regularly every four years with plans already in place for the next 12 years is anything but extraordinary. This is irrelevant anyway, as I have tried to explain, but you seem intent on ignoring common sense and concentrating on the minutae of a legal agreement that you have never even read.
Some extrraordinary opinions here. Forget rules which of course can be changed, and even broken as witness Northampton’s damaging (in my opinion) Contract releasing George North outside the international window. Instead apply common sense. Are England’s RWC chances really dependent on one expat player? what is more important? the 26 weeks of mainly top class rugby provided by the Premiership and the 2 months of six nations action every year seasoned with the occasional lions tour as against the routine RWC every 4 years.
As Brighty implies it would be madness to take even the tiniest, tiniest risk to the Premiership/RFU relationship and the national team by making an exception for one player, however good he may be.
Totally agree with you and Brighty. There’s nothing exceptional about an event that happens every 4 years.
As you say, to risk the fine balance between the clubs and the national team would be absolute stupidity. To do it for a player who is totally unproven at international level (Armitage) or one who has been tried and discarded (Abendanon) would be insanity
Don P i think those were some of your most thoughtful comments on this blog, Brighty I hate to admit it but you also write eloquently and with conviction.
I agree with maintaining the status quo. Do those who want change want it to change because of Armitage or is it the principle of the thing? I would speculate that it is just for Armitage.
Would it be possible for Armitage to still play in the RC if he were to sign for a prem club next season? I don’t know how these things work, I am genuinely interested if someone knows more than me on the subject!
This topic has more mileage than a Dunlop.
Let me try this point 1st though. I believe we all come from an angle, or a belief, on topics. Call it conditioning, indoctrination, brainwashing even. We (& I include myself herein) also tend to draw on facts to suit our belief/s. We can also become angry when others disagree, esp so if slights are perceived. Then issues can run on & on & become ever increasingly personal & the main point can become submerged. Can’t exactly prove this of course, but it makes some sort of sense to me at least… if past experience is anything to go by.
Therefore & getting to your point, for instance, my not originating from here means my concerns are bound to be different from yours, or Brighty’s, or particularly Stuart Lancaster’s (RFU’s) on this issue of allowing (or not) ‘overseas’ players into the England Int’al fold.
I can’t really state anything on anyone else’s behalf, including Brighty, who is capable of doing so for himself. However, because of the damage done to the Welsh domestic game due to many of their players plying their trade especially in France, methinks his views & concerns are unlikely to be quite the same as mine. And Wales have still performed Int’ally in the 6N nonetheless.
My belief though, is that, whilst rules may be the same for some teams, circumstances I’ve alluded to previously, can be different. In England’s case, their circumstances are different from those of Wales. For example, their resources are far greater & as seen by ‘all the injuries’ the press went on about, having been absorbed with new players now being established.
The question for me though, is how badly do England want to win the WC? I don’t see in principle how the best flanker in Europe’s being omitted (& he is & will continue to be I believe) will enhance their chances.
Brighty opines, if I read him correctly, that the English clubs will be pee’d off if Armitage were picked for the WC as this scenario would begger up the next round of club/England player release negotiations. Personally, I wonder, at a certain level, if the clubs wouldn’t be pleased if their employees weren’t available to be potentially ‘crocked’ whilst on England duty. This situation would surely help begger up their chances of winning things domestically!
Anyway, it’s academic. IMO it’s already likely too late for any change to the England squad now.
For me England’s more immediate concern is whether Lancaster’s coaching is up to it. Is his style (apart from the last 6N game) of play, team’s skills & decision making good enough to win the WC?
Rules can & will be negotiated and or changed & back again if necessary. Look at how the game has been turned upside down since ’95. It’s understandable to ‘protect’ your own (game), but I just don’t see a rigid adherence to this particular rule, in this instance, of this WC, will benefit England.
Oz certainly don’t seem to have held the same fears, for sure.
Maybe time will help tell though.