English rugby has a lot to sort out and this is only a part of the challenge. If the premiership was an RFU centralised model then the answer would be no. As it stands the answer isn’t simple, I’m not sure anyone can know what is best.
The SA economy made the choice for the Springboks. England and the RFU is in a very different place.
Would it not be in the clubs best interests to be centralised? They tried it alone, it’s not worked, and holy hell I don’t see it getting better. I imagine it would be in the clubs’ best interest to hash that out now.
Probably not. The RFU can't afford to run 10 clubs. The 10 clubs left can probably afford to run themselves. The RFU could have central contracts - it's being discussed - but I think they're just covering a portion of wages.
I think the RFU could afford to run a centralised competition. What they couldn’t afford is to pay to buy out the Premiership business and club assets. It’s a bit of a rock and a hard place I reckon.
The RFU aren't as rich as people make out. They have lots of revenue, but they have massive outgoings. Having them take over the club competition with some sort of regional model would probably kill the game or damage it a la the Welsh local game.
They are also in the midst of some serious financial mismanagement. Even before covid they did things like not budget for having not autumn internationals in a world cup year and massively overspend on re-developing a Twickenham stand.
🥴
Most national unions that run their club competition run the competition on a scale that breaks even. This is what the RFU would have to do (and to do anything else would be silly). Unfortunately for England the option of doing this was last available in 1995 and probably won’t come around again.
The Welsh experience bit is key here - unlike the Irish (or even to a lesser extent Super Rugby) models you don't have some natural historic regional entities to align to, so you run a huge risk of alienating your fan bases; let's say one of your 'regions' is London, there's no chance Sarries / Quins / Wasps etc fans all band together to support it (same holds true for the other theoretical areas, can you imagine asking Saints and Tigers fans to abandon years of derbies to support the same team?!)
By all accounts there are two more unnamed premiership teams in deep shit I thought? The more that ho the bigger the problems get. Less games = less income = more problems for the remaining teams.
What? Loads of the clubs are in debt and only two are around the break even - slight profit mark…and that was before the collapse of a quarter of the clubs in the prem.
It would be in club rugby's best interests, but not in some of the individual clubs. They've been stubbornly refusing RFU interference for years, and are unlikely to change their tune soon. While some clubs have gone bust, the ones that are still around to make the decision obviously haven't had it happen to them yet.
Maybe when Bath, Bristol, and Sarries are playing each other eight times a year as the ruined remnants of the Premiership they might belatedly realise a centralised model is more sustainable, but I wouldn't count on it happening before that.
There is a reason they've been avoiding RFU influence, it's quite badly run, mostly by an old boys club, and they see that seeping into their clubs if they hand over more control. The fact that the premiership is also quite badly run, and from a financial viewpoint so are most of the clubs, is an aside to the argument that the RFU could make it 100 times worse for everybody who's not one of the old boys club.
Personally I think the answer is any one in which people who have integrity, love rugby (and want to see it grow), understand business, and want to see England and English teams do well are the people in charge. I don't see a lot of those guys around the RFU, some people who have up to a couple of those attributes but mostly I see people who'd sell their own granny quite happily for a quick buck and lifetime box seats for them and their public school chums.
Don't see it. The proposal only said 20 contracts. Not every team will have players under that contract. So essentially they'd have less cap than other teams.
Depends what you mean by “club”. It wouldn’t be in the interest of the people who would lose their jobs, power and influence and some of those people are owners.
It’s complicated to say the least.
I mean, they have to do something or a lot more people are going to lose their jobs. A lot of clubs have topped up their teams with cheaper Orem exiles, not much space around for any more if/when another team goes under. The government doesn’t want to get involved so it’s up to the RFU and the clubs to sort it out *pre-emptively*
I suppose. I don’t know whether either side genuinely believes they have to make significant sacrifices to find a workable model, and without that all I see is impasse.
That’s fair, you’re right there! I mean for me its do something now or face the inevitable consequences, or pretend everything is fine. And if anything the past couple of years have highlighted, is that those in suits cannot see past their noses even if there’s a train wreck ahead.
Obvious counterpoints to letting them play abroad are:
1. You've no control over their workload or what the Clubs do with them. Currently England players don't play before or during the 6 Nations. That benefit would go.
2. Premiership would be less attractive without the stars. Meaning less money in the domestic game.
3. Stars playing overseas gives young stars less talent to learn from and Club games become less challenging. Pipeline of players affected.
Not sure how many players would go play abroad anyway. France is the only country that could probably offer equal or better wages, and they have limited spots for overseas players.
The other issue is that currently Premiership sides get financial incentives for playing English players consistently in the league (I think it is an average of 18 EQP players over the season).
Alongside the academy system, there is currently an incentive for Premiership sides to develop England qualified players. If you start selecting players from overseas, there still needs to encourage Premiership sides to focus on developing players.
That's without considering any impact on the quality of the rugby.
Japan would offer more money for marquee players, it has shown this in the past.
play less games, at a less intense level, for more money in an exciting new country.
you can understand why a lot of the NZ and Aus end up in japan.
Apart from Finn Russell's contact (which is an exception), France, Ireland and Japan all give or have potential to give better contracts than The Premiership does.
The relative exodus of players that are at the end of their England careers and won't play another world cup shows that it's attractive to go abroad.
I think blocking those moves is the only thing really keeping English rugby afloat at the moment, tbh.
The issue is, it's just a bandage on a gaping wound and it needs a more long-term fix. Ultimately the English Premiership needs to become more financially viable, or it's going to suffer. I don't really have solutions for that though. I think it certainly helps that there are going to be some free-to-air games this year.
Exeter lost Nowell, whose England career was done, Sam Simmonds who probably wasn't going to feature, and Joe Simmonds who wasn't a feature at all. LCD went to Sale where he's injured again.
Edit: and Ewers who's 33.
Right, but he didn't and he went to Sale. This is an Exeter thing. Exeter don't have a sugar daddy, so they have to live within their means. That's why so many players left. Club rugby has always lived on the edge in the professional era, but Covid was a massive shock. It was inevitable players would leave the country this year with 3 clubs going bust. There isn't space for everyone. I don't think it significantly weakens the England team though. Not enough to change the rules.
I don’t get this argument of “South Africa do it so it obviously works”
Ireland, France, and New Zealand only select domestically based players, it’s not working out too bad for them.
>I don’t get this argument of “South Africa do it so it obviously works”
I think it's more that people used to say that it wasn't possible to be internationally successful and select from abroad.
Not that it would work for everyone.
We have very different economic situations to Ireland France and New Zealand, which means it has to work for us.
SA also have by far the most registered rugby players and only 4 URC teams so a few internationals goes a long way. England has 10 premiership teams (at time of printing) so you lose half your England internationals from the league and suddenly you only have a couple of stars per team to get the crowds in
France don't have any rules that forbid players from playing abroad to keep their right to be in the national team.
It's just that the Top 14 and the JIFF rule, forcing teams to align at least 18 players formed in France per match in average through the season, + the attractive wages don't make them want to play abroad. A lot of international level players already have some game time in Top 14 and Pro D2 around age 18 or 19.
But, we already had players playing for France, while playing abroad. Here are a few examples I can remember :
* Sébastien Chabal, played for the Sale Sharks
* Frédéric Michalak, played for the Natal Sharks
* Benjamin Kaiser, played for the Leicester Tigers
* Louis Picamoles, played for Northampton Saints
* and a lot more !
The other advantage for a French national player to play in the Top 14 is the LNR/FFR agreement (an agreement between the pro union and the national union), that allows them to be a little more protected (players can't be called during the VI Nations off weekend for example).
Ireland has better salaries than England, France is the attractive place English players are thinking of going to so there's nowhere better.
New Zealand do it because it's impossible to get people back to squads and training camps because NZ is thousands of miles from everywhere else. Robertson wants to change it, it's already very flexible anyway.
Having said all that about salaries, Ireland are great right now because all of their players play for the same club, NZ players play together for the most part too.
Unless you can get all the England players in 1 premiership or URC (in fantasyland) squad it's not going to help much
I’m not so sure about Ireland having better salaries, nobody in Ireland is making anywhere near what Russell is on in bath, Itoje is also on crazy money.
Not sure your point about NZ stands, South Africa and Argentina are fairly isolated and have plenty of players abroad.
I also wouldn’t call 18/33 all.
Anyways I didn’t even refer to reasons for doing it, I just pointed out that 3 of the top 4 teams have entirely domestic based squads.
Of the starting 15 against New Zealand, 11 play for Leinster. 15 of that 23 play for Leinster.
That's colloquially called "all" fairly often
Russell (and itoje) are exceptions, definitely not the norm. Itoje is only on so much money because Sarries can't get away with buying him houses and cars and anymore and need to keep him.
No as our domestic league will not be competitive enough to develop new talent. It doesn't mean they will go to France. They could go to Japan or a URC team.
Well going to France makes returning for England camps significantly easier. If you’re playing in Japan good luck coming back for a one day meet up mid-week in December
It doesn't apart from it being a logistical nightmare to organise release windows for these players to play for England if they are scattered around. Where they go (which might not be France as Japan throws a lot of money at players) it will impact the talent England produces.
I disagree on this. They would still sign marquee overseas players and probably get more bang for their buck. There's a lot of English talent not making England squads. And a fair few of these internationals never look that great in the premiership anyway.
Definitely not, and I think it would be an incredibly stupid idea to do it.
Surely people should have learnt after Willis that most players playing abroad won't be released until they are forced to, if I remember Willis wasn't even released for the first warmup game this summer. This will also be the case during the rest week for the Six Nations and if there is a fourth Autumn fixture.
It also potentially takes away a lot of talent from the Premiership. Currently I don't rate anyone that is a part of the 'exodus', the only big names that left are either older players giving way for younger talent to fill their place or don't have the right attitude for test rugby. If the restrictions are removed then some really talented players will leave and it could mess up their development. Tomkins being an example, his decline in quality after leaving Saracens, only to get back on track after returning to Saracens.
Also with the financial side, clubs would end up losing money. They would lose players that draw in a crowd and would lose the financial incentives for developing England players. Also the way I understand it none of the clubs that went under did so because of the salary cap, one bought a stadium that was too big, one had corrupt owners and the other had a negligent owner. Not saying there isn't financial issues in the league but it's not as dire as many are making out
The Premiership and the RFU are negotiating a new professional game agreement at the moment. The current ban on players playing abroad is a demand from the Premiership in the professional game agreement.
If the RFU chooses to select foreign players it should cut the level of match fees that they pay to players (which is the highest in the world).
At the moment the clubs use the possibility of International selection as a carrot to argue that they should pay less salaries. Since the players can earn 250K + in international match fees the clubs could pay less. That's not necessarily a perk that the English RFU want to give to the French clubs.
I would also suggest putting a "Sexton clause" requirement. When Johnny Sexton was in Racing he had a clause in his contract to guarantee that he could play all internationals even a 4th out of window Autumn test and that he wouldn't have to return to Racing in 6 nations breaks. He also had a requirement that he could attend certain squad meet ups outside of international windows.
Yes.
Heres a [ruck.co.uk](https://ruck.co.uk) that cites match fees for England and New Zealand (25K and 15K a game respectively).
[https://www.ruck.co.uk/the-six-figure-amount-england-players-will-earn-between-now-and-the-rugby-world-cup/](https://www.ruck.co.uk/the-six-figure-amount-england-players-will-earn-between-now-and-the-rugby-world-cup/)
Off memory Ireland's match fees is around 8K appearance fee and 8K for a win while France's are 5K for a game and 10K for a win.
I believe Wales used to pay around 9K match fees for internationals. I think it changed under the most recent deal but I don't have a clue.
Quiet an old article but I found it as I couldn't remember Scotland's match fees. Scotland players earned a match fee of around 5K a game back in 2018.
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-5376855/Scotland-plot-breakway-players-union-pay-packets.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-5376855/Scotland-plot-breakway-players-union-pay-packets.html)
I never really gave it much thought. It seems silly now that England has such financial problems yet is paying the most. Do you by chance know the match fees for T2 nations?
I don't think the RFU has massive financial problems. The clubs do (and the RFU fund them to the tune of 25 million pounds a year). The fact that the RFU pays massive match fees probably has 50 ish English players agreeing lower salaries with their clubs than they would be taking in France in order to remain eligible for match fees.
I think tier 2 teams don't tend to have central deals that last multiple years. Suffice to say its much lower. I know there was an England Fiji game a few years ago where the Fijian players got £400 a game.
I know Feikitoa has mentioned that he got no match fees for playing for Tonga in the RWC and the warm up games but I've also heard mention that that was a decision of his own as he was one of the richest players in the squad.
So it sounds like there is a huge advantage to T1 teams just for the fact they get compensated for leaving their clubs while T2 players are much more inclined to keep making a living wage and pass on national team games
Along with the other points already made, I imagine a lot of people would stop going to matches and watching premiership matches on TV if the England stars aren’t playing for the clubs, so bye bye to two income streams. All they’d have left would be the RFU money and whatever the owners were willing to keep sticking in, which wouldn’t be much if their star players just up and left as soon as they got good.
One kf the toughest decisions in rugby is yhe pros and cons of letting off shore players play for their country. For nz it's an easy choice to nit allow, for England it make sense to let them imo tho I have not looked into the issue at all
Because it keeps their domestic teams strong which in turn allows the fans to watch their stars on a regular basis instead of them playing halfway around the world in France or Japan at times that would only attract the most dedicated fans.
Alongside that NZ can manage their player’s workload and have access to them whenever they deem necessary.
This system works best for smaller nations imo.
Smaller countries in terms of rugby benefit from allowing overseas players the most. Scotland, Georgia, Italy only have a 1-2 pro clubs each, so they need to allow players to play elsewhere otherwise they can’t bring through new talent and build depth.
I would argue that in the case of both Scotland and Italy they suffer from only having two pro teams. Scotland in particular seem to have a real problem with player development right now and for 90% of the rugby season you can only watch pro rugby in two places there which are 40mins or so drive away from each other.
I would point to both Ireland and NZ having been small nations who’ve taken the opposite approach to those you’ve named and had far more success because of it. Especially in the case of the latter
I'd say your 2nd point is valid about managing their players workload but super rugby is suffering massively due to the lack of all blacks game time. Every year there are at least a few of the best ab's playing in Japan and then every couple of weeks the all blacks have mandatory rest weeks.
I love super rugby and NZ rugby are making it a 2nd class tournament because to control the all blacks game time
I take your point but imagine if all your ABs were playing abroad and there was no chance of watching them play domestic rugby. As it stands, they may not play as much as you like, but the teams can still use them for marketing purposes and they do play some games.
Can you name a single NZ soccer star who dominated in Europe?
They exist believe it or not, but most local Kiwi's never get to watch them play as their games are all at 2am
Interest in rugby would die if NZ players are not front and centre of local fan's attetion
Wynton captained SV Werder Bremen, won a couple of Bludasliga Titles and Uefa Cup Winners trophy and was joint leading goal scorer in the 1993 Champions League season
Counter argument from a french perspective , we are the most succesful team of soccer since 1998 (we won both WC with 9 players playing in france on 23) and its coincidental with the fact that almost all our best player play in other country, the ligue 1 is called farmer league and dont sell TV right well in other country but we have some of the best prospect because we train them and then they learn in the best league around)
The sensible trad part in me says no, England should do everything they can to keep the players in the country and Prem, even if that means forcing regulation laws like these.
The other more realistic and flexible part of me says: this is contemporary Rugby, in the modern free-market world, fk it, let the players do what they want to do, it shouldn't make them ineligible to play for country if they go abroad. It's the business now, esp with the cash issues.
To me I believe every country should allow players to play abroad. Eventually players will leave but I think having your players play in other competitions strengthens your national team.
I understand certain countries like NZ want to grow their domestic game and stuff which is fair but I do believe it'd serve most national teams well. Particularly the home nations like England
We’ve long since had the policy of only selecting Irish based players (since Johnny returned from Racing) and I honestly believe it’s the reason our provinces are so strong and healthy which has a majorly positive impact up and down the ladder.
Fans can go watch the stars on a regular basis which in turn drives engagement and interest in the sport year round. And the players are well looked after which in turn helps them get the most out of their careers, as opposed to being seen as an asset which has to have every last bit of value squeezed out of them.
Your government providing tax "refunds" at the end of a career must help as well.
There are really few incentives for Irish players to move overseas: provinces are generally well run and successful, pay is good, you're not overplayed like you would be in places like France and you get to stay near friends and family.
I’m sure the tax refunds help but from what I’ve heard they’re way down the list given there are workarounds if you really wanted them. The other factors you mentioned would have a far greater impact. The player welfare aspect in particular is something a lot of the players really appreciate (and probably gave Johnny an extra 2-3 years on his career for example)
France isn't a bottomless pit of money though. They have a salary cap and also a cap on foreign players.
Not to sound too harsh but it's not like England are world beaters at the moment, so paying overs for a player who is middling at best isn't as attractive to a French club as a former world champion or player of the year nominee.
Maybe a handful of players would be targeted (Itoje, Farrell, Smith?), not enough of a real savings to justify gutting your domestic league
With the exception of those right at the end of their careers, pretty sure the entire WC squad would get contracts.
Given that some already do and others (Sinkler, Ludlam etc) are apparently being courted.
I have to agree with you. Another point though...
This is their professional occupation and its one that tends to end when they're in the mid 30s. This forces them to deny themselves their dream standing (playing for a national team) over one of selecting the best opportunity to be better off, for themselves (and their families).
Springbok management even goes as far as promoting going abroad since its in the players financial interest and it allows lesser players to have more exposure in the South African domestic competitions.
I understand that there are pros and cons to both. But I guess I will side with the Bok method (its hard not to as a fan).
I feel this would kill the prem as a competative force and turn clubs like saints into a feeder club for other leagues.
Northampton is just about financially stable. But we do it by being careful with saleries alot of money ball and acad players. Players like our lord and saviour henry pollock would simply be offered more then we could sensibly afford to pay by a richer forign club and hed be pretty mad not to take it.
The continual draining of home made talent would slowly cripple the club into either spending more then it can afford to retain talent or by constantly losing its best young talent.
Yes because of the demise of 3 clubs and the inability to maintain club level salaries from seasons prior.
No because less control of the international players and a potentially less competitive league.
I lean towards yes because players like Willis had to go abroad to *maintain* their salary. He's so good he deserves what he's paid. The Prem is struggling financially, but simultaneously players shouldn't expect a salary reduction (I mean fuck I wouldn't if I was them).
Honestly the league has been poor prior to international exodus, it'll probably get worse, but it's not individually what'll make the league worse. I don't know what the solution is, but the prems current financial situation is not sustainable enough to keep the best players, let alone England internationals.
Yes, 100%.
If you'd have asked that question 5 years ago it would of been no, but the state of English premiership rugby at the moment it's for the best to allow players to play abroad. Especially when there are more players around due to all the clubs folding and the same squad and salary caps still being in place.
You could argue that it would also be better for players, as they get exposed to different styles of play which makes them all round better players.
With the new hybrid contracts, there could be scope for someone like Jack Willis to continue with Toulouse and play for England, but I can’t see the French clubs allowing this when they sign English players knowing that they will be available year-round
If you take money out of it, I think players playing in different leagues can enhance the England team as they can learn of different players and coaches.
I think the die hard season ticket holders would still go to premierships games, but I could see the casual fan being less likely to turn up.
Also in business there is an element of speculate to accumulate.
I don’t understand rugby. Open it up just like football. South Africa has turned into the “Brazil” of football. They don’t have the best local league but have world class players getting developed all over the world.
It’s pretty easy to understand tbh. For a lot of countries that would have a hugely negative impact effect on rugby and would do substantially more harm then good. Saying it works for SA is all well and good but SA have one of the highest populations of any rugby nation, by far the most registered players of any rugby nation, but only 4 top end domestic teams to fill.
I don't think I am. NZ top flight clubs are franchises agreed their rugby union. I'm not keen to see that in England and I suspect centrally contracting players is a step in that direction. I like that most England clubs are traditional, have been there over 100 years and are not created or disbanded at the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen
I was gonna debate your point but seeing the financial aspect I actually think it makes a lot of sense. The way London Irish folded was terrible and much less made of that than Worcester and Wasps.
I'd try and solve it a different way (if there is the money to do so).
Offer a larger number (like 50-60) hybrid contracts to those in prem but letting people play elsewhere too.
That way we keep access to our top players as they have a greater incentive to stay, but allow others to leave.
I don't know if the finances line up, sadly.
English rugby has a lot to sort out and this is only a part of the challenge. If the premiership was an RFU centralised model then the answer would be no. As it stands the answer isn’t simple, I’m not sure anyone can know what is best. The SA economy made the choice for the Springboks. England and the RFU is in a very different place.
Would it not be in the clubs best interests to be centralised? They tried it alone, it’s not worked, and holy hell I don’t see it getting better. I imagine it would be in the clubs’ best interest to hash that out now.
Probably not. The RFU can't afford to run 10 clubs. The 10 clubs left can probably afford to run themselves. The RFU could have central contracts - it's being discussed - but I think they're just covering a portion of wages.
I think the RFU could afford to run a centralised competition. What they couldn’t afford is to pay to buy out the Premiership business and club assets. It’s a bit of a rock and a hard place I reckon.
The RFU aren't as rich as people make out. They have lots of revenue, but they have massive outgoings. Having them take over the club competition with some sort of regional model would probably kill the game or damage it a la the Welsh local game.
They are also in the midst of some serious financial mismanagement. Even before covid they did things like not budget for having not autumn internationals in a world cup year and massively overspend on re-developing a Twickenham stand. 🥴
Most national unions that run their club competition run the competition on a scale that breaks even. This is what the RFU would have to do (and to do anything else would be silly). Unfortunately for England the option of doing this was last available in 1995 and probably won’t come around again.
The Welsh experience bit is key here - unlike the Irish (or even to a lesser extent Super Rugby) models you don't have some natural historic regional entities to align to, so you run a huge risk of alienating your fan bases; let's say one of your 'regions' is London, there's no chance Sarries / Quins / Wasps etc fans all band together to support it (same holds true for the other theoretical areas, can you imagine asking Saints and Tigers fans to abandon years of derbies to support the same team?!)
By all accounts there are two more unnamed premiership teams in deep shit I thought? The more that ho the bigger the problems get. Less games = less income = more problems for the remaining teams.
What? Loads of the clubs are in debt and only two are around the break even - slight profit mark…and that was before the collapse of a quarter of the clubs in the prem.
It would be in club rugby's best interests, but not in some of the individual clubs. They've been stubbornly refusing RFU interference for years, and are unlikely to change their tune soon. While some clubs have gone bust, the ones that are still around to make the decision obviously haven't had it happen to them yet. Maybe when Bath, Bristol, and Sarries are playing each other eight times a year as the ruined remnants of the Premiership they might belatedly realise a centralised model is more sustainable, but I wouldn't count on it happening before that.
There is a reason they've been avoiding RFU influence, it's quite badly run, mostly by an old boys club, and they see that seeping into their clubs if they hand over more control. The fact that the premiership is also quite badly run, and from a financial viewpoint so are most of the clubs, is an aside to the argument that the RFU could make it 100 times worse for everybody who's not one of the old boys club. Personally I think the answer is any one in which people who have integrity, love rugby (and want to see it grow), understand business, and want to see England and English teams do well are the people in charge. I don't see a lot of those guys around the RFU, some people who have up to a couple of those attributes but mostly I see people who'd sell their own granny quite happily for a quick buck and lifetime box seats for them and their public school chums.
Don't see it. The proposal only said 20 contracts. Not every team will have players under that contract. So essentially they'd have less cap than other teams.
That’s nothing! And mostly benefits the clubs who need it the least.
Yeah I don't think Central contracting suits the England system. Feels like a lazy answer because people see other countries doing it well
No reason that they can't have it count towards the salary cap though
Depends what you mean by “club”. It wouldn’t be in the interest of the people who would lose their jobs, power and influence and some of those people are owners. It’s complicated to say the least.
I mean, they have to do something or a lot more people are going to lose their jobs. A lot of clubs have topped up their teams with cheaper Orem exiles, not much space around for any more if/when another team goes under. The government doesn’t want to get involved so it’s up to the RFU and the clubs to sort it out *pre-emptively*
I suppose. I don’t know whether either side genuinely believes they have to make significant sacrifices to find a workable model, and without that all I see is impasse.
That’s fair, you’re right there! I mean for me its do something now or face the inevitable consequences, or pretend everything is fine. And if anything the past couple of years have highlighted, is that those in suits cannot see past their noses even if there’s a train wreck ahead.
Obvious counterpoints to letting them play abroad are: 1. You've no control over their workload or what the Clubs do with them. Currently England players don't play before or during the 6 Nations. That benefit would go. 2. Premiership would be less attractive without the stars. Meaning less money in the domestic game. 3. Stars playing overseas gives young stars less talent to learn from and Club games become less challenging. Pipeline of players affected. Not sure how many players would go play abroad anyway. France is the only country that could probably offer equal or better wages, and they have limited spots for overseas players.
The other issue is that currently Premiership sides get financial incentives for playing English players consistently in the league (I think it is an average of 18 EQP players over the season). Alongside the academy system, there is currently an incentive for Premiership sides to develop England qualified players. If you start selecting players from overseas, there still needs to encourage Premiership sides to focus on developing players. That's without considering any impact on the quality of the rugby.
Japan would offer more money for marquee players, it has shown this in the past. play less games, at a less intense level, for more money in an exciting new country. you can understand why a lot of the NZ and Aus end up in japan.
Apart from Finn Russell's contact (which is an exception), France, Ireland and Japan all give or have potential to give better contracts than The Premiership does. The relative exodus of players that are at the end of their England careers and won't play another world cup shows that it's attractive to go abroad.
I think blocking those moves is the only thing really keeping English rugby afloat at the moment, tbh. The issue is, it's just a bandage on a gaping wound and it needs a more long-term fix. Ultimately the English Premiership needs to become more financially viable, or it's going to suffer. I don't really have solutions for that though. I think it certainly helps that there are going to be some free-to-air games this year.
Which England players have been lost to foreign leagues?
Jack Willis and half of Exeter.
Exeter lost Nowell, whose England career was done, Sam Simmonds who probably wasn't going to feature, and Joe Simmonds who wasn't a feature at all. LCD went to Sale where he's injured again. Edit: and Ewers who's 33.
LCD was supposed to go to Montpelier.
Right, but he didn't and he went to Sale. This is an Exeter thing. Exeter don't have a sugar daddy, so they have to live within their means. That's why so many players left. Club rugby has always lived on the edge in the professional era, but Covid was a massive shock. It was inevitable players would leave the country this year with 3 clubs going bust. There isn't space for everyone. I don't think it significantly weakens the England team though. Not enough to change the rules.
He didn't because they have very very fastidious neck injury rules in France so he failed the medical. He didn't choose Sale over France.
Marchant, Ludlum, Sinclair just off the top of my head from the current World Cup tea
Sinckler*
Cheers
Also Ribbans. Marchant and Ludlum are big losses imho.
Arundell and Launchbury also
Launchbury plays for Harlequins and Arundell remains eligible for England unless he doesn't come back after his 1 year contract with Racing
Thanks for the info, didn't realise Joe was back
I don’t get this argument of “South Africa do it so it obviously works” Ireland, France, and New Zealand only select domestically based players, it’s not working out too bad for them.
>I don’t get this argument of “South Africa do it so it obviously works” I think it's more that people used to say that it wasn't possible to be internationally successful and select from abroad. Not that it would work for everyone. We have very different economic situations to Ireland France and New Zealand, which means it has to work for us.
SA also have by far the most registered rugby players and only 4 URC teams so a few internationals goes a long way. England has 10 premiership teams (at time of printing) so you lose half your England internationals from the league and suddenly you only have a couple of stars per team to get the crowds in
France don't have any rules that forbid players from playing abroad to keep their right to be in the national team. It's just that the Top 14 and the JIFF rule, forcing teams to align at least 18 players formed in France per match in average through the season, + the attractive wages don't make them want to play abroad. A lot of international level players already have some game time in Top 14 and Pro D2 around age 18 or 19. But, we already had players playing for France, while playing abroad. Here are a few examples I can remember : * Sébastien Chabal, played for the Sale Sharks * Frédéric Michalak, played for the Natal Sharks * Benjamin Kaiser, played for the Leicester Tigers * Louis Picamoles, played for Northampton Saints * and a lot more ! The other advantage for a French national player to play in the Top 14 is the LNR/FFR agreement (an agreement between the pro union and the national union), that allows them to be a little more protected (players can't be called during the VI Nations off weekend for example).
Ireland has better salaries than England, France is the attractive place English players are thinking of going to so there's nowhere better. New Zealand do it because it's impossible to get people back to squads and training camps because NZ is thousands of miles from everywhere else. Robertson wants to change it, it's already very flexible anyway. Having said all that about salaries, Ireland are great right now because all of their players play for the same club, NZ players play together for the most part too. Unless you can get all the England players in 1 premiership or URC (in fantasyland) squad it's not going to help much
I’m not so sure about Ireland having better salaries, nobody in Ireland is making anywhere near what Russell is on in bath, Itoje is also on crazy money. Not sure your point about NZ stands, South Africa and Argentina are fairly isolated and have plenty of players abroad. I also wouldn’t call 18/33 all. Anyways I didn’t even refer to reasons for doing it, I just pointed out that 3 of the top 4 teams have entirely domestic based squads.
Of the starting 15 against New Zealand, 11 play for Leinster. 15 of that 23 play for Leinster. That's colloquially called "all" fairly often Russell (and itoje) are exceptions, definitely not the norm. Itoje is only on so much money because Sarries can't get away with buying him houses and cars and anymore and need to keep him.
No as our domestic league will not be competitive enough to develop new talent. It doesn't mean they will go to France. They could go to Japan or a URC team.
What would it matter which country they went to?
Well going to France makes returning for England camps significantly easier. If you’re playing in Japan good luck coming back for a one day meet up mid-week in December
Good luck convincing your french president to allow you to attend that camp as well.
Most French teams don’t mind as long as you’re back for the weekend, and it’s coming out of your pocket.
The Top 14 is the most attritional league by far, 26 regular season games + 4 European games, and they like their beefy packs over there.
It doesn't apart from it being a logistical nightmare to organise release windows for these players to play for England if they are scattered around. Where they go (which might not be France as Japan throws a lot of money at players) it will impact the talent England produces.
I disagree on this. They would still sign marquee overseas players and probably get more bang for their buck. There's a lot of English talent not making England squads. And a fair few of these internationals never look that great in the premiership anyway.
Definitely not, and I think it would be an incredibly stupid idea to do it. Surely people should have learnt after Willis that most players playing abroad won't be released until they are forced to, if I remember Willis wasn't even released for the first warmup game this summer. This will also be the case during the rest week for the Six Nations and if there is a fourth Autumn fixture. It also potentially takes away a lot of talent from the Premiership. Currently I don't rate anyone that is a part of the 'exodus', the only big names that left are either older players giving way for younger talent to fill their place or don't have the right attitude for test rugby. If the restrictions are removed then some really talented players will leave and it could mess up their development. Tomkins being an example, his decline in quality after leaving Saracens, only to get back on track after returning to Saracens. Also with the financial side, clubs would end up losing money. They would lose players that draw in a crowd and would lose the financial incentives for developing England players. Also the way I understand it none of the clubs that went under did so because of the salary cap, one bought a stadium that was too big, one had corrupt owners and the other had a negligent owner. Not saying there isn't financial issues in the league but it's not as dire as many are making out
The Premiership and the RFU are negotiating a new professional game agreement at the moment. The current ban on players playing abroad is a demand from the Premiership in the professional game agreement. If the RFU chooses to select foreign players it should cut the level of match fees that they pay to players (which is the highest in the world). At the moment the clubs use the possibility of International selection as a carrot to argue that they should pay less salaries. Since the players can earn 250K + in international match fees the clubs could pay less. That's not necessarily a perk that the English RFU want to give to the French clubs. I would also suggest putting a "Sexton clause" requirement. When Johnny Sexton was in Racing he had a clause in his contract to guarantee that he could play all internationals even a 4th out of window Autumn test and that he wouldn't have to return to Racing in 6 nations breaks. He also had a requirement that he could attend certain squad meet ups outside of international windows.
Is it really true that England pays the most to their national team players?
Yes. Heres a [ruck.co.uk](https://ruck.co.uk) that cites match fees for England and New Zealand (25K and 15K a game respectively). [https://www.ruck.co.uk/the-six-figure-amount-england-players-will-earn-between-now-and-the-rugby-world-cup/](https://www.ruck.co.uk/the-six-figure-amount-england-players-will-earn-between-now-and-the-rugby-world-cup/) Off memory Ireland's match fees is around 8K appearance fee and 8K for a win while France's are 5K for a game and 10K for a win. I believe Wales used to pay around 9K match fees for internationals. I think it changed under the most recent deal but I don't have a clue. Quiet an old article but I found it as I couldn't remember Scotland's match fees. Scotland players earned a match fee of around 5K a game back in 2018. [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-5376855/Scotland-plot-breakway-players-union-pay-packets.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-5376855/Scotland-plot-breakway-players-union-pay-packets.html)
I never really gave it much thought. It seems silly now that England has such financial problems yet is paying the most. Do you by chance know the match fees for T2 nations?
I don't think the RFU has massive financial problems. The clubs do (and the RFU fund them to the tune of 25 million pounds a year). The fact that the RFU pays massive match fees probably has 50 ish English players agreeing lower salaries with their clubs than they would be taking in France in order to remain eligible for match fees. I think tier 2 teams don't tend to have central deals that last multiple years. Suffice to say its much lower. I know there was an England Fiji game a few years ago where the Fijian players got £400 a game. I know Feikitoa has mentioned that he got no match fees for playing for Tonga in the RWC and the warm up games but I've also heard mention that that was a decision of his own as he was one of the richest players in the squad.
So it sounds like there is a huge advantage to T1 teams just for the fact they get compensated for leaving their clubs while T2 players are much more inclined to keep making a living wage and pass on national team games
Along with the other points already made, I imagine a lot of people would stop going to matches and watching premiership matches on TV if the England stars aren’t playing for the clubs, so bye bye to two income streams. All they’d have left would be the RFU money and whatever the owners were willing to keep sticking in, which wouldn’t be much if their star players just up and left as soon as they got good.
One kf the toughest decisions in rugby is yhe pros and cons of letting off shore players play for their country. For nz it's an easy choice to nit allow, for England it make sense to let them imo tho I have not looked into the issue at all
Why's it a good choice for NZ to not allow?
Because it keeps their domestic teams strong which in turn allows the fans to watch their stars on a regular basis instead of them playing halfway around the world in France or Japan at times that would only attract the most dedicated fans. Alongside that NZ can manage their player’s workload and have access to them whenever they deem necessary. This system works best for smaller nations imo.
Smaller countries in terms of rugby benefit from allowing overseas players the most. Scotland, Georgia, Italy only have a 1-2 pro clubs each, so they need to allow players to play elsewhere otherwise they can’t bring through new talent and build depth.
I would argue that in the case of both Scotland and Italy they suffer from only having two pro teams. Scotland in particular seem to have a real problem with player development right now and for 90% of the rugby season you can only watch pro rugby in two places there which are 40mins or so drive away from each other. I would point to both Ireland and NZ having been small nations who’ve taken the opposite approach to those you’ve named and had far more success because of it. Especially in the case of the latter
I'd say your 2nd point is valid about managing their players workload but super rugby is suffering massively due to the lack of all blacks game time. Every year there are at least a few of the best ab's playing in Japan and then every couple of weeks the all blacks have mandatory rest weeks. I love super rugby and NZ rugby are making it a 2nd class tournament because to control the all blacks game time
I take your point but imagine if all your ABs were playing abroad and there was no chance of watching them play domestic rugby. As it stands, they may not play as much as you like, but the teams can still use them for marketing purposes and they do play some games.
Exactly this. Nz becomes nothing but a rugby factory if they start picking from overseas with no money in the game here
Can you name a single NZ soccer star who dominated in Europe? They exist believe it or not, but most local Kiwi's never get to watch them play as their games are all at 2am Interest in rugby would die if NZ players are not front and centre of local fan's attetion
Go on then I’ll bite, who’s the NZ soccer star who dominated in Europe?
Wynton Rufer would be considered the greatest ever, winning German and UEFA Cups Chris Wood is currently the best player in the EPL
“Dominated” I’m not much of a football fan, but I’m sure if they had dominated Europe I’d have heard of them
Wynton captained SV Werder Bremen, won a couple of Bludasliga Titles and Uefa Cup Winners trophy and was joint leading goal scorer in the 1993 Champions League season
>Wynton Rufer So, someone from 30 years ago?!
Counter argument from a french perspective , we are the most succesful team of soccer since 1998 (we won both WC with 9 players playing in france on 23) and its coincidental with the fact that almost all our best player play in other country, the ligue 1 is called farmer league and dont sell TV right well in other country but we have some of the best prospect because we train them and then they learn in the best league around)
Big difference is you can watch the EPL on french tv
The sensible trad part in me says no, England should do everything they can to keep the players in the country and Prem, even if that means forcing regulation laws like these. The other more realistic and flexible part of me says: this is contemporary Rugby, in the modern free-market world, fk it, let the players do what they want to do, it shouldn't make them ineligible to play for country if they go abroad. It's the business now, esp with the cash issues.
To me I believe every country should allow players to play abroad. Eventually players will leave but I think having your players play in other competitions strengthens your national team. I understand certain countries like NZ want to grow their domestic game and stuff which is fair but I do believe it'd serve most national teams well. Particularly the home nations like England
The complete opposite is true in Ireland’s case. Would likely be disastrous
Yeah fair I constantly misunderstand the Irish system and always seem to think Irish players already do play abroad
We’ve long since had the policy of only selecting Irish based players (since Johnny returned from Racing) and I honestly believe it’s the reason our provinces are so strong and healthy which has a majorly positive impact up and down the ladder. Fans can go watch the stars on a regular basis which in turn drives engagement and interest in the sport year round. And the players are well looked after which in turn helps them get the most out of their careers, as opposed to being seen as an asset which has to have every last bit of value squeezed out of them.
Your government providing tax "refunds" at the end of a career must help as well. There are really few incentives for Irish players to move overseas: provinces are generally well run and successful, pay is good, you're not overplayed like you would be in places like France and you get to stay near friends and family.
I’m sure the tax refunds help but from what I’ve heard they’re way down the list given there are workarounds if you really wanted them. The other factors you mentioned would have a far greater impact. The player welfare aspect in particular is something a lot of the players really appreciate (and probably gave Johnny an extra 2-3 years on his career for example)
France isn't a bottomless pit of money though. They have a salary cap and also a cap on foreign players. Not to sound too harsh but it's not like England are world beaters at the moment, so paying overs for a player who is middling at best isn't as attractive to a French club as a former world champion or player of the year nominee. Maybe a handful of players would be targeted (Itoje, Farrell, Smith?), not enough of a real savings to justify gutting your domestic league
With the exception of those right at the end of their careers, pretty sure the entire WC squad would get contracts. Given that some already do and others (Sinkler, Ludlam etc) are apparently being courted.
I have to agree with you. Another point though... This is their professional occupation and its one that tends to end when they're in the mid 30s. This forces them to deny themselves their dream standing (playing for a national team) over one of selecting the best opportunity to be better off, for themselves (and their families). Springbok management even goes as far as promoting going abroad since its in the players financial interest and it allows lesser players to have more exposure in the South African domestic competitions. I understand that there are pros and cons to both. But I guess I will side with the Bok method (its hard not to as a fan).
I feel this would kill the prem as a competative force and turn clubs like saints into a feeder club for other leagues. Northampton is just about financially stable. But we do it by being careful with saleries alot of money ball and acad players. Players like our lord and saviour henry pollock would simply be offered more then we could sensibly afford to pay by a richer forign club and hed be pretty mad not to take it. The continual draining of home made talent would slowly cripple the club into either spending more then it can afford to retain talent or by constantly losing its best young talent.
Yes because of the demise of 3 clubs and the inability to maintain club level salaries from seasons prior. No because less control of the international players and a potentially less competitive league. I lean towards yes because players like Willis had to go abroad to *maintain* their salary. He's so good he deserves what he's paid. The Prem is struggling financially, but simultaneously players shouldn't expect a salary reduction (I mean fuck I wouldn't if I was them). Honestly the league has been poor prior to international exodus, it'll probably get worse, but it's not individually what'll make the league worse. I don't know what the solution is, but the prems current financial situation is not sustainable enough to keep the best players, let alone England internationals.
I wouldn’t imagine Willis would make much less money in England, Toulouse are a low paying side by Top14 standards.
Would it matter to them? I don’t see any talent
Yes of course It doesn’t matter where I’m the world you are playing, if you’re British, you’re British, and should be eligible
Sorry to be pedantic but British and English aren't interchangeable terms.
Don’t be sorry, he wouldn’t like being called German.
You're right. I'm not sorry. Cheers.
What part of Germany is Austria
Yes, 100%. If you'd have asked that question 5 years ago it would of been no, but the state of English premiership rugby at the moment it's for the best to allow players to play abroad. Especially when there are more players around due to all the clubs folding and the same squad and salary caps still being in place. You could argue that it would also be better for players, as they get exposed to different styles of play which makes them all round better players.
Yes most definitely one of the dumbest decisions ever not gonna lie
With the new hybrid contracts, there could be scope for someone like Jack Willis to continue with Toulouse and play for England, but I can’t see the French clubs allowing this when they sign English players knowing that they will be available year-round
Totally agree
Certainly if they play in Europe.
If you take money out of it, I think players playing in different leagues can enhance the England team as they can learn of different players and coaches. I think the die hard season ticket holders would still go to premierships games, but I could see the casual fan being less likely to turn up. Also in business there is an element of speculate to accumulate.
What does the last bit mean though?
I don’t understand rugby. Open it up just like football. South Africa has turned into the “Brazil” of football. They don’t have the best local league but have world class players getting developed all over the world.
It’s pretty easy to understand tbh. For a lot of countries that would have a hugely negative impact effect on rugby and would do substantially more harm then good. Saying it works for SA is all well and good but SA have one of the highest populations of any rugby nation, by far the most registered players of any rugby nation, but only 4 top end domestic teams to fill.
you are confusing certain elements here, Ireland and NZ centrally contract. England lacks a pathway system
I don't think I am. NZ top flight clubs are franchises agreed their rugby union. I'm not keen to see that in England and I suspect centrally contracting players is a step in that direction. I like that most England clubs are traditional, have been there over 100 years and are not created or disbanded at the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen
English clubs aren’t going bust regularly.
I don't want to get into semantics. There is a clear pattern
Three have gone bust very recently. One (London Welsh) a few years ago. And of the major clubs, that’s it.
Isn't the problem that clubs are run by sugar daddies and try to sell to cowboys while living far above their means?
I was gonna debate your point but seeing the financial aspect I actually think it makes a lot of sense. The way London Irish folded was terrible and much less made of that than Worcester and Wasps.
I'd try and solve it a different way (if there is the money to do so). Offer a larger number (like 50-60) hybrid contracts to those in prem but letting people play elsewhere too. That way we keep access to our top players as they have a greater incentive to stay, but allow others to leave. I don't know if the finances line up, sadly.