RFU is delusional, English players should be available regardless of where they play. Supporters are expected to pay the highest prices to watch and support England at Twickenham without being able to see the best English players available because of stupid eligibility rules. I would love to have a poll at Twickenham to ask the supporters what the paying supporters wantt. Totally agree with Tim English qualified quota requirement for the Premiership.
@@henryburton6529 clearly there’s no accountability at the top, I’m not sure how anyone else could do a worse job than him so the fact he keeps his job is beyond me
Bloody stupid rules these. If they really wanted to help English rugby the ban would be say Max 3 foreign nationals per prem team. That would help bring through the young lads.
This rule doesn't exist in France, the only rule is about JIFF ( means you have to have gone to à french rugby academy) and that's 16 players out of 23. So some french players who learnt outside of France are not protected by this rule and some JIFF play for other countries ( mainly fijians who came to à french academy and play for fiji) so there is no quota of french qualified players in top 14 at all
@@clementbatut4053 that sounds like the same rule but with slight differences to me. 16 out of 23 have to have gone to French academy? that is basically thew same thing and they are in the EU
As an outsider it’s always baffled me that Bill Sweeney doesn’t get more criticism from England fans than- every time there’s a dip in English rugby he should be the on held accountable
@@guyveegee Agreed, It's like no one in the media directly criticises him. And when fans complain online or otherwise...it's feels like they're igonored or just shrugged off.
Most people don’t know who he is so everyone just piles their hate onto whoever happens to be wearing 10 at the time. Asking English rugby fans to do some surface level class analysis is an impossible task unfortunately.
@@videoaddict961 this is exactly the problem, how many times should the coach or certain players have to accept the blame when the man at the top has been the same for years?
Something needs to change! There's fewer opportunities for English players now, especially since Wasps, London Irish, Worcester, and Jersey went bust. And there doesn't seem to be any restrictions on foreign players. So if the RFU want to keep their policy, they need to introduce a JIFF or similar system, or allow players to play abroad.
Whilst I love a Bill Sweeney pile on imo ensuring access to the players should be the no,1 priority,. The second you allow them to go overseas that's gone. Preparation for competitions becomes twice as difficult. The central contracts are another example of that where SB will have more input over player development, especially in specific areas like the centre. Again, if players leave for France etc that's gone. The current exodus of players really isn't a big deal either. Owen has opted out anyway, Arundell hasn't been lighting up the league enough to get picked, Ludlam is replaceable, Lawes is choosing to essentially retire, Synckler's form means he isn't getting picked anyway. Willis is maybe a loss but again, we have stellar back row options.
I hear you on this but keep in mind that the Springboks managed to win the world cup twice in a row picking a team from various countries and time zones. I think this just needs proper planning but actually is not as hard as you think. Sure, there will be some games where you can't play a certain player because he is contracted to a foreign club, but this just opens a window for another guy. This is how depth is created!
Frish is due to return to France to be able to get into national team. In ireland players contracted to club get a reasonable salary. If you get an ireland contract that is bulked up by IRFU. teams are only allowed have a couple of foreign players where you gave more in premiership clubs
I did hear before that Rugby is the national sport of France. Not soccer! I also remember stories from back in the amateur era where French rugby union used to poach from League! Also except for some planted teams in Paris, French rugby is basically based in the old Vichy France. France without a world cup is a bigger shock than Ireland never winning a knockout game.
That's right. There used to be a time when a few French internationals played for English clubs. I think the only rule was that if you played in southern hemisphere you couldn't play for France. That's what happened with Michalak when he went to play for the Sharks in SA.
As always proper common sense, Thank you very much. Me and my friends discuss the issues of RU here in England and you have 'agreed' with everything we say and all we are are just a bunch of mates having a drink. The RFU does not care about RU all they care about is Twickenham being full.
And players ability to provide for their families or nurture their future shouldn't be limited because they want the honour of representing their country.
If the Prem. can't compete for salaries (which it can't) then they need to change the rules. I like the 40 (or whatever) cap rule. Trouble is they need to have access to the players too which they will lose if lots go to France. Maybe enforce contract arrangements for foreign based players to ensure access.
Dont have to play in France to play for France ! (Benjamin kayser is the only exemple coming in my mind) Dupont, ntamack oralldrit often speek of having an out of France expérience . Giff system IS the Real deal for France to prevent our young rugby players to stay on the bench ! Another very intersting vidéo Tim! Bon boulot !
Most of the English players moving abroad might well not have been selected by SB anyway, but who knows if Owen Farrell or Courtney Lawes wouldn't have retired from internationals if the rules were different. Considering that France makes their own players available for internationals, especially with their 6N and world cup games being at the same time as England's, availability and access shouldn't be an issue for English players playing in France. P. S. It was worth watching to the end just to hear Tim confirm me as a rugby nerd. Living in the far east, your vids are like the chats I want to have but can't. Looking forward to hopefully many years ahead for Eggchasers!
If you watch Jack Willis interview ua-cam.com/video/I6eSSRBWc8I/v-deo.html from 33:00, you will see that for him and Stade Toulousain, there is absolutely no problem of avalability and access to Englan's team. Contract may vary from club to club, and there might be financial clauses about recovery time from an injury that happened during "International selection time", but Scottish players seemed to have had no problem.
On the schools, I've tried to introduce union to league / football obsessed kids. We had John Bentley come in to talk in about 2000. I was bouncing off the walls - only a few kids remembered he'd played league for GB and England. They wouldn't know Itoje from Curry and wouldn't care. Its a massive job. In Malton l, where I live, the cub does get into the 2ndary school and picks up players, but it's more a part of the culture in rural North Yorkshire.
Playing for your country should be the pinnacle of achievement, if a player decides to put cash ahead of this, that's their choice. Many players benefit from overseas experience and should be encouraged to do so and then come back and qualify again for national selection.
If it's the pinnacle of achievement (I agree entirely btw) why would it be conditional on playing in a particular domestic league. Doesn't make it seem like the 'pinnnacle'.
Playing for your country is the pinnacle however cash isn’t always the motivator and nor should where they play should prevent them from playing for their country. This policy was brought in originally with the objective of keeping home talent in England. Consider the number of players from London Irish , Wasps Worcester after they went under , that were not subsequently picked up by the other premiership sides. They went to France because they were offered contracts. The level of the salary cap does not allow the other premiership clubs to pick up these players. As there are 3 less teams how is this policy helping England. Other countries also denied players overseas from playing for their national team team because of access eg you could understand , just in distance the case for say an Australian player playing in Europe being denied a place for the Wallabies. However a player in France can be in London in a just a few hours, possibly quicker than one coming from Manchester
Hi Tim South Africa do have a qualification criteria that is you have to be a South African citizen. For example the Tshituka brothers and Thambwe have not been considered. We live in a professional era so pick the best no matter where (I’m all for players being picked for other countries as long as they are 1 a citizen of that country and spent 5 years in that country). That said once a genuine duel citizen you should be picked by either country regardless of a qualification period.
It happened in football with the Bosman ruling. I wonder when the lawyers will step in. I like to see the best players pulling on a red rose shirt just as I am sure the RFU expect the best corporate entertainment on match day…
Hi Tim big fan of yours here! I would love to see the day when the premiership might join the urc and make a two tier league ! From a Munster man that will be shouting for Lenster now were out of Europe🙈
I look at at this way. Will Farrell be a better player playing at Racing or Willis playing at Toulouse. Of course they will. It's nuts to deny the experience that the Top 14 will give them.
I don't know about Farrel, he is so experienced and maybe set in the way of his English club(s?). Willis and Kinghorn adapted very fast and well to the style of Rugby played by Toulouse. Both enjoy high praise frop fans. English players in Top 14 may adapt fast, or change clubs, become better players for the Top 14 and overall, but maybe not for England's team at a given time.
@@jean-pascalesparceil9008 I Don't quite follow that. You either become a better player or you don't! You can't say that you will become a better player in the Top 14 but not internationally. And no one doubts that the likes of Farrell are great players no matter where they play but equally you can't say that playing week in, week out, against the men mountains of Bordeaux, La Rochelle, Toulouse and almost any pack in the Top 14 won't stand him in good stead when he leads England against France or South Africa.
@@brianbarcroft9167 Well, they will surely become even better players, but they might not be selected because they don't fit with the overall plan and tactics of England's head coach that are based on players from the foremost English clubs. Maybe one time in ten, or even less. It depends also on the post, e.g. for Jack Willis, playing against La Rochelle is like playing against the Boks, and the hand skills he picks during his stay at ST will give him an advantage for England's team.
@@jean-pascalesparceil9008 Well OK, but exceptional players are exceptional players. I can never see Farrell having a problem if Borthwick asks him to play in a slightly different way! And it doesn't seem to be a problem for S. Africa does it? Around 300 of their professionals play abroad including at least 8, from the top of my head, of the current international squad
As usual, you make perfect sense. SA had a similar policy of only picking SA based players that I think only changed when Rassie took over. Two World Cups later I think it's made a big difference. SA don't have to worry abut paying their players (which was a big issue for them) and their players bring back wider experience.
Great video Tim! What if only 3 players in a matchday 23 can be foreign-based? Then the competition for those 3 places will be very tight making the quality there high, and if a player loses form they will be axed sooner. I've always felt that whenever you go back, we've only ever wanted a couple foreign-based players at any one time - aside from that, we dont need more.
Going against the grain here but I would keep the eligibility rules as they are and I look at NZ as the example. After every World Cup, there’s an exodus from NZ of the top players to Japan and France for the cash. That gives the next generation 2 years of international development and experience before the top players come back to fight for their old positions. After these 2 year sabbaticals, the competition for places will be even higher as that returning player isn’t exactly guaranteed to get their shirt back. DMac has 2 years to prove he deserves Richie’s 10 shirt. Whitelock, Retallick, Cane, B Barrett, Smith, Laulala, Coles, Frizzell, Fainga’anuku all out and places are there for the taking. With Savea, that’s the starting 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15!! 11/15 places up for grabs with a bunch of them returning to reclaim their spots soon. This is what a competitive side does. This is how you develop your depth. “You’ve got a year before a former world player of the year comes back for his spot.”
You want a quota system like jiff and a pyramid system like France, and a good tv deal like Canal +/Top 14. Just say copy France it’s faster 😂. But I agree with you, England and France are similar in population, sport culture, economy, etc… Much Closer than england and NZ or Australia, or Ireland. Except for the language.
Very good critique. Yes - it is definitely time to get rid of this absolutely absurd rule. It's not an issue in football, so why should it be one in Rugby. Access might be an issue, but I would argue that modern travel has made that a non factor - you can fly from France in as short a time as you can drive from Newcastle to London. And why not give English players experience in other leagues? Different conditions, different styles of play. It can only make you a better player.
SA used to have the locals only rule. Rassie changed that as a condition to his appointment. IMO it has had 2 impacts: 1. Our local league is of poorer quality BUT there is space for more players to be exposed to professional rugby. Thus more depth (a key feature of the Boks); 2. Our overseas based players have developed additional skills they would never have got staying in SA. Why don't they have this rule in soccer or other sports? Answer: it is silly. Rugby is now a truly international game. Including at club level!
Love ur videos, totally agree the rules should change....Only French clubs could pay for English best players and they wouldn't take half the squad anyway. Plus imagine how many more minutes younger players would get.
The JIFF system is purely French developed. For instance considered a JIFF player by the end of his contract at Racing if he stays all the way through (and be worth a lot of cash if he wants to come back to France down the line). Thibaud Flament on the other hand, who went through the Belgian and English systems, is not a JIFF player.
I respect your options, im not sure i agree. France, i believe has a cultural bedrock of rugby fandom they can build on. We just dont have that. Im of a similar mind to Sam Warburton.. We need to invest in the shop window and get the sport in front of as many kids eyes as possible. Thst will get them to the clubs. Right now, competing for kids attention against football is very difficult. A quality, two tier, professional league should be the focus.
As a south African, the drain of players from SA rugby teams was something that used to really drive me crazy. While I totally understood it from a players perspective, it still felt that every year the SA franchises were starting from scratch with at least 3 or 4 top players per team heading overseas, not to be heard from again or for a number of years at least. This was especially hard when it meant they would be ineligible for the Boks. It was even harder when the player leaving had only played a year of, at the time, Super Rugby. That all changed when SARU changed the laws to allow the Boks to pick players from anywhere. From that point on it was still sad to see players leave but knowing that they can still play for the boks made it easier to swallow. Looking back at that move, I believe that it had a massive positives for SA Rugby as a whole. These are my big positives..... 1 - This had a massive influence on the Boks winning 2 WC's in a row. Without this rule change we would probably not have won any. 2 - SA players are experiencing a variety of rugby conditions. Knowledge is power! 3 - SA rugby is not being bankrupted by having to pay a fortune to retain the likes of Pollard, and other amazing players. This saved money is then further invested into the rugby base for the next superstars. 4 - While it's sad to see a top player leave, it does open a spot for the next best thing coming through. I am always super excited by the young guys getting opportunities in big competitions that in the past they may have had to wait years to achieve. Negatives.... 1 - SA franchise teams will never be power houses for an extended period of time. They will always be in a rebuilding mode. I have kinda learned to live with this 2 - More and more SA players will end up playing for Foreign national teams. It's a hard pill to swallow but again I've learned to live with this and honestly just wish that player well. To me it's a no brainer!
I don't get the Premiership argument. It's chock full of foreign players in key positions anyway, so why not let players get experience in other countries rather than sitting as a 2nd or 3rd choice in the Prem?
What Sweeney said was correct. Only Jack Willis would make the current England team. Borthwick has probably told the rest their chances of selection are small so it is understandable they decide to take the Euro. The other thing to consider is the growth of the fan domestic base. Fans want to see their England qualified players playing for their clubs not foreign internationals. The sooner the RFU starts supplementing internationals wages and as you rightly point out restrict the number of Foriegn players the better. England stars playing for their clubs will grow the game.
We can agree on a limit on foreign players in the Prem. However, I don't think using RFUs limited resources to prop up Premiership teams finances is smartest use of limited money (at the expense of grass roots)
@@EggchasersRugby This getting a bit chicken and egg like. The Internationals bring in the money but the clubs clearly do need help if more are not going bust. So keeping the best English players must be a priority. When I watch Premiership games I want to see exciting English players not imported ones.
Blue Ocean thinking here. In England where they want/need a Salary Cap. Should the RFU release let's say 50 Contracts every 4 Years. This is the salary paid out to the player. The Club that then signs the player takes on 70% of the cost in their Salary cap. The Club can then Top this contracts up by whatever figure they want as long as it is within the Salary Cap. I belive that this solves the problem of the Players getting better offers elsewhere for the most part and also justify the money. It is very difficult to justify signing these players on huge contracts when you know that they'll be missing games. The Value of English internationals abroad will be less if they are eligible for England.
🇿🇦From observing our players’ growth and maturation I believe that being a foreign pro make pampered stars into grown killers real fast. Or sink without a trace.
I believe it should change. But there should be parameters to ensure the premiership. Therefore, i am a believer that young players should be able to be picked from abroad but have a cap limit say two seasons worth of caps (approximately 24). Then they would need to be in an english club (but should not be held to ransom with wages over the pressure to move). Then have an upper cap limit, say 75 caps that mean player with 75 caps or more can move abroad.
The main problem of going abroad is that one might pick up nasty sartorial habits such as the wearing of ‘slip-on’ or deck shoes; shorts and t-shirts. The young are apt to copy their heroes. Therefore, I urge caution.
I think a big example for this is what’s going on at Leicester at the moment, George fords left and handre pollard came in and has basically been given the keys and one of the things that’s been said is he and mckellar wanted a big ball carrying 12 hence why kata is brought in, but then this takes the position away from pre injury dan Kelly who looked like a big answer for our 12 jersey for England very well rounded. However this season because of kata has been pushed out to play 13 and he hasn’t been great this season for tigers and you might argue when he’s played at 12 he hasn’t looked great either. I think this is all because of a huge confidence thing and hasn’t been backed. Now we’re looking at tigers bringing another overseas centre in next year pushing Kelly out completely. Now it has been rumoured Dan Kelly is moving to Munster next year and is Irish qualified (not saying he would get in but still the point). This is a classic case of if it’s not broke don’t fix it but they’ve tried to and instead wasted a very good English talent. It’s happened aswell with Phil cokansiga who is a very bright player but again given no opportunity and it makes you look at lads like Hartley and Maasi-white and wonder will they get wasted the same
2:38 no, you don’t have to play in France to play for France. Actually, Galthié called Antoine Frisch (Munster’s 13), and even though he didn’t have a cap yet, he will probably be in the summer tour in Argentina.
It is a fundermental truth that the health of any sport is directly affected by the success of its national team. That must be the prioty of any governing body. Not perusing policies that adversely affect its success
Actually, that rule helps the French clubs too! If you have a Jack Willis or an Owen Farell in your team and you know he will not be away for the international matches, you are even more happy to hire them ! Also, I think you hit the nail with the public school thing. I am not very familiar with the system as a French, but does that not mean that Rugby is an elite sport in your country played only by the wealthy rather than a popular one anyone can play? If so, I concur with you, this is probably the root of the issues
Basically, you are correct. Soccer is the national sport in England and Rugby Union is a class based game to an extent, although some ordinary schools have it in their sports curriculum. Rugby League has a far bigger following among the working class, particularly in the North of England (It was founded in the town of Huddersfield, home town of the Huddersfield Giants). Hope that helps.
Of course Toulouse would be delighted to have Jack Willis full time; But Stade toulousain, by contract, gave him time avalable fo the 6 nations when he arrived in the middle of the season du to Wasps' demise. watch his interview from 23:00 ua-cam.com/video/I6eSSRBWc8I/v-deo.html In France rugby is a popular sport; in some regions, the South-West and South, it is THE small towns and villages sport. There is a support structure in the school system, universities and even the military.
As it is, the moves to France will not considerably impact the England squad. However, what if there is a continuous rise of players going abroad? How will that impact the England squad over time? Will financial factors become a larger factor in rugby compared to playing for the England team?... ...Lots of uncertainties in my mind about the rule for the future. Having such strong restrictions is something I would like changed about all this. Leaning towards the caps rule. Imagine if Feyi-Waboso had signed for a team abroad instead of renewing his Chief's contract after his performances... Wonder how Bill would feel about the rule then.
The English players are paid to play for their country and in fact receive the most ( £23,000 / 25,000 ) of all the international countries . The issue has been players not getting selected such as Dave Ribbans / Marchant under Eddie Jones , deciding to take the French Euro - very unfotunate that they signed before SB played them Perhaps we should play more England A games so 2nd tier / fringe players can earn for playing for their country and supplement their salaries . I went to the England A vs Portugal game and the ground was virtually full
I'm torn on this one and can see both sides of the argument but if I had to take stance I'd probably agree with Sweeney (I feel dirty even saying that as the bloke is generally incompetent). I don't see how we can grow the premiership without our top players. As a Quins fan I can see a point where Marcus Smith gets supplanted in the fly half pecking order by Fin Smith and goes to France as a result - which would be a huge loss to the premiership (as well as Quins). I also recognise that he would improve as a player through exposure to a new environment and with a short career should be free to maximise his earnings. In summary I'm confused😂😂
"I don't see how we can grow the premiership". There's your problem. You've been sucked into it. English rugby isn't and shouldn't just be about the prem. Almost since I can remember (and I'm older than Stonehenge) the prem has been wrapped in cotton wool by the RFU to the detriment to every other division all the way down to grass roots. And the worst thing is, Prem clubs have been dropping like flies even with all of this mollycoddling going on. Break up the old boys network and back slapping in the RFU, focus on grass roots and non prem stuff, then and only then will English rugby have the solid foundations to build a really good premiership. Changing eligibility rules for the international squad is a complete irrelevance and misses the big issues by a country mile imho.
One thing Gregor townsend complained about during the 6 nations was about players having to go back to their English (and French) clubs on the bye weeks during the 6 nations. If a player welfare point of view was taken that said these players didn't have to go back if they've played on the weekend then that mostly negates the access issue and levels the playing field somewhat around players being rested.
Don't some of the Scotland and Wales squads play in France? Rowlands, Kinghorn, Ben White, Finn Russell (before he moved to Bath). Talking of which, all those currently playing in the Gallagher Premiership too. Doesn't stop them from being selected.
I wonder how many of the commenters here are season ticket holders? I love it when I see one of our academy products step up into the seniors, but their advancement is a double edged sword as if they show international credentials then I know I will not see them play for us for at least a third to half of the season (ok, perhaps that has changed a bit now as we don’t play during the Six Nations). If that now means we’re more likely to lose them completely to an overseas club, then perhaps it makes me think about the value of my season ticket? It’s not just about the international game. We need to attract more people to the club game to allow more clubs to be financially stable ergo to be able to pay their players more.
Is the Premiership financially sustainable? Is the demise of Wasps, Worcester and London Irish the tip of the iceberg? Attendances at Top 14 games are much higher than at Premiership games. Bordeaux's mid-season average is 24,000 people per match, and even the smaller clubs can attract close to 10,000. Rugby is a much more popular sport in France than in England.
Of the 4 players in the thumbnail - Farrell has reached the end of the line realistically change is needed. Arundell is just massively off the pace defensively for international rugby. Willis has been great and would probably get in squads but hasn't really done it at international level. Marchant is signing for Saracens after 12 twelves months abroad. Protect the most competitive league in the world.
Agreed. It’s ridiculous to take money from the grass roots to pay hybrid contracts to help the Premiership clubs stay afloat , given their financial problems are caused in part by those same clubs paying wages they can’t afford to overseas marquee players. (Nothing against those individuals - I love watching Big Andre and the rest of them).
@@GoldenGoalposts Yeah, thats a good point, although other unions (and other sports) pay their players much (much) less than ENG do and they still turn up to play. Perhaps a reduced fee for those playing abroad? Or just a bad idea from the get-go?🙂
To my knowledge u can play for France when you play abroad. It's not clear because nobody did it recently. There is a Munster guy born in France who was called in a 6 nations training camp this year.
The other side of the coin is that a French player, trained in France, playing in France Top 14, can play for Italy (due to the grand-father rule). Because there was immigration from Italy, Spain and Portugal, many French players can play for these countries.
The problem I have with the hybrid contract is, the hybrid player will always get selected - next year England could have three amazing 20 year old hookers come through, but only one or two of them will get selected because Jamie George has that RFU contract... As for players going to France, I'd rather see an eight team prem or a merge with the URC, over a mass exodus.
I’ve been told that New Zealand will also allow their players to play in foreign countries. Yes, it’s a money issue. I do disagree with you about the seven year thing. I think if players play amongst other international players, they learn more. This overall is good for the game.
We want rugby to be a global sport, remain a global sport, and grow as a global sport. Players are, in essence, employees. Their ability to ply their trade in a league of their choice should not be determined by the national team. An inherently bad decision.
Sounds common sense to me from tim. I won’t offer an opinion on how Englands game should be run , as I’ll be honest and wouldn’t have an idea . Just want England team to be successful and clubs to be well run. Not sure the RFU agree with me . Know they have more responsibility than my hopes ,but they are businessmen .
I’m all for a rule change, not sure of the numbers but IMO 20 cap, plus 4 seasons in the Prem (or equivalent), should free you up to play your rugby anywhere and still qualify. This should keep the younger top talent in the Prem until they prove they are of the right caliber and skill.
Other sports associations try to make more money and increase the utility of their players, but rugby associations are willing to pay only for glory, even though it is a major sport
International sport should be based on the coach picking the best team, no exceptions. This should be the RFU's focus, and not supporting a failing Premier League which has never been a going concern. The PL should sink to it's own level or disappear entirely. The RFU should then concentrate on building a new structure for the game.
I’ve been saying this for months. If you were to write a business plan up this way would you want to put money in it? The other problem is the product needs to look more slick. Make the game quicker. Rugby used to be a game about discipline. Any penalty within 5 meters from the line by the defending side should be a penalty try. No yellow card no kick just restart the game. Any delay to set up a scrum penalty. Any delay at line out penalty. Any delay at the penalty switch it. If we want a better product to sell to TV we should also look to sell it to a bigger audience free to view say ITV or BBC what ever is the bigger. Anyhow keep going, as they used to say it’s good to talk?
Let the boys play wherever they want to play, I say. Agree with you, Tim, in making test rugby our best vs your best and any shenanigans that dilute that can go in the bin (project players, arbitrary restrictions on who you pick, token symbolic caps etc...) South Africa are leading the way on this- letting their top dogs take up key positions in leagues across the world at the expense of domestic talent that sits on the bench and watches them. The 'greater access to players' argument for the Pro Game Agreement doesn't wash either- England have as much access as Ireland and NZ and I'm going to throw it out there that England have not done anything at all with that greater access. In fact, going into the World Cup 23 having had 5 months together, Borthwick & England were still whining about 'we haven't had much time to work on things' FFS (England fan, BTW)
Lifestyle change ...I would rather call it a career change ..Lifestyle a spin off....South Africa actually encourages players to explore other avenues...Very often they bring back new perspectives and very often return better players ..
A real issue is that rugby is *the* most prestigious sport in Ireland, NZ and across the entire South West of France, so the talent will be there anyway and the grassroots game takes care of itself. England doesn’t have this so rugby is always competing with other sports… can’t think of that many Prem players who would go tbh and where to… Earl could get picked up by the Top14 but those teams are really strong across the board.
@@Camcolito seems like a needlessly dismissive comment. Football, gaelic football, rugby - what am I missing? I mean SA has far more footballers than rugby players but the statement would still stand.
@@DarceG-jh1ikDon't mean to be dismissive but the statement doesn't stand because it's clearly false. Hurling, gaelic football, soccer all more popular than rugby. Now you are trying to double down and pretend that England has more competitor sports.
@@Camcolito “trying to double down” I asked a question in the spirit of discussion mate, chill out, and I don’t really see u answering any questions or making any points so I don’t see anything that would disagree with my point. If you’d given any compelling evidence I’d happily drop the point I was trying to make but you aren’t making any arguments. Strange way to communicate, you aren’t preaching to an audience here so I don’t get why you’re being dismissive, I would bet you wouldn’t “speak” as bravely in person so perhaps be a bit more respectful
@@DarceG-jh1ik Yup I was a bit narky, you didn't ask a question though you confidently made a clearly nonsensical statement as if it were uncontroversial fact.
Im irish and im glad of the rule for US. Irish domestic rugby would be in the toilet like Irish soccer as all the players would leave to play abroad. The English case is different
There are so many damned foreigners playing in the national teams now-a-days that they might as well call them international teams. What is the point in having a national team if half the players are foreign born?
Alright I know this is not a great take, but just putting the thought out... Only a few seasons ago, Sarries were punished heavily for offering what were essentially "hybrid" contracts to keep their top players at their club. Now it seems the RFU is doing just that to keep the league functioning. Any thoughts? I know financial fair play and balance across the league comes into it and this is different to the Sarries situation which was cheating, but the RFU must acknowledge that their system is broken when they have to step in like this
Sounds like England is going the same way as Australia: no investment at grassroot level, only private school player base. Recipe for disaster, 22 years without a Bledisloe Cup win, 25 since WC win. Zero chance of either on the horizon.
I'd take his arguments - there's loads of English players and not that many will go to France - and flip them round as the reason TO relax the rules, not the reason to enforce them.
😅I am more concerned about the number of foreign players in our own league.Our under 20s have just won the six nations championship and with three less clubs in the premiership they have to find contacts to secure their future and hopefully develop into full internationals.Otherwise the international pathway is for nothing.
No English players need to be playing in the English Premiership. With this the Team gets more access to players for training camps and during the windows such as 6N and Autumn. If you are concerned about a lack of support, coverage etc from the Premiership then allowing the very best and those with the highest profile to leave will not benefit the league or teams. You mention that the bulk of players already play in England is this because the rule is in place? I would like to see a JIF system and (I have no idea how to enforce this) a minimum of 4 starting English qualified players in each position across the league.
Why is English Rugby losing money? I am not being sarcastic or anything. I just want to know the underlying reasons. Bad TV contracts? poor attendances? dwindling interest? But also, can't the government also prop up the RFU with a basic cash injection every year, until rugby in England is in a better place?
I'm not a fan of Sweeney but whole heartedlyh agree with him on this one. International rugby is not necessarily about the best players coming up against each other its about the best TEAMS coming up against each other. Borthwick isn't just assembling the ebst players together he is creating the best team. The model that benefits the national team the most, as the All Blacks and Ireland have shown, is to have as much control and centralisation over your players as possible. That's what we should be aiming for. There is no point sacrificing this for the players that have gone over. None of them would start excpet for maybe Marchant who is coming back anyway.
IF it was such a benefit then coaches wouldn't pick players abroad anyway...but they should have the option to if they wish. I don't think denying the pinnacle of the sport as a rule is right or fair.
@@EggchasersRugby I don't think this rule is denying the pinnacle of the sport, rather preserving it. The ideal scenario is that all are best players play in England as this has been shown, if managed correctly, to have the best affect on the national team - Ireland are begining to reap the rewards of this as have New Zealand for years. South Africa are an exception, not a rule, and even now Rassie prefers for his players to be in South Africa, hence why Siya is no longer Captain. If we get to a situation where too many potential starters are abroad, like South Africa had back in 2017, then we shoudl overturn this rule like they did. However, none of the players aborad are starters, except for Marchant, so there is no point changing the rules. The RFU havn't not been particularly shrewd in how they have allocated their money but hybrid contracts are defintly not an area that shoulld be criticsed but an essentialty that top teams use.
RFU with its head in the sand? Never!
I’m a Scot and I’d say yes to change. This to me is England proving that the 57 boring old fart blazers have not gone away.
RFU is delusional, English players should be available regardless of where they play. Supporters are expected to pay the highest prices to watch and support England at Twickenham without being able to see the best English players available because of stupid eligibility rules. I would love to have a poll at Twickenham to ask the supporters what the paying supporters wantt. Totally agree with Tim English qualified quota requirement for the Premiership.
Shock! Bill Sweeney gets it wrong again - get this clown out the RFU before he damages England Rugby any further
He's so bad at his job I have no idea how he keeps it
@@henryburton6529 clearly there’s no accountability at the top, I’m not sure how anyone else could do a worse job than him so the fact he keeps his job is beyond me
Losing 3 clubs in your top 2 leagues proves there’s no accountability at the RFU
@@John-ny7jn Everything he does I think I would have done the opposite. I'm sure its not that bad but it seems it from the outside.
Bill Sweeney is the living embodiment of the Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes meme...
Also he's an asshat.
Bloody stupid rules these. If they really wanted to help English rugby the ban would be say Max 3 foreign nationals per prem team. That would help bring through the young lads.
"If they really wanted to help English rugby the ban would be say Max 3 foreign nationals per prem team."
Exactly! like France do.
Now we are out of the EU this is possible
@@Bpt8825 France is in the EU and has this rule
This rule doesn't exist in France, the only rule is about JIFF ( means you have to have gone to à french rugby academy) and that's 16 players out of 23. So some french players who learnt outside of France are not protected by this rule and some JIFF play for other countries ( mainly fijians who came to à french academy and play for fiji) so there is no quota of french qualified players in top 14 at all
@@clementbatut4053 that sounds like the same rule but with slight differences to me. 16 out of 23 have to have gone to French academy?
that is basically thew same thing and they are in the EU
As an outsider it’s always baffled me that Bill Sweeney doesn’t get more criticism from England fans than- every time there’s a dip in English rugby he should be the on held accountable
He's untouchable and it's not in English Rugby culture to make a fuss
@@guyveegee Agreed, It's like no one in the media directly criticises him. And when fans complain online or otherwise...it's feels like they're igonored or just shrugged off.
Most people don’t know who he is so everyone just piles their hate onto whoever happens to be wearing 10 at the time. Asking English rugby fans to do some surface level class analysis is an impossible task unfortunately.
@@videoaddict961 this is exactly the problem, how many times should the coach or certain players have to accept the blame when the man at the top has been the same for years?
Something needs to change! There's fewer opportunities for English players now, especially since Wasps, London Irish, Worcester, and Jersey went bust. And there doesn't seem to be any restrictions on foreign players. So if the RFU want to keep their policy, they need to introduce a JIFF or similar system, or allow players to play abroad.
Whilst I love a Bill Sweeney pile on imo ensuring access to the players should be the no,1 priority,. The second you allow them to go overseas that's gone. Preparation for competitions becomes twice as difficult. The central contracts are another example of that where SB will have more input over player development, especially in specific areas like the centre. Again, if players leave for France etc that's gone. The current exodus of players really isn't a big deal either. Owen has opted out anyway, Arundell hasn't been lighting up the league enough to get picked, Ludlam is replaceable, Lawes is choosing to essentially retire, Synckler's form means he isn't getting picked anyway. Willis is maybe a loss but again, we have stellar back row options.
I hear you on this but keep in mind that the Springboks managed to win the world cup twice in a row picking a team from various countries and time zones. I think this just needs proper planning but actually is not as hard as you think. Sure, there will be some games where you can't play a certain player because he is contracted to a foreign club, but this just opens a window for another guy. This is how depth is created!
For the French NT: Frisch was called up despite playing in Ireland, so I don't think French players have to be playing in France.
Quite right! Good point
France indeed has no such rules. However 99.9% of French players play in France, so the circumstances aren't quite comparable.
Frish is due to return to France to be able to get into national team. In ireland players contracted to club get a reasonable salary. If you get an ireland contract that is bulked up by IRFU. teams are only allowed have a couple of foreign players where you gave more in premiership clubs
I did hear before that Rugby is the national sport of France. Not soccer! I also remember stories from back in the amateur era where French rugby union used to poach from League! Also except for some planted teams in Paris, French rugby is basically based in the old Vichy France. France without a world cup is a bigger shock than Ireland never winning a knockout game.
That's right. There used to be a time when a few French internationals played for English clubs. I think the only rule was that if you played in southern hemisphere you couldn't play for France. That's what happened with Michalak when he went to play for the Sharks in SA.
As always proper common sense, Thank you very much. Me and my friends discuss the issues of RU here in England and you have 'agreed' with everything we say and all we are are just a bunch of mates having a drink. The RFU does not care about RU all they care about is Twickenham being full.
Agree 100%. Your national team shouldn't struggle just becasue your country isn't as financially strong as another country.
And players ability to provide for their families or nurture their future shouldn't be limited because they want the honour of representing their country.
If the Prem. can't compete for salaries (which it can't) then they need to change the rules.
I like the 40 (or whatever) cap rule. Trouble is they need to have access to the players too which they will lose if lots go to France.
Maybe enforce contract arrangements for foreign based players to ensure access.
Dont have to play in France to play for France ! (Benjamin kayser is the only exemple coming in my mind) Dupont, ntamack oralldrit often speek of having an out of France expérience . Giff system IS the Real deal for France to prevent our young rugby players to stay on the bench ! Another very intersting vidéo Tim! Bon boulot !
Most of the English players moving abroad might well not have been selected by SB anyway, but who knows if Owen Farrell or Courtney Lawes wouldn't have retired from internationals if the rules were different.
Considering that France makes their own players available for internationals, especially with their 6N and world cup games being at the same time as England's, availability and access shouldn't be an issue for English players playing in France.
P. S. It was worth watching to the end just to hear Tim confirm me as a rugby nerd. Living in the far east, your vids are like the chats I want to have but can't. Looking forward to hopefully many years ahead for Eggchasers!
If you watch Jack Willis interview ua-cam.com/video/I6eSSRBWc8I/v-deo.html from 33:00, you will see that for him and Stade Toulousain, there is absolutely no problem of avalability and access to Englan's team. Contract may vary from club to club, and there might be financial clauses about recovery time from an injury that happened during "International selection time", but Scottish players seemed to have had no problem.
On the schools, I've tried to introduce union to league / football obsessed kids. We had John Bentley come in to talk in about 2000. I was bouncing off the walls - only a few kids remembered he'd played league for GB and England. They wouldn't know Itoje from Curry and wouldn't care. Its a massive job. In Malton l, where I live, the cub does get into the 2ndary school and picks up players, but it's more a part of the culture in rural North Yorkshire.
Playing for your country should be the pinnacle of achievement, if a player decides to put cash ahead of this, that's their choice. Many players benefit from overseas experience and should be encouraged to do so and then come back and qualify again for national selection.
If it's the pinnacle of achievement (I agree entirely btw) why would it be conditional on playing in a particular domestic league. Doesn't make it seem like the 'pinnnacle'.
Playing for your country is the pinnacle however cash isn’t always the motivator and nor should where they play should prevent them from playing for their country. This policy was brought in originally with the objective of keeping home talent in England. Consider the number of players from London Irish , Wasps Worcester after they went under , that were not subsequently picked up by the other premiership sides. They went to France because they were offered contracts. The level of the salary cap does not allow the other premiership clubs to pick up these players. As there are 3 less teams how is this policy helping England.
Other countries also denied players overseas from playing for their national team team because of access eg you could understand , just in distance the case for say an Australian player playing in Europe being denied a place for the Wallabies. However a player in France can be in London in a just a few hours, possibly quicker than one coming from Manchester
Hi Tim South Africa do have a qualification criteria that is you have to be a South African citizen. For example the Tshituka brothers and Thambwe have not been considered. We live in a professional era so pick the best no matter where (I’m all for players being picked for other countries as long as they are 1 a citizen of that country and spent 5 years in that country). That said once a genuine duel citizen you should be picked by either country regardless of a qualification period.
Ireland has the same rule
Great video as always. Still waiting for you to unveil your secret project in the south of France you've been cooking for a couple of weeks !
It happened in football with the Bosman ruling. I wonder when the lawyers will step in. I like to see the best players pulling on a red rose shirt just as I am sure the RFU expect the best corporate entertainment on match day…
Hi Tim big fan of yours here! I would love to see the day when the premiership might join the urc and make a two tier league ! From a Munster man that will be shouting for Lenster now were out of Europe🙈
I look at at this way. Will Farrell be a better player playing at Racing or Willis playing at Toulouse. Of course they will. It's nuts to deny the experience that the Top 14 will give them.
I don't know about Farrel, he is so experienced and maybe set in the way of his English club(s?). Willis and Kinghorn adapted very fast and well to the style of Rugby played by Toulouse. Both enjoy high praise frop fans. English players in Top 14 may adapt fast, or change clubs, become better players for the Top 14 and overall, but maybe not for England's team at a given time.
@@jean-pascalesparceil9008 I Don't quite follow that. You either become a better player or you don't! You can't say that you will become a better player in the Top 14 but not internationally. And no one doubts that the likes of Farrell are great players no matter where they play but equally you can't say that playing week in, week out, against the men mountains of Bordeaux, La Rochelle, Toulouse and almost any pack in the Top 14 won't stand him in good stead when he leads England against France or South Africa.
@@brianbarcroft9167 Well, they will surely become even better players, but they might not be selected because they don't fit with the overall plan and tactics of England's head coach that are based on players from the foremost English clubs. Maybe one time in ten, or even less. It depends also on the post, e.g. for Jack Willis, playing against La Rochelle is like playing against the Boks, and the hand skills he picks during his stay at ST will give him an advantage for England's team.
@@jean-pascalesparceil9008 Well OK, but exceptional players are exceptional players. I can never see Farrell having a problem if Borthwick asks him to play in a slightly different way! And it doesn't seem to be a problem for S. Africa does it? Around 300 of their professionals play abroad including at least 8, from the top of my head, of the current international squad
As usual, you make perfect sense. SA had a similar policy of only picking SA based players that I think only changed when Rassie took over. Two World Cups later I think it's made a big difference. SA don't have to worry abut paying their players (which was a big issue for them) and their players bring back wider experience.
Great video Tim!
What if only 3 players in a matchday 23 can be foreign-based?
Then the competition for those 3 places will be very tight making the quality there high, and if a player loses form they will be axed sooner.
I've always felt that whenever you go back, we've only ever wanted a couple foreign-based players at any one time - aside from that, we dont need more.
The pompous RFU showing once again they’re clueless
It’s not the ship that’s the problem it’s the captain. Sweeney should of stepped down after the demise of 3 premiership teams.
Pompous IRFU, pompous NZRU.
@@clemfandango619 they both might be pompous but at least what they do works
Unbelievable. Time for a big change, the old guard must go get some young blood in, people with vision and ambition.
Bill Sweeney head in the sand approach is simply ludicrous logic - you pick the best - period
That's should be the only criteria for international rugby.
Going against the grain here but I would keep the eligibility rules as they are and I look at NZ as the example.
After every World Cup, there’s an exodus from NZ of the top players to Japan and France for the cash. That gives the next generation 2 years of international development and experience before the top players come back to fight for their old positions.
After these 2 year sabbaticals, the competition for places will be even higher as that returning player isn’t exactly guaranteed to get their shirt back. DMac has 2 years to prove he deserves Richie’s 10 shirt.
Whitelock, Retallick, Cane, B Barrett, Smith, Laulala, Coles, Frizzell, Fainga’anuku all out and places are there for the taking. With Savea, that’s the starting 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15!! 11/15 places up for grabs with a bunch of them returning to reclaim their spots soon.
This is what a competitive side does. This is how you develop your depth. “You’ve got a year before a former world player of the year comes back for his spot.”
You want a quota system like jiff and a pyramid system like France, and a good tv deal like Canal +/Top 14. Just say copy France it’s faster 😂. But I agree with you, England and France are similar in population, sport culture, economy, etc… Much Closer than england and NZ or Australia, or Ireland. Except for the language.
Tim, you should of been on the latest episode of eggonomics. It would of been a right ding dong with you and Mark on opposing sides of the argument.
Very good critique.
Yes - it is definitely time to get rid of this absolutely absurd rule.
It's not an issue in football, so why should it be one in Rugby.
Access might be an issue, but I would argue that modern travel has made that a non factor - you can fly from France in as short a time as you can drive from Newcastle to London.
And why not give English players experience in other leagues? Different conditions, different styles of play. It can only make you a better player.
SA used to have the locals only rule. Rassie changed that as a condition to his appointment.
IMO it has had 2 impacts:
1. Our local league is of poorer quality BUT there is space for more players to be exposed to professional rugby. Thus more depth (a key feature of the Boks);
2. Our overseas based players have developed additional skills they would never have got staying in SA.
Why don't they have this rule in soccer or other sports? Answer: it is silly. Rugby is now a truly international game. Including at club level!
Love ur videos, totally agree the rules should change....Only French clubs could pay for English best players and they wouldn't take half the squad anyway. Plus imagine how many more minutes younger players would get.
The JIFF system is purely French developed. For instance considered a JIFF player by the end of his contract at Racing if he stays all the way through (and be worth a lot of cash if he wants to come back to France down the line). Thibaud Flament on the other hand, who went through the Belgian and English systems, is not a JIFF player.
I respect your options, im not sure i agree.
France, i believe has a cultural bedrock of rugby fandom they can build on. We just dont have that.
Im of a similar mind to Sam Warburton.. We need to invest in the shop window and get the sport in front of as many kids eyes as possible. Thst will get them to the clubs. Right now, competing for kids attention against football is very difficult.
A quality, two tier, professional league should be the focus.
As a south African, the drain of players from SA rugby teams was something that used to really drive me crazy. While I totally understood it from a players perspective, it still felt that every year the SA franchises were starting from scratch with at least 3 or 4 top players per team heading overseas, not to be heard from again or for a number of years at least. This was especially hard when it meant they would be ineligible for the Boks. It was even harder when the player leaving had only played a year of, at the time, Super Rugby. That all changed when SARU changed the laws to allow the Boks to pick players from anywhere. From that point on it was still sad to see players leave but knowing that they can still play for the boks made it easier to swallow. Looking back at that move, I believe that it had a massive positives for SA Rugby as a whole. These are my big positives.....
1 - This had a massive influence on the Boks winning 2 WC's in a row. Without this rule change we would probably not have won any.
2 - SA players are experiencing a variety of rugby conditions. Knowledge is power!
3 - SA rugby is not being bankrupted by having to pay a fortune to retain the likes of Pollard, and other amazing players. This saved money is then further invested into the rugby base for the next superstars.
4 - While it's sad to see a top player leave, it does open a spot for the next best thing coming through. I am always super excited by the young guys getting opportunities in big competitions that in the past they may have had to wait years to achieve.
Negatives....
1 - SA franchise teams will never be power houses for an extended period of time. They will always be in a rebuilding mode. I have kinda learned to live with this
2 - More and more SA players will end up playing for Foreign national teams. It's a hard pill to swallow but again I've learned to live with this and honestly just wish that player well.
To me it's a no brainer!
I don't get the Premiership argument. It's chock full of foreign players in key positions anyway, so why not let players get experience in other countries rather than sitting as a 2nd or 3rd choice in the Prem?
What Sweeney said was correct. Only Jack Willis would make the current England team. Borthwick has probably told the rest their chances of selection are small so it is understandable they decide to take the Euro.
The other thing to consider is the growth of the fan domestic base. Fans want to see their England qualified players playing for their clubs not foreign internationals. The sooner the RFU starts supplementing internationals wages and as you rightly point out restrict the number of Foriegn players the better. England stars playing for their clubs will grow the game.
We can agree on a limit on foreign players in the Prem. However, I don't think using RFUs limited resources to prop up Premiership teams finances is smartest use of limited money (at the expense of grass roots)
@@EggchasersRugby This getting a bit chicken and egg like. The Internationals bring in the money but the clubs clearly do need help if more are not going bust. So keeping the best English players must be a priority. When I watch Premiership games I want to see exciting English players not imported ones.
Blue Ocean thinking here. In England where they want/need a Salary Cap. Should the RFU release let's say 50 Contracts every 4 Years. This is the salary paid out to the player.
The Club that then signs the player takes on 70% of the cost in their Salary cap. The Club can then Top this contracts up by whatever figure they want as long as it is within the Salary Cap.
I belive that this solves the problem of the Players getting better offers elsewhere for the most part and also justify the money.
It is very difficult to justify signing these players on huge contracts when you know that they'll be missing games.
The Value of English internationals abroad will be less if they are eligible for England.
fundalmentaly prem clubs can pay whatever they like....but at end of season have to show some kind of profit.. like businesses do?!!
🇿🇦From observing our players’ growth and maturation I believe that being a foreign pro make pampered stars into grown killers real fast. Or sink without a trace.
I believe it should change. But there should be parameters to ensure the premiership. Therefore, i am a believer that young players should be able to be picked from abroad but have a cap limit say two seasons worth of caps (approximately 24). Then they would need to be in an english club (but should not be held to ransom with wages over the pressure to move). Then have an upper cap limit, say 75 caps that mean player with 75 caps or more can move abroad.
To play for France you need a French passport - but I don’t think there’s any restriction on what league you play
Do any other major sporting codes have similar international eligibility rules?
The main problem of going abroad is that one might pick up nasty sartorial habits such as the wearing of ‘slip-on’ or deck shoes; shorts and t-shirts.
The young are apt to copy their heroes. Therefore, I urge caution.
I think a big example for this is what’s going on at Leicester at the moment, George fords left and handre pollard came in and has basically been given the keys and one of the things that’s been said is he and mckellar wanted a big ball carrying 12 hence why kata is brought in, but then this takes the position away from pre injury dan Kelly who looked like a big answer for our 12 jersey for England very well rounded. However this season because of kata has been pushed out to play 13 and he hasn’t been great this season for tigers and you might argue when he’s played at 12 he hasn’t looked great either. I think this is all because of a huge confidence thing and hasn’t been backed. Now we’re looking at tigers bringing another overseas centre in next year pushing Kelly out completely. Now it has been rumoured Dan Kelly is moving to Munster next year and is Irish qualified (not saying he would get in but still the point). This is a classic case of if it’s not broke don’t fix it but they’ve tried to and instead wasted a very good English talent. It’s happened aswell with Phil cokansiga who is a very bright player but again given no opportunity and it makes you look at lads like Hartley and Maasi-white and wonder will they get wasted the same
2:38 no, you don’t have to play in France to play for France. Actually, Galthié called Antoine Frisch (Munster’s 13), and even though he didn’t have a cap yet, he will probably be in the summer tour in Argentina.
It is a fundermental truth that the health of any sport is directly affected by the success of its national team. That must be the prioty of any governing body. Not perusing policies that adversely affect its success
Amen Tim. Thats what Rassie did for us.
Antiquated law which is illogical, will eventually change when rugby administrators become professional..
Actually, that rule helps the French clubs too! If you have a Jack Willis or an Owen Farell in your team and you know he will not be away for the international matches, you are even more happy to hire them !
Also, I think you hit the nail with the public school thing. I am not very familiar with the system as a French, but does that not mean that Rugby is an elite sport in your country played only by the wealthy rather than a popular one anyone can play? If so, I concur with you, this is probably the root of the issues
Basically, you are correct. Soccer is the national sport in England and Rugby Union is a class based game to an extent, although some ordinary schools have it in their sports curriculum. Rugby League has a far bigger following among the working class, particularly in the North of England (It was founded in the town of Huddersfield, home town of the Huddersfield Giants). Hope that helps.
That's an excellent point!
Of course Toulouse would be delighted to have Jack Willis full time; But Stade toulousain, by contract, gave him time avalable fo the 6 nations when he arrived in the middle of the season du to Wasps' demise. watch his interview from 23:00 ua-cam.com/video/I6eSSRBWc8I/v-deo.html
In France rugby is a popular sport; in some regions, the South-West and South, it is THE small towns and villages sport. There is a support structure in the school system, universities and even the military.
As it is, the moves to France will not considerably impact the England squad. However, what if there is a continuous rise of players going abroad? How will that impact the England squad over time? Will financial factors become a larger factor in rugby compared to playing for the England team?...
...Lots of uncertainties in my mind about the rule for the future.
Having such strong restrictions is something I would like changed about all this. Leaning towards the caps rule.
Imagine if Feyi-Waboso had signed for a team abroad instead of renewing his Chief's contract after his performances... Wonder how Bill would feel about the rule then.
The English players are paid to play for their country and in fact receive the most ( £23,000 / 25,000 ) of all the international countries . The issue has been players not getting selected such as Dave Ribbans / Marchant under Eddie Jones , deciding to take the French Euro - very unfotunate that they signed before SB played them Perhaps we should play more England A games so 2nd tier / fringe players can earn for playing for their country and supplement their salaries . I went to the England A vs Portugal game and the ground was virtually full
They could do what Ireland did. Simply make an exception for a special player. Then go back.
I'm torn on this one and can see both sides of the argument but if I had to take stance I'd probably agree with Sweeney (I feel dirty even saying that as the bloke is generally incompetent).
I don't see how we can grow the premiership without our top players. As a Quins fan I can see a point where Marcus Smith gets supplanted in the fly half pecking order by Fin Smith and goes to France as a result - which would be a huge loss to the premiership (as well as Quins).
I also recognise that he would improve as a player through exposure to a new environment and with a short career should be free to maximise his earnings.
In summary I'm confused😂😂
"I don't see how we can grow the premiership". There's your problem. You've been sucked into it. English rugby isn't and shouldn't just be about the prem. Almost since I can remember (and I'm older than Stonehenge) the prem has been wrapped in cotton wool by the RFU to the detriment to every other division all the way down to grass roots. And the worst thing is, Prem clubs have been dropping like flies even with all of this mollycoddling going on. Break up the old boys network and back slapping in the RFU, focus on grass roots and non prem stuff, then and only then will English rugby have the solid foundations to build a really good premiership. Changing eligibility rules for the international squad is a complete irrelevance and misses the big issues by a country mile imho.
I agree it is time for the RFU to change its player policy about playing abroad
One thing Gregor townsend complained about during the 6 nations was about players having to go back to their English (and French) clubs on the bye weeks during the 6 nations. If a player welfare point of view was taken that said these players didn't have to go back if they've played on the weekend then that mostly negates the access issue and levels the playing field somewhat around players being rested.
Don't some of the Scotland and Wales squads play in France? Rowlands, Kinghorn, Ben White, Finn Russell (before he moved to Bath). Talking of which, all those currently playing in the Gallagher Premiership too. Doesn't stop them from being selected.
Yep. I mention the countries where players ARE allowed to play in other leagues and still represent their country.
It’s almost like the RFU and Post Office are run by the same people.
I’m going to my economics dissertation on this topic
Very concerned about financial situation of clubs. How can they sure up their finances?
Spend what they can afford. Relying on the RFU to prop them up is kicking the can down the road.
How can you happily engage a coach/fitness trainer/?? from any nation, but refuse to pick an English player who has been working off-shore??
I wonder how many of the commenters here are season ticket holders? I love it when I see one of our academy products step up into the seniors, but their advancement is a double edged sword as if they show international credentials then I know I will not see them play for us for at least a third to half of the season (ok, perhaps that has changed a bit now as we don’t play during the Six Nations). If that now means we’re more likely to lose them completely to an overseas club, then perhaps it makes me think about the value of my season ticket? It’s not just about the international game. We need to attract more people to the club game to allow more clubs to be financially stable ergo to be able to pay their players more.
Is the Premiership financially sustainable? Is the demise of Wasps, Worcester and London Irish the tip of the iceberg? Attendances at Top 14 games are much higher than at Premiership games. Bordeaux's mid-season average is 24,000 people per match, and even the smaller clubs can attract close to 10,000. Rugby is a much more popular sport in France than in England.
I agree. And I don't think using the RFU's money to subsidise players wages is a smart use of the money we have.
i think they should play Abroad but they have to promote the game back at home. like at schools or local teams.
Of the 4 players in the thumbnail - Farrell has reached the end of the line realistically change is needed. Arundell is just massively off the pace defensively for international rugby. Willis has been great and would probably get in squads but hasn't really done it at international level. Marchant is signing for Saracens after 12 twelves months abroad. Protect the most competitive league in the world.
Agreed. It’s ridiculous to take money from the grass roots to pay hybrid contracts to help the Premiership clubs stay afloat , given their financial problems are caused in part by those same clubs paying wages they can’t afford to overseas marquee players. (Nothing against those individuals - I love watching Big Andre and the rest of them).
What if, for players that choose to play abroad (should the rules change), they lose the match fee of 20-25k (or however much it is)?
I think in the scenario many of them just wouldn’t play for England, not point taking on the risk of getting hurt when you’re not even being paid
@@GoldenGoalposts Yeah, thats a good point, although other unions (and other sports) pay their players much (much) less than ENG do and they still turn up to play.
Perhaps a reduced fee for those playing abroad?
Or just a bad idea from the get-go?🙂
To my knowledge u can play for France when you play abroad. It's not clear because nobody did it recently. There is a Munster guy born in France who was called in a 6 nations training camp this year.
The other side of the coin is that a French player, trained in France, playing in France Top 14, can play for Italy (due to the grand-father rule). Because there was immigration from Italy, Spain and Portugal, many French players can play for these countries.
Got to be honest, Mark Evan’s completely changed my mind when I listened to Eggonomics in the podcast feed. Go listen if u haven’t
The problem I have with the hybrid contract is, the hybrid player will always get selected - next year England could have three amazing 20 year old hookers come through, but only one or two of them will get selected because Jamie George has that RFU contract...
As for players going to France, I'd rather see an eight team prem or a merge with the URC, over a mass exodus.
I’ve been told that New Zealand will also allow their players to play in foreign countries. Yes, it’s a money issue. I do disagree with you about the seven year thing. I think if players play amongst other international players, they learn more. This overall is good for the game.
We want rugby to be a global sport, remain a global sport, and grow as a global sport. Players are, in essence, employees. Their ability to ply their trade in a league of their choice should not be determined by the national team. An inherently bad decision.
I'd go one further and say, on a principle level, it's immoral.
A stupid rule! Can you imagine Kane and Bellingham not being able to play for England because they play football in Germany and Spain?!
LET THE BOYS PLAY!
Ali Crossdale at 11 who plays at Perpignan and former Waps and Saracens
Sounds common sense to me from tim. I won’t offer an opinion on how Englands game should be run , as I’ll be honest and wouldn’t have an idea . Just want England team to be successful and clubs to be well run. Not sure the RFU agree with me . Know they have more responsibility than my hopes ,but they are businessmen .
I’m all for a rule change, not sure of the numbers but IMO 20 cap, plus 4 seasons in the Prem (or equivalent), should free you up to play your rugby anywhere and still qualify. This should keep the younger top talent in the Prem until they prove they are of the right caliber and skill.
How does that affect the salary cap?
Other sports associations try to make more money and increase the utility of their players, but rugby associations are willing to pay only for glory, even though it is a major sport
International sport should be based on the coach picking the best team, no exceptions. This should be the RFU's focus, and not supporting a failing Premier League which has never been a going concern. The PL should sink to it's own level or disappear entirely. The RFU should then concentrate on building a new structure for the game.
The issue is not the players going it’s the number of premiership clubs going bankrupt trying to afford these players
Ben Loader on the left wing. Pretty sure he’s still playing with the Stormers?
I’ve been saying this for months. If you were to write a business plan up this way would you want to put money in it?
The other problem is the product needs to look more slick. Make the game quicker. Rugby used to be a game about discipline. Any penalty within 5 meters from the line by the defending side should be a penalty try. No yellow card no kick just restart the game. Any delay to set up a scrum penalty. Any delay at line out penalty. Any delay at the penalty switch it. If we want a better product to sell to TV we should also look to sell it to a bigger audience free to view say ITV or BBC what ever is the bigger. Anyhow keep going, as they used to say it’s good to talk?
Let the boys play wherever they want to play, I say. Agree with you, Tim, in making test rugby our best vs your best and any shenanigans that dilute that can go in the bin (project players, arbitrary restrictions on who you pick, token symbolic caps etc...)
South Africa are leading the way on this- letting their top dogs take up key positions in leagues across the world at the expense of domestic talent that sits on the bench and watches them.
The 'greater access to players' argument for the Pro Game Agreement doesn't wash either- England have as much access as Ireland and NZ and I'm going to throw it out there that England have not done anything at all with that greater access. In fact, going into the World Cup 23 having had 5 months together, Borthwick & England were still whining about 'we haven't had much time to work on things' FFS (England fan, BTW)
Lifestyle change ...I would rather call it a career change ..Lifestyle a spin off....South Africa actually encourages players to explore other avenues...Very often they bring back new perspectives and very often return better players ..
A real issue is that rugby is *the* most prestigious sport in Ireland, NZ and across the entire South West of France, so the talent will be there anyway and the grassroots game takes care of itself. England doesn’t have this so rugby is always competing with other sports… can’t think of that many Prem players who would go tbh and where to… Earl could get picked up by the Top14 but those teams are really strong across the board.
Rugby is not the most prestigious or popular sport in Ireland, it's like 4th or 5th. Maybe check some facts before pontificating?
@@Camcolito seems like a needlessly dismissive comment. Football, gaelic football, rugby - what am I missing? I mean SA has far more footballers than rugby players but the statement would still stand.
@@DarceG-jh1ikDon't mean to be dismissive but the statement doesn't stand because it's clearly false. Hurling, gaelic football, soccer all more popular than rugby. Now you are trying to double down and pretend that England has more competitor sports.
@@Camcolito “trying to double down” I asked a question in the spirit of discussion mate, chill out, and I don’t really see u answering any questions or making any points so I don’t see anything that would disagree with my point. If you’d given any compelling evidence I’d happily drop the point I was trying to make but you aren’t making any arguments. Strange way to communicate, you aren’t preaching to an audience here so I don’t get why you’re being dismissive, I would bet you wouldn’t “speak” as bravely in person so perhaps be a bit more respectful
@@DarceG-jh1ik Yup I was a bit narky, you didn't ask a question though you confidently made a clearly nonsensical statement as if it were uncontroversial fact.
Utter madness !
Im irish and im glad of the rule for US. Irish domestic rugby would be in the toilet like Irish soccer as all the players would leave to play abroad. The English case is different
There are so many damned foreigners playing in the national teams now-a-days that they might as well call them international teams.
What is the point in having a national team if half the players are foreign born?
Alright I know this is not a great take, but just putting the thought out...
Only a few seasons ago, Sarries were punished heavily for offering what were essentially "hybrid" contracts to keep their top players at their club. Now it seems the RFU is doing just that to keep the league functioning. Any thoughts?
I know financial fair play and balance across the league comes into it and this is different to the Sarries situation which was cheating, but the RFU must acknowledge that their system is broken when they have to step in like this
Why the hell would you impose this rule on yourselves? Absolute madness!!!
Sounds like England is going the same way as Australia: no investment at grassroot level, only private school player base.
Recipe for disaster, 22 years without a Bledisloe Cup win, 25 since WC win.
Zero chance of either on the horizon.
The long term effects of this haven't been thought through in my opinion. Decisions rarely are made long term in rugby.
Mark Evans on the #Eggonomics podcast has convinced me the otherway
I'd take his arguments - there's loads of English players and not that many will go to France - and flip them round as the reason TO relax the rules, not the reason to enforce them.
@@EggchasersRugbyI'd take your 7 year argument too
😅I am more concerned about the number of foreign players in our own league.Our under 20s have just won the six nations championship and with three less clubs in the premiership they have to find contacts
to secure their future and hopefully develop into full internationals.Otherwise the international pathway is for nothing.
No English players need to be playing in the English Premiership. With this the Team gets more access to players for training camps and during the windows such as 6N and Autumn. If you are concerned about a lack of support, coverage etc from the Premiership then allowing the very best and those with the highest profile to leave will not benefit the league or teams. You mention that the bulk of players already play in England is this because the rule is in place? I would like to see a JIF system and (I have no idea how to enforce this) a minimum of 4 starting English qualified players in each position across the league.
Footbal should be taxed to support other sports, especiallly for the womens and junior developing levels
Why is English Rugby losing money? I am not being sarcastic or anything. I just want to know the underlying reasons. Bad TV contracts? poor attendances? dwindling interest? But also, can't the government also prop up the RFU with a basic cash injection every year, until rugby in England is in a better place?
I'm not a fan of Sweeney but whole heartedlyh agree with him on this one. International rugby is not necessarily about the best players coming up against each other its about the best TEAMS coming up against each other. Borthwick isn't just assembling the ebst players together he is creating the best team. The model that benefits the national team the most, as the All Blacks and Ireland have shown, is to have as much control and centralisation over your players as possible. That's what we should be aiming for. There is no point sacrificing this for the players that have gone over. None of them would start excpet for maybe Marchant who is coming back anyway.
IF it was such a benefit then coaches wouldn't pick players abroad anyway...but they should have the option to if they wish. I don't think denying the pinnacle of the sport as a rule is right or fair.
@@EggchasersRugby I don't think this rule is denying the pinnacle of the sport, rather preserving it. The ideal scenario is that all are best players play in England as this has been shown, if managed correctly, to have the best affect on the national team - Ireland are begining to reap the rewards of this as have New Zealand for years. South Africa are an exception, not a rule, and even now Rassie prefers for his players to be in South Africa, hence why Siya is no longer Captain. If we get to a situation where too many potential starters are abroad, like South Africa had back in 2017, then we shoudl overturn this rule like they did. However, none of the players aborad are starters, except for Marchant, so there is no point changing the rules. The RFU havn't not been particularly shrewd in how they have allocated their money but hybrid contracts are defintly not an area that shoulld be criticsed but an essentialty that top teams use.
Three RFU academies discontinued today 😢