What is the IRB thinking?

The International Rugby Board (IRB) turned down a great chance to improve the standard of test match rugby when it voted against changing the current eligibility laws the other day. As it stands, once a player has played for a nations top representative team, the next best team and/ or the sevens team he cannot at a later date play for a team representing another nation. See here for the statute in full.

Northern commentators have applauded the move to retain the existing eligibility laws, telling readers that it keeps the game of rugby in line with other major codes such as football (Which also only allows a player to play for one nation) and distances the sport from the debacle that is the international eligibility laws of rugby league. For the record I am not in any way advocating for Rugby to adopt the eligibility laws of Rugby League but the FIFA comparison rankles with me. FIFA has more member nations than the UN, there are over 240 million people worldwide playing association football at some level. The IRB on the other hand lays claim to 95 member states, of which around 15 national teams (at a stretch) play at a professional level. There are thought to be around 10 million people worldwide playing rugby at some level.

The point is, FIFA with its 240 million competitors can afford to be hardline on its international eligibility rules whereas the IRB cannot. Football's prevalence in communities all over the world means that players with elite talent, the Pele's, the Maradona's, the Ronaldinho's are constantly being churned out. Football is also an easier game to pick up and to participate. You see UNICEF advertisements of kids kicking a rag ball on a dirt patch in the middle of a slum almost daily. You will never see 12 year old impoverished Johnny learning the finer points of tighthead prop play by a scrum machine in the background. Rugby is alot more specialist and technical than football, more coaching is needed for a player to rise through the ranks. This limits rugby's appeal severely in that there is alot of potential out there that will forever be left untapped.

The World Cup, the IRB version (less petrodollars), is a 20 team tournament. I feel that the IRB should be looking to showcase its best product, by that I mean having the best rugby players in the world leaving it all on the field. Especially at a time of cost cutting and the all important TV networks re-evaluating the worth of sporting events the IRB should be looking to put its best product on the field. This is not achieved when you deny players such as Jerry Collins, Chris Masoe, Ben Atiga, Sosene Anesi (All eligible for Samoa) or even Doug Howlett (Tonga) a chance to play at the World Cup.

Federation of Oceania Rugby (FORU) boss Harry Schuster has accused his Celtic counterparts of acting in their own interest by not voting for the measure. And its a valid fear that a full strength Western Samoan team would be on par with a Scotland or a Wales but that is good for the game, no one wants to see blowouts. Another point to consider is that it wouldn't just be the Pacific Island nations that benefit, a fledging rugby outpost such as Georgia could do with the services of Dimitri Yachvili and Dimitri Szarzeski once their French days are over. Ireland's Ronan O'Gara is US born. More than a few South African players have come from Namibia or Zimbabwe, Percy Montgomery the example there. The knowledge these veterans of the game could pass on to the homegrown semi professional players that by and large constitute the second tier of international rugby is invaluable and I feel the IRB will rue the day they decided not to change this abomination of a law.

BJH