France to stop selecting 'foreign' players - Bernard Laporte

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38389827

France will stop selecting non-French players who have qualified under the three-year residency rule, national federation boss Bernard Laporte says.

He announced the move after meeting World Rugby president Bill Beaumont.

"I told Bill that we've taken the political decision to stop playing foreign players in the national team," Laporte said.

Foreign-born players who currently play for France will remain eligible but new players will require a French passport.

The decision means the likes of New Zealand-born prop Uini Atonio, South Africa-born full-back Scott Spedding and Fiji-born wings Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa will continue to be available for France.

"Obviously, it's not retroactive. Those playing can continue playing but it's a strong signal for French academies and our youngsters that we'll play a maximum number of Frenchmen," added Laporte, the former France head coach who was elected president of the French Rugby Federation on 3 December.

World Rugby rules allow a player to represent another country if he has lived there for three consecutive years and has not played for anyone else, although the global governing body is looking to extend the period to five years.

France have become renowned for picking foreign players in recent years as the financial strength of the Top 14 has brought a flood of foreigners into their top division at a time when the national team has been struggling.

In the past five years, France have come fifth four times in the Six Nations and last on the other occasion.

However, virtually all Tier One teams field players who have qualified on residency grounds.

The issue of foreign-qualified players has also been highlighted by the plight of the Pacific Islands - Fiji, Samoa and Tonga - who often lose talented players to the bigger and richer nations.

The gist is that France will continue selecting residency qualified players who have already played for France, for instance Scott Spedding, Uini Antonio, Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa in the current squad. From now on new caps will require a French passport to be eligible to play for France.

Interesting move and a good one for the game in France and as a whole. It's sad that individual Unions are taking action against the 3 year residency rule before World Rugby are. The decision was announced after Laporte met with Bill Beaumont though which is another positive indication that World Ruby are looking to do more about eligibility problems whilst led by Beaumont and Pichot.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Oh and restriction of trade is a eeal thong you know.

In rugby union? Can you show me the precedent?

I don't know if there is one of the top of my head. Doesn't matter is there isn't though as it it could be used nonetheless.

One thing then. How does this benefit french club rugby which is enjoying great success and popularity.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't know if there is one of the top of my head. Doesn't matter is there isn't though as it it could be used nonetheless.

It isn't that straight forward in Sport and, without a precedent, would take an age, as well as a huge amount of money.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Most if not all of the NZ team are New Zelanders. However, there is no doubt that NZ rugby does benefit from immigration from various different countries and there is quite a genetically/culturally diverse player pool in New Zealand as a result.

Nope not all, Kaino, Naholo and Fekitoa are some that aren't Kiwis

 Are you for real?

Are you?

 Marty can you not see the difference between say Kaino, Naholo and Fekitoa being developed by the New Zealand system and some one like Payne who was imported to play rugby for Ireland but is also a product of the same establishment?

Did you or did you not say you cant think of any players qualifying on residency grounds, residency is residency.

Payne spent 3 years qualifying and being further developed by Ulster and the IRFU. How long does he have to be in country to count then?

No 7&1/2 wrote:One thing then. How does this benefit french club rugby which is enjoying great success and popularity.

For those who can afford to buy success by exploiting other nations, happily stripping them of their resources, it probably doesn't. I couldn't care less about them, or any club with that ethos. Ultimately, it will benefit French rugby. That's much more important.

Not sure it would take much to prove a case should anyone bring it. I do care about the club's, without them we don't really have anything to watch. How does reducing the quality of the club's and risk upsetting their fans stand to benefit the french?

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:One thing then. How does this benefit french club rugby which is enjoying great success and popularity.

For those who can afford to buy success by exploiting other nations, happily stripping them of their resources, it probably doesn't. I couldn't care less about them, or any club with that ethos. Ultimately, it will benefit French rugby. That's much more important.

It might not though, if it encourages clubs to bulk buy players who will not be away playing Tests then it could take opportunities for young French players

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure it would take much to prove a case should anyone bring it. I do care about the club's, without them we don't really have anything to watch. How does reducing the quality of the club's and risk upsetting their fans stand to benefit the french?

There's really no reason that it should reduce the quality .... quality? You do know it's the bish-bosh T14 we're talking about? Anyway, if the loophole is closed, then those clubs will be forced to invest in French youth. We are talking about France here. A country that loves rugby, and with a huge player base. They will be fine. The club game will thrive, and so to the national side.

So the foreign players they sign aren't very good? I beg to differ. It also leads to quite a lot of tier 2 nations players not benefitting from playing for those clubs. But I don't think it will affect numbers of foreign stars at french clubs so hey ho.

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:One thing then. How does this benefit french club rugby which is enjoying great success and popularity.

For those who can afford to buy success by exploiting other nations, happily stripping them of their resources, it probably doesn't. I couldn't care less about them, or any club with that ethos. Ultimately, it will benefit French rugby. That's much more important.

It might not though, if it encourages clubs to bulk buy players who will not be away playing Tests then it could take opportunities for young French players

I'm not sure I understand that. Do you mean bulk buy imports?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the foreign players they sign aren't very good? I beg to differ. It also leads to quite a lot of tier 2 nations players not benefitting from playing for those clubs. But I don't think it will affect numbers of foreign stars at french clubs so hey ho.

Oh, they're good. Good big powerful bosh merchants. I'm talking about the style of rugby. Some are very exciting to watch, but certainly not all. Anyway, I thought you were English? Why is the T14 the only league you watch?

Munchkin wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:One thing then. How does this benefit french club rugby which is enjoying great success and popularity.

For those who can afford to buy success by exploiting other nations, happily stripping them of their resources, it probably doesn't. I couldn't care less about them, or any club with that ethos. Ultimately, it will benefit French rugby. That's much more important.

It might not though, if it encourages clubs to bulk buy players who will not be away playing Tests then it could take opportunities for young French players

I'm not sure I understand that. Do you mean bulk buy imports?

Yes, if they can bring players in from say NZ who may not be realistic shots at the ABs or PIs who they can pay a little extra not to play for their home nations and with no risk of them getting picked for France either then theres an incentive there to do it rather than developing a Frenchman who may be missing for parts of the season

Surely they would be better with an English style system linked to the salary cap and involving credits etc

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:One thing then. How does this benefit french club rugby which is enjoying great success and popularity.

For those who can afford to buy success by exploiting other nations, happily stripping them of their resources, it probably doesn't. I couldn't care less about them, or any club with that ethos. Ultimately, it will benefit French rugby. That's much more important.

It might not though, if it encourages clubs to bulk buy players who will not be away playing Tests then it could take opportunities for young French players

I'm not sure I understand that. Do you mean bulk buy imports?

Yes, if they can bring players in from say NZ who may not be realistic shots at the ABs or PIs who they can pay a little extra not to play for their home nations and with no risk of them getting picked for France either then theres an incentive there to do it rather than developing a Frenchman who may be missing for parts of the season

Surely they would be better with an English style system linked to the salary cap and involving credits etc

Salary caps are made to be broken, or at least got around.

I'm talking more about the clubs ability to sign imports reduced. So bulk buying wouldn't happen.

Don't watch much of it. Certainly less than the prem.

So there's a lot of quality brought by the imports, some all time greats as well, but you don't believe that by banning those players it would adversely affect how good the french clubs would be? Tbf moving a fair way from the original idea of only picking players for France who are there for 5 years and apply for a passport.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't watch much of it. Certainly less than the prem.

So there's a lot of quality brought by the imports, some all time greats as well, but you don't believe that by banning those players it would adversely affect how good the french clubs would be? Tbf moving a fair way from the original idea of only picking players for France who are there for 5 years and apply for a passport.

No I don't. France, more than most other nations, has the ability to produce their own international stars. They don't need other nations.

Not about need but you're trying to suggest that the loss of all those players would be replaced? Really? Do you know the list of foreign players currently playing for French clubs?

Munchkin wrote:

Salary caps are made to be broken, or at least got around.

I'm talking more about the clubs ability to sign imports reduced. So bulk buying wouldn't happen.

Not in the Top 14 though they have tightened the salary cap regs

Laporte talked about sending a strong signal to academies but they haven't addressed the JIFF rules which police the academies so they can recruit more young players who wont play for France

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not about need but you're trying to suggest that the loss of all those players would be replaced? Really? Do you know the list of foreign players currently playing for French clubs?

Yes, I have a fair idea. So what? Are you seriously suggesting the French public would switch off if they don't have some big foreign names playing for them? Not a chance.

We are going off track slightly. I'm not against foreign signing's who have retired from the international game, playing for a French club, within reason. It's more about exploiting young players from other nations. Not the established stars who are not eligible to play for France.

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Salary caps are made to be broken, or at least got around.

I'm talking more about the clubs ability to sign imports reduced. So bulk buying wouldn't happen.

Not in the Top 14 though they have tightened the salary cap regs

Laporte talked about sending a strong signal to academies but they haven't addressed the JIFF rules which police the academies so they can recruit more young players who wont play for France

I provided a link a few pages back which explains French rugby's desire to address that issue. It's a fight between Union and Club.

Munchkin wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Salary caps are made to be broken, or at least got around.

I'm talking more about the clubs ability to sign imports reduced. So bulk buying wouldn't happen.

Not in the Top 14 though they have tightened the salary cap regs

Laporte talked about sending a strong signal to academies but they haven't addressed the JIFF rules which police the academies so they can recruit more young players who wont play for France

I provided a link a few pages back which explains French rugby's desire to address that issue. It's a fight between Union and Club.

Didn't see it and cant seem to find it

So essentially they addressed something that isn't a problem and left the real problem to see if they can fix it?

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Salary caps are made to be broken, or at least got around.

I'm talking more about the clubs ability to sign imports reduced. So bulk buying wouldn't happen.

Not in the Top 14 though they have tightened the salary cap regs

Laporte talked about sending a strong signal to academies but they haven't addressed the JIFF rules which police the academies so they can recruit more young players who wont play for France

I provided a link a few pages back which explains French rugby's desire to address that issue. It's a fight between Union and Club.

Didn't see it and cant seem to find it

Here you go: FRENCH-RUGBY-LOOKING-TO-CLOSE-LOOPHOLES

Munchkin you have more faith in french development than me! Looking forward to seeing talents to rival carter non and all the rest though. France will demolish everyone. Gulp.

propdavid_london wrote:Sorry, new to this debate.  
So Laporte is asking for players to apply for French citizenship before representing the national side - rather than just selecting on the residency rule.  Is that correct? or is there more to it than that?

T14 teams can still select the foreign nationals that they want to play for their squads - its just national selection that is being altered?

Yep pretty much.

Some people see this as a victory for rugby which will free Cook Islanders and Djoubitians to play on the beach at home and get paid a dickload to represent their real home union to world cup glory. Fully expect to see Um Bongo land as the 7 nations grand slam winners next year and everyone to live in global peace and harmony, and Henson will make the Lions squad.

Others appear to see Laporte as a massive right wing facist who wants to deport all the people who werent born with natural style and a vague stench of garlic on their breath. Or possibly just wants to cover up his own failings as a coach by blaming foriegners who just dont try (like all those ones don't for England).
In having them demoted to second class humans Laporte will only encourage unscrupulous team owners to sign more of them on slave contracts denying pure blood frenchies the right to not try very hard in club games. The 23 qualified french players still left will suck but noone will care because they will have won the Heninken Cup.

Meanwhile theres an argument raging as to whether one person is blind to the lack of importance of their own opinion or the other one, and whether this is circular or oval.

Pretty standard internets.

Gooseberry wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:Sorry, new to this debate.  
So Laporte is asking for players to apply for French citizenship before representing the national side - rather than just selecting on the residency rule.  Is that correct? or is there more to it than that?

T14 teams can still select the foreign nationals that they want to play for their squads - its just national selection that is being altered?

Yep pretty much.

Some people see this as a victory for rugby which will free Cook Islanders and Djoubitians to play on the beach at home and get paid a dickload to represent their real home union to world cup glory. Fully expect to see Um Bongo land as the 7 nations grand slam winners next year and everyone to live in global peace and harmony, and Henson will make the Lions squad.

Others appear to  see Laporte as a massive right wing facist who wants to deport all the people who werent born with natural style and a vague stench of garlic on their breath. Or possibly just wants to cover up his own failings as a coach by blaming foriegners who just dont try (like all those ones don't for England).
In having them demoted to second class humans Laporte will only encourage unscrupulous team owners to sign more of them on slave contracts denying pure blood frenchies the right to not try very hard in club games. The 23 qualified french players still left will suck but noone will care because they will have won the Heninken Cup.

Meanwhile theres an argument raging as to whether one person is blind to the lack of importance of their own opinion or the other one, and whether this is circular or oval.

Pretty standard internets.

And you, the righteous one, bitches about the bitching.

Well done

For a very illuminating view of the challenges facing Pacific Islanders playing rugby overseas, have a listen to Dan Leo talking on the Rugby Dungeon.

It's an hour long, but well worth the time.

https://www.acast.com/therugbydungeon/ep-35danleo

Rfu to follow with 5 year residency if WR don't enforce it for everyone.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Rfu to follow with 5 year residency if WR don't enforce it for everyone.

No that's not their position, they support the increase and said they MAY REVIEW their position if the increase doesn't take place

Yup. It's absolutely the route to go down apparently.

And same for coaches right?

Go on, have a backbone

Said for a while the rules which cover players should cover coaches.

ebop wrote:And same for coaches right?

Go on, have a backbone

Well the NZRU wouldn't want that

No 7&1/2 wrote:Said for a while the rules which cover players should cover coaches.

Why should they?

It's possible to coach more than one international team but not possible to play for more than one international team.

For consistency. The second paragraph is why I'd want to see the change.

No 7&1/2 wrote:For consistency.  The second paragraph is why I'd want to see the change.

Wow.

Why?