Bringing in players to represent the national team of a country other than the one that developed them as players is known as “capturing talent”.
Such as players whose rugby talents were developed in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and are currently playing in Six Nations teams.
Let us be crystal clear. It is not xenophobic to look at where players representing national teams have been developed. That is not “othering” the players involved. This is not about the individual players, rather an evaluation of the global rugby eligibility system.
Although tier-two rugby nations, such as the USA, need to be able to bring in foreign talent to help grow their international player pool, World Rugby’s regulations on player eligibility favour only tier-one nations and make it almost impossible for the rugby minnows to compete.
Player eligibility is an extremely complicated area where loopholes in the laws are being exploited to benefit the powerful few against the weak majority.
There are two separate pathways that World Rugby’s player eligibility regulations permit players to represent another country. The first is for players to represent the country where their parents or grandparents were born.
This is a traditional sporting pathway and allows players born to return to the land of their forebears. These are known as legacy players. Legacy players should be the only qualifying pathway permitted for all tier-one nations.
The other pathway is when players can become eligible to play for another country after five consecutive years of residency. This makes it extremely difficult for countries that do not have an extensive professional club competition.
With the notable exception of Japan’s League One, which was a highly lucrative club competition even when they were in tier two until recently, it is close to impossible for the lower ranked nations to qualify players through the current residency regulations.
We only have to look to America for a perfect example. Despite the USA having a fledgling domestic competition – Major League Rugby (MLR) – last week the Eagles were humbled in a test match against Canada. With a World Cup due to be hosted by the USA in six years time, this must be of huge concern for World Rugby.
The duration of the MLR season is only six months. And with some clubs folding, that could be reduced to four months. Bringing in overseas talent requires five years of permanent residency. The MLR cannot afford to pay players to remain in the USA for a full calendar year. It makes “capturing” talent nigh on impossible for the Eagles.
Major League Rugby is flagging, six years before the US hosts the Rugby World Cup. Photograph: Omar Rawlings/Getty Images for New England Free Jacks
Wealthy tier-one nations such as France are exploiting loopholes in the residency regulations to capture talent that has been developed in other nations.
In French rugby, the category of “joueurs issus des filières de formation” (players from training pathways), commonly known as the Jiff, was created to limit the number of ageing southern hemisphere players finishing their careers and picking up pension cheques in the Top 14. A Jiff player must be a graduate from the French academy system and so become qualified for France. French clubs must field a specific number of Jiff-qualified players in every match.
Top 14 clubs have reacted by actively recruiting school-age players from across the world into their systems to qualify as French-eligible. Agents acting on behalf of French clubs are signing large numbers of Australian players from Sydney’s and Brisbane’s leading rugby schools.
Only this week, Todd Louden, the coach of the Sydney University club, who compete in the Australian equivalent of the AIL, said: “The drain on players to the Jiff is massive. I don’t want to call it a dirty secret, because it’s not, but it’s a massive issue.”
The resources of the Top 14 are growing exponentially, sucking in talent from across the globe. While market forces rightly provide the players with high financial rewards, France should not be permitted to qualify large numbers of players developed in other countries to then become eligible to play for France.
This weekend, Argentina take on the Wallabies in the oppressive northern Queensland heat in Townsville, while South Africa trek into the chilly, hostile cauldron of Eden Park. Every player in the Pumas and Springboks has been developed inside their own systems. It’s a situation every country should aspire to.
While many Springboks and Puma players earn top money playing club rugby in Europe or Japan, they remain eligible for the country that developed their talent. This should be the case for all tier-one nations. No tier-one nation should be able to benefit from these unjust residency regulations.
Within World Rugby, many tier-one nations have resisted reform of the eligibility regulations because, as we can see, they are buying talent, not developing it.
A few years ago then World Rugby vice-chairman Agustin Pichot fought to change the duration a player is required to live in another country from three years to five. Before Pichot’s reform, players could qualify for another country in less than a single World Cup cycle. It was farcical.
While France, Ireland, Scotland and others have failed to adequately develop their own home-grown players and bolstered their ranks by using the residency regulations, tier-two nations do not have the financial resources to benefit from the same regulations.
This requires urgent change. The need for separate residency qualification regulations for tier-one and tier-two nations is obvious.
As the 2025-26 season rapidly approaches, Andy Farrell has an ageing Irish team with many approaching the end of their careers.
Ireland’s overdependence on Leinster is one of the reasons talent capture has become so important within the Irish rugby system, one that is actively looking for young players that could be brought in at an earlier age to help mitigate against the five-year rule. It’s a system that, despite all the recent success, is not functioning as it should.