Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

RFU just days away from issuing edict on player eligibilty and Brexit

Sale Sharks' raft of South Africans will retain their eligibility for the 2019/20 season, irrespective of the Brexit outcome. (Photo by Lynne Cameron/Getty Images)

The uncertainty of Brexit is far from helpful for UK-based rugby teams looking to plan for the coming seasons, however the Gallagher Premiership clubs have been given a welcome level of stability heading into the 2019/20 campaign.

ADVERTISEMENT

The threat of a no-deal Brexit is one that could have serious ramifications for English, Scottish and Welsh rugby, several of which RugbyPass looked into in-depth back in December, before the extension to the deadline to leave the European Union that was agreed in March.

All three nations make significant use of the Kolpak agreement, which allows freedom of work and movement within the EU for citizens of a number of non-EU countries, such as South Africa, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga.

The recent announcement by the English Cricket Board that a no-deal Brexit could remove Kolpak players from the county game has raised concerns of similar issues in rugby.

In terms of the Premiership clubs and the Rugby Football Union (RFU) regulations, the Kolpak agreement enables those players to be deemed as ‘non-foreign’, just as players owning passports from EU nations are also categorised thusly. Only two ‘foreign’ players allowed on the pitch at any one time from a single club.

The RFU regulations for the 2019/20 season will be published on August 1st and RugbyPass understands that those regulations will retain a clause from last season that stipulates that if a player’s status were to alter mid-season from ‘non-foreign’ to ‘foreign’ due to the UK leaving the EU without a deal, their statuses as ‘non-foreign’ would remain until the end of the current season.

With several clubs, such as Sale Sharks and Gloucester, having invested heavily in South African talent over the last couple of seasons, this will at least provide them with security over the eligibility of their squad until the summer of 2020.

ADVERTISEMENT

European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR), who oversee the Heineken Champions and Challenge Cups, have the same limit on ‘foreign’ players, although in their regulations this is stated as a maximum of two ‘non-European players’.

EPCR have confirmed to RugbyPass that ‘European’ in their regulations will continue to be defined as it is in the Cotonou Agreement, which is a relationship with the EU rather than the geographical region of Europe, although UK nationals will still be considered to be ‘European’ when registering for the Champions and Challenge Cups, irrespective of a no-deal Brexit.

The UK is scheduled to leave the EU on October 31st without a deal, however if the Withdrawal Agreement is passed earlier than that, the UK would leave on the 1st of the month following its passing.

The opening round of pool matches in the Champions and Challenge Cups are due to begin on November 15th, which creates not only uncertainty for clubs and players, but also fans seeking to travel in and out of the UK.

ADVERTISEMENT

Watch: Samoan players are in need of funds to head to the Rugby World Cup

Video Spacer
ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 3 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks' 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks'
Search