World Rugby's Residency Change a Major Step Toward International Balance

Rugby's residency ruling is set for closer inspection after the increase in southern-hemisphere players jumping ship for European nations. It is a move that could bring a sense of balance back to certain countries.

The Telegraph (h/t ESPN Scrum) reported this week that the current three-year rule for residency changes could be altered to "preserve the integrity of the international game," with World Rugby chief Brett Gosper quoted as telling Fairfax Media:

"

When that [the residency rule] was determined, I don't think there was quite the flow of players in international movement that it's become in recent years, through Europe and Japan, and so on. I know that [World Rugby] president [Bernard] Lapasset has indicated that this may be something we need to look at again in the future, and look at whether the three-year residency is enough to ensure that integrity of the international game, so that may be something that may need to be looked at.

You want to preserve the specialness of the international game and therefore while club sides are gathering all-stars from around the world, and top international players, I think there is a feeling that there has to be some steps taken to ensure that the profile of the national team has that integrity.

"

At present, the common change is to see those talents in the southern hemisphere lured by the more lucrative prospects on offer north of the equator, with some eventually changing representation after gaining residency.

Were it only the likes of New Zealand and South Africa losing out, it may be called tolerable, but the unfortunate scenario often sees the Pacific Islands raided, such as Fiji, Samoa and Tonga.

Paul Gilham/Getty Images

Unlike their Australasian cousins, it's these less capable countries who are also lesser-equipped to deal with losing their most prized assets to nations able to offer more.

One of those who could be affected by any immediate change is England hopeful Nathan Hughes, according to The Telegraph. The Wasps No. 8 starlet qualifies for Fiji, Samoa and the All Blacks:

It used to be the strongest of the southern hemisphere could lure the best these nations had to offer, but it's becoming all the more common to hear of Polynesian names popping up in European circumstances.

England boss Stuart Lancaster has the Vunipola brothers among his stable, along with the powers of Manu Tuilagi, while Toby Faletau flies a Welsh flag and Noa Nakaitaci sits among France's most recent converts.

David Rogers/Getty Images

It's something of a natural twist on the sport given the globe has shrunk so much in recent years, but it's therefore in the hands of World Rugby to respond to that change in circumstance, too.

While players are free to join the Premiership and carve out an England future, the RFU still hold a tight stance on overseas selection, much to the disappointment of Clermont's Nick Abendanon, per BBC 5 Live's Christopher Jones:

England are but one nation which refuses to pick players based at a club outside their own Aviva Premiership, although Australia were among the most recent unions to open up their selection policy—a change many would see the RFU follow.

However, it does raise an intriguing dilemma as to what may seem the superior option: An international team picking a foreign-based player on merit or a player qualified through residency who plays his rugby in a particular league.

Richard Heathcote/Getty Images

It's only appropriate that all debate of selection and criteria should reach fever pitch in a World Cup year, which promises to be another example of how diversified the sport's community has become.

One man splicing the borderlines is Ireland centre Jared Payne, who recently told Ruaidhri O'Connor or The Irish Independent that he would have moved to the country irrespective of international playing prospects:

"

I would still have come over here. I wanted to experience something new, see a different part of the world. It would be an interesting decision if they decide to change it. Three years is a long time in professional sport. Some people's careers don't last five unfortunately.

"

"

Look, I don't think it needs to be changed. Three years is a pretty long time to commit to a different country. I don't see a problem with it. But I'm probably a bit biased.

"

In an ideal world, nations such as Fiji and Samoa might be able to keep their best talents a little closer to home, but the allure of the Top 14 and its financial benefits are unsurprisingly too great much of the time.

Daniel Schofield of The Telegraph reports the Pacific Islanders are even viewed as easy targets by clubs offering bigger wages to players willing to end their international careers, according to London Irish lock Dan Leo:

"

There’s no hints or beating around the bush, they come out and say ‘stop playing for your country’. It is standard practice. I have not made a decision about whether I will be at the World Cup because I am struggling to find a club that will pay me during the tournament. If I want to play professionally next year, I may have to forfeit ­playing at the World Cup.

"

If Leo's claims are in fact true, it's a damning indictment of the exploitation these players can face and be forced to live with, while those more fortunate are free to benefit both on the club and international scene.

And until those weakened nations have the backing necessary to keep hold of their best players and ensure their future participation, there's no chance of gaps in class being closed or competition revived.

World Rugby look to have conceded it must take the first step in questioning whether three years is enough to attain residence, which could be the beginning to sanctifying what it means to represent one's nation again.

The effect won't be immediate, but we may yet soon see a world where playing in national team colours remains the highest honour.