HARD HITTING VIEW
Project players fly in the face of the game’s true values
THE move to curb the increasing number of “project players” appears to be gaining momentum with some speculating an announcement on the subject may be made later this month.
That announcement is likely to see a change to the regulations as they stand, with the residency period for project players extending by a further two years.
Under current legislation, foreign players who have not been capped by the country they belong to have to spend three years living in their adopted country before they are entitled to be capped.
Examples in Scotland include South Africans WP Nel, Josh Strauss and most recently Cornel du Preez who was pulled into the Scottish squad as back-row cover in the autumn internationals. Dutchman Tim Visser also qualified as a project player.
With the influential Argentine Augustin Pichot of World Rugby leading the charge, the likelihood is a further two years will be added, much to the frustration of the SRU who want the current rules to stay.
Bernard Laporte, president of the French Federation, has indicated that, in future, France are likely to select players who have French passports, giving further weight to the reforms.
I’ve always been opposed to countries actively seeking to recruit players from other countries with the veiled promise that if they qualify through the threeyear residency period, they’d be in line to be capped.
It simply doesn’t seem right and flies in the face of many of the sports’ values. What’s more, in denuding some countries of fine players, it widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
The islands of the South Pacific are a case in point.
It seemed ridiculously unfair that when Fiji played England last autumn, the Fijians match fee was around £750 while the Englishmen were receiving more than 25 times that amount.
It is hardly surprising that Fijians, Tongans and Samoans who show talent at rugby seek to further their lives away from their homes.
Similarly, the exodus of South Africans from their own country – not only in rugby but increasingly in other sports such as cricket – must be contributing to their demise on the international stage, although there are also many more complex issues at play in that country which add to this issue.
I believe a five-year residency period seems much fairer – anyone committing to that has to take a long-term view and be really committed to an adopted country, which has to be a good thing.
Although, fundamentally, I would prefer that money spent on project players was instead invested in developing talented players who qualify for their country by birthright.