Reflections on SH Rugby Union Players Taking Overseas Contracts?

The money in Japan and France is often too good to disregard but most of those who have gone to take French or Japanese lessons are those who are coming to the end of their careers or were good provincial players knowing they could go no further. It isn't yet 20 years since rugby became professional and I remember the number of test rugby players who left to play league. The game didn't die then and it won't wilt now. Those days saw a number of English, PI and Australian players go to league as well as a few from New Zealand and probably fewer from SA. But the game did grow in spite of these adversities and it will continue to do so.

I disagree with the loosening of rules for overseas players, I see no need to change them. What do we want, international teams made up of rejects from other countries like the English cricket team?

One change I would like to see the IRB come down strong on is the release of players by their clubs to play for their country. Anecdotally, we hear of players being told they can go and play for their country but their place in the team will prpbably be gone when they want to come back. This seems to concern European clubs more than any others.

One other change over the years is that rugby players are now crossing to league and coming back again as well as league players coming to rugby. So I don't have any fears about rugby.

In truth it will all collapse. Rugby is modernising too fast for its own good.

The only nations that can afford to compete at this high level are France and Japan. Ireland and England rarely buy oversea's players, ofcourse they still do it, but they only purchase about 2-4 a year, and they're not even huge stars the majority of the time with the exception of Pienaar and perhaps Botha to a lesser extent. Contrast that to the French and Japanese clubs who have the audacity to outright buy players like Kaino, and in Toulons case, pretty much the entirity of the 2009 Lions winning Bok's team. Its pretty much a Springboks old boys team.

It isn't just a problem for SH Nations. Wales, Ireland, England and Scotland are taking hits too. Sexton, Roberts, Lydiate etc are all off to France next season. The thing is, the top clubs in France aren't really financing themselves with the exception of Clermont and Toulouse. Racing and Toulon to name two are being financed by investors more than anything else.

This does and doesn't have a knock on the national team. In one way it presents a positive highlight in that the union can have more players in one position than their are clubs in the union playing. Wales can develop more blindside's next season whilst Lydiate is getting gametime in France. It also presents a fine way of cutting out the old stock. Older players are mainly the ones to buy up oversea's contracts wanting to cash in their last years understandably. NZ and South Africa have been benefiting from this no doubt.

Nations that could suffer however would be Ireland and Australia. These two countries are very similar in that rugby is way down the pecking order, yet they can still compete at a high level. Rugby popularity can fluctuate hugely with success. Club success in Ireland has seen rugby arguably supersede football/soccer in recent years, which then in turn brings in a huge amount of revenue from convert fans to help support a weakly financed union in the IRFU with infamous financial issues of recent. You would worry that a jenga like effect could occur if teams like Leinster and Ulster demised which account for most of the sports new fans if they suffer now from players like Ferris, Nacewa, Sexton etc leaving. A lot of aussie posters constantly harp on about the Force's failings season on season are causing fans to turn away from union completely.