Foreign Player Limits or Domestic Player quotas?

First topic message reminder :

The ongoing row over the European Cup has brought up a number of issues around qualification methods, financial divvy-up, rest/rotation of players, control of the competition, etc.

I thought it would be interesting to focus on just one of these issues - rest/rotation of players and the use of foreign players to bulk up squads and add particular skills to a team's line-up.

Everyone can see the buying frenzy that has infected French club rugby over the last 5 years, with substantial contracts capturing headline names from South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, England, Ireland and Wales, and a lot of players from poorer nations such as Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, and Georgia.

Last year's Heineken Cup final saw Toulon field 13 non-French players to win the cup.

Some saw this as the ultimate perversion of the cup original ideals in helping to promote and develop domestic/indigenous talent in the Six Nations; others saw it as a natural, inevitable development of the professional commercial game akin to its sister sport in soccer.

Whilst it could be argued that what teams within their own domestic or cross-border comp do with their playing squads during league game is their own business, should the European Cup (by whatever name it is called) seek to do more to ensure that domestic playing talent gets its opportunity in order to prepare them for test level - still the biggest revenue generator for many rugby unions across the world?

ERC Regulations state that only a maximum of two "foreign players" can be in a playing squad.   This seems to be ignored by all and sundry.

The IRFU impose a limit of four "foreign" or NIQ players on their provinces.   This has had its benefits, and still has its drawbacks whereby players in particular positions don't get enough playing time - at league or H Cup level.

Other unions/league have different rules - or in some cases, apparently none at all.

Given the likely, and inevitable, increased buying power that will accrue to the English and French clubs under a new negotiated competition, should part of that agreement seek to regulate the use of foreign players to be used in the European competition?   Specifically, I'm not applying this to domestic leagues only the European competition.

Some would argue that restrictions are impossible to enforce due to EU legislation, post Bosman.

Yet, some unions seem to be able to impose limits without sanction.

Rather than limits on foreign players, should there be a positive agreed quota ruling that a squad should field at least say 19/20 players who either play for, or could play for the test team of the union of their club?

Should there be some agreed player management protocols across the three leagues that impose maximum playing time for players?

Rather than complain about other unions rest/rotation policies, should some leagues see this as a positive step, and seek to enforce similar policies?

I'm not seeking to have the whole European Cup row all over again in yet another thread, just simply focus on this one issue, which doesn't seem to be a big priority on any of the parties' agendas.

LondonTiger wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Regarding Nakaitaci, according to the link he moved to France in 2011? And played in for France in 2013?  That's not 3 years anyway you cut it. Also, he is also not a JIFF player as he seemed to move to France at 20 as well.

Pretty sure he was in the Clermont academy for a couple of years before making his first team debut in 2011.

That he coudl be capped in 2013 suggests this is the case.

I was going by this:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/8801357/Young-Fijian-flyer-Nakaitaci-chance-for-France

Which says he left home at 20. Wouldn't be the first time an article was wrong or turned assumptions (he moved to France at the beginning of his full contract with Clermont)

Griff wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Griff wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:One of the reasons the WRU, etc get away with the player quotas is because it's linked to funding. The £6M the WRU give the Regions is not just for player release, but also for meeting the WQ player quota.  The RFU effectively have one which is 65% of the playing squad on average over the year. If a club doesn't meet this they don't get a payout. I believe they currently all do and the generally numbers of the foriegn players has gone down a little (I think it's about 70% English instead of 65% now, or 193 players instead of 179). Also you can have a limit as long as no-one challenges it in court. In French or England a club could challenge the legality of limits if they were forced on them.

Unfortunately the FFR seem to be completely unwilling to give anything to get anything.

What do you mean by 'get away with player quotas?  Are you suggesting that they're breaking laws by having quotas?  They might be breaking laws if they advertised for positions and then didn't allow foreign players to apply, but I've never seen a job advert for a tight head prop, for example, at a professional club.  Clubs/regions/franchises approach the players they want and offer them a job.  They are therefore not discriminating against anyone as they're not turning down/excluding/sacking/etc. based on being 'foreign'.  There's no rule in rugby that teams have to offer jobs to foreign players, so when they don't no rules are broken.

Sorry Griff but having worked in HR I can tell you that you cannot get round the law by not advertising posts and approaching people directly.  For instance I could not have a policy of not employing black people but avoid legislation by just approaching white people.  Recruitment policy and practice have to comply with the law.  It is fine to recruit people by direct approach but you would need to show that this is not a way to bypass the law.

So what you're saying is that Sebastian Chabal, as an example, could take the Ospreys to court for not signing him?  I've never heard the two linked, but surely that's the only way that a club could have legal action against them?  I honestly can't see how a club can be brought to justice when they effectively head hunt - and they do not head hunt on the basis of race - so where is the break in the law.

Or to put it another way - clubs have had player quotas for a long time now (not all).  If there was a breach of law, why have none of them been taken to court?  Perhaps as they have never broken any rules.

It's not the player taking the club to court. It's the club taking the union to court if they wanted to employ an EU member but couldn't because their governing body blocked it. But the governing body can say, if you have X number of players qualified for Wales we will give you this £XM.

A cynic would say that the WRU are happy that they Regions aren't in super financial shape as then they're more dependant on WRU money.

HammerofThunor wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Regarding Nakaitaci, according to the link he moved to France in 2011? And played in for France in 2013?  That's not 3 years anyway you cut it. Also, he is also not a JIFF player as he seemed to move to France at 20 as well.

Pretty sure he was in the Clermont academy for a couple of years before making his first team debut in 2011.

That he coudl be capped in 2013 suggests this is the case.

I was going by this:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/8801357/Young-Fijian-flyer-Nakaitaci-chance-for-France

Which says he left home at 20. Wouldn't be the first time an article was wrong or turned assumptions (he moved to France at the beginning of his full contract with Clermont)

he joined in 2010 so at 19 from nadroga province academy (with whom Clermont has a "partnershîp", Nalaga is from there but also Murimurivalu who is in stade i think). he had caps for fijdi at U19 and U20 I think. not 100% sure wether or not he's to be considered a JIFF (you need 3 years at 21 or younger). Vakatawa joined racing academy at 18 and is also french qualified. at some point there were 16 fidjians wingers getting game time in the top 14 last season!

Does the JIFF count up to 1 day before 22nd birthday or up until you turned 21? If up to (and not including 22) he might be JIFF.

The RFU's approach seems a sensible one for a reasonably large league, and given that the opportunity for central contracts was missed a long time ago.

There's nothing in employment law to stop the union offering an incentive to hire certain types of player and the proportion of EQPs has ticked up since it came in. It did lead to some oddities at first - I think Sale (or possibly Newcastle) had to pack their side with academy lads for the last game of the season to ensure they got over the required average - but seems to be working well now.

HammerofThunor wrote:Does the JIFF count up to 1 day before 22nd birthday or up until you turned 21? If up to (and not including 22) he might be JIFF.

i would say it is up to 21 included .
the actual rule doesnt mention age limit but says 3 consecutive years in a FFR recognised academy which suggest the 21 year cap imo.

It was Sale. They had qualified for Europe by beating Gloucester in the second to last game (IIRC). So next game they had 23 English players and gave a lot of academy guys the run out. And they got thrashed and were massively slated for it.

Whocares   Is it something you think is reasonable/workable? Or just a pointless exercise? (regarding the JIFF limits)

Hammer, it depends really what you want to achieve for the french team. without other type of incentives, you will likely see more and more fidjians JIFFs because they are cheap and have natural qualities that you dont find in the average french born winger specially with the poor coaching at younger age group.
I'd rather see a sort of rule imposing french clubs to spend of minimum % of their overall budget on their academies (and I mean coaching not scouting around the world). that would be a more positive incentive.

The unfortunate situation at least till it shakes out the breakaway clubs and non breakaway
clubs.You will have traditional club rivalries no longer happening,the rich clubs getting even
richer.Poor ones unable to compete both factions claiming there way is the best in a word
chaos.As to foreign player quotas what a joke Toulon the worst having at least 23 non-
qualified in a 35 man squad.
If you are happy to see your team with no local or home qualified players that's fine too
you are entitled to your view.
Will there be some form of sanctions levied i.e if you play for a breakaway club your players
are not qualified for test selection.
That really is great RWC preperations for NH squads to cope with right.

Poorfour wrote:The RFU's approach seems a sensible one for a reasonably large league, and given that the opportunity for  central contracts was missed a long time ago.

There's nothing in employment law to stop the union offering an incentive to hire certain types of player and the proportion of EQPs has ticked up since it came in. It did lead to some oddities at first - I think Sale (or possibly Newcastle) had to pack their side with academy lads for the last game of the season to ensure they got over the required average - but seems to be working well now.

But that's to do with league comps. Could the PRL/RFU agree on quotas/limits specifically for a new European comp as a check against the inevitable increased financial clout/salary increases and player drift from PRO12?

Pot Hale wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The RFU's approach seems a sensible one for a reasonably large league, and given that the opportunity for  central contracts was missed a long time ago.

There's nothing in employment law to stop the union offering an incentive to hire certain types of player and the proportion of EQPs has ticked up since it came in. It did lead to some oddities at first - I think Sale (or possibly Newcastle) had to pack their side with academy lads for the last game of the season to ensure they got over the required average - but seems to be working well now.

But that's to do with league comps.    Could the PRL/RFU agree on quotas/limits specifically for a new European comp as a check against the inevitable increased financial clout/salary increases and player drift from PRO12?

Not quotas, as that's illegal. Point is, it's the same squad and most teams run on 38-40 players plus academy. It's not like they have spare Samoans lying around just for Europe. You might be able to agree a similar incentive for European competition, though

The most positive effect overseas players caps have is on the bank balance. The Celtic unions and their regions happily agreed on measures that reduced wages.

I'm trying to understand the system under which EQP can be picked over another player in the Premiership.

On the one hand, people say quotas or limits are illegal, yet they are enforced in another union. One the other, if Aviva clubs are paid to select a certain amount of English players, then it's ok.

Is this correct?

The RFU system is pretty much the same as the WRU one. If you have above a certain number of home qualified players they get a certain amount of money. If the team doesn't, they don't get that money. If hard limits were set then a team could challenge it in court and probably win.

HammerofThunor wrote:The RFU system is pretty much the same as the WRU one. If you have above a certain number of home qualified players they get a certain amount of money. If the team doesn't, they don't get that money. If hard limits were set then a team could challenge it in court and probably win.

But if all clubs in the league agreed to such a system then it could succeed?

Such a system being the one I mentioned? If yes, obviously. If something else you'll have to be specific.

Sin é wrote:Percentages over the last 3 weeks:



Surprised at the size of Leicester non england qualified contingent at 40%.

Add all the percentages (squads are the same size so it works) together and you get:

For Ireland's 4 teams 352%

For France's 14 teams 771%

For England's 12 teams 816%



So France have just over twice the amount of French players available to them compared to Ireland.

HammerofThunor wrote:Such a system being the one I mentioned? If yes, obviously. If something else you'll have to be specific.

As in that for European comps, that the participating unions/clubs collectively agree that either minimum quotas on domestic players or limits on foreign players could be used.

As a specific example, it would mean that a team such as Toulon could not field a squad as they did in last year's final.  There would be limits on the amount of foreign players that they could use, or a requirement to use a minimum number of FFR-affiliated players that play for or be eligible to play for France.

In effect, it would serve as a check on salaries and disproportionate spending power in the European comp only; clubs could continue to field whatever numbers they currently do in their respective leagues.

People say that clubs could take legal action, but clearly they wouldn't or couldn't if they signed up to such a policy as part of the participation agreement for that competition in the first place.

But it would also have to be something they're willing to sign up to. Good luck with that. The PRL have agreed to 65% EQ in the playing squads. Unlikely to get more than that from them.

FYI I don't have a clue what I'm talking about so don't take as gospel. I'm sure there are more than enough lawyers on here to clarify.

HammerofThunor wrote:But it would also have to be something they're willing to sign up to. Good luck with that. The PRL have agreed to 65% EQ in the playing squads. Unlikely to get more than that from them.

Of course, they'd have to be willing - that's a given. But the point is that there's nothing from a legal/employment law point of view to prevent such a policy being adopted and enforced for a new European competition. The PRL could continue to operate their 65% EQ for the Premiership if they wished.

In other words, it could be part of the negotiation between the relevant parties in agreeing the structure of any new comp, assuming that ERC is a goner, and a new organisation/comp agreement has to be created by all of the clubs/unions involved.

And I wouldn't have percentages - just specific quotas/limits on the number of players in each squad per game - no average across the comp. And no incentive money to be paid for such a provision, since it would be the same policy for all participating teams. The number of players could vary between the tiers since some of the lower-ranked/poorer-resourced teams have a greater dependency on NQ players e.g. Connacht, Worcester, Grenoble, Romanian teams, etc.

You can encourage but you can not enforce a limit & do you think the LNR owners would sign up or not take it to court

broadlandboy wrote:You can encourage but you can not enforce a limit & do you think the LNR owners would sign up or not take it to court

Read what I said above about collective participation agreement.  If LNR sign up to such a policy as part of an agreement for a new comp, why would they take it to court?

Encouragement doesn't come into it.

For example, one or more of the PRO 12 unions could come to the negotiating table and say, okay we'll agree to top 6 only and a revised split of finances of 8% for each PRO 12 country, and 33% each for England and France.  In return, we want to have a policy on numbers of domestic players/foreign players so that neither England or France can simply poach all of our best players with large salaries that we can't afford and/or field squads of mercenaries. We want a proactive policy that develops our domestic player for test level, not a comp where the person with the biggest chequebook wins the prize.  

And we want greater bonus monies to be paid for pool and knockout stages so that teams have an opportunity to earn more revenues.   Clearly we can't increase our TV watching populations, but if our teams are successful and get through to the latter stages or win the competition, then we're contributing more than just the size of our respective populations, and want to be rewarded accordingly.

They can ask for anything they want.

HammerofThunor wrote:They can ask for anything they want.

Was that an intentional statement of the obvious?

Pot Hale wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:You can encourage but you can not enforce a limit & do you think the LNR owners would sign up or not take it to court

Read what I said above about collective participation agreement.  If LNR sign up to such a policy as part of an agreement for a new comp, why would they take it to court?

Encouragement doesn't come into it.

For example, one or more of the PRO 12 unions could come to the negotiating table and say, okay we'll agree to top 6 only and a revised split of finances of 8% for each PRO 12 country, and 33% each for England and France.  In return, we want to have a policy on numbers of domestic players/foreign players so that neither England or France can simply poach all of our best players with large salaries that we can't afford and/or field squads of mercenaries. We want a proactive policy that develops our domestic player for test level, not a comp where the person with the biggest chequebook wins the prize.  

And we want greater bonus monies to be paid for pool and knockout stages so that teams have an opportunity to earn more revenues.   Clearly we can't increase our TV watching populations, but if our teams are successful and get through to the latter stages or win the competition, then we're contributing more than just the size of our respective populations, and want to be rewarded accordingly.

Sounds fair enough to me. Just two problems:
- Quotas are illegal
- Whilst it would really not be a severe problem in England the French clubs would never agree.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:You can encourage but you can not enforce a limit & do you think the LNR owners would sign up or not take it to court

Read what I said above about collective participation agreement.  If LNR sign up to such a policy as part of an agreement for a new comp, why would they take it to court?

Encouragement doesn't come into it.

For example, one or more of the PRO 12 unions could come to the negotiating table and say, okay we'll agree to top 6 only and a revised split of finances of 8% for each PRO 12 country, and 33% each for England and France.  In return, we want to have a policy on numbers of domestic players/foreign players so that neither England or France can simply poach all of our best players with large salaries that we can't afford and/or field squads of mercenaries. We want a proactive policy that develops our domestic player for test level, not a comp where the person with the biggest chequebook wins the prize.  

And we want greater bonus monies to be paid for pool and knockout stages so that teams have an opportunity to earn more revenues.   Clearly we can't increase our TV watching populations, but if our teams are successful and get through to the latter stages or win the competition, then we're contributing more than just the size of our respective populations, and want to be rewarded accordingly.

Sounds fair enough to me. Just two problems:
- Quotas are illegal
- Whilst it would really not be a severe problem in England the French clubs would never agree.

Just two response:

Who says they're illegal?
Surely the whole problem with the European comp is that people started with saying we would never agree. As opposed to listening and being willing to negotiate and compromise.

The EU
Nice idea but a touch of realism is needed. The PRL/LNR want a club competition not a Union one

broadlandboy wrote:The EU
Nice idea but a touch of realism is needed. The PRL/LNR want a club competition not a Union one

But how can they invite the PRO12 unions into the comp and not have them involved.  Simply impossible.  A touch of realism is needed.

And presumably the PRL/LNR are willing to negotiate on their new proposed European competition?

And since the IRFU already operate limits/quotas, they aren't illegal.

broadlandboy wrote:You can encourage but you can not enforce a limit & do you think the LNR owners would sign up or not take it to court

That is absolute BS.

You can employ whoever you want. The system of EU employment law encourages local employment.

Dont know if you are a wum or are truely that blinkered.
They are inviting the teams not the Unions but as the Unions have a large say in the teams they have to be accommodated,they are not Union teams as they have NE players.
The IRFU choose to they dont have limits/quotas imposed on them they can choose to have more if they want but as their prime motivation is the national team it would be counter productive

You can CHOOSE who you want to employ but limits can't be imposed(look up the Bosman Ruling)
If you call coming from the EU local. EU employment law encourages equal employment if you come from an EU country with no discrimination

broadlandboy wrote:You can CHOOSE who you want to employ but limits can't be imposed(look up the Bosman Ruling)
If you call coming from the EU local. EU employment law encourages equal employment if you come from an EU country with no discrimination

Bosman Ruling...?

Seriously that has nothing to do with this. The only way the bosman ruling could be apparent is if the IRB legislated and clubs took the irb to hearing.

Why on earth would you think the Bosman ruling had anything to do with this...??????

Define LOCAL Toulon have just ground out a win against another French side 16 of the 24
squad are non-qualified.Stretching it bit perhaps another 5 could be considered local.
IS 66plus % non qualified for the home national side a realistic one if it is GOD HELP the
Nationalsides.

Have a look at what the Bosman Ruling actually says and who brought it.Wouldn't need to be a club

broadlandboy wrote:Dont know if you are a wum or are truely that blinkered.
They are inviting the teams not the Unions but as the Unions have a large say in the teams they have to be accommodated,they are not Union teams as they have NE players.
The IRFU choose to they dont have limits/quotas imposed on them they can choose to have more if they want but as their prime motivation is the national team it would be counter productive

I'm not sure who you're addressing or asking if they're a WUM.  

"they are not Union teams as they have NE players."  What does this mean?  The four provincial teams of the IRFU are branches of the union.  They are union teams.  And the IRFU act on their behalf.  It is head in the sand stuff to assume that the teams can be somehow separated from their union, unless the clubs are taken into private ownership, which is not very likely given the centralised structure of the set up.  So PRL/LNR will have no choice but to involve unions. Any monies generated from a European comp go to the union, not the club, except for gate receipts on particular matches. The same is true in Scotland and Italy as far as I'm aware.

You misunderstand the point about quotas and imposing them.    The IRFU do indeed choose to have a limit or quota on NIQ players. In the same way, PRL/RFU and LNR/FFR could choose to as part of a collective agreement around the competition. If, theoretically, this was to be part of a negotiation around a new European competition, then the respective organisations representing the clubs would sign up and agree to such a policy. It would not be illegal then since the clubs and their representatives would be choosing to do this.

Considering the monumental man sausage ups the PRL and LNR have made in trying to negotiate this deal surely it is clear as day that they are the very last people anyone in rugby wants running, selling or further negotiating a competition.

broadlandboy wrote:Have a look at what the Bosman Ruling actually says and who brought it.Wouldn't need to be a club

Absolute BS

The realism is can you see the LNR owners signing up to restrictions?
Maes Why is it BS?

broadlandboy wrote:The realism is can you see the LNR owners signing up to restrictions?
Maes Why is it BS?

They would be stupid not too. Like the AP most of their clubs are running at larger and larger losses every year.

Biarritz have already said publicly how they have huge concerns about the direction of the economics French rugby.

As to your second point, you obviously do not understand the Bosman ruling, you therefor shouldn't refer to it in an attempt to make you misconstrued points on player movement.

maestegmafia wrote:
Like the AP most of their clubs are running at larger and larger losses every year.

Untrue about AP clubs. 100% untrue. So untrue it makes Alistair Campbell look like Mother Theresa.

LondonTiger wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
Like the AP most of their clubs are running at larger and larger losses every year.

Untrue about AP clubs. 100% untrue. So untrue it makes Alistair Campbell look like Mother Theresa.

It's a fact. As reiterated time and time again on here in the media and is the reason the PRL are trying to ruin rugby for everyone else so they can pay their ever escalating bills.

IIRC Toulon now run at breakeven or profit.With the improved TV deal for the TOP14 & RCC IMHO most would breakeven(as would the PRL teams).Most PRL(even Sarries) have plans to break even but realise that their own modern stadium is needed & money has been spent to achieve this.
Educate me then as IMHO the part that says there can be no limit on players from the EU (IIRC Kopak players get the same rights) seems relevent

maestegmafia wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
Like the AP most of their clubs are running at larger and larger losses every year.

Untrue about AP clubs. 100% untrue. So untrue it makes Alistair Campbell look like Mother Theresa.

It's a fact. As reiterated time and time again on here in the media and is the reason the PRL are trying to ruin rugby for everyone else so they can pay their ever escalating bills.

Last time the number came out (2010) the overall lost had dropped by 25% from the previous year. I've seen nothing to suggest it's getting worse. Either from up evidence or I'll have to call liar again.

broadlandboy wrote:The realism is can you see the LNR owners signing up to restrictions?

Why not is what I would ask?

Agreeing to domestic quotas for the European comp would be a positive step in the development of the national talent pool and would only apply to 6-9 games out of a maximum of 38 games (26+3+6+3) each season.

The LNR teams prize the Bouclier de Brennus above everything else, so as long as they get their increased income, what would be their critical objection?

From TRP: http://www.edinburghgunners.org.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=98

Pot Hale wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:The realism is can you see the LNR owners signing up to restrictions?

Why not is what I would ask?

Agreeing to domestic quotas for the European comp would be a positive step in the development of the national talent pool and would only apply to 6-9 games out of a maximum of 38 games (26+3+6+3) each season.

The LNR teams prize the Bouclier de Brennus above everything else, so as long as they get their increased income, what would be their critical objection?

In fact there is plans within the LNR to increase the number of JIFFs players in matchday squads (through incentives from 2016 onwards and fines after 2018). its all a bit up in the air and its probably linked to an increase of the french TV deal to finance all that. some good article in today's midi olympique paper version. they will also need to change the whole JIFF agreement which is a bit too easy to get around by some clubs.

if anything , it will not come from outside for sure. I dont see why the LNR would be forced into anything unless it is by the FFR . certainly not by the ERC or other european unions.
they would rather send 2nd string teams with U21 which would make a joke of any european cup.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:From TRP: http://www.edinburghgunners.org.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=98

I know this is not the main drive of the point but from those numbers:

Average numbers of home qualified players each week

England - 188
France - 177
Ireland - 81
Wales - 78
Italy - 39
Scotland - 38

So, considering it's generally the stronger sides with the most HQ players it suggests there is no real danger from lack of game time. Specific positions can be an issue, of course, but it's less likely an issue than in those with fewer teams (Ireland, and potentially Scotland, excluded due to the union control over signings)