France to stop selecting 'foreign' players - Bernard Laporte

France will stop selecting non-French players who have qualified under the three-year residency rule, national federation boss Bernard Laporte says.

He announced the move after meeting World Rugby president Bill Beaumont.

"I told Bill that we've taken the political decision to stop playing foreign players in the national team," Laporte said.

Foreign-born players who currently play for France will remain eligible but new players will require a French passport.

The decision means the likes of New Zealand-born prop Uini Atonio, South Africa-born full-back Scott Spedding and Fiji-born wings Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa will continue to be available for France.

"Obviously, it's not retroactive. Those playing can continue playing but it's a strong signal for French academies and our youngsters that we'll play a maximum number of Frenchmen," added Laporte, the former France head coach who was elected president of the French Rugby Federation on 3 December.

World Rugby rules allow a player to represent another country if he has lived there for three consecutive years and has not played for anyone else, although the global governing body is looking to extend the period to five years.

France have become renowned for picking foreign players in recent years as the financial strength of the Top 14 has brought a flood of foreigners into their top division at a time when the national team has been struggling.

In the past five years, France have come fifth four times in the Six Nations and last on the other occasion.

However, virtually all Tier One teams field players who have qualified on residency grounds.

The issue of foreign-qualified players has also been highlighted by the plight of the Pacific Islands - Fiji, Samoa and Tonga - who often lose talented players to the bigger and richer nations.

king_carlos wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38389827

France will stop selecting non-French players who have qualified under the three-year residency rule, national federation boss Bernard Laporte says.

He announced the move after meeting World Rugby president Bill Beaumont.

"I told Bill that we've taken the political decision to stop playing foreign players in the national team," Laporte said.

Foreign-born players who currently play for France will remain eligible but new players will require a French passport.

The decision means the likes of New Zealand-born prop Uini Atonio, South Africa-born full-back Scott Spedding and Fiji-born wings Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa will continue to be available for France.

"Obviously, it's not retroactive. Those playing can continue playing but it's a strong signal for French academies and our youngsters that we'll play a maximum number of Frenchmen," added Laporte, the former France head coach who was elected president of the French Rugby Federation on 3 December.

World Rugby rules allow a player to represent another country if he has lived there for three consecutive years and has not played for anyone else, although the global governing body is looking to extend the period to five years.

France have become renowned for picking foreign players in recent years as the financial strength of the Top 14 has brought a flood of foreigners into their top division at a time when the national team has been struggling.

In the past five years, France have come fifth four times in the Six Nations and last on the other occasion.

However, virtually all Tier One teams field players who have qualified on residency grounds.

The issue of foreign-qualified players has also been highlighted by the plight of the Pacific Islands - Fiji, Samoa and Tonga - who often lose talented players to the bigger and richer nations.

The gist is that France will continue selecting residency qualified players who have already played for France, for instance Scott Spedding, Uini Antonio, Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa in the current squad. From now on new caps will require a French passport to be eligible to play for France.

Interesting move and a good one for the game in France and as a whole. It's sad that individual Unions are taking action against the 3 year residency rule before World Rugby are. The decision was announced after Laporte met with Bill Beaumont though which is another positive indication that World Ruby are looking to do more about eligibility problems whilst led by Beaumont and Pichot.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38389827

France will stop selecting non-French players who have qualified under the three-year residency rule, national federation boss Bernard Laporte says.

He announced the move after meeting World Rugby president Bill Beaumont.

"I told Bill that we've taken the political decision to stop playing foreign players in the national team," Laporte said.

Foreign-born players who currently play for France will remain eligible but new players will require a French passport.

The decision means the likes of New Zealand-born prop Uini Atonio, South Africa-born full-back Scott Spedding and Fiji-born wings Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa will continue to be available for France.

"Obviously, it's not retroactive. Those playing can continue playing but it's a strong signal for French academies and our youngsters that we'll play a maximum number of Frenchmen," added Laporte, the former France head coach who was elected president of the French Rugby Federation on 3 December.

World Rugby rules allow a player to represent another country if he has lived there for three consecutive years and has not played for anyone else, although the global governing body is looking to extend the period to five years.

France have become renowned for picking foreign players in recent years as the financial strength of the Top 14 has brought a flood of foreigners into their top division at a time when the national team has been struggling.

In the past five years, France have come fifth four times in the Six Nations and last on the other occasion.

However, virtually all Tier One teams field players who have qualified on residency grounds.

The issue of foreign-qualified players has also been highlighted by the plight of the Pacific Islands - Fiji, Samoa and Tonga - who often lose talented players to the bigger and richer nations.

The gist is that France will continue selecting residency qualified players who have already played for France, for instance Scott Spedding, Uini Antonio, Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa in the current squad. From now on new caps will require a French passport to be eligible to play for France.

Interesting move and a good one for the game in France and as a whole. It's sad that individual Unions are taking action against the 3 year residency rule before World Rugby are. The decision was announced after Laporte met with Bill Beaumont though which is another positive indication that World Ruby are looking to do more about eligibility problems whilst led by Beaumont and Pichot.

Calling it sad is probably going a bit far, good on France for taking the initiative, I go more down the line that World rugby should set the minimum standard requirements, and prefer to see Nations especially tier 1 nations set their own standard above that as set by World rugby.

king_carlos wrote:
Rugby's a sport which regularly gets berated by people who aren't fans due to it's relatively small global participation (a common joke from Brits about rugby is, "only 8 countries care about rugby and 4 of them are us") and being a rich boys sport.  

king_carlos wrote:Yes it is good that a National Union are taking some action against it. However far more needs to be done by World Rugby to reduce the number of players that are turning out for countries which realistically they shouldn't be representing.

king_carlos wrote:That problem then leads again to another deeper issue and perhaps the biggest issue for the game as a whole - too much elite level rugby is crammed into the calendar. Clubs shouldn't be encouraging their players not to play internationally if they are talented enough to, however with the pointlessly long and overcrowded seasons both domestically and internationally it isn't surprising some are doing so to protect their players.

As with many issues in rugby it can be boiled back down to a desperate need for less rugby being played and a higher quality of games when it is played.

king_carlos wrote:Of course the issue is also deeper than just eligibility though. Another damaging practice which needs addressing is certain clubs (mainly ones in France) encouraging players (usually poorer players from the Pacific Islands) to sign contracts which offer them far more money if they agree not to play international rugby.

marty2086 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Yes it is good that a National Union are taking some action against it. However far more needs to be done by World Rugby to reduce the number of players that are turning out for countries which realistically they shouldn't be representing.

Why shouldn't they be representing that country?

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Yes it is good that a National Union are taking some action against it. However far more needs to be done by World Rugby to reduce the number of players that are turning out for countries which realistically they shouldn't be representing.

Why shouldn't they be representing that country?

Because buying someone's nationality is distasteful

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Yes it is good that a National Union are taking some action against it. However far more needs to be done by World Rugby to reduce the number of players that are turning out for countries which realistically they shouldn't be representing.

Why shouldn't they be representing that country?

Because buying someone's nationality is distasteful

That's the simple view that many are taking when in fact its much more complex than that

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Yes it is good that a National Union are taking some action against it. However far more needs to be done by World Rugby to reduce the number of players that are turning out for countries which realistically they shouldn't be representing.

Why shouldn't they be representing that country?

Because buying someone's nationality is distasteful

That's the simple view that many are taking when in fact its much more complex than that

Really, in what way?

A foreign club signs a player from Fiji

3 years later

Hey presto

A readymade Frenchman pops out

Go on marty2086 you intellectual, spell out the complex version

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Yes it is good that a National Union are taking some action against it. However far more needs to be done by World Rugby to reduce the number of players that are turning out for countries which realistically they shouldn't be representing.

Why shouldn't they be representing that country?

Because buying someone's nationality is distasteful

That's the simple view that many are taking when in fact its much more complex than that

Really, in what way?

A foreign club signs a player from Fiji

3 years later

Hey presto

A readymade Frenchman pops out

Go on marty2086 you intellectual, spell out the complex version

Maybe if you bothered following the thread you would know I have already pointed out most of the complexities of it all not only is the new French approach far from simple as there are varied ways in which a person can become a French citizen and there are some which I haven't pointed out one of which is that is doesn't stop someone being bought it just means you have to go about it a different way

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Yes it is good that a National Union are taking some action against it. However far more needs to be done by World Rugby to reduce the number of players that are turning out for countries which realistically they shouldn't be representing.

Why shouldn't they be representing that country?

Because buying someone's nationality is distasteful

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah well. The wider move to the right in politics may see a greater call for tougher rules. For me just up it to about 5 or 6 years and it'll be fine.

The Great Aukster wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Yes it is good that a National Union are taking some action against it. However far more needs to be done by World Rugby to reduce the number of players that are turning out for countries which realistically they shouldn't be representing.

Why shouldn't they be representing that country?

Because buying someone's nationality is distasteful

What like the "£10 ticket to another life" sold to Britons to populate Australia? People emigarate to other countries all the time and many are economic migrants - why is that "distasteful"?

ebop wrote:
Get your hand off it marty2086

A Fijian Frenchman is incongruous no matter how it's dressed up. This is a fact. And if you can't see that then you are the simpleton.

ps. no need to spout on about brave new global world, labour migration, citizen rules or this and that

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:
Get your hand off it marty2086

A Fijian Frenchman is incongruous no matter how it's dressed up. This is a fact. And if you can't see that then you are the simpleton.

ps. no need to spout on about brave new global world, labour migration, citizen rules or this and that

Don't talk about things that will show the complexities of the issue? You're right Im simple and you are part of the intelligentsia

You think in a world where steroids exist there won't be cases of say a Fijian suddenly falling in love with a Frenchwoman and getting married rather quickly and ending up a French citizen?

You also seem to be of the opinion that passing a test makes someone a proper Frenchman and more capable of representing the nation as will be the case

whocares wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:
Get your hand off it marty2086

A Fijian Frenchman is incongruous no matter how it's dressed up. This is a fact. And if you can't see that then you are the simpleton.

ps. no need to spout on about brave new global world, labour migration, citizen rules or this and that

Don't talk about things that will show the complexities of the issue? You're right Im simple and you are part of the intelligentsia

You think in a world where steroids exist there won't be cases of say a Fijian suddenly falling in love with a Frenchwoman and getting married rather quickly and ending up a French citizen?

You also seem to be of the opinion that passing a test makes someone a proper Frenchman and more capable of representing the nation as will be the case

it's not even that complex. France is a country where every day some foreigner is granted the nationality and fresh start in life for some of them, it has been a country of immigration for centuries since the Roman settled there. maybe that concept is difficult to grasp for someone living on some remote islands but that's the way it is.

whocares wrote:
it's not even that complex. France is a country where every day some foreigner is granted the nationality and fresh start in life for some of them, it has been a country of immigration for centuries since the Roman settled there. maybe that concept is difficult to grasp for someone living on some remote islands but that's the way it is.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

whocares wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:
Get your hand off it marty2086

A Fijian Frenchman is incongruous no matter how it's dressed up. This is a fact. And if you can't see that then you are the simpleton.

ps. no need to spout on about brave new global world, labour migration, citizen rules or this and that

Don't talk about things that will show the complexities of the issue? You're right Im simple and you are part of the intelligentsia

You think in a world where steroids exist there won't be cases of say a Fijian suddenly falling in love with a Frenchwoman and getting married rather quickly and ending up a French citizen?

You also seem to be of the opinion that passing a test makes someone a proper Frenchman and more capable of representing the nation as will be the case

it's not even that complex. France is a country where every day some foreigner is granted the nationality and fresh start in life for some of them, it has been a country of immigration for centuries since the Roman settled there. maybe that concept is difficult to grasp for someone living on some remote islands but that's the way it is.

Immigration isnt the issue, its players playing for other Countries when they really dont have any allegiance that country, Take Tony Marsh for example, once he finished playing for France and Clermont he returned to resume life in New Zealand.

marty2086 wrote:

whocares wrote:
it's not even that complex. France is a country where every day some foreigner is granted the nationality and fresh start in life for some of them, it has been a country of immigration for centuries since the Roman settled there. maybe that concept is difficult to grasp for someone living on some remote islands but that's the way it is.

Theres that too, though some of the complexities Im talking about are about the varied ways someone can become a citizen in France its not a one size fits all approach there is the basic 5 year residency then you have the cases of being married to a French citizen and where you live etc, theres the case of refugees, people from French speaking countries, people who have served France in some way

whocares maybe you could shed some light on something for me as well, was/is Serge Blanco a French citizen?

I know he was born in Venezula to a Venezulan father but the best I can find is his mother was Basque and that could many different nationalities

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

whocares wrote:
it's not even that complex. France is a country where every day some foreigner is granted the nationality and fresh start in life for some of them, it has been a country of immigration for centuries since the Roman settled there. maybe that concept is difficult to grasp for someone living on some remote islands but that's the way it is.

Theres that too, though some of the complexities Im talking about are about the varied ways someone can become a citizen in France its not a one size fits all approach there is the basic 5 year residency then you have the cases of being married to a French citizen and where you live etc, theres the case of refugees, people from French speaking countries, people who have served France in some way

whocares maybe you could shed some light on something for me as well, was/is Serge Blanco a French citizen?

I know he was born in Venezula to a Venezulan father but the best I can find is his mother was Basque and that could many different nationalities

I would say Serge Blanco is far more French, Than Jared Payne is Irish.

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

whocares wrote:
it's not even that complex. France is a country where every day some foreigner is granted the nationality and fresh start in life for some of them, it has been a country of immigration for centuries since the Roman settled there. maybe that concept is difficult to grasp for someone living on some remote islands but that's the way it is.

Theres that too, though some of the complexities Im talking about are about the varied ways someone can become a citizen in France its not a one size fits all approach there is the basic 5 year residency then you have the cases of being married to a French citizen and where you live etc, theres the case of refugees, people from French speaking countries, people who have served France in some way

whocares maybe you could shed some light on something for me as well, was/is Serge Blanco a French citizen?

I know he was born in Venezula to a Venezulan father but the best I can find is his mother was Basque and that could many different nationalities

I would say Serge Blanco is far more French, Than Jared Payne is Irish.

Well given you don't know what constitutes immigration I think Ill disregard your opinion on what makes an Irishman

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Immigration isnt the issue, its players playing for other Countries when they really dont have any allegiance that country, Take Tony Marsh for example, once he finished playing for France and Clermont he returned to resume life in New Zealand.

whocares wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Immigration isnt the issue, its players playing for other Countries when they really dont have any allegiance that country, Take Tony Marsh for example, once he finished playing for France and Clermont he returned to resume life in New Zealand.

agree with that by the way. am just not putting all "foreigners" In the same basket.

ebop wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Yes it is good that a National Union are taking some action against it. However far more needs to be done by World Rugby to reduce the number of players that are turning out for countries which realistically they shouldn't be representing.

Why shouldn't they be representing that country?

Because buying someone's nationality is distasteful

What like the "£10 ticket to another life" sold to Britons to populate Australia? People emigarate to other countries all the time and many are economic migrants - why is that "distasteful"?

There's economic migrants and then there's professional rugby players that exploit the system and sell thier nationality for a quick buck and a little bit of fame. 3 whole years!

The Great Aukster wrote:

ebop wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Yes it is good that a National Union are taking some action against it. However far more needs to be done by World Rugby to reduce the number of players that are turning out for countries which realistically they shouldn't be representing.

Why shouldn't they be representing that country?

Because buying someone's nationality is distasteful

What like the "£10 ticket to another life" sold to Britons to populate Australia? People emigarate to other countries all the time and many are economic migrants - why is that "distasteful"?

There's economic migrants and then there's professional rugby players that exploit the system and sell thier nationality for a quick buck and a little bit of fame. 3 whole years!

So buying nationality isn't always distasteful - maybe that's why World Rugby have created a standard that all rugby nations have bought into amd they police. If Laporte wants to disadvantage France for his own political reasons then fine, but there's no need for other nations to follow him off the cliff like lemmings.

Munchkin wrote:I don't think Australia is a very good example, considering the treatment of some of those migrants. Not least the treatment of the Aboriginals by their British masters. They failed to civilise the aboriginals and so decided to shoot them.

You don't know why Laporte wants less foreigners in the French national side, but it's perfectly reasonable to believe his reasons are for the greater good of French rugby, and not some conspiratorial and sinister political agenda.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I don't think Australia is a very good example, considering the treatment of some of those migrants. Not least the treatment of the Aboriginals by their British masters. They failed to civilise the aboriginals and so decided to shoot them.

You don't know why Laporte wants less foreigners in the French national side, but it's perfectly reasonable to believe his reasons are for the greater good of French rugby, and not some conspiratorial and sinister political agenda.

That would be fine except no one seems able to explain where "the greater good of French rugby" is gong to come from. He himself said it was a political decision but has not explained his agenda - sinister or otherwise.

The Great Aukster wrote:The link is the bbc one at the head of the thread:
"I told Bill that we've taken the political decision to stop playing foreign players in the national team," Laporte said.

French club supporters don't seem to care how many foreign imports are signed, and the clubs don't want those players unavailable to them during International windows. France play far more Tests than the PI sides so Laporte's decision could mean the foreign imports will be both more attractive to recruit and more available to play, therefore indigenous talent will have fewer opportunities.

The Great Aukster wrote:When a national rugby president (who is tasked with success) decides to unilaterally make it a bit harder for his country, the question has to be asked - why?

The Great Aukster wrote:The question asked on page 1 was:

The Great Aukster wrote:When a national rugby president (who is tasked with success) decides to unilaterally make it a bit harder for his country, the question has to be asked - why?

Since this question has remained unanswered, it is fair enough to speculate. Laporte has said it was a political decision, whatever that means - one opinion is just as valid as the next.

There are only a handful of players who qualify on residency and make the Test grade anyway, so Laporte's decision will have a negative impact on France but only a small one compared to the real problem. Politically he can rail against a few 'foreigners' and that undoubtedly appeals to the conservative rugby establisment.
However France aren't failing because of a few residency qualified players in the Test team - they are failing because the club selection pool is filled with 'foreigners' (many already capped). Monsieur Laporte has chosen to duck the real issue in favour of a less contentious one - does that look like a political decision?

Rugby Fan wrote:I can think of some rugby reasons for France to make this decision.

One of the ways you can build a successful national side is to develop players as a group from school level. Players who learn their rugby going through the French age grades, can help form the core of a senior side. If someone drops into French rugby late, as a fully-rounded professional, then they may have all the skills, but won't necessarily add to squad cohesion. Certainly, it's not a black and white matter.

Some national sides might develop project players but, in France, hiring decisions are largely made by the clubs. Consequently, the union has no real visibility on the talent pipeline, and can't draw up the kind of coherent coaching plan which has served NZ so well.

Clubs do, of course, also hire some overseas talent early. The main reason being that players are cheaper at a young age, and getting them qualified early for France helps make space for non-French qualified players. It's a skewed incentive, in some respects, and doesn't seem to serve club or country especially well.

France might also be wondering how much a national team of residency-qualified players can maintain the the long term loyalty of French supporters. What works at the club level doesn't necessarily do so at country level.

Who knows whether these factors are actually behind the decision but they are certainly all rugby reasons (financial & playing).


  Yes, well said Rf, however I would go even further by saying that when that bloodline of players reach the International level they will have bought into a French culture in the team that will be paramount in everything they do in preparing for a game and playing a game. Countries that run with recruiting foreigners and satisfying a 3 year term are depriving their national team of this environment and opportunity.

marty2086 wrote:

It astounds me how little some people grasp of situations

Theres currently nothing stopping France from developing a team from the age grades currently except they are not in control of the academies its the clubs, in fact they are stopping foreign youngsters from signing for academies too.

Theres also no guarantee we wont see residency qualified players still playing in the future, they just have to jump through more hoops to get there.

A few questions I have is is it just at Test level? And what happens when they find themselves short in an important position or see a lack of quality coming through?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:I can think of some rugby reasons for France to make this decision.

One of the ways you can build a successful national side is to develop players as a group from school level. Players who learn their rugby going through the French age grades, can help form the core of a senior side. If someone drops into French rugby late, as a fully-rounded professional, then they may have all the skills, but won't necessarily add to squad cohesion. Certainly, it's not a black and white matter.

Some national sides might develop project players but, in France, hiring decisions are largely made by the clubs. Consequently, the union has no real visibility on the talent pipeline, and can't draw up the kind of coherent coaching plan which has served NZ so well.

Clubs do, of course, also hire some overseas talent early. The main reason being that players are cheaper at a young age, and getting them qualified early for France helps make space for non-French qualified players. It's a skewed incentive, in some respects, and doesn't seem to serve club or country especially well.

France might also be wondering how much a national team of residency-qualified players can maintain the the long term loyalty of French supporters. What works at the club level doesn't necessarily do so at country level.

Who knows whether these factors are actually behind the decision but they are certainly all rugby reasons (financial & playing).


  Yes, well said Rf, however I would go even further by saying that when that bloodline of players reach the International level they will have bought into a French culture in the team that will be paramount in everything they do in preparing for a game and playing a game. Countries that run with recruiting foreigners and satisfying a 3 year term are depriving their national team of this environment and opportunity.

Munchkin wrote:I believe the question has been answered. You don't agree with it, which is fair enough, but Laporte isn't doing anything different to the IRFU's vision of bringing home-grown talent through the Provinces.

Laporte isn't ducking the issue with LNR. He's already accused them of electoral engineering. I think it's more that he can't legally force them into a making the changes he may want, just as the RFU can't force PRL.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe the question has been answered. You don't agree with it, which is fair enough, but Laporte isn't doing anything different to the IRFU's vision of bringing home-grown talent through the Provinces.

Laporte isn't ducking the issue with LNR. He's already accused them of electoral engineering. I think it's more that he can't legally force them into a making the changes he may want, just as the RFU can't force PRL.

Why did Laporte reduce his country's talent pool and encourage French clubs to recruit more foreign players to reduce France's selection pool further? That has been answered? Wow! Must have missed that in all the jingoism. If I find an answer I'll let you know if I agree with it or not.

Laporte is doing something totally different to the IRFU - he is unilaterally reducing the selection pool by classifying players who have qualified through living in France as foreigners, whereas the IRFU are embracing players like Payne and Stander as true Irishmen.

Munchkin wrote:You're being disingenuous, Aukster. The IRFU are doing pretty much the same thing with the Provinces. That why they want to reduce the NIQ, making it far less likely that Players like Payne and Stander will represent Ireland, as 'True Irishmen', whatever that's meant to mean. Interesting that a sports body get to decide who 'True Irishmen' are though ..... Fairly juvenile thinking.

Ok, give me a link to where Laporte is now encouraging the clubs to sign more foreign players?

What I do know is that the French have been trying to force the clubs into reducing the number of foreign signings, and having some success with reducing those numbers. The clubs do circumvent that by signing young foreign prospects into the academies. The major concern with that is that the French (home-grown) talent will find there is no room for them in the academies. You can read all about it here: FRENCH-RUGBY-LOOKING-TO-CLOSE-LOOPHOLES

One last thing; you repeat the assertion that Laporte is reducing the country's pool talent (a false assertion), yet there are those that claim it is the increase in foreign players into the club sides that has reduced that pool.

The most obvious thing about this is, in spite of the fact France have been signing foreign talent into their national side, they have been on a downward slide since French clubs had the big money to sign foreign talent.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:You're being disingenuous, Aukster. The IRFU are doing pretty much the same thing with the Provinces. That why they want to reduce the NIQ, making it far less likely that Players like Payne and Stander will represent Ireland, as 'True Irishmen', whatever that's meant to mean. Interesting that a sports body get to decide who 'True Irishmen' are though ..... Fairly juvenile thinking.

Ok, give me a link to where Laporte is now encouraging the clubs to sign more foreign players?

What I do know is that the French have been trying to force the clubs into reducing the number of foreign signings, and having some success with reducing those numbers. The clubs do circumvent that by signing young foreign prospects into the academies. The major concern with that is that the French (home-grown) talent will find there is no room for them in the academies. You can read all about it here: FRENCH-RUGBY-LOOKING-TO-CLOSE-LOOPHOLES

One last thing; you repeat the assertion that Laporte is reducing the country's pool talent (a false assertion), yet there are those that claim it is the increase in foreign players into the club sides that has reduced that pool.

The most obvious thing about this is, in spite of the fact France have been signing foreign talent into their national side, they have been on a downward slide since French clubs had the big money to sign foreign talent.

(1) Yes it is true that sports bodies get to decide their own rules (fairly self-evident) and it's arguable whether they're juvenile or not but at least they are easy to understand.

(2) The IRFU are indeed reducing NIQ imports at provincial level and that is the area that Laporte should have been targetting if he wanted to increase the French player pool rather than reduce it by excluding players at Test level.

(3)  It is a fact (not an assertion) that Laporte has decided to exclude players qualified on residency, and that exclusion reduces the player pool available to France. The IRFU are reducing players who can never play for Ireland from blocking Irish talent at provincial level whereas Laporte's decision excludes players who are already qualified for France and not blocking anyone - a significant difference.

(4) Thanks for the link - it demonstrates nicely how clubs circumvent the rules to promote club over country. Recruiting ever younger foreign players at the expense of French kids and then Laporte deciding they should not be picked for France shows exactly how the national pool is reduced. Once Laporte gets his 200 coaches in place and 5 to 10 years later they start producing talent there will be no need to import any foreign player. It may also go someway to explain why Laporte doesn't mind if the current team isn't as strong as it could be - if he's looking for funding and support for his vision.