Should a Rugby Club be allowed to tell a player they can't play International Rugby if they sign their contract?

We see this situation in the two wealthiest rugby nations in Europe all too regularly.

A welsh player at Toulon this year was told that he could have a contract if he dropped out of Welsh selection.

The Premier Rugby Ltd an organisation run by english club owners for their benefit won't let international players represent their nations unless it is ruled so by the IRB or if they are paid a massive amount of money.

Is this right or wrong?

Rugby survives on the international game, the world cup is rapidly becoming the focal point it was intended to be, presiding over tri nations, six nations, pacific nations tournaments. All nations should be able to compete at their best, with all their best players available.

Nations should not be divided into haves and have nots by wealth.

Or should a player wanting to play for a 'foreign' club/side not have the appropriate clauses written into his contract?

Maesteg,
This is similar to a point which came up yesterday with some mates. At the top club/franchise/region level, the only nations which have clubs are France and England. The point you rasie, and a good one, is the clubs are individual private businesses. And the national unions have limited authority and limited legal rights over the clubs. They can write anything within legal limits into a contract, and if a player agrees, he is therefore bound by that contract. Unless, of course, both sides agree on an exception.

I agree with the other point you raise: The International matches, specifically the RWC, is now increasingly the economic engine which drives the growth of the sport. But the clubs in England and France are still to a huge degree the financial bedrock of Rugby in those countries. And, we have to admit, are a big reason England and France are the richest Rugby nations. Different business models than all other major nations.

One last thought: Each national Union is an independent oprganisation. Each Union is linked to the other Unions by agreements and guidelines under the IRB and by similar self-interest. So, each has its own rules.

So all that kind leads up to your point. To me, the national unions and clubs in France and England must agree on closer working relationships. That doesn't actually start with the players, but rather it starts with financial certainty for all sides. Once that is assured, then we can start to deal with Rugby issues, such as plaing time, player welfare, and player availability.

By the way, I think the situation Dwayne Peel is caught up in is silly. Of course, he should be able to train with Wales. But I understand the position Sale (probably with support or at the instructions of the PRL) is taking. I don't like it at all, but I actually wonder what decision I would make if I were running Sale. So, it comes back to players caught in contractual and legal disagreements between clubs/regions/franchises, and worse in this case as it is cross-border (or cross-river/estuary). And the overall lack of global rules for all. And that, my friend, is a monster sized nut to crack.

As you say it is ridiculously hard to make a ruling that fairly and amicably satisfies one nations requirement of it's best players for international competition over a club which earns and spends about ten times that nation a season.

The IRB should emphasise the international game. The laws that govern international windows are not enough.

Example that England are currently in a training camp, but any players who are not English are not allowed by the PRLtd to train with their nations because this is not during an IRB international window.

How can there not be an international window when an international competition is being held?

How many Pacific Islanders have been released by the PRLtd to play for their countries in the Pacific Islands cup?

Answer none...!

How can there not be an international window when an international competition is being held?

How many Pacific Islanders have been released by the PRLtd to play for their countries in the Pacific Islands cup?

Answer none...!

The World Cup isn't for another 2 months.

Plus, there are PRL players in the Pacific Nations Cup.

Thats the point - answer: none. At least now.
It is absolutely inconsistent, as you say, for England players to be released for national training, but other players are not.

I wonder if this is still part of the conversion from amateur to professional. I don't recall any sport moving forwards like Rugby has from the old days to being a modern sport (in most ways). I have to believe each of these points will be resolved in time. But as you say, it is an issue now. That make sense?

MBTGOG wrote:

How can there not be an international window when an international competition is being held?

How many Pacific Islanders have been released by the PRLtd to play for their countries in the Pacific Islands cup?

Answer none...!

The World Cup isn't for another 2 months.

Plus, there are PRL players in the Pacific Nations Cup.

The only premiership player at the PINC is London irish's Sailosi Tagicakibau.

The only way this is amateur/professional friction is that the PRL is a professional organisation, and certain unions are strictly amateur in the way they are being run.

The PRL has to sanction any release of a player outside of IRB International windows (voted for by the RFU, the WRU, the SRU, the IRFU and all the other members). The WRU refuse to negotiate with the PRL. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The RFU have negotiated with the PRL. The WRU have negotiated with Regional Rugby Wales Ltd. English players playing abroad are told to get release dates in their contract, which is the only reason why Palmer and Wilkinson are at England's training camp, not out of an act of altruism by the French clubs.

The PRL aren't going to stop any player from joining up with his Nation on the IRB agreed date of the 4th August. But unless you are willing to pay, a player isn't going to be let out of his contractual obligations a moment before.

They're being told they can't join up with their national team outside of international windows. Not quite the same.

There's no problem with Welsh players. The problem is with less established unions.

As for Henson, well I think it was in Toulons best interests to make sure their 'World Cup Joker' would be available during the World Cup!

Robboi,
Thats the point I was making. Some organisations are still being run in an amateir manner. I have to think we can't simply flip a switch and say 150 years of amateur Rugby is gone and now we are 100% modern and professional. This has got to take time. I am actually amazed the progress we have made in only 16 years.

And that negotiation, as you say, has to happen to ensure all nations and clubs have to be on the same page.

doctor_grey wrote:Robboi,
And that negotiation, as you say, has to happen to ensure all nations and clubs have to be on the same page.

Key point.

All international players, clubs and national sides have to be on the same page.

We can't have England having an agreement with the PRL and no one else in the world.

I don't imagine Samoa are paying anything for Sailosi Tagicakibau. So how did he get released during a non IRB window?

The players have the choice of whether or not to sign for a different clubs outside Wales, all the players who have gone to England and France had a choice of whether to take the extra money. If it interferes with their International careers that's their problem.

maestegmafia wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

How can there not be an international window when an international competition is being held?

How many Pacific Islanders have been released by the PRLtd to play for their countries in the Pacific Islands cup?

Answer none...!

The World Cup isn't for another 2 months.

Plus, there are PRL players in the Pacific Nations Cup.

The only premiership player at the PINC is London irish's Sailosi Tagicakibau.

Wame Lewaravu for Fiji (from Sale Sharks)
Eliota Sapolu-Fuimaono from Gloucester as well and Alex Tuilagi from Tigers for Samoa

And of course Tonga had to players from the PRL for the Churchill Cup

This doesn't seem to be a major problem.

and of course Scotland having only had their home-based players at their training camp since the 20th June are getting the rest of their players on Monday - so sounds like PRL is in line with the Top 14 and the Welsh regions on player release.

The real problem seems to be the clash over money spinning games for the Unions - clubs are happy to stick to the rules over the times the Unions themselves came up with but all of them are less willing to agree extras without at least having talks with the Union making the request... sadly the WRU seems to have a feeling of exceptionalism over this that is hurting themselves.

Peel is an idiot for not having the clauses in his contract in the manner that the English players have in France.
Why should the Welsh Union use their small resources to pay off English clubs when our players are too stupid to cover themselves. English clubs already can out pay our regions giving Welsh money to English clubs would make the issue worse.
Peel made his bed let him lie in it.

Given the rate of injuries in the Welsh squad maybe Sale were just trying to protect their own investment?

The initial question was not designed to be a question relating to individual incidences.


Is it right or wrong for a rugby club/region to pose a question asking a player to stop playing international rugby to commit to their contract?

maestegmafia wrote:The initial question was not designed to be a question relating to individual incidences.


Is it right or wrong for a rugby club/region to pose a question asking a player to stop playing international rugby to commit to their contract?

I can understand the clubs position. They have a contract and it's the responsibility of the player to negotiate provisions in that contract if their international career is of that level of importance to them and they need to be involved in national camps outside international windows.

After all, the players have freedom to choose where they play and the clubs have the freedom to choose who they sign. I worry about clubs influencing players to turn their back on international rugby, but it's the players decision to sign for that club.

I think if a player want to go play in the RWC, their club can't and shouldn't be able to stop them. That's why the international window exists and it is mostly honoured. But I can understand their position when the dates fall outside that window.

maestegmafia,
I think I missd the point of your original question. But have it now. Is it OK for a club/team to require a player to commit NOT to play for their country as a condition of contract? To me, the answer is yes. If the player believes signing a contract with that requirement embedded in it, then it is OK. However, I don't think it would become common because players aspire to International honours and those who do are handsomely compensated for doing so. Plus the opportunities for sponsorship/advertising increases as well with the International exposure.

maestegmafia wrote:The Premier Rugby Ltd an organisation run by english club owners for their benefit won't let international players represent their nations unless it is ruled so by the IRB or if they are paid a massive amount of money.

It's quite simple IMO, if a player signs for a foreign club and wants to join up with his National side outside of the IRB defined windows, then it's up to him to get a clause in his employment contract that allows that.

Sorry, I don't see this as a dig at the English.
Rather a shot across the bows of the English and French club systems - remember the fracas when James Haskell was trying to practise with England and Stade Francais told him he was not allowed? Same thing.

This does put players in dificult positions, which is why the rules need to be simple and clear. Goes back to needing consisntent rules across the board. But in the meantime, players will need to ensure they have the proper wording in their contracts, or not sign the contract.

The rules are simple and clear. You only have to be released for IRB International windows.

If you want to be released at other times, get it written into your contract, unless the union you want to represent has a long-standing arrangement with the umbrella organisation that has jurisdiction over your contract.

The question with Haskell was whether he got these release dates in his contract, and as it turns out he did and got to stay with England. Probably one of the reasons Stade ended up letting him go.

maestegmafia wrote:The initial question was not designed to be a question relating to individual incidences.


Is it right or wrong for a rugby club/region to pose a question asking a player to stop playing international rugby to commit to their contract?

Okay.
The player then makes the choice if they want to sign or not so I do find it rather silly to blame the clubs - that is completely ignoring the the players are grown ups who have responsibility for their own actions. To use a case in point, Dwayne Peel - no one made him sign his contract with Sale which didn't have clauses in it for release to the Welsh team outside of the IRB windows, he had a choice and he made it himself.

Further to that, the problem currently is the the various Unions agreed the windows when players had to be released for international duty and now want the players for more time... but the clubs need those players to win matches and attract supporters to games. The clubs aren't charities in England and France - they are business who have to make money in order to be able to pay the players the international sides want to use... and if the clubs go out of business because they are constantly missing their best players then there won't be anyone pay those players - the Unions need to be grown up about it and realise the clubs can't be run at a loss for there benefit and even more so when that club is in a different country. I'd be outraged if Tigers were signing Welsh players but despite paying their wages those players missed most of the season on international call ups without getting compensation - the money I give the club isn't to subsidise the WRU

snoopster wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:The initial question was not designed to be a question relating to individual incidences.


Is it right or wrong for a rugby club/region to pose a question asking a player to stop playing international rugby to commit to their contract?

Okay.
The player then makes the choice if they want to sign or not so I do find it rather silly to blame the clubs - that is completely ignoring the the players are grown ups who have responsibility for their own actions. To use a case in point, Dwayne Peel - no one made him sign his contract with Sale which didn't have clauses in it for release to the Welsh team outside of the IRB windows, he had a choice and he made it himself.

Further to that, the problem currently is the the various Unions agreed the windows when players had to be released for international duty and now want the players for more time... but the clubs need those players to win matches and attract supporters to games. The clubs aren't charities in England and France - they are business who have to make money in order to be able to pay the players the international sides want to use... and if the clubs go out of business because they are constantly missing their best players then there won't be anyone pay those players - the Unions need to be grown up about it and realise the clubs can't be run at a loss for there benefit and even more so when that club is in a different country. I'd be outraged if Tigers were signing Welsh players but despite paying their wages those players missed most of the season on international call ups without getting compensation - the money I give the club isn't to subsidise the WRU

+1

I'm with Robbo on this.
There are windows for autumn and 6N during which all players must be released if required and it is down to individual negotiation for training camps etc. If a non-English player is valuable enough to his English team and the only way that the team can be sure of signing him is to agree to his request for "non-window" releases, all well and good. However, if it isn't a "blue chip" player, the club may just shrug its shoulders and move on to someone else if that player tries to play hardball. The player has to balance that all up

Sorry, I don't see this as a dig at the English.
Rather a shot across the bows of the English and French club systems - remember the fracas when James Haskell was trying to practise with England and Stade Francais told him he was not allowed? Same thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haskell chose to head to the SH because Toulon and other French clubs are no longer allowing English players to have release clauses.

At the end of the day there are international windows and if you want access to your players outside of that you either have to take responsibility as a player (and potentially not get paid as much) or your union has to make appropriate payments. The RFU make those payments, the WRU don't, so it's down to welsh players to decide how important their release is to them.

This is nothing to do with any specific nation.

Is it right or wrong for a club to put a player in the position where they have to decide whether they step away from the international window.

In my mind it is not. The international game is the centrepiece of Rugby Union, the flagship.

If the best players are not able to represent their nations then the international game isn't so important, in my mind that would be a big loss.

So I dont think that the clubs have the right to prevent players from playing international rugby in any way, shape or form.

Particularly, as many of you have pointed out, the National Unions fund the club game with massive amounts of money.

maestegmafia, you really are flogging a dead horse here.

A club CANNOT stop a player playing for his country, IRB regulations stop this happening, unless the player decides he no longer has international aspirations then he will always be available for his country during the IRB defined availability windows.

If a country has training sessions outside of these IRB defined windows then, as explained before if is up to the player to ensure his contract allows him to be released for those sessions.

If Cipriani (for example) signed up for Cardiff, would you be happy that England took him for the multiple weeks outside of the International release period that the EPS requires of its players without recompense to Cardiff ?

nottins wrote:maestegmafia, you really are flogging a dead horse here.

If you have no interest don't reply, certainly don't start a reply with something aimed to offend or annoy...!

nottins wrote:A club CANNOT stop a player playing for his country, IRB regulations stop this happening, unless the player decides he no longer has international aspirations then he will always be available for his country during the IRB defined availability windows.

If there is an IRB law I havent read it. Besides the point though as we all know for a fact that players who still have international ambitions, that are still wanted by their countries are are offered contracts pending the player making themself unavailable to their national team.

nottins wrote:If a country has training sessions outside of these IRB defined windows then, as explained before if is up to the player to ensure his contract allows him to be released for those sessions.

Only in certain countries. England and France yes. It doesn't seem to be an issue with Wales where the regions happily release players when they are requested by their national unions.

nottins wrote:If Cipriani (for example) signed up for Cardiff, would you be happy that England took him for the multiple weeks outside of the International release period that the EPS requires of its players without recompense to Cardiff ?

I would personally be happy for him to play or train for England outside the IRB window. So i presume would Cardiff Blues, they have had no problem with releasing Dan Parks when he is requested by the SRU, I can't see that changing for any player of another nationality.

International rugby is the priority, club/regional/franchise rugby is secondary to the game. International rugby funds the club game.

The RFU have paid the English clubs an incredibly handsome fee to release the English players. They should not expect or demand the same of other unions that do not have hundreds of millions of pounds of Satalite TV money not at their disposal.

maestegmafia wrote:

If you have no interest don't reply, certainly don't start a reply with something aimed to offend or annoy...!

I have plenty of interest thanks, hence the reason why I keep on telling you that you're wrong If the truth offends you then I suggest you stop posting on here.

maestegmafia wrote:

If there is an IRB law I havent read it. Besides the point though as we all know for a fact that players who still have international ambitions, that are still wanted by their countries are are offered contracts pending the player making themself unavailable to their national team.

The IRB regulation is the one that states players are available for their home country during IRB sanctioned periods. Which players are offered contracts pending the player making themself unavailable to their national team ? Have you any proof to back this up ?

maestegmafia wrote:

nottins wrote:If a country has training sessions outside of these IRB defined windows then, as explained before it is up to the player to ensure his contract allows him to be released for those sessions.

Only in certain countries. England and France yes. It doesn't seem to be an issue with Wales where the regions happily release players when they are requested by their national unions.

No, it's in ALL countries. I think you'll find that the regions DON'T happily release their players but do it reluctantly but only when given some more money by the WRU

maestegmafia wrote:

International rugby is the priority, club/regional/franchise rugby is secondary to the game. International rugby funds the club game.

The RFU have paid the English clubs an incredibly handsome fee to release the English players. They should not expect or demand the same of other unions that do not have hundreds of millions of pounds of Satalite TV money not at their disposal.

And there we have it. It's all England's fault. And Sky. As always

It's also satellite.

Agree with Nottins. All teams must release players for international rugby. However only at certain IRB designated times. There may be agreements in place to allow player release outside of these times.

Apologese about miss spelling satellite. It happens.

I may be wrong, but I think maestegmafia is asking: is there anything stopping a club from saying to a player 'we'll offer you a contract if you decide to hang up your international boots'. Maesteg, am I right? Is this what you're asking? I think some people may be getting this post mixed up with your other post the other day that was about Peel.

If so, it would be unethical, and a bit mean, but the club would get so much more from a player that doesn't have to go away for long periods of the season. It's the reason that NZ players are so attractive to NH teams, apart from being great players, you know that once they leave NZ they won't be called up for duty. However, for other players such as Argentinians, English, Welsh, etc. who are still called up while playing abroad, could a club be tempted to persuade them to cut interntaional ties, maybe with a sweetener of more money, etc?

Ireland does this with its project players. As I understand it Jared Payne's contract will be null and void if he plays for All Blacks.

Just a wee reminder on this article all. Please debate the opinions expressed, stay off the posters. And don't be afraid to agree to disagree K

Voted 'Yes' however I would have prefered to vote as a 'Possibly'. For example I think that with the current spate of Welsh internationals looking for jobs in France that if I ran a french club I would be making sure that the player was made fully aware that I would release them for international duties, but only within the designated windows. However if I were to be a french club signing a little known player from another country I would be very ticked off if they were to rise to stardom within the club only to get poacehd for long parts of the season by a national side that would not have recognised them if it were not for their playing at my club.

Hope that makes sence

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Voted 'Yes' however I would have prefered to vote as a 'Possibly'. For example I think that with the current spate of Welsh internationals looking for jobs in France that if I ran a french club I would be making sure that the player was made fully aware that I would release them for international duties, but only within the designated windows. However if I were to be a french club signing a little known player from another country I would be very ticked off if they were to rise to stardom within the club only to get poacehd for long parts of the season by a national side that would not have recognised them if it were not for their playing at my club.

Hope that makes sence

Makes perfect sense

I voted Yes though not that I agree with it fully.

We are now in a proffessional game and the clubs pay the wages and sell merchandise/tickets etc on the back of having their best players available.

If players get a good manager/agent then he could negotiate a release, for example Craig Mitchells contract with Exeter doesn't start until after the WC which means he i fully available for Wales.

Griff wrote:I may be wrong, but I think maestegmafia is asking: is there anything stopping a club from saying to a player 'we'll offer you a contract if you decide to hang up your international boots'. Maesteg, am I right? Is this what you're asking? I think some people may be getting this post mixed up with your other post the other day that was about Peel.

If so, it would be unethical, and a bit mean, but the club would get so much more from a player that doesn't have to go away for long periods of the season. It's the reason that NZ players are so attractive to NH teams, apart from being great players, you know that once they leave NZ they won't be called up for duty. However, for other players such as Argentinians, English, Welsh, etc. who are still called up while playing abroad, could a club be tempted to persuade them to cut interntaional ties, maybe with a sweetener of more money, etc?

That is exactly what I am asking and Apologese for it not appearing clear enough.

Maesteg, with regards to a club saying that a player cannot play for their country even within IRB International Windows I say no.

red_stag wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Voted 'Yes' however I would have prefered to vote as a 'Possibly'. For example I think that with the current spate of Welsh internationals looking for jobs in France that if I ran a french club I would be making sure that the player was made fully aware that I would release them for international duties, but only within the designated windows. However if I were to be a french club signing a little known player from another country I would be very ticked off if they were to rise to stardom within the club only to get poacehd for long parts of the season by a national side that would not have recognised them if it were not for their playing at my club.

Hope that makes sence

Makes perfect sense

Makes sense, but a club signs a foreign player knowing they are eligible to play international rugby. It would be a travesty to see a young talent withdrawn from the international game due to having signed a contract at a young age preventing them from being eligible to fullfill their dreams on the international stage.

maestegmafia wrote:

red_stag wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Voted 'Yes' however I would have prefered to vote as a 'Possibly'. For example I think that with the current spate of Welsh internationals looking for jobs in France that if I ran a french club I would be making sure that the player was made fully aware that I would release them for international duties, but only within the designated windows. However if I were to be a french club signing a little known player from another country I would be very ticked off if they were to rise to stardom within the club only to get poacehd for long parts of the season by a national side that would not have recognised them if it were not for their playing at my club.

Hope that makes sence

Makes perfect sense

Makes sense, but a club signs a foreign player knowing they are eligible to play international rugby. It would be a travesty to see a young talent withdrawn from the international game due to having signed a contract at a young age preventing them from being eligible to fullfill their dreams on the international stage.

Further to that note. Should a club be penalised by the irb for doing so?

it is apparent, for example that RC Toulon were guilty of it earlier this year with Gavin Henson.

I understand that they just want to be assured of a players availability for the club and in this case Henson is only a fringe welsh player who may well not go to the RWC. But I don't think it is fair, considering the amount of financial security that a rugby club can provide a young man, to place that kind of offer infront of them.

I remember Trevor Leota saying a few years back that he'd have liked to play some more games for Samoa, but he felt his club contract renewal would be impacted if he did ...

Kiwireddevil wrote:I remember Trevor Leota saying a few years back that he'd have liked to play some more games for Samoa, but he felt his club contract renewal would be impacted if he did ...

Exactly, it is more relevant for players from less wealthy nations. Most rugby playing nations do not compete and can not compete against the wealth of others, and it appears that the gap between the fortunate and unfortunate is widening all the time.

For players from less wealthy nations where they do not get any or very little payment for international appearances, there may be a temptation to seek contracts that offer them a financial incentive to give up international rugby.

Could players and agents then approach rich clubs and say 'this is an international standard player who is willing to give up international rugby and commit 100% of his time to your club if you will pay X amount more for salary than he is currently on elsewhere'? Sad, but possible?

Something along the lines happened when Taylor signed for Sale if memory serves me correct.

He signed on the understanding that his International days were over and wouldn't be involved in the Welsh set up, only to be called up for the 05 Slam game against Ireland.

I think?

I voted No. Nations who cannot pay their top players appearance fees will lose them to clubs. It will undermine the pinnacle of the game.

Of course, this is of zero relevance to the Dwayne Peel situation

How does this apply to the SH players that are signed by all the NH clubs and regions?
They are giving up international rugby to take up the better paying contract and that is part of why they get paid the amounts they do and they are attractive to NH sides.

It is also tricky because I don't think it is wrong for a club, say Newcastle, who are run on a tight budget to choose not to renew a player's contract because they only have £150,000 to spend on fly halfs in their budget and thus can't afford a non-English NH fly half who is on £150,000 but missing large chunks of the season on international duty so the club prefer to let him go and sign a fly half from Australia for that amount who is available for every game. What should happen? Newcastle should keep the fly half even though doing so badly weakens their squad and means they are likely to be relegated? The fly half should move even if it means signing for another club even though he wants to play for Newcastle more than he wants to play for his country?

Perhaps people should read this

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf

9.3 especially

Edit: And 9.34 for the sanctions

Hammer, I think we all agree and understand that a club cannot STOP a player playing international rugby during the international window. The question is whether clubs can/do/will in future incentivise (is that a word?!) players to opt out of international rugby. I.e. A club wants to build a big squad of players that won't be away for large periods of time. The club therefore says that they will pay that little bit extra to players if they commit to giving up international rugby. Would clubs do that? Would players go for it? I doubt it's illegal in the IRB's eyes, but it's not great for the international game either. But this is where business and sport are at cross purposes I guess.

I think they 'could' tempt a player coming to the end of their carear, somoen like say Jones or Williams.

But if they tempt a youngsters lets say a Faletau or Warburton then it would aslo say a lot about the player themselves and what their priority is.