Jump to content

I would like feedback on this please - Domestic Player Quota


Recommended Posts

As some of you know, I spent over a 15 years helping grow RL in the USA, and assisting other developing nations anytime they have reached out with questions, or input regarding what we have done in the USA.

So, please read of my thoughts on making a domestic player quota for all National Teams when they play in Sanctioned Games, and especially in the WC Teams.

Of the 322 players in the 14 teams that competed in the 2013 World Cup: 36% Australian / 18% NZ / 21% English. So from 14 "International Teams", 75% of all players were born in just those 3 countries.

And of the ones "born" in some of the "Home Nations", they spent less than the first year of their life there before moving to their current country. So in all honesty, the true number of "domestic players" is less than 20% for the entire player group.

The rules for the WC allow for 100% of the entire squad (Please see the use of the SQUAD, not just the run on team) to be heritage players, for any nation.

The Irony: The RLIF excepts those in developing countries to grow the game, with very little if any financial support. So this means the players, coaches, administrators, who in most cases are 100% volunteers, do all the hard work at the grass roots level. They spend their own money, give up their seasons, etc. Just the same as players and coaches do in the "Big Three" at any level under NRL. They work jobs, train, play, travel, pay for hotels, car rentals, update websites, pay for advertising, operate the ticket gate on game day, wash the gear, line the fields, etc. etc. etc. They are TOLD BY THE RLIF that they must meet minimum criteria in players numbers, teams, development, updated team and league websites and social media, provide audits accounts, etc. etc. Again, all as volunteers, who literally do everything to run an entire league, while also working full time paying jobs.

Yet there is not a single rule to protect these players, when it comes time to represent their nation in what we are told, is the greatest honor in our sport.

Minimum domestic player number MUST be added to the rules to protect those who are giving this game more than any other group of people in its international development.

There are two BIG ISSUES, with the current International Player Rules that need to be addressed:
(i) Players changing nations, or choosing nations based on heritage, mostly in sight of money. It is hard to come down on players who are making their living for doing that, BUT they should not be allowed change inside a WC cycle. And NO PLAYER should ever be allowed play for more than 2 nations.
 
(ii) The number of domestic players selected in National teams needs to be mandated. For the game to grow outside current nations, there must be domestic competitions. The only way this happens is if there is some kind of protection for the domestic players when it comes to international games. 

Personally I would like to see 51% of all SQUADS made up of domestic players. (Before you post, see how I define Domestic Players below) This would mean all national teams are "a majority" of domestic players. And in the WC where SQUADS are 24 players, this means 13 must be domestic and 11 can be heritage players.
It is fair to say that the 11 heritage players would be named in the 17 name team for games. If a national team needs more than 11 players in a team who are heritage players, then they need to do more work on the domestic front. (Remember, they qualified already)

This gives domestic players the opportunity to be coached, and experience the game at it's highest level, AND be rewarded by having the HONOR of representing their HOME NATION.

It also gives domestic fans, supporters, team mates, sponsors, etc. a TRUE CONNECTION with the team, by seeing faces and names they are familiar with. 

And for clarity, I consider a DOMESTIC PLAYER, any player who is eligible as a Citizen or Resident based on current RLIF rules, who has registered and played a minimum of one season in his country.
This means eligible players from a country who have played one or more seasons in their homeland, but now playing overseas to gain experience, etc. count as domestic. International players who qualify thru "Heritage Citizenship" who have committed to at least a season in their selected country (thus helping grow the domestic game) would also be domestic players.

Yet those heritage players who reside outside of their "selected" country, and thus not directly contributed to the domestic growth of the game, would be one of the "49" percent heritage players. 
The rules must protect the best domestic players in developing nations, who are not only playing for free, but in MOST cases paying to play, personally funding the development, etc. And an incentive given to Heritage players who are willing to spend a season in their "selected overseas nation" to grow the game.

As RL grows into new nations, there are more and more fans of the game who couldn't name a single player, or team for that matter, in the NRL or Superleague. All they know are the players they watch play in their domestic competition. So when it comes time for the WORLD CUP TEAM, they are looking for player names they identify with and recognize. And this is not just the fans, but the sponsors who have supported the domestic players, the teams who put forward their best players for consideration, and the overall Rugby League Community in a nation where the game is small, but being driven by passionate players, of which some are striving for their Nations Jersey.
 
YES, I realize that WC games must be somewhat entertaining, and not 100 - 0 blowouts, but allowing a SQUAD of 100% heritage players completely dismisses the YEARS of hard work done by the Domestic players to meet RLIF Member Criteria, and in the WC case, Qualify for the "Greatest Honor Our Sport Has."
__________________
Spinner Howland
Former: Southeastern Rugby League LLC.
Former: USARL LLC.
Former: USARL Inc.
www.jaxaxe.com
www.AtlantaRhinos.com
www.MayhemRL.com
www.WarriorsRL.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites


A lot of us on here have noticed in the past that countries with established domestic comps, like Lebanon, Serbia and PNG, are disadvantaged in qualifying for tournaments because they can't compete with countries with little or no domestic game but a large pool of heritage players to draw on, like Scotland, Ireland and Cook Islands. This definitely seems a poor reward for those countries doing the grass roots work.

 

I don't like quotas in sport. If you're one of the best 17 available, you play. I think the solution is to tighten the RLIF eligibility rules. I don't think you can do this before RLWC2017 because teams should be able field the players they used to qualify for the tournament.

 

After the WC I would scrap the grandparent rule and make it at least one parent born in that country. After RLWC2021, I would make it both parents born in that country. The most obvious drawback of these changes would be to bar many players from eligibility for Tonga, Samoa and Fiji and leave most of them with a choice between OZ and NZ, who don't need them.

 

Sounds counterproductive? Well, the upside is that it makes it easier for the countries doing the domestic work - PNG, Serbia, Lebanon, Canada, USA - to qualify for tournaments, using the products of their grass roots work. We will get some blowout scores but we will get media exposure for some of those "lesser" countries which can be parlayed into domestic exposure and interest from local fans and potential sponsors.

 

I don't like quotas but I can accept some tweaking of the rules to encourage the "new reality" of World RL. There's already more RL played in Thailand than in Ireland and Scotland combined. Rules should be framed to encourage the future, not subsidise the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a combination of both above ideas would work. I definitely think it should be the parent rule instead of grandparent and I also believe a certain amount of domestic players should be used. This may have a negative effect on some Pacific island teams as well as some Euro countries such as Scotland and Ireland etc but it would give a massive boost to the domestic competitions and maybe encourage others to develop their domestic scene. It would also add some credibility to these teams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of us on here have noticed in the past that countries with established domestic comps, like Lebanon, Serbia and PNG, are disadvantaged in qualifying for tournaments because they can't compete with countries with little or no domestic game but a large pool of heritage players to draw on, like Scotland, Ireland and Cook Islands. This definitely seems a poor reward for those countries doing the grass roots work.

 

I don't like quotas in sport. If you're one of the best 17 available, you play. I think the solution is to tighten the RLIF eligibility rules. I don't think you can do this before RLWC2017 because teams should be able field the players they used to qualify for the tournament.

 

After the WC I would scrap the grandparent rule and make it at least one parent born in that country. After RLWC2021, I would make it both parents born in that country. The most obvious drawback of these changes would be to bar many players from eligibility for Tonga, Samoa and Fiji and leave most of them with a choice between OZ and NZ, who don't need them.

 

Sounds counterproductive? Well, the upside is that it makes it easier for the countries doing the domestic work - PNG, Serbia, Lebanon, Canada, USA - to qualify for tournaments, using the products of their grass roots work. We will get some blowout scores but we will get media exposure for some of those "lesser" countries which can be parlayed into domestic exposure and interest from local fans and potential sponsors.

 

I don't like quotas but I can accept some tweaking of the rules to encourage the "new reality" of World RL. There's already more RL played in Thailand than in Ireland and Scotland combined. Rules should be framed to encourage the future, not subsidise the past.

Yes, I would like to see it as parents as well. But until that they need to make sure some domestic players are included. Picking a team that is 100% heritage players does nothing for the game on the domestic front. The fans, players, teams, sponsors, just don't care if some of "their own" are not included. It actually hurts development by shunning the domestic players. At the moment, it is amazing how many Aussies and Brits come out of the woodwork at World Cup time, who have a USA (or other nation) grandparent, but only learned that RL was actually played in their "heritage nation" 2 weeks ago. The "Heritage Player World Cup" hurts the development, rather than help expand and expose it to new global fans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a lot of flak for calling the last World Cup an entertaining pageant, rather than a genuine competition.  It's this sort of thing I was talking about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with just about all of the Original Posters Ideas. IF it is in the interests of international game a player should be able to switch nations only once in a career and only after a world cup cycle of four years. Players selected on Residency should have to be government recognized legal permanent residents of chosen nation as well as meet the RLIF residency criteria. All Citizens & official permanent resident players should be considered domestic players. YES i think a 50% of the squad heritage Cap is good for those nations that are actually putting significant effort in the domestic game in there country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There used to be a quota option that was used - it may have been for the 2000 WC? That was at least 4/5 members of the national squad had to include players from the domestic competition. Where did that go?

 

It was one of the reasons Ireland kept selecting local player (and best heckling name ever) Wayne Kerr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2008 (I think that was the year) Tonga threatened legal action over the domestic players in the WC, saying it was a potential Player Welfare issue to have amateurs playing against pros. But there are multiple comps, like the Challenge Cup for instance, where this already happens.

 

And to be honest, I am quite certain the top dozen or so players in a competition, that is large enough to meet RLIF membership criteria, are tough enough to play a handful of games at the WC level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point. when it comes to think "expansion", heritage players reprensent great opportunity  BUT the target of each federation should be to decrease their amount regularly every year so they do not hurt the development.

 

If you take the problem from another angle (do not expect any miracle solution from me, i dont have any, just trying  to point out that international competition should be regarded as opportunity more than trhreat):

 

Internatinal game increases local interest, and even if it can create problem, this is a necessity for every nation development.  The problem is that the  WC is a event that is "too rare". i mean that, ideally, there should be several international competitions (based on geographical criteria), but with more that 2 or 3 nations (i am thinking about the Canada VS USA vs Jamaica there). International games increase the local interest. so yes it is an investment, but it raise also interest and money in the long run. but the competition has to be a real one (i would say with 6 countries) : if i take my previous example: West USA vs East USA vs West Canada vs East Canada vs Jamaica 1 vs Jamaica 2  (I have no idea if this territory selection could make sense, since i dont think there is a lot of rugby league in West USA... and i know that it is really easy to say, but almost impossible to implement, just want to point out that a 3 team competition is not enough)

 

With a more "complete" international competition, the heritage player  solution become more and more unrelevant: such a competitin is a solution for a nation to, little by little, "get rid" (legitimally, because the local competition creates players) of heritage players: playing more than 2 or 3 matches per year is no option for an australian player who is an heritage player in the USA for example, because he will not be able to travel 5 or 6 times a year if he wants to have a RL carreer in australia in the same time. 

 

Heritage players are not "right or wrong" from my point of view. they are the consequence, the best solution that internation RL has been able to come up with.

 

instead of willing to limit the heritge player, should it not be preferable to focus on creating, even if the 2 or 3 first years are complicated, a international competition (when there is no WC) which is a little too demanding to allow heritage players? I like the North America  Cup (canada USA Jamaica), would it be so hard to add one team (West USA or south america or central america or from somewhereelse) next year, plus another one the year after, plus another one... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point. when it comes to think "expansion", heritage players reprensent great opportunity  BUT the target of each federation should be to decrease their amount regularly every year so they do not hurt the development.

 

If you take the problem from another angle (do not expect any miracle solution from me, i dont have any, just trying  to point out that international competition should be regarded as opportunity more than trhreat):

 

Internatinal game increases local interest, and even if it can create problem, this is a necessity for every nation development.  The problem is that the  WC is a event that is "too rare". i mean that, ideally, there should be several international competitions (based on geographical criteria), but with more that 2 or 3 nations (i am thinking about the Canada VS USA vs Jamaica there). International games increase the local interest. so yes it is an investment, but it raise also interest and money in the long run. but the competition has to be a real one (i would say with 6 countries) : if i take my previous example: West USA vs East USA vs West Canada vs East Canada vs Jamaica 1 vs Jamaica 2  (I have no idea if this territory selection could make sense, since i dont think there is a lot of rugby league in West USA... and i know that it is really easy to say, but almost impossible to implement, just want to point out that a 3 team competition is not enough)

 

With a more "complete" international competition, the heritage player  solution become more and more unrelevant: such a competitin is a solution for a nation to, little by little, "get rid" (legitimally, because the local competition creates players) of heritage players: playing more than 2 or 3 matches per year is no option for an australian player who is an heritage player in the USA for example, because he will not be able to travel 5 or 6 times a year if he wants to have a RL carreer in australia in the same time. 

 

Heritage players are not "right or wrong" from my point of view. they are the consequence, the best solution that internation RL has been able to come up with.

 

instead of willing to limit the heritge player, should it not be preferable to focus on creating, even if the 2 or 3 first years are complicated, a international competition (when there is no WC) which is a little too demanding to allow heritage players? I like the North America  Cup (canada USA Jamaica), would it be so hard to add one team (West USA or south america or central america or from somewhereelse) next year, plus another one the year after, plus another one... 

As always it comes down to lack of money in the developing nations to fund travel and tournaments. It always comes back to the teams and players paying for everything. Which is yet another reason to reward at least a handful of them a WC spot. One idea I had was a North and South "Hemisphere" Cup in lieu of the World Cup and the top Nation from each play off for for Number 1. The idea would be to have 8 teams in each "Hemisphere". It lowers costs based on geography/travel/etc/. Allows 2 nations to put in bids to host. Gives two events to raise funds for the sport, an easy way to add 2 teams to make it 16 who qualify, and the qualifiers are set in a way where they are within the Hemispheres nations, etc. The two winning teams from each would them play off in the "Rugby League Super Cup" game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spinner as you have ground up development experience in the USA to draw on, have you contacted the RLIF directly to ask them to put some common sense in international eligibility rules? 

 

Other factors for eligibility are territories like Cook Islands, (& Tokelau & Niue) being in free association with NZ therefore all Cook Islanders can play for both countries as they have an NZ passport.

 

American Samoa - USA is a similar situation as NZ - Cook Islands. 

 

Then there is England, Scotland & Wales being a part of the United Kingdom. They were separate countries hundreds of years ago but now make up the UK, due to Rugby League being invented in the England we have like may other sports overlooked the fact that technically England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland are all in one nation called the UK.

 

I suppose a sport can choose to identify what consists a playing nation England, Scotland, Wales etc are examples of this. Another one would be the West Indies in Cricket, where English speaking countries in Caribbean/South America compete as one nation. In Rugby League in the past we had NZ Maori playing at a world cup as well as NZ Kiwi's. We have also recognized Catalan region in Spain as a sport territory in the past as they played rugby league.

 

National sport in general is a bit crazy populations of USA 250 million - Cook Islands 15,000 both are technically nations! But at least in Rugby League terms they are equal as both have about 300 registered players....

 

all these issues need to be taken into consideration in regards to eligibility.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say all internationals that are to classed as full internationals should only be playing domestic players.

Perhaps an allowance of a 2-3 players can be granted if these players are not classed as full time professionals.

 

 

However developing nations can still play friendlies but these game should not count in international rankings.

 

Teams that are in the World Cup Finals should be given be a dispensation that allows them to include a certain number of heritage players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spinner as you have ground up development experience in the USA to draw on, have you contacted the RLIF directly to ask them to put some common sense in international eligibility rules? 

 

Other factors for eligibility are territories like Cook Islands, (& Tokelau & Niue) being in free association with NZ therefore all Cook Islanders can play for both countries as they have an NZ passport.

 

American Samoa - USA is a similar situation as NZ - Cook Islands. 

 

Then there is England, Scotland & Wales being a part of the United Kingdom. They were separate countries hundreds of years ago but now make up the UK, due to Rugby League being invented in the England we have like may other sports overlooked the fact that technically England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland are all in one nation called the UK.

 

I suppose a sport can choose to identify what consists a playing nation England, Scotland, Wales etc are examples of this. Another one would be the West Indies in Cricket, where English speaking countries in Caribbean/South America compete as one nation. In Rugby League in the past we had NZ Maori playing at a world cup as well as NZ Kiwi's. We have also recognized Catalan region in Spain as a sport territory in the past as they played rugby league.

 

National sport in general is a bit crazy populations of USA 250 million - Cook Islands 15,000 both are technically nations! But at least in Rugby League terms they are equal as both have about 300 registered players....

 

all these issues need to be taken into consideration in regards to eligibility.

Yes, I have sent a direct email to the RLIF outlining a need for domestic players to be given some protection, based on the fact that they are the ones who are volunteering thousands of hours, and thousands of dollars, season after season, to grow the game to the point of meeting the RLIF criteria for membership. The best of them deserve a chance to represent their nations, and not be pushed aside because the rules allow for a 100% heritage team, for nothing more than to be competitive with the bottom 10 teams in the WC. In all honestly, no one if going to touch the top 3 or 4 nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Yes, I would like to see it as parents as well. But until that they need to make sure some domestic players are included. Picking a team that is 100% heritage players does nothing for the game on the domestic front. The fans, players, teams, sponsors, just don't care if some of "their own" are not included. It actually hurts development by shunning the domestic players. At the moment, it is amazing how many Aussies and Brits come out of the woodwork at World Cup time, who have a USA (or other nation) grandparent, but only learned that RL was actually played in their "heritage nation" 2 weeks ago. The "Heritage Player World Cup" hurts the development, rather than help expand and expose it to new global fans.

There used to be a domestic league player quota but I think it was challenged by one of the island nations I think. Along the lines that amateur players would get seriously injured playing against full time pros. At that point the RLIF had virtually no choice but to relax the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I appreciate your sentiments Spanner but I too find quotas for the World Cup would devalue it. If you are the best and qualify for that country you should be picked.

I have been calling for the end of the grandparent rule for a long time but I only think it necessary for one parent to be from a country for you to qualify rather than both.

The solution is in rewarding the domestic players. I have suggested previously a domestic World Cup that does not include Aus, NZ, Eng or Fra.

Nations are to be solely made up of domestically registered players outside of the professional game. This would rule out PNG QLD Cup players for the Hunters for example.

There would be a geographic qualification phase to the point where there would be a representation of one nation each from Europe, Africa, Pacific and Americas for a tournament every four years.

This would prove a great reward for domestic players and the nations who are developing grassroots opportunities whilst still allowing the best players (if that didn't include any domestic players) to represent at the WC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the ways that Rugby League will grow on the international stage is if we bring in some sort of quota to give players from local competitions a chance. As it stands at the moment some PI teams could contain a squad of 23 players which none were born on that island and none play in the local leagues. I think that's wrong. That is not developing international Rugby League

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the ways that Rugby League will grow on the international stage is if we bring in some sort of quota to give players from local competitions a chance. As it stands at the moment some PI teams could contain a squad of 23 players which none were born on that island and none play in the local leagues. I think that's wrong. That is not developing international Rugby League

there are other posters that disagree with quotas and have explained their reasoning. What do you have to say to those comments above?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are other posters that disagree with quotas and have explained their reasoning. What do you have to say to those comments above?

How can you hope to develop Rugby League in Samoa, Tonga etc if not one of their international players was born there or left at a young age to live in Australia or New Zealand. Once you start giving players from your local competition a chance it will inspire others to take up the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

How can you hope to develop Rugby League in Samoa, Tonga etc if not one of their international players was born there or left at a young age to live in Australia or New Zealand. Once you start giving players from your local competition a chance it will inspire others to take up the game.

i think I covered this in my earlier post, via a domestic Workd Cup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.