Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

The huge implications for English rugby posed by Brexit that no one is talking about it

By Alex Shaw
England will be well aware of Telusa Veainu's attacking threat on Sunday (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

As the United Kingdom winds its way closer and closer to March 29th, the date on which it plans – and is legally required – to leave the European Union, there is a significant amount of uncertainty on what it might mean for the Gallagher Premiership.

ADVERTISEMENT

There will be economic implications, with Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, warning that a ‘no deal’ scenario will see the value of the pound fall, interest rates rise and risk of another recession. Even the more optimistic projections of what the outcome could be if the Withdrawal Agreement is agreed to by UK MPs on December 11th, still predict a 1-2% fall in the UK’s GDP.

The financial implications will play a part in rugby. If the pound weakens, English clubs will face increased challenges in retaining and recruiting players in comparison to the sides that operate in countries using the euro or yen. With club rugby largely unsustainable at the current salary cap mark, there is little desire to increase it in order for English clubs to continue to compete with the spending power abroad.

As stands, there is nothing definitive, though, on how the economy will be affected, with the prospects of both deal and no deal scenarios still on the table.

Continue reading below…

Video Spacer

One area in which Premiership clubs will be significantly affected is in the eligibility of their players.

If a ‘no deal’ scenario comes into place on March 29th, it ends Britain’s association with the EU completely, which will significantly redefine what constitutes a ‘foreign player’ in the Premiership.

Currently, any player who has an EU passport or a passport from an associate nation, such as Fiji, Samoa, Tonga or South Africa, via the Cotonou Agreement, is not classed as a foreign player in English rugby. They have the same rights and ability to work in the country as an English player and are not allowed to be subjected to quotas. They are regularly referred to as ‘Kolpak players’, a term which was born out of Maroš Kolpak’s successful legal challenge to have the rights of an EU worker, as a citizen of a country which had an Association Agreement with the EU.

ADVERTISEMENT

This, for the most part, leaves those defined as foreign players in the competition as Australians or New Zealanders who do not qualify to represent an EU nation, with that qualification, if it exists, erasing their status as a foreign player. There are some outliers, such as James Horwill, a fully-capped Wallaby and not an EU nation-qualified player, but who possesses a British passport. Non-EU and non-Kolpak players who are married to an EU national are also exempt from the foreign player status.

Still with us? Well done.

Whilst English rugby cannot implement quotas on Kolpak players or EU workers due to EU law, it has managed to strike a healthy balance in ensuring that English-qualified players (EQP) are well-represented, by establishing a quota on EQP involvement alone, which clubs must meet if they are to receive their funding from the RFU.

If the UK leaves with no deal, all the players from EU countries, the Pacific Islands and South Africa – as well as Kenya, Zimbabwe and Namibia – who are not British-qualified, will then be classed as foreign players.

Vereniki Goneva (Getty Images)
ADVERTISEMENT

The criteria currently allow for all EU-nation qualified players to be treated as non-foreign under EU law, and you would suspect that the Premiership would redefine that to all British-qualified players from those countries in a no deal scenario, but it could also be further selective, reducing it just to English-qualified players. This would then be an issue for all Scottish and Welsh-qualified players, without British passports, playing in the Premiership.

If a deal is reached, these problems would not be avoided, just kicked further down the road, with freedom of movement set to end in the UK after a potential transition period. For as long as the transition period was in place, all Kolpak players would maintain the rights as workers that they currently enjoy in the UK, with EU law applying in the country until the end of that transition period. The Withdrawal Agreement protects the rights of EU citizens in the UK after the transition period, but it does not make the same assurances for Kolpak players, who have the rights of EU workers, not citizens.

One group of players who should avoid this affecting them entirely are Irish players, whose status in the UK is guaranteed by the Common Travel Agreement, a key part of the Good Friday Agreement and something which has been guaranteed to continue by the UK government.

If you’ve made it this far without your head exploding, we salute you. Once more unto the breach, dear friends.

What should worry Premiership directors of rugby up and down the country, however, is how reliant they are on those Kolpak players, especially as their ability to select them regularly could be stripped as soon as March 29th.

The Premiership currently only allows for two ‘foreign players’ in any matchday squad and whilst those spots are largely used by capped All Blacks and Wallabies as stands, the addition of Pacific Island and South African players to that definition will throw almost all sides’ selections into disarray.

To use this weekend’s fixtures as an example, only Harlequins boast a side that, irrespective of the arrangements surrounding Brexit on March 29th, would be fielding a matchday 23 that would be legal by current rules.

Club (* denotes sides who did not answer requests for confirmation on players’ statuses or opted not to provide any at time of publication)Number of players in 23 currently deemed ‘foreign’ by Premiership criteriaNumber of additional players in 23 who would be deemed ‘foreign’ should the UK leave the EU with no deal, ending involvement in Kolpak agreement/EU law jurisdiction
Bath*14
Bristol Bears16
Exeter Chiefs*21
Gloucester*13
Harlequins11
Leicester Tigers*23
Newcastle Falcons*06
Northampton Saints*26
Sale Sharks23
Saracens*03
Wasps*24
Worcester Warriors04

 

There are additional questions over players without British passports, but who have qualified for Scotland and Wales. Under the current guidelines, which are adherent to EU law, they do not count in the quota, but the Premiership could opt to count them moving forward, only providing an eligibility loophole for English-qualified players. If they did, this would increase the number of future ineligible players at Exeter, Newcastle and Sale this weekend.

It’s a potential minefield of interpretations, but the outlook is not a positive one. The best-case scenario for those Premiership clubs would be for a deal to be agreed to on December 11th, which would at least give them the transition period to recruit and release players accordingly for subsequent seasons, or for the Premiership to dramatically alter its eligibility rules.

Alternatively, if no deal were to be the outcome on March 29th, a couple of the Premiership clubs, such as Harlequins, Saracens and Exeter, who will clearly still be able to field strong sides and meet the Premiership criteria, could play hardball and call for the current eligibility rules to remain in place until at least the 2019/20 season. This would be a potentially devastating blow for the likes of Bristol, Northampton, Sale and Newcastle, who would find their selection options limited each week.

Faf de Klerk during The Rugby Championship match between the All Blacks and Springboks at Westpac Stadium on September 15, 2018 in Wellington, New Zealand. (Photo by Anthony Au-Yeung/Getty Images)

If you thought all of that was bad enough, and that’s without really touching on the financial and logistical implications of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, why not try this next one on for size.

One other interesting side note to Brexit are the potential repercussions within the Heineken Champions Cup and European Rugby Challenge Cup.

Research by lawyer Tim O’Connor has highlighted that European Professional Club Rugby’s (EPCR) own eligibility criteria states that a team can only select a maximum of two ‘non-European’ players in their matchday squad. As with the eligibility criteria in the Premiership, this means that non-European Kolpak players do not count towards this tally. It is poorly phrased but given the abundance of South African and Fijian players that have turned out for clubs in the same matchday squads previously, it is safe to assume this is what it means and not genuinely ‘non-Europeans’.

Interestingly, O’Connor points out that if the UK leaves the EU with no deal, they become a third party. English, Scottish and Welsh players would no longer be classed as ‘European’ by EPCR’s presumed definition in their public rules, and they are not Kolpak players, either. They would, logically, become ‘non-European players’, of which you are only allowed two in matchday 23s.

In short, under the current rules, which were put in place with full knowledge of when the Brexit date would be, English, Welsh and Scottish sides would have to forfeit games, should they progress to the quarter-final stage, or bring in a host of ringers from EU countries, the Pacific Islands and South Africa, which would itself require a fudging of the current squad registration rules in the competition.

March 29th is the Friday of the quarter-final weekend in the Champions and Challenge Cups and is surely a weekend that the likes of Saracens, Newcastle, Worcester, Sale and Harlequins all have their eyes on.

The Premiership might be able to alter its eligibility criteria midseason, if all participating clubs agree to it, but what incentive is there for French, Irish and Italian clubs to do likewise in European competition? These are the rules that were subscribed to by all entrants at the start of the season and they would have valid claims of the goalposts being shifted if EPCR were to bring in midseason measures to alter their eligibility rules for British sides.

Regardless, we will know more about the repercussions for rugby on December 11th, when Prime Minister Theresa May attempts to get her deal accepted by British MPs.

It’s fair to say that Brexit has not been handled well at the government level, but all Premiership clubs have been aware of the referendum, the result and the potential outcomes for the last few years, so there really is no excuse for sleep-walking into this. No matter what happens on December 11th, the landscape of English and British rugby is going to change dramatically in 2019.

Update: The RFU have inserted an amendment into their ‘Foreign Player’ definition that states that “in the event of any governmental changes that impact this definition during the season, the status quo will prevail for the 2018-19 season.”

Watch: Andy Farrell to replace Joe Schmidt as Ireland head coach after the Rugby World Cup.

Video Spacer
ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 6

Sam Warburton | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

Japan Rugby League One | Sungoliath v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Japan Rugby League One | Spears v Wild Knights | Full Match Replay

Boks Office | Episode 10 | Six Nations Final Round Review

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | How can New Zealand rugby beat this Ireland team

Beyond 80 | Episode 5

Rugby Europe Men's Championship Final | Georgia v Portugal | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 7 hours ago
Jake White: Are modern rugby players actually better?

This is the problem with conservative mindsets and phycology, and homogenous sports, everybody wants to be the same, use the i-win template. Athlete wise everyone has to have muscles and work at the gym to make themselves more likely to hold on that one tackle. Do those players even wonder if they are now more likely to be tackled by that player as a result of there “work”? Really though, too many questions, Jake. Is it better Jake? Yes, because you still have that rugby of ole that you talk about. Is it at the highest International level anymore? No, but you go to your club or checkout your representative side and still engage with that ‘beautiful game’. Could you also have a bit of that at the top if coaches encouraged there team to play and incentivized players like Damian McKenzie and Ange Capuozzo? Of course we could. Sadly Rugby doesn’t, or didn’t, really know what direction to go when professionalism came. Things like the state of northern pitches didn’t help. Over the last two or three decades I feel like I’ve been fortunate to have all that Jake wants. There was International quality Super Rugby to adore, then the next level below I could watch club mates, pulling 9 to 5s, take on the countries best in representative rugby. Rugby played with flair and not too much riding on the consequences. It was beautiful. That largely still exists today, but with the world of rugby not quite getting things right, the picture is now being painted in NZ that that level of rugby is not required in the “pathway” to Super Rugby or All Black rugby. You might wonder if NZR is right and the pathway shouldn’t include the ‘amateur’, but let me tell you, even though the NPC might be made up of people still having to pull 9-5s, we know these people still have dreams to get out of that, and aren’t likely to give them. They will be lost. That will put a real strain on the concept of whether “visceral thrill, derring-do and joyful abandon” type rugby will remain under the professional level here in NZ. I think at some point that can be eroded as well. If only wanting the best athlete’s at the top level wasn’t enough to lose that, shutting off the next group, or level, or rugby players from easy access to express and showcase themselves certainly will. That all comes back around to the same question of professionalism in rugby and whether it got things right, and rugby is better now. Maybe the answer is turning into a “no”?

35 Go to comments
j
john 9 hours ago
Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby?

But here in Australia we were told Penney was another gun kiwi coach, for the Tahs…….and yet again it turned out the kiwi coach was completely useless. Another con job on Australian rugby. As was Robbie Deans, as was Dave Rennie. Both coaches dumped from NZ and promoted to Australia as our saviour. And the Tahs lap them up knowing they are second rate and knowing that under pressure when their short comings are exposed in Australia as well, that they will fall in below the largest most powerful province and choose second rate Tah players to save their jobs. As they do and exactly as Joe Schmidt will do. Gauranteed. Schmidt was dumped by NZ too. That’s why he went overseas. That why kiwi coaches take jobs in Australia, to try and prove they are not as bad as NZ thought they were. Then when they get found out they try and ingratiate themselves to NZ again by dragging Australian teams down with ridiculous selections and game plans. NZ rugby’s biggest problem is that it can’t yet transition from MCaw Cheatism. They just don’t know how to try and win on your merits. It is still always a contest to see how much cheating you can get away with. Without a cheating genius like McCaw, they are struggling. This I think is why my wise old mate in NZ thinks Robertson will struggle. The Crusaders are the nursery of McCaw Cheatism. Sean Fitzpatrick was probably the father of it. Robertson doesn’t know anything else but other countries have worked it out.

37 Go to comments
A
Adrian 11 hours ago
Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby?

Thanks Nick The loss of players to OS, injury and retirement is certainly not helping the Crusaders. Ditto the coach. IMO Penny is there to hold the fort and cop the flak until new players and a new coach come through,…and that's understood and accepted by Penny and the Crusaders hierarchy. I think though that what is happening with the Crusaders is an indicator of what is happening with the other NZ SRP teams…..and the other SRP teams for that matter. Not enough money. The money has come via the SR competition and it’s not there anymore. It's in France, Japan and England. Unless or until something is done to make SR more SELLABLE to the NZ/Australia Rugby market AND the world rugby market the $s to keep both the very best players and the next rung down won't be there. They will play away from NZ more and more. I think though that NZ will continue to produce the players and the coaches of sufficient strength for NZ to have the capacity to stay at the top. Whether they do stay at the top as an international team will depend upon whether the money flowing to SRP is somehow restored, or NZ teams play in the Japan comp, or NZ opts to pick from anywhere. As a follower of many sports I’d have to say that the organisation and promotion of Super Rugby has been for the last 20 years closest to the worst I’ve ever seen. This hasn't necessarily been caused by NZ, but it’s happened. Perhaps it can be fixed, perhaps not. The Crusaders are I think a symptom of this, not the cause

37 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby? Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby?
Search