Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Want to help Pacific Island rugby? Give the players the power to choose

By Jamie Wall
Jason Taumalolo of Tonga

In a week where World Rugby revealed a bit more of its agenda than it probably wanted to, the overshadowing of the real problem in the game has been palpable.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yes, the 2023 Rugby World Cup got awarded to France because there’s more money to be made there than Ireland and South Africa. At best it’s pragmatic, at worst it’s cynical given the bizarre roundabout way they went about doing it – but everyone can agree that it’s obvious that international rugby needs more money rather than less.

Ireland will whinge long and hard about the decision, because that’s what the Irish seem to want to do about everything that doesn’t go their way these days. South Africa will feel somewhat bemused, given that they were more or less told it was theirs to lose just a fortnight ago. So it’s likely we’ve only just started hearing the recriminations about how it all went down.

Even though it’s clear that the decision was completely based on dollars and (at least in World Rugby’s eyes) sense. But it shouldn’t cloud the much more important financial situation that’s affecting the have nots of the rugby world.

This all comes at the same time that the Samoan Rugby Union has declared bankruptcy and the national team members are relying on public handouts to simply make it through their tour of the UK without operating at a loss. It’s the latest in an ongoing saga – and if it seems like it’s been going for years now, it’s because it has.

Conversely, there’s been some serious rumblings down in the southern hemisphere regarding the future of the game in the Pacific – albeit through a different code. The Rugby League World Cup has been tipped on its head thanks to a stacked Tongan side taking out the New Zealand Kiwis in pool play, thanks in no small part by the defection of star Kiwi lock Jason Taumalolo.

Taumalolo has recently signed the NRL’s largest ever contract, worth AUD $10m over the next decade with the North Queensland Cowboys. He is set, and doesn’t need the lure of national or State of Origin selection to guarantee his financial future. Due in part to an acrimonious relationship with Kiwi coach Davis Kidwell, Taumalolo chose to play for Tonga – strengthening a team already boosted by the inclusion of Andrew Fifita in similar circumstances.

ADVERTISEMENT

League, unlike union in this part of the world, is run by the clubs. It often makes the international game seem like a bit of a farce, given that the eligibility laws also allow players to switch allegiance seemingly at will.

However, is it? Is it necessarily a terrible thing that the Tongan league team are now world beaters thanks to a few players deciding that they’d rather play for them than the traditional superpowers? And also, isn’t that what those critical of the All Blacks and other nations taking Pacific Island eligible players want?

Is it finally time to admit that the perceived strength of rugby union is also, for nations like Tonga, Samoa and Fiji, probably its biggest weakness? The events surrounding Samoa’s financial woes reveal that that strength only benefits the ones at the top of the pile. The solution may be the one thing that NZ Rugby dreads the most: opening the borders on eligibility, and decentralizing teams to allow them to contract more foreign players.

It’s this switch of power that would make the difference to Pacific Island players, not just relaxing eligibility rules. Because really, would it change too much by letting former All Blacks and others go back and play for the islands? All they would have is top heavy teams and the same threadbare approach that would mean promising players based in Europe would most likely stay there for the test window. Sustainability is the key here, not just some quick fix that presumes that former All Blacks are just going to swoop in and save Samoan rugby.

ADVERTISEMENT

It’s the union equivalents of Taumalolo that need to be making the switch, who are at the peak of their powers, rather than guys in their 30’s who have been playing in Europe. Once they have the money and security, then they can start to make the choice to play for the islands.

Then World Rugby can start doing something about the revenue sharing model. Because we could all forgive them for the debacle over the hosting rights for the World Cup, and even their thinly veiled reasoning that it will make them a ton more money – if that money actually goes to who needs it.

But, by 2023, it might be be too late for the Pacific Islands.

Video Spacer

READ MORE:

The big issue: unfairness, welfare and the myth of ‘poaching’ in Pacific Island rugby

Appeal launched for Samoan players

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

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

Fresh Starts | Episode 2 | Sam Whitelock

Royal Navy Men v Royal Air Force Men | Full Match Replay

Royal Navy Women v Royal Air Force Women | 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 8 hours ago
The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific

I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.

24 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE Makazole Mapimpi: 'My life is somewhere I never thought it would be.' Makazole Mapimpi: 'My life is somewhere I never thought it would be.'
Search