Pichot's message

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I wanted to address this one separately.

Let's face it the only reason why Argentina don't pick foreign born players is because none of the surrounding countries play it really and they don't have the money to draw them into the Jagures.

That's a really unfair and ignorant view and the easiest way to disprove it is to look at what we do in other sports.
The only player from our footie national team that wasn't born in Argentina was Higuain, and that was because his father was playing in France when he was born.

Argentina and Brazil are South America's springboard to europe for footie and due to language, a lot of the best from Chile, Uruguay, Pero, Bolivia, Paraguay and Ecuador come to our league first. If we wanted to poach for football, trust me, we could. We do not. Not only that, it's incredibly easy to get a permant residency permit and later citizenship.

I am not saying it's a good thing, but we kinda take pride in not poaching. We've had players win world cups with other teams (trezeguet for france, camoranesi for italy) but we don't like it the other way around.

This is not a minor thing for us. Messi's argentinity (?) is still questioned by many. I kid you not.

 

[Leinster Fan]

This is just a load of inflammatory s**** from Pichot.

 

[Leinster Fan]

This is just a load of inflammatory s****. It'd be amateurist coming from a clickbait journo and from the vice president of WR it's downright outrageous. The numbers are wrong however you count them, stealing inaccurate figures off a poorly researched YouTube video, from the vice-president of the ORGANISATION THAT LITERALLY RUNS THAT GAME, is just unproffesional. Stating that you don't care about certain cases and then including them in your numbers (I mean they're not even his numbers) is just ridiculous.

To certain players like Jordi Murphy who was born in Spain to Irish parents, has lived in Ireland since a young age, has played 100% of his rugby in Ireland, came through the Irish system and plays for an Irish club, it's borderline slanderous for someone at the top level if rugby administration to suggested that on a certain level he shouldn't be playing for Ireland. From a journalist it's maybe acceptable but from WR it's pathetic, unprofessional and should be called out. Even if he states that he isn't targeting those players by including them in his figures he's insinuating it whether or not he's doing it intentionally. As Vice President of WR he's got mandate from the rugby world and there's a certain level of responsibility, he's utterly failed to live up to that.

It's not like he can change anything, except for changing the residency rule and he's already done that, legally WR have no leg to stand on legally if they try to change the parentage rule and to try to do so would display an utter lack of understanding of how migration and heritage works, especially in Ireland and the UK where a huge segment of the population feel closely aligned to a certain nation even if they weren't born there.

Pichot since he got the job has been doing more or less everything in his power to help Argentina, but this is next level. IF he'd gone out, done some research and come out with a list of numbers regarding players who are playing for countries who they have no genuine link to, people would have to listen. (If you look at the Ireland squad I can think of Roux, Stander and Aki, that's 3/42 or something like 7%, probably 7% too much but still.) Instead he's just copied and pasted a YouTube video and put up some numbers that take literally five minutes with Google to debunk. The worst thing is that if he's put any effort into it he'd have had a point. You'd expect more from one of the most significant and influential figures in the world of rugby.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Unfortunately i've opened myself to too many sides for debate and i don't have the time to tackle all so i'll have to cherry pick with intentions and not convenience in mind, but cherry pick nonetheless. Apologies for that Oly ncurd and Alpha.

Very good post but I don't agree with it and I think you're inferring sounder judgement on Agustin than he deserves.

Those are all subjective. Every single one has a pretty big judgement call in it.
Foreign born is cut and dry. I do agree with you that is far from perfect and some people who should be shown there are.

I'd say none of them any more so than foreign born, at least those three show some thought behind them rather than one basis that is absolutely unreasonable in plenty of ordinary cases. With the three year eligibility you'll be called out for strange cases like Dylan Hartley but they're the exception rather than the norm. Foreign born probably leaves you with about a 50/50 split where a reasonable person would consider cases to be either absolutely fine or a bit dodgy.

Very few. But that doesn't refrain the point that rich nations benefit at the expense of poorer nations.

Rich nations benefit from poor nations workforce in every walk of life, my point indicated the reason why. Its pretty terrible but its a case of economics, the only players born in the aforementioned countries playing for any UK teams also moved before they had even reached an age where you could play representative rugby while Ireland have never played a player born in the pacific islands. Its really only a result of families of future stars happening to find better lives elsewhere.

Well, i'm sorry but the problem is that the timing is incredibly convenient. When you (Ire/Eng/etc) had nearly all their players born in Eng/Ire/Etc the ABs were poachers, but now that your foreign born numbers are more than NZ ones it's just morons who bring it up?
No. You can't have it both ways.
I am really curious what nzers have to say about this because i recall a few of them defending themselves about this not that long ago.

I'm guessing if Pichot actually has any claims related to this tweet, they will be as easily debunked as this one was.

Not sure where you are getting your legal advice but that is just not true. FIFA has won it for them and set the precedent. Other sports have done so too.

I can name at least 20 footie players without googling that have more than one nationality (very common in Argentina) that couldn't, cannot and wont be able to play for a team they have a nationality from.

I thought it was common knowledge, but i guess it's worth remembering. Messi (Arg and Spanish national at the time). AFA (Arg footie Fed) organized two games against Paraguay when messi was 17 yo for the sole purpose of blocking him from playing for Spain. It's well documented.
Carlos Navarro Montoya, considered at the time the best goalie in Argentina could never play for our national team because he had played a game for Colombia's youth squad.

Tons of examples. Over the last 20 years, cases where a footie player represents more than one national team, are incredibly rare. Probably a handful for extremely special circumstances but they are incredibly exceptional.

I think you missed my point there, what I meant was a player who has never played senior international rugby can't be stopped from playing for a country they are entitled to citizenship of at birth, that won't fly. Soccer still have the granny rule which is what I was referring too and there are plenty of examples of players playing for one countries youth teams and playing or being eligible for another's senior team, James McClean and Jack Grealish are relevant examples here. I don't endorse playing for two nations even if it is the tier 1 to tier 2 switcharoo.

I think it does. If the migration of talent for national teams follows one and almost exclusively one direction. I consider that to be a problem that should be addressed. You clearly dont think so.

I think it is being addressed, 5 year eligibility, the idea of letting players change allegiances from a tier 1 to tier 2 nations etc... But they can't stop a 15 year old whose parents moved to England from playing for England, it'd be mad and illegal again.

I'm speculating (we all are a bit i guess) but I sincerely don't think that's what Pichot was trying to say. I admit he did manage it poorly tho. I think his idea is very similar to what happens in football in this aspect.

He basically sees, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil's best football players coming back to play for their national teams despite playing abroad. In Rugby that does not happen. If a Samoan is lured by an english club when he's young (say 17, he's played for Samoa U18 already), if he ends up being really good, chances are he will end up playing for England.
Some of you think there is nothing wrong with that. Pichot does and so do i.

I think you're being a bit generous to Pichot there, I think you'd also be surprised as to how little that happens outside of France (I reckon it probably doesn't happen outside of France) I don't think its right what France does but I also don't think there's any way to stop it without breaching human rights.

This was, imo, his clumsy, politically incorrect and even stupid way of opening the conversation about it.

I think the way he is handling it is poor at best, but i like very much where he's aiming at.

Hope i had more time, got to go.

Most of the disagreement lies here really, I think his aim was to have a sly dig at European nations, a lot more thought would have gone into it if he actually wanted something to come of the tweet.

If Pichot really wants this to stop he'd be better off trying to push an agenda through the UN rather than WR because it is far from a sport specific issue.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The only player from our footie national team that wasn't born in Argentina was Higuain, and that was because his father was playing in France when he was born.

Yet Nathan Earle's parents working in Hong Kong doesn't count? Or Underhill's in America? North in England? Etc.etc.etc.

 

[die_mole]

Well you cant have objective measures for something that isn't objective.

I think the rules we have now are the best we can possibly have unless we develop some threshold for years spent in a country by the player or their parents.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

One of the biggest issues when ONLY judging nationality on country of birth is, what if my child was born while the misses and I were on vacation in... oh I dunno Hong Kong (for arguments sake). After the vacation ends and the misses, our newborn and myself return to Cardiff... where said newborn spends the rest of his upbringing, he is far more Welsh than a Hong Konger (or Hong Kongese).

Therefore, nationality can NEVER be as simple as merely place of birth.

Thanks, i like that post. It allows me to explain myself better. It will also address some of the points made by other posters. Might get a bit boring, please bear with me.
I agree with you that judging nationality only is a problem. I believe he used it as a shortcut but, as alpha pointed out, i could be givin Pichot the benefit of the doubt, unfairly. I grant that possibility exists.

Moving on. I work with numbers and statistics for a living and have done so for quite a while. A very common phrase in the field is "precisely wrong but directionally correct". It means that although the numbers are probably wrong, even most of them, they are wrong in a way that they do not invalidate the insights you obtain from them, at least some of those insights.

Example. Say you study a series that goes 2, 5, 10, 20. Assume the numbers were a bit wrong, all of them because, in all of those cases you took into account something that you shouldn't have (like people who went there for a holiday only!). When you adjust the numbers. odds are the trend will be quite similar. Not the same but it will still be going up. Imagine, 2,4, 8, 16. The numbers are all the same, but if your insight was "the numbers are growing" or "the last number is bigger than the first one" the insight remains the same.

The exceptions that you mention are reasonable and valid and should be eliminated. Granted. My point (i can't say it was Pichot's, i wish it was but i don't know) is that i am pretty damm sure that, on average, his point would still stand even after that correction. For two reasons.

1) The exceptions you mentioned should be, on average, somewhat similar (not equal) across the board (chances of a welsh going on holiday and having a baby are the same as the ones of a scot doing the same)
2) Those exceptions should be, well, exceptional. They might move a country's number a bit but overall, the trend and rankings will be, on average, very similar.

This next is key. For one particular nation the difference might be significant. Unlikely but it can happen. But for the overall series of all players in those countries the trend will be very, very similar.

This is precisely why i think the argument coming from Three kings and picked up here by some, although 100% true, wouldn't have much of an impact in terms of order of magnitude. It might make Ireland, Wales or Scotland look better, but it won't make Ireland, Wales AND Scotland look better. Hope this is clear.

To sum it up, i believe Pichot's figures to be imperfect and wrong. True. However, i believe the trend those numbers infer to be pretty darn accurate in terms of insight, and that is imo the most important part.
I think at this point we agree the presentation was far from perfect. I'd like to focus on the "what" rather than on the "how".

 

[bushytop]

Thanks, i like that post. It allows me to explain myself better. It will also address some of the points made by other posters. Might get a bit boring, please bear with me.
I agree with you that judging nationality only is a problem. I believe he used it as a shortcut but, as alpha pointed out, i could be givin Pichot the benefit of the doubt, unfairly. I grant that possibility exists.

Moving on. I work with numbers and statistics for a living and have done so for quite a while. A very common phrase in the field is "precisely wrong but directionally correct". It means that although the numbers are probably wrong, even most of them, they are wrong in a way that they do not invalidate the insights you obtain from them, at least some of those insights.

Example. Say you study a series that goes 2, 5, 10, 20. Assume the numbers were a bit wrong, all of them because, in all of those cases you took into account something that you shouldn't have (like people who went there for a holiday only!). When you adjust the numbers. odds are the trend will be quite similar. Not the same but it will still be going up. Imagine, 2,4, 8, 16. The numbers are all the same, but if your insight was "the numbers are growing" or "the last number is bigger than the first one" the insight remains the same.

The exceptions that you mention are reasonable and valid and should be eliminated. Granted. My point (i can't say it was Pichot's, i wish it was but i don't know) is that i am pretty damm sure that, on average, his point would still stand even after that correction. For two reasons.

1) The exceptions you mentioned should be, on average, somewhat similar (not equal) across the board (chances of a welsh going on holiday and having a baby are the same as the ones of a scot doing the same)
2) Those exceptions should be, well, exceptional. They might move a country's number a bit but overall, the trend and rankings will be, on average, very similar.

This next is key. For one particular nation the difference might be significant. Unlikely but it can happen. But for the overall series of all players in those countries the trend will be very, very similar.

This is precisely why i think the argument coming from Three kings and picked up here by some, although 100% true, wouldn't have much of an impact in terms of order of magnitude. It might make Ireland, Wales or Scotland look better, but it won't make Ireland, Wales AND Scotland look better. Hope this is clear.

To sum it up, i believe Pichot's figures to be imperfect and wrong. True. However, i believe the trend those numbers infer to be pretty darn accurate in terms of insight, and that is imo the most important part.
I think at this point we agree the presentation was far from perfect. I'd like to focus on the "what" rather than on the "how".

Still would disagree with pure place of birth nationality but I appreciate your argument.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Still would disagree with pure place of birth nationality but I appreciate your argument.

I believe i wasn't clear. I disagree with using pure place of birth nationality, too.

If it were up to me, it would be very, very simple. I'd give the players the choice, but only once. I don't care where you are born, what your passport says, residence, nothing. As long as the union you represent can legally put you on the field without breaking any laws i'm fine with that. You as a player, have the choice to wear or not to wear that jersey. Now, and this is the important part, once you picked a side, there's no going back. You can choose, but do so carefully. We can even come to a compromise: something along the lines of u18 is free for all, but if you use a national jersey in U20 or senior you are there for life.
What i want is to prevent rich nations from buying talent. Or at least minimize that.
I want the rules to be expansive in terms of how the sport develops and as things stand, they are concentrating things. I don't think that's good for the sport. It will make cracker games between the tier 1 nations, but it will increase the gap between tier 1 and the rest. I would like Tonga, Fiji and Samoa to compete, not to feed other national teams. And let us be honest here; it's not just that they are taking any players. They are taking the very best from those.

It is arguably one of the 1-2 things i think FIFA is doing better than WR.

I think he used those figures as a quick and dirty proxy of something else. Then again, he's argentine and a fellow clubman so i'm probably a bit biased.

Glad we could keep things civil discussing something as visceral, at least to some.

 

[die_mole]

fifa has even more lax eligibility transfer rules than world rugby does... you can switch even after playing for the senior team if it was a friendly

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

fifa has even more lax eligibility transfer rules than world rugby does... you can switch even after playing for the senior team if it was a friendly

Not really. Objectively it's just different (you can switch in senior after a friendly but you can't if say, you played a tournament in u16s). One uses age as main criteria while the other uses whether the game was competitive or not.
Personally i'd say football is stricter but it's a judgement call.
And, it's not that you can switch. You have to apply for permission to FIFA, which is not the same. Diego Costa (the typical example used for this) got away with it because Spain was the one applying.

Over the last 10 years, the examples of football players that have played for more than one national team are (as %) way more rare than their rugby counterparts. The rule of thumb is, you pick, but once and for life.

 

[All Black]

In case you haven't read about it yet, here's Pichot's (WR vice president) message
----------------------------------

Jugadores No nacidos en sus paises/ Foreign-born players en Noviembre

46.3%

37.1%

29.7%

29.4%

27.7%

26.1%

24.3%

12.9%

12.5%

&

0%
------------------------------------------------------

Xenophobic is probably the nicest compliment he received after posting this. All coming, of course, from people with countries where the % is above 20%. Not only that, but a LOT of the people from countries that usually complain/ed about NZ poaching players from Tonga/Fiji/Samoa are screaming xenophobia when the same argument is used against them.

I don't think Pichot is against people like George North (born in England) playing for Wales. That is not his point. His point is that we're at a stage where if a player is good he gets to play for a set of nations, while if he's not that good, he gets to play for another. There also appears to be a very clear correlation about how rich the nations importing the good players are in comparison to the one exporting them.

The problem is the ability to decide nationality (for rugby purposes, not in gral in mean), because that implies money will play a role too. One of the beauties of national tournaments is, precisely, that every country gets to play with the cards they're dealt with regardless of money, location, religion, race, etc. This kinda ruins it imo.

Again, i am not against specific cases like (again) Geroge North. As an example, i am against someoen who played u18 for one team, and then after he doesnt make it to the senior goes to another country and plays for them there. I am 100% against that. I am also against a case where player A gets to play for country X if he is really good and country Y if he is just good. I can put names for both cases.

For the record, Argentina's is 0% by a weird coincidence. Cancelliere was born in the US while his parent's where on some sort of work secondment.

Thoughts?

Interesting and surprising.

I'm not surprised at the Pumas and the Springboks but Im surprised at the numbers for everyone else. To be honest, I thought we would be a little higher up the order but then after thinking about it, that percent sounds ok for us.

 

[die_mole]

Not really. Objectively it's just different (you can switch in senior after a friendly but you can't if say, you played a tournament in u16s). One uses age as main criteria while the other uses whether the game was competitive or not.
Personally i'd say football is stricter but it's a judgement call.
And, it's not that you can switch. You have to apply for permission to FIFA, which is not the same. Diego Costa (the typical example used for this) got away with it because Spain was the one applying.

Over the last 10 years, the examples of football players that have played for more than one national team are (as %) way more rare than their rugby counterparts. The rule of thumb is, you pick, but once and for life.

that's not true and we've already had this argument on this board about whether or not that's fact... i ended up having to go to the FIFA rules and regs to show that only senior international games in tournaments tie you to a team

 

[Brigantine]

24% of New Zealand residents were born overseas (in 2013), so the noteworthy thing about New Zealand's 12.5% foreign born players, is how low it is. They're under-represented.

Not that it's surprising though - you would expect them to be less interested in rugby, on average.

For Scotland, only 17% of residents are born outside Scotland, though most of them are from other home nations so likely to be equally interested in rugby. 46% foreign born players is high, but only ~29pp higher than you would expect.

South Africa has just 5% born abroad, so if they included that in their quota system they would only need 1 or 2 foreign born players in the squad.
(I'm sure barely any of them actually play rugby though)

Argentina has 4.5%. Which sounds crazy low, but then Japan is only 2%.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

that's not true and we've already had this argument on this board about whether or not that's fact... i ended up having to go to the FIFA rules and regs to show that only senior international games in tournaments tie you to a team

No.
There are two cases. One is the one you mentioned, but there is another which is the one Argentina used to block Messi.

-----------------------------------
FIFA Statutes
8 Change of association

1. If a player has more than one nationality, or if a player acquires a new
nationality, or if a player is eligible to play for several representative teams
due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the association for
which he is eligible to play international matches to the association of another
country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions:

a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an offi cial
competition at "A" international level for his current association, and at
the time of his fi rst full or partial appearance in an international match
in an offi cial competition for his current association, he already had the
nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play.
​

Source: https://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/02/78/29/07/fifastatutsweben_neutral.pdf

​

-----------------------------------

Bold is mine.
If say, a U17 kid plays for Argentina, and at that time he didn't have another nationality, he is blocked from playing for any other team.
That's the theory, here's a practical example:

ADAMA TRAORE CONFIRMED INELIGIBLE FOR SOCCEROOS

"Under current FIFA regulations, Adama Traore will not be eligible for the Socceroos upon becoming an Australian citizen due to his participation in official matches for the Ivory Coast youth national teams at a time when he did not have an Australian citizenship," a FFA spokesperson told the Herald Sun.

Source: https://www.ftbl.com.au/news/adama-traore-confirmed-ineligible-for-socceroos-359269

 

[ncurd]

*snip*

Dunno what what to say but thanks CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!

I'll be interested in 'foreign born players' the percentage that are 'foreign born' from home nations. Suspect very low Ireland (Ulsterman are Irish and the troubles are not so far out of memory ti increase emigrations to NI), medium to low England, high Wales, very high Scotland.

As noted previous home nations is complex as borders in reality even more non-existent with zero language barrier (unless you count Glaswegian).

 

[Five Meters Out]

I dunno about this bloke putting these figures out there in this manner, but I will say one thing.....Brad Shield's playing for England just doesn't seem right. He was born in NZ and went to Taita College. If you've ever been to Taita or neighbouring Stokes Valley (and I wouldn't advise it) you couldn't get more middle New Zealand suburb's if you tried. I don't reckon Brad could not have found England on a map when he was kicking the footy around with his bro's at Taita College. Then he makes his way through the NZ system, benefiting from NZ coaching, playing years for Wellington and then for the Hurricanes....then all of a sudden warm beer and Cornish pasties are his favourite food and he's off to play for his "country".
Nah - that's just not right - I don't care what you say.

 

[ncurd]

Nah - that's just not right - I don't care what you say.

You'll struggle to find an Englishman other than Brad and his 'English' parents that will disagree with you.

It doesn't help its a bit dubious if he earns his place in the team.

 

[Brigantine]

24% of New Zealand residents were born overseas (in 2013), so the noteworthy thing about New Zealand's 12.5% foreign born players, is how low it is. They're under-represented.

Not that it's surprising though - you would expect them to be less interested in rugby, on average.

A closer look at that:

• Born in NZ - 70.3%
• Born in other rugby countries - 12.6% (!)
  • in UK/Ire - 6.2%
  • in Aus/RSA - 2.8%
  • in France/Italy/Argentina - 0.2%
  • in Fiji/Samoa/Tonga - 3.0%
  • in Cook Is/Niue/Tokelau - 0.4%
• in USA/Canada/Japan/Romania - 1.0%
• in non-rugby countries - 10.0% (China, India, Philippines, Korea etc.)
  
• not stated - 6.1%

 

[TRF_heineken]

Meh, I think Pichot's post whether the figures are right or wrong, was to spark a debate which some are trying their best to avoid.

Pichot and other have been quite outspoken about international rugby dying, and these stats (factual or not) are part of the problem. There isn't a sense of loyalty or patriotism in most of these countries when it comes to selection and playing for Queen and Country.

It's interesting to see South Africa also on 0%, but then I realised that only Tendai Mtawarira is a foreign-born player and he's currently in the USA promoting the game while injured.

I think however that there are some misguided perceptions when it comes to the origin of players and who they represent. I for one am totally against the manner in which guys like CJ Stander or Scotland's project players are getting into national teams. But in the case like George North, it's very hard to make judgement.

Based on geographics, where countries are so close to one another and distance isn't much of a problem as well as the general movement between countries so easily accessible, there shouldn't really be an issue if a guy born in London, represents England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, Italy, Germany, or even Spain and Holland.

But when a guy travels nearly halfway around the globe because he's an oversight in the country where he's playing locally, and by some mircale he has a long lost granny which he only met once at a family reunion, and she's all of a sudden his lifeline to a new country with crappier players, that's where I have a big issue in how the residency rule is being abused.