WR reject change to 3 year residency rule - who gains & who loses?

Following the conclusion amongst the Unions there was at this point 'no appetite' for change to the 36 month residency period for eligibility for national teams. Here is a look at the winners and the losers from the status quo.

Last year there was briefly talk of WR reviewing the 3 year residency rule. In August, CEO Brett Gosper confirmed that "we are doing a consultation with the unions to determine what their view is".

The review into the 3 year residency
that Gosper talked of last August was
rejected at the end of last year.

In December though, it was concluded that 'there is no appetite amongst the Unions to change the 36 month residency period for eligibility for national teams'.

There are some notable winners and losers from that 'lack of appetite'.

The biggest winners are those who have less depth, and have actively used 'project player' schemes to bolster their options.

That practice lies primarily in the Pro12, with Scotland, Italy and Ireland all strategically signing players, most often from South Africa or New Zealand, who brought in with specific intention of them becoming a potential international options in 3 years.

Several other nations of course have also picked numerous residency players, albeit not via strategic Union led project player schemes, but thanks to three years at a club in the Top 14, Aviva Premiership, Japanese Top League or Romanian SuperLiga.

But to fully judge who are the winners or losers out of this, it needs to be viewed not just in terms of which teams have residency players, but the quality of those players, the quantity of those players, and how it works out relative to the competition.

England for instance, who are soon to benefit from gaining the Fijian number 8 Nathan Hughes, have a deep player base, and possess numerous options already of elite level.

If you were to wipe out all the 3 year residency players from the 6 Nations, it would harm England the least compared to all the other competing teams, such as Ireland for instance who have arguably in terms of quality and quantity the strongest legion of 'project players'.

Jared Payne had four years of Super
Rugby experience before signing for
Ulster as a 'project player'.

Jared Payne, Richardt Strauss and Nathan White were all former Super Rugby starters in their RWC 23. CJ Stander recently made his test debut, and numerous other players such as Wiehahn Herbst and Bundee Aki are on the waiting list to be added to Joe Schmidt's options. There are Irish projects from first choice starters, bench players, fringe squad players to emergency back up players.

There is also quality of player to consider. In a league like the Pro12, Scotland or Ireland have attracted Super Rugby calibre talent as project players. Both WP Nel and Josh Strauss were starters in Super Rugby for instance. So was Jared Payne or Bundee Aki.

A side like Romania have added residency players to their squad in recent times which has helped them, but the calibre and experience of the player will always be much lower.

Similarly, countries with large economies like the USA will have residency players in their squad, but with no pro league (yet) the players usually won't have headed to those countries primarily for rugby at all, but for education or work.

In terms of numbers they might be comparable, but the USA gaining an Al McFarland or Matt Trouville is obviously a lot different compared to the calibre of player those in the Pro12 are able to get via 3 year residency.

Relative to the nearest competition from Tier 1, which is Italy and Scotland, nations such as Canada, USA or Romania are overall gaining less.

Finally there are the real losers. Those who use no or very few project players, or in the case of South Africa, New Zealand or Fiji lose players from their own professional rugby systems to opposition teams usually in Europe, but also Australia recently as well.

Then there is a nation like Georgia, a weaker economy with no major league and have zero 3 year residency players, so it obviously provides no benefit to them.

Back rower Johan Meyer is one of
the project players in waiting at
the Italian club Zebre

Meanwhile a rival side in Italy who they aim to beat, were open last summer in searching South Africa for potential future internationals (and 5 ended up at Zebre), and already have players like Kelly Haimona or Braam Steyn added to their side. Same goes for all the Pacific Islanders.

The possible exception among Tier 2 nations as being a real winner from residency laws is Japan, whose Universities have attracted young talent particularly from Tonga, and corporate clubs have attracted talent particularly from New Zealand. Whilst the talent they attract may not be of the experience Ireland can get, it is far from weak either, and some would almost certainly still get caps in a few Tier 1 nations.

But what is unique about Japan's case compared to others, is the reliance on foreign born talent in specific positions and roles in the side, most notably back rowers and strike running centres.

In their case, the local talent has been so far off the required level in those roles, they would be badly diminished with no residency players whatsoever from Universities or clubs.

However, a slightly longer, maybe 5 or 6 year residency period, would effect them less than those signing Super Rugby starting players as projects. As those such as Hendrik Tui, Amanaki Mafi or Male Sa'u travelled there at young enough ages to have still had lengthy international careers and including their prime years.

So to conclude, who are the major winners & losers of the residency rule?

Winners: Ireland, Scotland, Italy, Japan, Australia. All are strengthening depth via specifically Union targeted project players, apart from Japan, who have been reliant on foreigners in specific areas such as back row.

In the middle: England, Romania, USA, Canada, Wales, France. All have had residency players, and thus have gained relative to those who never or very rarely have them, but also lose out to the major winners either in terms of quantity, quality or overall utility given existing depth. England are the 6 Nations side least in need of residency players. France have had more recently, but it wouldn't really hurt to lose them, Wales have had them in the past, but few of note recently, and a club based game has meant they can't specifically target players the way the Union project player scheme can. Whilst for Romania, USA, Canada, in general the calibre of player is far lower relative to the competition of their most realistic Tier 1 scalps Italy & Scotland.

Losers: New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Georgia, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Uruguay, Namibia. None use any project players and barely have any 3 year residency players between them*. NZ & SA are also the major targets of the project player industry and lose players to competitors.

* Just before someone mentions the debunked NZ poaching myth, this is talking exclusively about adult pro rugby players using 3 year residency, not kids under 18.

Considering that, it is hard to believe any of those within the bottom category would have had 'no appetite' to change 3 year residency, just as the top category were almost certainly those pushing the status quo. It seems that enough of those somewhat in the middle must have helped them keep it.