That allowing things like this to happen might eventually come at a cost. I have no idea if that cost is high enough to change things, thou.
The fact we all call it a loophole speaks volumes.
In principle i agree. In practice i disagree, 100%. Affinity is unmeasurable, and therefore we can only use the players' word as a proxy which is precisely the problem as players can decide based on financials and use affinity as an elegant yet obvious excuse.
The point of international rugby, the ENTIRE bloody point, was to differentiate itself from club rugby by playing with what you've got. The point was to remove the ability from teams to lure, poach or seduce players. Part of the argument was that that way you could level the playing field a bit and give smaller/poorer nations a shot. That is gone, all gone. You have federations luring players to fit in whatever rules say they need to comply with.
You speak of affinity. Have a look, an honest look at tier 2 and 3 and talk to me about affinity. Nearly a quarter of the dutch team can't even sing the anthem. Not because they don't know the lyrics. Then can't even speak the language of the country they represent! It's hardly the exception.
Language is not a minor issue here. The fact most tier1 + PI all speak English helps to disguise this. Have a look next time Japan fields a new player. James Moore comes to mind.
Couple of points. First: Is it? In NZ or RSA yes, but would the French national side beat the best Top 14 team? Not sure.
Then you lost me a bit. First you claim you would like some sort of affinity and then you somehow claim it means nothing with your patriotism argument. Which one is it? Either it represents something or it doesn't.
What that country represents (specifically) is secondary at best here. Multiculturalism, whatever you wanna call it. Does it represent something or not? Or is it just a bunch of people who play to get paid?
It doesn't appear to be working. You have people born in country A, who love the place, call it home, and play for country B just for the money. You seem to approve of that, and that is ok. I do not.
At least let's have the intellectual honesty to name the teams properly then. Instead of calling it XYZ's national team, let's call it the best team XYZ could afford.
The speech used to be: kid you are good. You've got talent. Train hard, put in your hours and you'll make it to the national team.
Now it is: you are good. Train hard, put in your hours and if you are lucky and there isn't a new zealander who's amazing but not good enough to make it to the all blacks, you'll make it to the national team.
Sad but true.
And part of my argument is moral, true, but also practical. My 'approach' at this levels the playing field and gives smaller poorer nations a shot. It encourages development over poaching, luring, seducing, whatever you want to call it. The direction of player movement has a clear trend: players from poor/poorer countries playing for richer ones.
Do you see any Japanese/French/English born players saying: "**** this, i want to represent Tonga/Zimbabwe?" No, you do not. I think that is a shame.
I know the alleged counterexample: tons of nz born players ended up playing representing pacific island national sides. Factually correct, but the problem with that argument is that those nz born players that represent tonga/samoa/fiji are always, every single time, players who couldn't make it to the ABs. They are, poorly phrased, the scraps from nz. I'm sure there is an exception, but the trend is crystal clear.
If we could have a system in place that prevented that from happening instead of promoting it, i'd love it.
I understand. The thing is, although you don't take it seriously, there is a grain of truth on how fantasy was built. The system is destroying that.
And this comes back to what we expect from that team. You seem to expect them to play very well and win and that is it (yet you mention the affinity thing).
I expect them to represent or stand for something. We can argue how much, or what does that mean, exactly. I do not have all the answers, but i know a few things i'd like: ideally he's been through our rugby system, he can speak the language, has some sympathy with the national and empathy with its people and didn't pick Argentina over another country just because it was financially convenient. That would be a start. Happy to fine tune it if need be.
Again, i think we want different, very different things (and that's ok). I'd rather lose with my own.
