Took me a while to write, hope it answers most of your points.
FYI McGrath was born over there while his parents were there on a working visa, came back as a baby.
I dont mind that at all. I've been on record here stating i have no problem with the likes of Jordi Murphy representing Ireland. It'd be silly to state otherwise.
Cancelliere was born abroad too and i have no problem with him playing for the Pumas (was born while parents were temporarily stationed in the US)
I'm interested in your view on dual citizenship. Hypothetically if Samoa allowed for Dual Citizenship (they don't, UK does) would you still be against him playing for England and saying that about Samoa?
I'm interested because in my opinion nationality is a fairly personal thing within certain restrictions.
Two parts to this answer. One is quite simple the other not so much. I'll start with the difficult part, which relates to what the competition is supposed to be about.
First, I dont have a specific and practical answer, but let me try stating what i am trying to achieve, what am i willing to give up for practical reasons, and what are non-negotiables, so at least you'll get an idea of where i am coming from. I know what i want, but i am not 100% sure how to get it.
For me, the beauty of nations vs nation comps is that money is not involved, or at least that was originally the intent. God, luck, whatever you want to call it, decided you were in team A, and that's that. So in my ideal world, there would be a mechanism where a player would not choose. Could be nationality, citizenship, etc, but ideally (not practically) i would like no choice.
But i understand that is impossible from a practical pov, so i would allow choices, but minimize them in number and force them to be made as soon as possible.
Regarding the specific example about Manu Tuilagi, and this is the relevant part, i don't have a problem with him playing for England.
I do have a problem with him saying
"England is very special to me, of course, but my heart and home is still Samoa." and playing for England. The difference, in my book, is huge.
The question then is actually quite simple. Do you want players to play for countries
a) where their hearts are at and where they feel their home is? (Manu's words, not mine).
b) where the money transfer to their bank accounts comes from? (exaggerating for dramatic effect, but the gist is that)
I feel kinda bad as it probably comes across as if i have some sort of personal issue with England or Manu Tuilagi and both couldn't be further from the truth.
I just look at the facts and conclude that what happened in his case goes against what i understand the competition should be about.
In Manu's case, my proposed solution would be, pick one team as early as possible, and that's that. No turning back. Ideally, create an environment where his choice is encouraged not by money, but i don't know how to practically implement this, so i settle for the first part. Chose, chose early, chose once, no going back, no exceptions.
In my ideal world, Manu Tuilagi would be playing for Samoa and CJ Stander would be watching the world cup from the stands or home.
Another thing that is ridiculous with the current system is the idea of people not making it in one country then try out for another team. That is just absurd. Mental stuff. That needs to stop. Pick once (again, not in my ideal world but under certain conditions, fine, I'd tolerate it), chose carefully, if you don't get picked in that country, you are done. No exceptions and this includes Junior national teams, sevens, the lot. I'd even go as far as including other sports here too.
The second part of the answer is practical: if all the countries follow this path then this will inevitably become a rich vs poor thing which, imo is NOT what this is supposed to be about. It will widen the gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2. I would like for the complete opposite to happen. The idea, i thought, was to show the world that rugby was not just an exclusive-invite-only old boys club. I believe that the way we are heading as things stands encourages exactly that.
You want a sport to grow? Any sport? Give the underdog a fighting chance.
And yes, i know Japan could be seen as a counterexample but a) i don't think Japan is a success story, at least not yet and b) their model basically (buying people) is difficult if not impossible to export.
Your view is obviously different and not shaped by multiple forced periods of mass emigration in your country or a decades long conflict over nationality but why force it on other nations where nationality has a different and more malleable meaning?
Because if you can cherry pick nationalities to get into a national team people will mostly pick the one that pays the most. I think that is fundamentally wrong.
Nationality (for sports) in my view, implies, for the lack of a better word, allegiance. You cant have allegiance to two countries that could face each other. You need to pick. I expect you to disagree with this, but that is how i see it.
