Plan to cap foreign players discriminatory

vkid

According to the todays business post, Irish rugby bosses may have to reconsider new limits on the number of foriegn players allowed to play with provinicial teams following intervention by the European Commission. Following a request from a Welsh MEP to probe the new rules, the EC has described the rules as "direct discrimination".

Cant post a link as don't have online sub to Business post.

Interesting stuff. Good for the provinces, not so good for the national side?

profitius

vkid wrote: »

According to the todays business post, Irish rugby bosses may have to reconsider new limits on the number of foriegn players allowed to play with provinicial teams following intervention by the European Commission. Following a request from a Welsh MEP to probe the new rules, the EC has described the rules as "direct discrimination".

Cant post a link as don't have online sub to Business post.

Interesting stuff. Good for the provinces, not so good for the national side?

WTF.

All they have to do is make it unofficial.

liammur

vkid wrote: »

According to the todays business post, Irish rugby bosses may have to reconsider new limits on the number of foriegn players allowed to play with provinicial teams following intervention by the European Commission. Following a request from a Welsh MEP to probe the new rules, the EC has described the rules as "direct discrimination".

Cant post a link as don't have online sub to Business post.

Interesting stuff. Good for the provinces, not so good for the national side?

Something similar happened in English football a few seasons back.

jm08

profitius wrote: »

WTF.

All they have to do is make it unofficial.

Exactly. Different situation in UK & French clubs where clubs are privately owned and not like the IRFU who control the Provinces.

This would only apply to EU citizens as well - outside the EU*, players have to get work visas anyway which is discriminatory.

*Kolpak citizens are treated the same as EU citizens.

DeDoc

The key factor here, IMO, is that the provinces are sub-entities of the IRFU - departments or divisions if you like

If the IRFU was forced (leave aside the mechanics of how it could happen) to employ non-Irish players, it would be like insisting that the U20s be open, or the national side itself allow anyone to play for them.

The IRFU defence is simply that it is charged with running and developing the game here for the best interests of Irish rugby, and that by limiting the number of foreign players in the country they are doing exactly that.

vkid

profitius wrote: »

All they have to do is make it unofficial.

I dont think that would cut it tbh. If they are shown to implement that unofficial policy by the EC, they could be in trouble. Regardless of what the IRFU, they are seen as a professional business and the same rules apply. They could find it very difficult to implement this.

profitius

Another reason to leave the EU!

profitius

vkid wrote: »

I dont think that would cut it tbh. If they are shown to implement that unofficial policy by the EC, they could be in trouble. Regardless of what the IRFU, they are seen as a professional business and the same rules apply. They could find it very difficult to implement this.

Sports business isn't the same as a normal business though. They need Irish players to help the business.

It would be like hiring White actors to play Vikings. You have to discriminate for obvious reasons!

ArmaniJeanss

profitius wrote: »

WTF.

All they have to do is make it unofficial.

Dangerous, all it takes is one retired foreign player 10 years down the line to bring a claim that he would have been offered a new contract but for the 'unofficial' policy. And then get the backing of a long gone coach that he wanted to re-sign this player as well but was warned off. Floodgates opened.

DeDoc wrote: »

The key factor here, IMO, is that the provinces are sub-entities of the IRFU - departments or divisions if you like

If the IRFU was forced (leave aside the mechanics of how it could happen) to employ non-Irish players, it would be like insisting that the U20s be open, or the national side itself allow anyone to play for them.

The IRFU defence is simply that it is charged with running and developing the game here for the best interests of Irish rugby, and that by limiting the number of foreign players in the country they are doing exactly that.

I'm not sure of this.
I think on balance that the employment rights of an EU citizen trumps any exemptions the IRFU have as the body looking after Irish Rugby.

Generally a good rule of thumb is that employment rights are above just about any other rights.

Chucky the tree

It's only EU players and considering the majority of our blow-ins for the provinces have been SA, Aus or NZ I'm not sure how much effect this will have.

for all intents and purposes, SA players qualify as "EU players" under the Kolpack ruling..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolpak_ruling

interesting:

Thus any restrictions placed on their right to work (such as quotas setting maximum numbers of such foreign players in sports teams) are deemed illegal under EU law

CIARAN_BOYLE

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It's only EU players and considering the majority of our blow-ins for the provinces have been SA, Aus or NZ I'm not sure how much effect this will have.

Players with citizenship from SA Fiji Samoa and Tonga have the same rights as EU nationals as they are covered by the Kolpak ruling

justsomebloke

Slightly off topic but seen as though we are covering EU law I might as well ask. Is the rule saying that you can't play for a second country after you have played for one country not blocking the free movement of workers as well.

ArmaniJeanss

justsomebloke wrote: »

Slightly off topic but seen as though we are covering EU law I might as well ask. Is the rule saying that you can't play for a second country after you have played for one country not blocking the free movement of workers as well.

Fairly sure that was investigated as part of the Bosman ruling, and found to be acceptable.
From memory it was OK as playing for your country wasn't seen as employment.

durkadurka

Ah but in rugby the international game is much more important.
Bod has played nearly as many times for Ireland as he has for leinster.

And he is contracted to Ireland. So not a direct comparison.

Tim Robbins

They could get around this by the fact that the IRFU fund these babies.
IRFU cut funding and then the provinces get paid based on the players they produce.

totallegend

In the interests of not repeating the posts that have been made twenty times already, perhaps we could all read this:
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/doc/communication/swd_en.pdf
and go from there.

.ak

totallegend wrote: »

In the interests of not repeating the posts that have been made twenty times already, perhaps we could all read this:
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/doc/communication/swd_en.pdf
and go from there.

Hmm, can I just skim over it and read the last paragraph instead? :pac:

justsomebloke

totallegend wrote: »

In the interests of not repeating the posts that have been made twenty times already, perhaps we could all read this:
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/doc/communication/swd_en.pdf
and go from there.

Truthfully given the unique structure of how the IRFU employee people compared to most sports I don't know how much of current EU law relates to the current topic as a legal challenge could easily create a new precedence for structures like the IRFU

totallegend

.ak wrote: »

Hmm, can I just skim over it and read the last paragraph instead? :pac:

Damn it, you'll read the whole thing and there'll be an exam on it at the end of the week.

justsomebloke wrote: »

Truthfully given the unique structure of how the IRFU employee people compared to most sports I don't know how much of current EU law relates to the current topic as a legal challenge could easily create a new precedence for structures like the IRFU

Very true; in my line of work, we have to deal with the fall out from ECJ rulings and you can often see judgements which seem to contradict or undermine previous rulings. However, these Commission communications are usually very carefully considered and only issued when the Commission are very sure of their position.

Of course, another aspect of this is whether guys from Australia and New Zealand are even entitled to any protection under EU law (and I'm not sure they are).

justsomebloke

I think a lot of it hinges on whether the IRFU can class the matches it plays as "matches not of an economic nature" given the fact that it is the primary employer of the players that play the game. Given that this is not the norm this may put it in the position that it doesn't follow under the current exemptions to national teams.

If at that point it doesn't fall under the exemptions afforded to national bodies does that mean that the current game rules stating what the grounds for Irish eligibility are void as European law who have to supersede them, and currently they would contravene the free movement of players.

Example if Isa became an Irish national he could claim that he is being discriminated against by not being allowed play for Ireland given that he now meets the criteria of a Irish national and the main employer of Rugby players in Ireland is the IRFU?

chooochooo

profitius wrote: »

Another reason to leave the EU!

Madworld

Easy to get around this. The clubs can say the provinces must register a squad of lets say 30 for the Pro12 and 27 of them must have been developed in Ireland.

Madworld

Madworld wrote: »

Easy to get around this. The clubs can say the provinces must register a squad of lets say 30 for the Pro12 and 27 of them must have been developed in Ireland.

define developed?

Then lose guys that are IQ as a result of any sort of stringent definition.

hardCopy

profitius wrote: »

Sports business isn't the same as a normal business though. They need Irish players to help the business.

It would be like hiring White actors to play Vikings. You have to discriminate for obvious reasons!

Heimdall would disagree:

Duggys Housemate

However period pieces are free to discriminate, as far as I know.

Robbo

Meanwhile on the Twitter, Wendy Doyle shares the following:

IRFU's plans to limit number of foreign players allowed to play with provincial teams in Ireland deemed to be "direct discrimination" by EU

Details are sketchy; vague talk of Welsh MEPs, the reference to the "EU" rather than where you'd expect a pronouncement like this to come from (The Commssion) and the Commissions previous stance on this as totallegend has pointed out.

To my eyes, nothing has changed (yet) but it's entirely common for people in Ireland and the UK to go full retard over innocuous documents and edicts from Europe (straight bananas, banning motorcycles etc).

CatFromHue

Do players without a passport of a European country not have to apply for a work permit to work/play in Europe? and do they have to have an employer lined up to be granted a permit?

Kind of like getting sponsorship in Oz.

On a few of the more recent SH signings there's been the disclaimer saynig something like "depending on obtaining a work permit" or something like that.

jacothelad

CatFromHue wrote: »

Do players without a passport of a European country not have to apply for a work permit to work/play in Europe? and do they have to have an employer lined up to be granted a permit?

Kind of like getting sponsorship in Oz.

On a few of the more recent SH signings there's been the disclaimer saynig something like "depending on obtaining a work permit" or something like that.

Not Kolpak countries.

CatFromHue

Is that just for rugby?

I was thinking if a SA/NZ/OZ engineer for example who had little experience (like a non international capped player in rugby) wanted to come up here and work but only had a passport of their home country (some Kiwis for example might have a UK passport so have no problem) would he be able to get a work visa without sponsorship?

profitius

What about the RFU paying clubs more for bringing through English players? Will they look into that next? Where will it end.

Raisins

The talk in EU law circles is that the UEFA homegrown player rule (4+4 rule) will soon be declared illegal by the Commission too so I don't think that setting up province trained rules will help. They already released a tender for interested parties to conduct a study into homegrown player rule.

The Commission are getting progressively braver in enforcing the free movement rules to sport since Bosman.

jacothelad

CatFromHue wrote: »

Is that just for rugby?

I was thinking if a SA/NZ/OZ engineer for example who had little experience (like a non international capped player in rugby) wanted to come up here and work but only had a passport of their home country (some Kiwis for example might have a UK passport so have no problem) would he be able to get a work visa without sponsorship?

As far as I know. S.A. is different.(Kolpak Agreement) N.Z. and Aus. citizens do need a work permit in the U.K.

Here is the Ballixpedia Info.

"The Kolpak ruling is a European Court of Justice ruling handed down on May 8, 2003 in favour of Maroš Kolpak, a Slovak handball player. It declared that citizens of certain countries which have signed agreements with the European Union, have the same right to freedom of work and movement within the EU as EU citizens. Thus any restrictions placed on their right to work (such as quotas setting maximum numbers of such foreign players in sports teams :eek: :eek: :eek:) are deemed illegal under EU law. The legal actions in Germany set a precedent for professional sports in Europe, which have had a wide-ranging effect, especially in regard to English county cricket and European professional rugby. A Kolpak player or Kolpak, is a term used in the United Kingdom for players in the domestic leagues in cricket and both rugby codes from overseas, subject to the Kolpak ruling."


So the carefully crafted ( ) NIQ plans in respect of KOLPAK players at least are a load of 'Handsomecake'. (see the Urban Dictionary). I'm sure none of the provinces will challenge them however. Still, it's sad that Ulster have lost a good one in Wannenberg because of part of their scheme. The children of guys like Nacewa are seriously disadvantaged also. If the IRFU don't want top line overseas players, why do they stump up the cash for them?

Monty Burnz

profitius wrote: »

Another reason to leave the EU!

Right, we're up to one...

profitius

There are still positives.

The IRFU could still insist on Irish players starting in certain positions.

The main problem seems to be cancelling contracts of foreigners who are here so maybe that will put extra pressure on the provinces NOT to sign foreign players.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Right, we're up to one...

If you think so...

justsomebloke

profitius wrote: »

The IRFU could still insist on Irish players starting in certain positions.

Surely that would be discriminatory though?

profitius

justsomebloke wrote: »

Surely that would be discriminatory though?

Depends how you look at it. The NIQs are still getting paid.

justsomebloke

profitius wrote: »

Depends how you look at it. The NIQs are still getting paid.

yes but they are not being allowed play purely based on their nationality. I don't think the 'they are still being paid' argument would work as it could easily be argued that a players future ability to get a contract were hampered due to them not being given game time based on the fact that they were foreign

profitius

justsomebloke wrote: »

yes but they are not being allowed play purely based on their nationality. I don't think the 'they are still being paid' argument would work as it could easily be argued that a players future ability to get a contract were hampered due to them not being given game time based on the fact that they were foreign

You're probably right.

I think it will put pressure on the provinces not to sign NIQ players in future so those argueing about it favouring Irish players could make it favour Irish players more in the long run.

Podge_irl

According to the report totallegend put up, restricting playing time of foreign players is treated exactly the same as restricting the signing of them in the first place as it inhibits their ability to work.