CAPE TOWN - “By what rights do you presume to play for England?” asked Edward, Prince of Wales, of 19-year-old Prince Alexander Sergeevich Obolensky just before the start of England’s rugby Test against the New Zealand’s All Blacks in January 1936 at Twickenham.
Obolensky, a Rurikid prince of Russian nobility, was born in St Petersburg.
His parents fled with the 1-year-old princeling to England following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 as political refugees, and became naturalised Britons.
He could have reposted to the Prince of Wales who only two weeks later became King Edward VIII: “By what rights Sir do you, a member of the German House of Saxe-Coburg-und-Gotha presume to become the King of England?”
Instead “the flying prince” let his feet do the talking when he scored two tries helping England to a historic 13-0 first-ever win over the All Blacks.
Obolensky’s inclusion in the national team sparked controversy fuelled by chauvinism, with many deeming him ineligible to wear the Red Rose jersey.
When the World Rugby Council recently changed the eligibility rules governing national team representation to allow an international player “to transfer once from one union to another subject to demonstrating a close and credible link to that union via birthright”, I wonder what Edward VIII would have made of it.
Rules governing eligibility for national team representation in rugby has been a morass of confusion, contradiction, chauvinism, callousness and lack of consistency.
It makes a mockery of the reality on the ground, especially the surfeit of Pacific Islanders from Tonga and Samoa criss-crossing playing for the All Blacks and Wallabies, to the detriment of the development of rising local players including the Maoris and Aboriginal “first nations".
Fiji with a world beating and proud tradition of beguiling excellence in Rugby Sevens to its credit has resisted this “brawn drain”, instead opting for a strategy to develop the Fifteen Man version of the game.
South African-born rugby players, mostly white, have a history of this transnational migration qualifying on kith and kin links or residency rules. These include Make Catt and Mouritz Botha for England, and PJ Stander for Ireland.
One of rugby’s rising stars, 26-year-old Duane van der Merwe, an ex-Junior Springbok, opted to play for Scotland through residency and started for the British Lions in the recent series against the Boks.
But residency rules are a double-edged sword. Ask former Sale Sharks and England flanker Hendre Fourie, originally from South Africa.
Thanks to a shoulder injury, his contract with Sale Sharks was abruptly cancelled and his work visa equally abruptly became invalid. Subsequently he and his young family were deported to South Africa in 2013 despite having lived in England for eight years.
“I can play for England, but I can’t get a passport to stay in the country,” Fourie then told The (London) Times.
That a few South African sports people should seek to play for foreign countries raises questions for the country’s sports administrators, including SA Rugby.
Is sports transformation tilting too much to one side through the politics of quotas and redress that some compatriots see a better chance of international recognition abroad?
How does transformation balance the upliftment of grassroots sports of the formerly disadvantaged with the aspirations of exciting new talent of the middle classes and privileged of all races?
Failing to retain the latter may not only cost the country in terms of revenue, performance, and feel-good factor, but may also undermine Madiba’s recognition of rugby as the great unifier of post-apartheid South Africa.
Ask also, Wallaby fly half Quade Cooper, who was born in New Zealand before moving to Australia aged 13. He has had four applications to become an Australian citizen denied. His latest application in September 2021 was rejected because he provided “no evidence” that he had “engaged in activities of benefit to Australia''.
Similarly, former Springbok halfback Ruan Pienaar fell foul of the Irish Rugby Football Union’s succession policy, limiting all four of the provinces to one foreign player per position.
Pienaar’s tenure at Ulster was untenable once Leinster signed a half back from New Zealand, which forced the Springbok to return to South Africa in 2017.
Despite World Rugby’s contention that the new regulations which come into effect on January 1are “underpinned by the key principles of fairness and integrity” and “can benefit players and the global competitiveness of rugby”, it is obvious that the metric of residency rules is not fit for purpose.
Does World Rugby’s “extensive discussion and collaboration across the game” include engagement with government immigration departments about their sports people visa regimes and any exemptions relating to extenuating circumstances relating to career-ending injuries or catastrophic events?
The textbooks on politics tell us that there is no representation without taxation. Perhaps World Rugby’s framework on its new national player eligibility regime should ponder national sports representation without citizenship.
Isn’t representing your country also an issue of sovereignty and national pride?
South African-born lock, Mouritz Botha, who won 10 caps for England famously claimed on his debut against Wales in 2011: “I'm probably the proudest non-English Englishman there is. I got really emotional during the national anthem.”
In a twisted way one can argue that the Gulf states of Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE are more “progressive” when they lure some top-performing athletes especially from Africa complete with an instant new nationality, passport and lucrative contract.
World Rugby claims that the new regime is “a simplified and aligned process across the game”.
Whether it would improve the development and player depth of emerging nations or is more player-focused to maintain the integrity of the international competition landscape, as it maintains, remains a moot point!
* Parker is a writer based in London