|
(Mike: early 30’s American):
When I first saw the team photo of the U.S. national rugby team, I saw players of different skin shades, but didn’t think that any of them were not "American" – that they were at least a naturalized citizen – as it’s a racially diverse country. However, upon research I was surprised to learn that 9 of the 31 players on the squad were registered under residency status. In other words, some of the U.S. national team players are representing a country that they’re not even citizens of. As a matter of fact, 9 of the 20 teams participating in this year’s Rugby World Cup have at least 9 non-native players on their squad and this includes Japan with 11 such players. Argentina is actually the only country that can claim that all their players are native to their country.
After learning the demographics of the players for the 20 teams, and the rules set forth by World Rugby, which is the governing body of the sport and equivalent to FIFA in soccer, I agree that this rule is currently being reviewed. The current rules allow players to represent a country in which they have been a resident for the past 3 years. In a way it seems progressive as it promotes racial inclusion and integration in the sport. However, at the same time, I personally think that it takes away from the true spirit of international competition between countries. I believe that the country loses its identity if it were primarily represented by foreigners who are not even citizens of that country. Could you imagine the tradition-rich “All Blacks” being substantially composed of players who were born and raised in South Africa and have only been living in New Zealand for the past 3 years? It’s a farfetched scenario, but not completely impossible with the current rules.
There are probably many reasons why a player chooses to represent a country that he’s not a native of. I could understand if one opts to represent another country because it can give him a better chance of standing on the biggest stage of the sport, which he loves. However, I see it as a loophole that should be revised by Word Rugby. It’s not a matter of someone’s skin color, but more about his commitment to the country that he represents. Therefore, I think that a citizenship of that country is a necessity. With the current rule, it’s seemingly easy for the players to hop around countries and represent a different country for each Rugby World Cup as the tournament takes place every 4 years and the players are only required to have only been a resident of a particular country for the past 3 years. Instead of representing a single country, they would seem more like a hired-hand or a mercenary.
To keep the true spirit of international competition between countries alive, I think that a citizenship of a country is the minimum requirement for a player to represent that country. As much as this issue is controversial, I believe that it’s a mere reflection of how the world has become a smaller place with more people of different races and backgrounds interacting with one another. It may not be too far in the future in which any given national team would be racially diverse and it would actually be the true representation of the country’s demographics.
|
