England Rugby selection rules and regs

[francoisfou]

https://www.rugbyrama.fr/2025/11/05/inf ... 032498.php

This is an article that I've just read on Midi Olympique/Rugbyrama about the composition (where the players play their club rugby) of the South Africa team in the 2023 World Cup, and their current squad that are in Europe (for matches against France 8 Nov, Italy 15 Nov, Ireland 22 Nov and Wales 29 Nov).

2023 World Cup - 15 players based in South Africa, 4 Ireland, 8 Japan, 3 England and 4 France. More than half out of SA!

2025 European tour - 22 SA, 2 Ireland, 10 Japan, 1 England, 1 Scotland

I still feel disappointed that the RFU won't permit players from abroad (France, mainly. Are there any eligible players playing in Japan?) to be considered for national selection. Ok, this topic has been circulating for years now but it still grates!

The Boks have won two consecutive World Cups with this selection policy, and my question is, "Would England's chances of winning the World Cup again increase if the selection policy were to change?".

[twitchy]

Can we quarantine all the french shite in one thread.

[Which Tyler]

my question is, "Would England's chances of winning the World Cup again increase if the selection policy were to change?".

The answer is "no", because those left behind would be playing in an asset-stripped league, and not regularly playing rugby of the same quality. On top of that, they wouldn't get the communication with club coaches, training time with the players, R&R time for the platers, or the influence over player positions and medical decisions that they do for domestically based players.

I'd also point out that South Africa aren't the only team who have won a RWC; but they are the country with the most wide-spread diaspora of players (possibly Scotland aside - but a lot of that is players who don't know that they're Scottish yet).


Ultimately, RFU want a good relationship with the clubs, and the above advantages; whilst the clubs want all the money they can extract from the RFU, and to have some sort of chance of being able to keep their best home-grown players. Whilst that remains the case, it is very much in the interests of the (professional) game in England to keep the eligibility rule.
Ditch it, and the quality of player's early careers goes down, RFU don't get anything for all the money they throw at the clubs, and the clubs go bust; meaning that we no longer produce international quality players to export elsewhere. Alternatively, 2-4 wealthy owners fill the gap left by RFU money, but either only have each other to play, or have to beg to join someone else's league; either way, professional rugby in England is hanging on by the skin of its teeth, or lost entirely (let's face it, PRL haven't historically been the best at playing well with others).


Not even 2x Willis + Marchant is worth that.
Not even an entire first XV ruling themselves out of contention is worth that.

[Puja]

Can we quarantine all the french shite in one thread.

It is now this thread. Anyone who has an opinion about "Well, why **can't** we select a Willis?" can put it in here and, if it starts anywhere else, I'll move it here.

Mod

As for my own opinion, Which has it down fairly solidly and I don't think there's much more to add.

Puja

[Oakboy]

One question might be, 'Why haven't France won the RWC?' Is the French game simply more wrapped up in the club scene?

The other question is whether it is true that droves of England players would cross the Channel if they were eligible for international selection. Arundell and Farrell are back having failed to impress.

[SixAndAHalf]

You can’t look at the selection policy in isolation. It has to be considered alongside EEPS funding, the salary cap and promotion / relegation as well as the CVC deal.

There is ultimately a tension between protecting club rugby and the success of the national team.

I would personally advocate for a loosening of the selection criteria because I think playing in France is also a good experience for England players. It’s then down to the players to agree international releases which will impact whether they are selected.

Alongside this I would loosen the salary cap (and particularly the restrictions around marquee players). We want the likes of Bath and Bristol spending the same as the French clubs to compete in Europe and make the league attractive. More generally I’m sceptical that there would be the drain of talent to France especially if EEPS funding was able to be used more as a general pot to match offers tactically.

The other interesting factor to chuck into this is the growth of BUCS and how this can be used as a development league with its own revenue stream reducing reliance on the premiership clubs for pathways.

[francoisfou]

One question might be, 'Why haven't France won the RWC?' Is the French game simply more wrapped up in the club scene?

The other question is whether it is true that droves of England players would cross the Channel if they were eligible for international selection. Arundell and Farrell are back having failed to impress.

The first question is a good'un.
Over the years in some previous World Cups, France have undoubtedly had the talent but temperamentally fell short. In particular I'm thinking of the 1999 final in Cardiff against Australia, which really should've been theirs after their magnificent semi victory over NZ, and semi-final defeats against England. In the quarter final defeat in 2023 in Paris against the Boks and Ben O'Keefe was such a bitter disappointment after a genuine expectation of victory.

With regard to players crossing the Channel, some did/are doing rather well, Jonny Wilkinson in Toulon was exceptional, Nick Abendanon in Clermont was revered by local fans, and more recently Dave Ribbans in Toulon, Tom Willis in his short stay in Bordeaux and brother Jack in Toulouse, Zach Mercer in Montpellier.
And then there are, of course, Farrell and Arundell who fell well short of expectations.
I'd love to see Willis x 2 and Ribbans in the England camp to see if their club form could be replicated in an England jersey, but I'm resigned that it's highly unlikely to happen.

[Mikey Brown]

You can’t look at the selection policy in isolation. It has to be considered alongside EEPS funding, the salary cap and promotion / relegation as well as the CVC deal.

There is ultimately a tension between protecting club rugby and the success of the national team.

I would personally advocate for a loosening of the selection criteria because I think playing in France is also a good experience for England players. It’s then down to the players to agree international releases which will impact whether they are selected.

Alongside this I would loosen the salary cap (and particularly the restrictions around marquee players). We want the likes of Bath and Bristol spending the same as the French clubs to compete in Europe and make the league attractive. More generally I’m sceptical that there would be the drain of talent to France especially if EEPS funding was able to be used more as a general pot to match offers tactically.

The other interesting factor to chuck into this is the growth of BUCS and how this can be used as a development league with its own revenue stream reducing reliance on the premiership clubs for pathways.

But… have you considered ignoring all of that for the sake of picking Jack Willis?

[Danno]

I can never get on board with this idea. The Premiership is already on its arse, with too many clubs propped up by passionate (and misguided) benefactors.

If a talent drain starts it will snowball and basically kill the game here outside of the 6N and WCs.

As much as I love watching the French T14, my grasp of the language is not sufficient for me to switch to it full time. And I'd lose my beloved Quins.

.....maybe if Sarries died as well my head might be turned. But then I'd have to find something else to despise.

[pjm1]

One question might be, 'Why haven't France won the RWC?' Is the French game simply more wrapped up in the club scene?

You have to win 7/8 games on the bounce… have France ever done this in their entire history?!

[Which Tyler]

One question might be, 'Why haven't France won the RWC?' Is the French game simply more wrapped up in the club scene?

You have to win 7/8 games on the bounce… have France ever done this in their entire history?!

Well, they went an entire calendar year undefeated in the lead-up to RWC23 - which wasn't all that long ago.
IIRC only New Zealand and England have also managed that feat.

[SixAndAHalf]

I can never get on board with this idea. The Premiership is already on its arse, with too many clubs propped up by passionate (and misguided) benefactors.

If a talent drain starts it will snowball and basically kill the game here outside of the 6N and WCs.

As much as I love watching the French T14, my grasp of the language is not sufficient for me to switch to it full time. And I'd lose my beloved Quins.

.....maybe if Sarries died as well my head might be turned. But then I'd have to find something else to despise.

My concern is we base English rugby around protecting the Prem when it is structurally challenged in any case because of the CVC deal.

I would be in favour of loosening the eligibility criteria alongside significantly increasing the salary cap - even if it means Bath and Bristol build mega squads. The EEPS funding should be used more creatively and perhaps you could also say that anyone in the EEPS is exempt from the salary cap, which incentivises clubs to give them market leading offers. Part of the issue with Tom Willis as I understand it is that other clubs weren't able to make him a marquee, which seems to me like the system shooting itself in the foot.

[FKAS]

I can never get on board with this idea. The Premiership is already on its arse, with too many clubs propped up by passionate (and misguided) benefactors.

If a talent drain starts it will snowball and basically kill the game here outside of the 6N and WCs.

As much as I love watching the French T14, my grasp of the language is not sufficient for me to switch to it full time. And I'd lose my beloved Quins.

.....maybe if Sarries died as well my head might be turned. But then I'd have to find something else to despise.

My concern is we base English rugby around protecting the Prem when it is structurally challenged in any case because of the CVC deal.

I would be in favour of loosening the eligibility criteria alongside significantly increasing the salary cap - even if it means Bath and Bristol build mega squads. The EEPS funding should be used more creatively and perhaps you could also say that anyone in the EEPS is exempt from the salary cap, which incentivises clubs to give them market leading offers. Part of the issue with Tom Willis as I understand it is that other clubs weren't able to make him a marquee, which seems to me like the system shooting itself in the foot.

Stops wealthy clubs just head hunting players from other sides. If you've got a talent that bursts onto the scene it's difficult for the club who helped produce that player to be able to go from basic salary to marquee quickly. Don't really want to see a club at the other end of the country swoop in with an unlimited sack of cash.

The idea was to try and give clubs some stability, hold onto their best or go abroad and bring big names in.

I've said it before, remove the England representation piece keeping England's biggest names in the Prem and half will be in France by the end of the next world cup. That then makes it very difficult to get access pre international windows or generally during the season. It will effectively kill the Prem in terms of competitiveness, as would removing or significantly raising the salary cap. Raising the salary cap to allow super squads just makes it a Bath dominated league unless Lansdowne decides he wants to get in on the action. Unless of course other clubs fancy bankrupting themselves to keep up.

Now getting more creative with the salary cap I'm all for. Getting credits for players in the EPS, getting a reduction in qualifying salary for players that have come through your academy (a percentage as opposed as to the current set credit) etc.

[Mellsblue]

bring big names in.

I've said it before, remove the England representation piece keeping England's biggest names in the Prem and half will be in France by the end of the next world cup.

You’ve stated the solution before explaining the problem (even if you have plucked the number of leavers from thin air).

Loathe to rehash this but i’d like a compromise. First two years of the World Cup cycle make it a free for all and if Quins lose M. Smith then let them sign D. Mackenzie. Even better, the Prem gets its arse into gear and is such a roaring success that they can match French wages in the 2030s.

If rehashing history, I’d have loved it if there had never been a ban, never been financial ring fencing of the Prem and never been a fixed salary cap (would’ve linked it to income/profit). A closed house is bad for growth and improvement. Obvs a different market, but years ago the Prem was arguably the strongest league in Europe but now we just get to look longingly across the La Manche…

[SixAndAHalf]

I can never get on board with this idea. The Premiership is already on its arse, with too many clubs propped up by passionate (and misguided) benefactors.

If a talent drain starts it will snowball and basically kill the game here outside of the 6N and WCs.

As much as I love watching the French T14, my grasp of the language is not sufficient for me to switch to it full time. And I'd lose my beloved Quins.

.....maybe if Sarries died as well my head might be turned. But then I'd have to find something else to despise.

My concern is we base English rugby around protecting the Prem when it is structurally challenged in any case because of the CVC deal.

I would be in favour of loosening the eligibility criteria alongside significantly increasing the salary cap - even if it means Bath and Bristol build mega squads. The EEPS funding should be used more creatively and perhaps you could also say that anyone in the EEPS is exempt from the salary cap, which incentivises clubs to give them market leading offers. Part of the issue with Tom Willis as I understand it is that other clubs weren't able to make him a marquee, which seems to me like the system shooting itself in the foot.

Stops wealthy clubs just head hunting players from other sides. If you've got a talent that bursts onto the scene it's difficult for the club who helped produce that player to be able to go from basic salary to marquee quickly. Don't really want to see a club at the other end of the country swoop in with an unlimited sack of cash.

The idea was to try and give clubs some stability, hold onto their best or go abroad and bring big names in.

I've said it before, remove the England representation piece keeping England's biggest names in the Prem and half will be in France by the end of the next world cup. That then makes it very difficult to get access pre international windows or generally during the season. It will effectively kill the Prem in terms of competitiveness, as would removing or significantly raising the salary cap. Raising the salary cap to allow super squads just makes it a Bath dominated league unless Lansdowne decides he wants to get in on the action. Unless of course other clubs fancy bankrupting themselves to keep up.

Now getting more creative with the salary cap I'm all for. Getting credits for players in the EPS, getting a reduction in qualifying salary for players that have come through your academy (a percentage as opposed as to the current set credit) etc.

I posted a slightly longer one which didn't send - crib notes:

- Not sure if the system is working well if we lose EEPS talent?
- I wouldn't mind 10-15 EPS players playing in France and think it would be on the lower end if we increased the salary cap (to the level of France, e.g. around £10m)
- Even with that salary cap I'd imagine the league would be dispersed but still be competitive and would encourage innovation

[Morton]

If the number of selected players playing abroad was limited to three surely that would be a solution. The likes of the Willis brothers and maybe Ribbans wouldn't be lost to England. Any player planning a move to France would have to be pretty damned confidant that he is indispensable to England before planning a move.

[Oakboy]

If the number of selected players playing abroad was limited to three surely that would be a solution. The likes of the Willis brothers and maybe Ribbans wouldn't be lost to England. Any player planning a move to France would have to be pretty damned confidant that he is indispensable to England before planning a move.

Yes, that has been suggested before and I have yet to see a convincing counter-argument. Even if it was lifted to five, would it really destroy the prem or would it give younger pretenders more game-time to overall good effect? Currently, there are back row alternatives to the Willises (though, arguably, lesser ones) but say it was Itoje, Chessum and Mitchell would there be a re-think?

[Mikey Brown]

So then it’s just your best players that you don’t have available for training/non-test windows?

[Oakboy]

So then it’s just your best players that you don’t have available for training/non-test windows?

Yes but is it a good situation now? We beat Australia who were without three or four players. Why not simply have a meaningful test window period? Previously, we have had three games in the window and one lesser standard game outside it. Now, it is more random and not the same for both sides. I don't like that.

[Mikey Brown]

I get that, and I basically agree, but you’ve just listed a different complication to your plan rather than a reason that it’s actually not an issue.

Once Itoje, Freeman and… I dunno… Pollock decide they’re the chosen ones off to France to indulge in cake eating/ownership where are we left? Still without the ability to pick some good English players and also less access to ones we previously had.

I don’t understand what beating a ropey Australia side really has to do with anything. Is them missing Skelton somehow an argument for this plan?

[Morton]

I get that, and I basically agree, but you’ve just listed a different complication to your plan rather than a reason that it’s actually not an issue.

Once Itoje, Freeman and… I dunno… Pollock decide they’re the chosen ones off to France to indulge in cake eating/ownership where are we left? Still without the ability to pick some good English players and also less access to ones we previously had.

I don’t understand what beating a ropey Australia side really has to do with anything. Is them missing Skelton somehow an argument for this plan?

To my mind Itoje is the only player in the squad who could be very sure of being picked if he went to France. And would probably lose the captaincy. Maybe Genge. All the others would be playing Russian roulette with their chances. With only three places up for grabs surely the Willis brothers would be two leaving one place. Freeman wouldn't risk it with so many wingers about. Pollock definitely not.

[Puja]

I get that, and I basically agree, but you’ve just listed a different complication to your plan rather than a reason that it’s actually not an issue.

Once Itoje, Freeman and… I dunno… Pollock decide they’re the chosen ones off to France to indulge in cake eating/ownership where are we left? Still without the ability to pick some good English players and also less access to ones we previously had.

I don’t understand what beating a ropey Australia side really has to do with anything. Is them missing Skelton somehow an argument for this plan?

To my mind Itoje is the only player in the squad who could be very sure of being picked if he went to France. And would probably lose the captaincy. Maybe Genge. All the others would be playing Russian roulette with their chances. With only three places up for grabs surely the Willis brothers would be two leaving one place. Freeman wouldn't risk it with so many wingers about. Pollock definitely not.

The problem with making exceptions is that everyone thinks they're exceptional. At the moment, we've set the choice in front of our top players as "have big overseas money, but no England, at all, for any reason". If we change it to "have big overseas money and maybe England," then more than 3 people will back themselves to make it into that list of 3, and then it'll be, "Ugh, why are we limiting ourselves and weakening the England team by restricting it to just 3; why can't we pick more!?!"

There's definitely an argument to be made that us failing to hold the line over exceptional circumstances after the collapse of the three clubs is why there are good players in France right now. Would JWillis have gone to Toulouse in the first place if he'd been told that it would instantly cost him his RWC place? Probably not*. But because he was given the chance to have his cake and eat it too, he went for that and, because the rule had been weakened once, he re-signed with the openly expressed hope that he would be able to be an exception again in the future.

Puja


*I am aware that it would've been exceedingly unfair to the player to do that, given the situation in which Wasps' demise had left him, and that there were other considerations at the time. This is more about the eligibility rules.

[Which Tyler]

The problem with making exceptions is that everyone thinks they're exceptional.

As shown by every player who moved to France and then complained that they were exceptional enough to trigger the "excepetional circumstances" clause - eg both Armitages

[Oakboy]

I don’t understand what beating a ropey Australia side really has to do with anything. Is them missing Skelton somehow an argument for this plan?

All I was saying in that regard was that there should be an international window and rules that were the same for all teams. I accept that contractual obligations differ. Scottish players appearing for their English clubs in 6N gap weeks seems another anomaly. Maybe, there should be more international co-operation. England our out on a limb to an extent with the RFU backing the clubs' security/prem status. Other countries prioritise their international XVs, full-stop.

[SixAndAHalf]

So then it’s just your best players that you don’t have available for training/non-test windows?

Players would ideally negotiate releases into their contracts - the big issue would be the summer tours which clash with the Top 14 knockouts, however playing in those big knockout games may be better experience for our top players in any case?

South Africa seem to manage it well and it seems to me that players make strategic career decisions in concert with Rassie - there is a template there.