Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Project Player Rules

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Originally posted by Pony View Post
    My error on McGinty, I though he was a citizen by birth. It's a slightly different example anyway.
    An Irish guy signs a contract with a province for 2 years. He gets capped by Scotland a month in. Now he takes the province beyond their NIQ cap. The stated policy of the IRFU is not to renew, in fact they might deny him playing time because of the cap. This IMO could allow a case that career progression/development is impeded, and a future new contract is denied. Again you're into denial of ability to earn a living.



    You seem to regard the rules/"laws" of rugby as being comparable to actual law, they're not. IMO WR rules are at odds with European employment law in particular circumstances. If the best player in (e.g.) Poland is a citizen but cannot play (get paid) for their country because of a WR rule, WR will lose - IMO.

    These are specific examples with limited application, but I believe the 5 year rule will be successfully challenged at some point on limited grounds.
    You have lots of theoretical examples but the eligibility rules have been in force for decades and they haven’t been challenged once. This change is relatively minor.

    International sport is not treated the same way as a job in Tescos. The law recognises the need for eligibility criteria.

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by AwayFromHome View Post
      European Court rulings like Bosman and Kolpak related to the rights of individuals to work and have normal contractual situations for their work. There is nothing in the WR regs that remove the right to work. All rugby players are free to sign contracts and earn a living under the regs.

      Does anyone have examples of where a sport federations eligibility criteria for representative sport have been successfully challenged anywhere in the world?
      They don't exist. However, again, if the ECJ was asked to look at it, they would.

      Originally posted by AwayFromHome
      There is a long established and legally accepted practice that sports federations set eligibility rules to suit the governance and history of the sport.
      And there was along an well established practice that football clubs would receive a fee for players transferring at the end of their contract. And then Bosman happened.....
      Last edited by fitzy73; 26th-July-2018, 08:46.
      Please support Milford Hospice. Click here to donate.

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by Piquet View Post
        But if the best player in Poland has rendered himself ineligible for Poland by playing for someone else in the knowledge that by doing so he would be unable to play for Poland, then he only has himself to blame.
        You've completely mis-read what I wrote. I never mentioned playing for someone else.

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by Munsterboy View Post
          You have lots of theoretical examples but the eligibility rules have been in force for decades and they haven’t been challenged once. This change is relatively minor.

          International sport is not treated the same way as a job in Tescos. The law recognises the need for eligibility criteria.
          It is a minor change, but could be significant in certain cases. The previous 36 months aligned almost perfectly with the normal naturalisation period for many countries. Now there is a significant period where a citizen will not be able to play for their country if they do not match the criteria set by WR. That's the crux of my argument.

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by AwayFromHome View Post
            ‘‘Tis a fine hole you’ve dug for yourself. I’d say if you keep at it you’ll be out in no time at all.

            Seriously if someone makes a decision to play for another country/work for another employer they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on complaining about a non-renewal from their current employer no matter what industry they are in.



            There is a difference between the laws of rugby (how a game is played) and the regulations of world rugby. The latter are actually a ‘law’ in the sense that they are a set of commonly agreed standards that freely contracting individuals and organizations (unions and clubs) agree to abide by in the conduct of their relationships.

            You are of course entitled to you opinion but eventually you’ll have to back it up with more than ‘cause it’s what I think, and how I think things should operate’ if you want anyone else to take it seriously. Do you have any particular expertise in the area that would lend credibility to your opinion? Do you have an evidence of any of major sports lawyers lining this up for challenge? When a 2 year debate was undertaken to change the reg from 36 months to 50 did any of the many many lawyers involved raise concerns that were ignored?

            You can quote citizenship until the cows come home but it is absolutely irrelevant. Rory Best and Iain Henderson most likely to not have Irish passports. NOBODY has a Welsh or a Scottish passport or citizenship as they don’t exist. Just like nobody has West Indian citizenship in cricket. There is a long established and legally accepted practice that sports federations set eligibility rules to suit the governance and history of the sport.
            Did my self no favours by not fact checking the example, I agree!
            I have clearly stated from the start this is my opinion, this is a discussion forum. I don't have examples to quote as I doubt there are any, yet.
            I do not have a legal background, never claimed one.
            I have never encountered a sports body having such stringent qualification criteria, nor is there such an important link between national eligibility and pay in most other sports. As more and more money trickles into the game this issue will become more important, and will be challenged. It could even be challenged by a nation, or national RFU. IN MY OPINION.

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by Pony View Post

              Did my self no favours by not fact checking the example, I agree!
              I have clearly stated from the start this is my opinion, this is a discussion forum. I don't have examples to quote as I doubt there are any, yet.
              I do not have a legal background, never claimed one.
              I have never encountered a sports body having such stringent qualification criteria, nor is there such an important link between national eligibility and pay in most other sports. As more and more money trickles into the game this issue will become more important, and will be challenged. It could even be challenged by a nation, or national RFU. IN MY OPINION.
              Sums up the internet. You have an opinion which you freely admit is based on scant knowledge of the subject, but you're going to stick to it no matter how many people tell you it's incorrect.

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by Munsterboy View Post

                Sums up the internet. You have an opinion which you freely admit is based on scant knowledge of the subject, but you're going to stick to it no matter how many people tell you it's incorrect.
                Sums up the internet. You have an opinion which you think I am obliged to adopt because a few strangers disagree with me.

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by Pony View Post

                  Sums up the internet. You have an opinion which you think I am obliged to adopt because a few strangers disagree with me.
                  No, I think you should maybe have a bit of a rethink and bother your arse to do a little research.

                  Try reading this for instance:

                  http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/sport...ec_2010_en.pdf

                  Comment


                    #54
                    bother your arse, nice.

                    Apart from repeatedly citing the WR regulations, that the first time here that any other source has been quoted. However, I don't have time to read a 250 page document. Having skimmed it I don't see a relevant section. Can you quote?

                    Linked below, you'll see examples of when a sports body regulations fall foul of EU law. Then they must be altered to respect the rights of the person, and in particular to facilitate their right top work. These are the broad changes which impacted football leading up to the Bosman ruling.

                    I think this snippet particularly interesting in the context of this thread.


                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled.png
Views:	2
Size:	178.1 KB
ID:	2538081Sports law and policy in the European Union By Richard Parrish
                    https://books.google.pl/books?id=ICA...nality&f=false


                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Pony, the case you have quoted referred to UEFA's restrictions on the number of foreigners that a Club were allowed play in European Club competitions.

                      These restrictions as they applied to EU citizens were thrown out and UEFA then got rid of all restrictions.

                      As far as I'm aware, there has never been a court case much less a decision regarding a player's right to play for a country.

                      Unless, of course, you know ( and can demonstrate) different.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Piquet View Post
                        Pony, the case you have quoted referred to UEFA's restrictions on the number of foreigners that a Club were allowed play in European Club competitions.

                        These restrictions as they applied to EU citizens were thrown out and UEFA then got rid of all restrictions.

                        As far as I'm aware, there has never been a court case much less a decision regarding a player's right to play for a country.

                        Unless, of course, you know ( and can demonstrate) different.
                        I'm on holiday with catpiss wifi. So I'll finish up with this.

                        The book covers much more than that. You are agreeing the UEFA regs broke EU law so had to go. My point exactly.

                        What I attached after a 3 minute google search was the fact that sports regulations operate under EU law. That if they are proven to be in breach they must be changed. Yes these relate to UEFA, but far more importantly they highlight the right of the individual to make a living. They state that sports bodies need to be entitled to regulate who can play for a country, but in football it is stated this has little bearing on income as clubs are separate from national bodies. In rugby they're not. The IRFU owns the provinces so further complication the situation.

                        My assertion remains that the new WR rules could very likely see someone prevented form making a living, despite being a citizen of a country they want top play for. Pro Nationals 7's teams are the most obvious. It will take someone being caught in this situation to bring the case before it is struck down, but I believe it is very possible. As I've said from the start this will only apply in selected cases, but WR should have allowed for some select exemptions. In fairness it is difficult write regulations to align with hundreds of national and super-national laws.

                        Don't agree with me, makes no odds to me, but I've seen nothing but the re-quoting of the same WR regulations.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X