The international game is becoming more about power than nationalism

“We’re just abiding by World Rugby laws,” England’s defence coach Paul Gustard declares in regards to the selection of Brad Shields. The main thing, according to Gustard, is “we are not doing anything that’s illegal”.

No, it’s not illegal but it doesn’t have to be. The selection of Brad Shields further weakens the integrity of the international game, which is heading further away from its purity. It’s window-dressed as ‘internationals’ when it’s really about the power wielded by unions and not solely about representing your country.

The fact that the All Blacks dropped the prefix “New Zealand” from the team name tells you everything you need to know. They are a brand, dedicated to winning and will do what is required to make that happen.

World Rugby makes eligibility laws and Unions find ways to abide by them, whether those ways are righteous or not.

Japan actively sources Tongans for university scholarships with the intention of the national side benefiting from their residency. By the time they finish uni and play a couple of years of professional rugby, they can play for Japan.

Ireland is slowly joining the arms race, with New Zealand-born Bundee Aki becoming their first player with Pacific island heritage. Fijian-born Seevu Reece could become their second. Manu Tuilagi plays for England yet his brothers play for Samoa.

Scotland and Wales have benefited from New Zealand born-and-raised players qualifying under their grandparents or parents – Sean Maitland, Nick Grigg, and Gareth Anscombe.

The Wallabies and All Blacks continue to benefit from being in close proximity to the Pacific islands. New Zealand in particular, has a large Pacific island population that is now into the second and third generation to pick from. Still, that doesn’t stop the teams and schools from actively recruiting the next generation of players from Fiji or Tonga on high school ‘scholarships’.

A Tongan or Fijian schoolboy development trip to New Zealand is more like a touring fish market. The best players are certain to be offered scholarships to play rugby for schools in New Zealand, bringing them into the system where they can become eligible. Is it a better option for the player? Yes. Is it good for the integrity of the international game? No.

It’s human nature to do what’s best for you, players will choose a better future and Unions will do what they need to be competitive. When World Rugby vice-chairman Agustin Pichot tweeted “we are losing something... the game is losing something" it is hopefully the realisation that the system is broken and is more about World Rugby eligibility rules than Brad Shields.

A simple solution - qualification other than by birthright should be by 10 years residency or five years residency with heritage qualification (through birthright of parent or grandparent). Those like Joey Carberry who was born in New Zealand but moved to Ireland at 11-years-old would still qualify for Ireland. If Shields identifies as English, he would have had to move a lot earlier to pursue that dream and complete five years of residency first.

10 years residency for players with no heritage ties to a country would almost certainly prevent Bundee Aki from playing for Ireland but could also serve to strengthen the Pacific Island teams. If Vaea Fifita or Seta Tamanivalu had to wait until they were 26 or 27 years old to qualify for the All Blacks, would they instead opt to just play for Tonga and Fiji respectively?

The proposed extension of residency qualification from three to five years will fail to have much impact and it will not stop players using their grandparents as a loophole to play for a country they’ve never lived in or possibly never been too.

Brad Shields wasn’t the first and won’t be the last.

In other news: