England must introduce a ‘Giteau law’ to keep Maro Itoje available if he moves to France

The English Premiership clubs are still struggling with borderline insolvency. They are in a constant fight for tightening sponsorship and broadcast rights amid a competing plethora of other sports and are dwarfed by football’s monumental success. Anything that affects the sustainability of the English professional game risks its implosion. In turn, that compromises the sustainability of England’s international team. As 85 per cent of the entire revenue of the RFU comes from Twickenham internationals, this would threaten the grassroots, women’s, schools and all other levels of rugby.

While there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of English rugby, there are an equal number of genuine problems which could have long-term, deleterious effects. In such a context it is not good enough to blithely utter platitudinous and theoretical points, you have to face issues as they are, not pretend they don’t exist. The real issue here is about ensuring that rugby remains viable in the medium and long term, and that is by no means a certainty. There are too many people who imagine income streams out of thin air but do not understand the harsh commercial reality of rugby finances.

You cannot look at France and Ireland, where rugby is presently flourishing, because we do not have the same advantages in several ways. It is easier to exist in an area like south-west France, where rugby is the dominant sport and grounds are municipally owned. It is easier to keep your players when, as in both countries, players are entitled to claim back tax at anything up to 40 per cent when they retire. It should also be noted that to qualify for this tax break they have to have been based in that State prior to the year of their retirement.

Presently, only England qualification rules prevent a large number of players seeking to play elsewhere and in particular France and Japan. Those who advocate no restrictions must say how they mean to deal with the potentially disastrous consequences of a mass exodus of elite players. It is not good enough to simply say we will deal with it if it happens. By that time the damage will be done and who knows how deep it might be?

Abolitionists could point out that the RFU has already broken its rule to accommodate players from clubs who went bankrupt last season. First of all, they were very, very few in number and as this only happened last year you cannot seriously argue that this is the equivalent of a longer term, mass departure of top-level players. Moreover, the reason of exceptional circumstance was genuine; bankruptcy is about as extreme as you can imagine.

All levels of the English game are inter-dependent and require careful management to ensure each level is protected. This means the RFU cannot be blind to the circumstance of players like Itoje and their value in this circle of reliance and they might have to look at a compromise that exists in other unions’ rules.

A relaxation of the rule, along the lines of Giteau’s law in Australia, would not be unreasonable. A player can play abroad and for Australia after gaining a minimum 30 Test caps; and/or five seasons at Super Rugby level. That number of Tests is, for me, too low. Its previous level of 60 caps, under which Itoje would still qualify for England selection, is far preferable.

There can be small doubt that this issue will run. For English rugby’s sake it is important that the right decisions are taken, and the balance of the argument has to be in favour of the good of the game as a whole, not the individual.