England\u2019s most capped men\u2019s rugby player Ben Youngs believes it is time for the RFU to reconsider its rule that Steve Borthwick can only pick Prem-based players.<\/p>\n
It was after the Rugby World Cup 2011 when the RFU brought in its rule that makes overseas-based players ineligible for England selection unless in exceptional circumstances.<\/p>\n
This rarely used special dispensation was last utilised to allow Borthwick<\/a> to select Jack Willis through to the Rugby World Cup 2023 after the dramatic October 2022 collapse of Wasps left the back-rower club-less and taking up an offer to see out the season at Toulouse.<\/p>\n Willis<\/a> opted to stay on in France after England\u2019s bronze medal finish, making him ineligible for Test selection, and the same restriction will now be applied to his brother Tom following his decision this week to take up a money-spinning offer at Bordeaux.<\/p>\n \u201cWhy are we still with this rule?\u201d<\/p>\n The No.8 will stay at Saracens until the end of the current season<\/a> but Borthwick has quickly taken action at England level, deciding to exclude Willis from the squad for the upcoming Autumn Nations Series<\/a> even though he is eligible for selection and will be until next summer\u2019s cross-Channel move.<\/p>\n Willis showcased his potential this year, starting three Six Nations matches and then being the standout player in England\u2019s tour series victory in Argentina, but Borthwick has now decided to exclude Willis and look to the future.<\/p>\n It has left retired scrum-half Youngs, who won 127 caps in his Test career, wondering if a change in the rule governing non-England-based players is now required. Appearing on the latest edition of For The Love Of Rugby<\/a>, he said: \u201cI do wonder now whether the rule of playing abroad is now outdated.<\/p>\n \u201cIt served a great purpose. It did what it was supposed to do. I do think we have got to the period where it\u2019s served its purpose, and if you go abroad you can still be eligible. Now maybe it needs to be 20 caps, 25, I don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n \u201cBut I just think if your best players to play, if the best back-row you can pick, for instance, is Tom Curry, Jack Willis and Tom Willis and two are playing abroad, if that is your best back-row you can pick, why can\u2019t you? Why are we still with this rule?\u201d<\/p>\n England squad: Winners and losers as PREM returner\u2019s move \u2018pays off\u2019 while Steve Borthwick forced into \u2018contingency plan\u2019 following Tom Willis exit<\/a><\/p>\n Meet England\u2019s new addition to the coaching team as Sale Sharks agree to \u2018combined\u2019 role<\/a><\/p>\n Fellow England centurion Dan Cole, his podcast show co-host, defended the RFU and believed the rule should stay as it is. \u201cWe talk about players playing too much, we talk about game management, load management and that kind of stuff.<\/p>\n \u201cI know some go over the minutes, (Maro) Itoje did in the summer, but England rugby pay the clubs to have access to the players. And also the players are looked after and only play a certain number of games, have training weeks and certain amounts of rest days, so they are in peak form to play for the international team.<\/p>\n \u201cIf these players then go to France, there is no control over how many games they play\u2026 you talk about player welfare, I know it\u2019s probably a weak argument, but England have no control over those players if they go abroad and because of that, because of the way it is set up with the RFU, it\u2019s not going to change.<\/p>\n \u201cThe RFU is not going to pay French clubs to release players and they shouldn\u2019t, so it has a value in keeping the English game healthy. I don\u2019t think it is going to change, so therefore the debate becomes a bit of a non-starter. There is no point wasting breath over it.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd players know that as well. It\u2019s not like players have gone over and gone, \u2018Oh, I can\u2019t play for England now\u2019. They know that before the decision is made. They have gone in there with their eyes open, knowing what is going on.\u201d<\/p>\n Could a Samoa \u2018springboard\u2019 be next for Manu Tuilagi after contract extension?<\/a><\/p>\n England star avoids ban following \u2018careful deliberation\u2019 by independent disciplinary panel<\/a><\/p>\n This past week\u2019s transfer left Youngs wondering how the salary on offer in England compares to that in France. \u201cLet\u2019s work this out roughly. For someone to go to France in the game\u2019s current state, if you have a central contract from England, that\u2019s \u00a3150,000. You get about \u00a310K per game on top of that. So let\u2019s say \u00a3250,000 if you are playing every game.<\/p>\n \u201cThen you are looking at an international player playing at their club, a club contract is going to be around \u00a3300,000 to \u00a3400,000. Let\u2019s say \u00a3300,000 for argument\u2019s sake, plus the 250K, so \u00a3550K give or take. That\u2019s England rugby if you play every game\u2026 but if a French team is coming in, it\u2019s going to be close to \u00a3700,000, \u00a3800,000, which is guaranteed over two or three years and England can change (as a player could be dropped).\u201d<\/p>\n With Willis now unavailable for the upcoming Test window that starts against Australia on Australia 1, Cole suggested his England back-row. \u201cBen Earl is going to be in there at eight, (Sam) Underhill at seven, and the six, you could do a Lions and put (Ollie) Chessum there, but then is your next second-row better than your back-row? Guy Pepper at Bath has been excellent\u2026 I don\u2019t know. Who\u2019d be young choice at six?\u201d<\/p>\n Youngs replied: \u201cUnderhill at seven, Ben Earl at eight and at six I would probably give Guy Pepper a go based on what I saw last season. He had a great season, and (Henry) Pollock would come off the bench.\u201d<\/p>\n