International players will be able to switch nationality if revolutionary changes to eligibility rules are voted through by World Rugby later this month. Under the new proposals, players will be able to represent the country of their or their ancestors' birth after a three-year stand-down period. The likes of All Blacks superstar Charles Piutau could represent Tonga as soon as next year in what would be a major boost to Pacific Island nations before the 2023 Rugby World Cup. The World Rugby council will discuss the proposals at the next meeting on 24 November, with a 75% majority, or 39 of 52 votes, required for the ruling to pass. ... Under the new plans, a player would be eligible for a nationality switch once they have not played international rugby for three years. If they then have a "close and credible link" to another country - through birth or the birthplace of parents or grandparents - then they would be able to change nationality. Players would only be able to switch once in their careers. In theory, it means players like Mako and Billy Vunipola would be eligible to play for Tonga, through their father, if they aren't capped by England between now and 2024, although Billy Vunipola last year ruled this prospect out. The Fijian-born Bristol number eight Nathan Hughes, who won the last of his 22 England caps in 2019, would then be able to switch to his home country in 2022.

If we start to allow players a second opportunity to choose which country to represent I believe it is the start of a slippery slope which will turn International rugby into just another form of club rugby, where players have the freedom to move around and look for the best deal. 

Once a player reaches 18 (there is a different argument for those under that age) the player is old enough to understand the long term decision they are making. Let's be honest most decisions are finically driven and the players (and agents!) will make a decision that basis if they have to choose between two or more countries for which they have qualify. A player who has represented the 'All Blacks' is always going to be more of a box-office draw than another player who plays for Fiji/Samoa/Tonga. 

If we believe the press reports about this weeks game, England players will pick up £70,000 whilst Tongans will collect only £500. That is wrong and I see nothing in the new suggestion which would correct that in-balance. If appearance money was more equitable, then players wouldn't necessarily want to play for a bigger nation but would be happier representing the country of their birth or heritage. 

I fear if the plan goes ahead the bigger nations will cap any promising player once (last seconds off the bench even), then renew this every three years to stop the player changing countries. 

These are professionals we’re talking about. It’s out of the question to ask them to risk career ending injury on international duty for no recompense.

 Currently everything is in favour of T1 nations..most of whom have both the sporting and economic power to bring in huge numbers of players from other countries and then integrate them in their system.

Not saying they would necessarily want to, but surely the benefits would be great if people like Dave Ewers or Don Armand were given the chance to play for Zimbabwe if they chose to 

"At Levels 4 and above, a Club may not play or select as a replacement or substitute more than
two Foreign Players in any match."

If you go to th definition of foreign player

"Due  to  the  United  Kingdom  no  longer  being  a  member  of  the  European Union, the RFU is working with stakeholders to determine the position going forwards with regards to the regulatory classification of Foreign Players. Pending agreement on the long term position,  an  interim  position  has  
been agreed for the 2021-22 season only being that the status quo will remain which means that those
players who are or would have been classified as a Non-Foreign prior to 1 January 2021 will retain
such Non-Foreign classification for the 2021-22 season. This applies to all  players  playing  in  the  2021-22 season, including those who are already  playing  in  England  or  yet  to arrive in England for the 2021-22 season. The RFU gives no assurances  that  players  who  are classified  as  Non-Foreign  will  be  able to retain such status from the 2022-23 season onwards. "

I suspect the RFU is waiting on DCMS guidance.

A revolutionary change to rugby union's international eligibility rules has been approved by World Rugby. It means from January 2022 a player will now be able to represent a different country after a stand-down period of three years. A player can move to a nation of their, their parents' or grandparents' birth, but can only switch allegiance once. In a surprise move, the ruling was passed on Wednesday by more than 75% of the World Rugby council votes.

Ireland scrum-half John Cooney is pondering a switch to Scotland next year under World Rugby's new eligibility rules. Cooney is eligible to play for the Scots, through his family, three years after his last Ireland appearance which came in February 2020. "I'll make the decision on my own terms and whatever I feel is right for me," said the 32-year-old Ulster player. "Half of my family live in Scotland and my dad's a proud Scotsman." Cooney won the last of his 11 international caps as a replacement against England in the Six Nations and does not appear in the frame for a return under coach Andy Farrell.

"Irish rugby no longer wants me so suddenly I'm Scottish"

Former Canada prop Mackenzie Carson will make her England debut against Scotland in the Women's Six Nations on Saturday. The 24-year-old qualifies for England through her mother and switched countries through World Rugby's birth-right transfer rules. ... Carson previously played against England in 2018 in one of three Canada caps she earned. She is eligible to join the Red Roses - who are chasing a fifth successive Women's Six Nations title - after spending at least three years away from international rugby. Carson fills a gap in the front row left because Vickii Cornborough is missing the tournament for personal reasons and Hannah Botterman is injured.

https://churchcourtchambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/The-Effects-of-Kolpak-and-Brexit-upon-Cricket-and-Rugby-What-happens-next.pdf

My kids have two passports (dual nationals), I have friends with three, Dual nationals due to parents and one due to place of birth. Never as easy as you think. Especially in countries with more porous borders and large migrant populations, nationality isn't always that simple.

Very true it isn't but in my opinion once you reach eighteen and you have played for one country (irrespective of sport) then that's it. In my experience most folks with dual nationalities/qualifications know which is "their country" the country they feel most allegiance to and you should play for your country and not someone else's.

"their country"? My kids would disagree. They see both as their country. What you're suggesting is an easy fix with someone who has no ties to another country. But, that's not the case for all people. For example, my kids support one country for one sport, but another for other sports. It's because they feel part of both countries. You are allowed to have an allegiance to two countries, unless there's some weird rule I've not come across? 

I hold a UK passport

Let's not be silly.
 

I cannot support the idea of playing for multiple countries throughout your playing career - but then players are a business commodity and seek the highest return, which is sad, but then I'm from a different era when playing for your country was an honour rather than a means to an end

You and me both FHLH!

I remember the story the late Emlyn Hughes told about Don Revie just after he became England manager. He called the players together for an urgent meeting. Anticipating some news about Revie's plans, tactics and so on the players eagerly attended to hear Revie tell them that he had some very important news - he had negotiated a small increase in their appearance money. Hughes said he and Alan Ball looked at each other and shook their heads. Revie didn't realise that we would have paid them to play Hughes said.

(Years later of course we learnt that Revie would have probably taken the money from them had he known!).