Explaining the issue with heritage national teams: The thing people need to understand here is there are trade offs. On the one hand a heritage team of largely NZ/Aus players representing say Samoa and the majority of the sides at the League World Cup (which is actually worse than Union which at least has a few homegrown Samoans and Tongans whereas League has 0) in the immediate term gives the benefit of some stronger teams in the tournament than there would otherwise be. On the otherhand though with a longer term view. These heritage teams are basically extensions of existing Tier 1 countries and achieve very little for growth of the sport in terms of promoting more countries capable of producing top players and bringing new audiences to the sport. There is an example of football which has had some largely heritage teams represent teams like Morocco for instance. However there is a massive difference between a mature global sport like football, and one like rugby where the global game is still a work in progress. Belgium getting knocked out of a football World Cup by a heritage team for instance makes very little difference to the popularity of football in Belgium in the long run. They can go again in the next Euros 2 years on. Whereas in rugby, and especially under the current structure where WR is making any funding hugely contingent on RWC qualification and neglecting those who miss out, and a missed RWC for a team like Belgium means few games of consequence for years and a missed opportunity to achieve potentially transformational media attention and sponsorships. So far RWC has been by far the best tool to grow the sport that rugby has ever had. Chile's recent growth in interest post-2023 is only the most recent example. You can see what happens in an extreme case with Rugby League strongly promoting heritage teams over homegrown that over decades completely ruined any potential for their World Cup to bring any global growth (despite having a 30+ year head start over Union on having a World Cup). Perhaps League is too far down that path to change course now, but it serves as a warning for what long term international growth strategy looks like when gone wrong (comically some League fans seem oblivious what a joke their int'l game looks like to everybody else). So you have to balance the trade offs here. Samoa or Romania with considerably less homegrown teams make for somewhat stronger teams at the RWC in the immediate term. Yet the the side they both beat to qualify Belgium would have had more potential to grow as a market for the sport off the back of a qualification. In addition to this there are questions of fairness. It would be unfair to say to ethnic Samoans in NZ they can't represent their heritage if they want to. People can be more than one nationality and both heritage and upbringing should count and be respected. A lot of those players make huge sacrifice to play int'l rugby for the nations of their heritage. On the condition it comes *alongside* local player development then a heritage player from a Tier 1 nation can help bring experience and know how to help that development. However equally, it isn't particularly fair on Unions who have put resources and effort into grassroots and local player development to see they return on that investment torpedoed by Unions who are shambolically corrupt or failing to produce homegrown talent but can just bring in numerous heritage players developed by Tier 1 countries to get an edge over them. This is why nations like Uruguay & Chile were vehemently opposed to the looser eligibility laws to allow Samoa & Tonga to parachute in ex-All Blacks. So there are several things to balance here. People can have differing opinions but what is most important is both sides here are taken into consideration. This is my proposal for some small alterations: 1) WR funding to be more contingent on investment in local player development not simply RWC qualification. If you want to pick Tier 1 heritage players, that is totally fine, however the funding incentives should be favourable to those putting resources into growing homegrown talent. They fully deserve some reward for this, not those who have neglected to invest in local development. 2) Only homegrown players can switch countries. This is a middle ground from the previous system to the current one. Fiji should be allows to pick an ex-All Black like Sowakula who was fully born and raised in the country. Otherwise you should be limited to picking only one country. Samoa gets enough advantage over other Tier 2 from NZ trained players already before adding ex-All Blacks. A Tier 1 nation like Scotland also shouldn't be able to add a player like Jack Dempsey. 3) Residency qualification for adults should be extended to 20 years. "Project players" are an abomination for international sport and both boost the rich over the poor and further penalise Tier 2 Unions putting resources into homegrown development. A player like Benhard Janse van Rensburg is not English either by ancestry or upbringing. Nor is Tyler Duguid French. Pierre Schoeman Scottish. James Lowe Irish. Harry Hockings Japanese. And so on. Whilst within the rules cases like these are not right nor fair. They need to be stopped. This shouldn't be anything too radical. It isn't saying stop all heritage teams as that wouldn't be fair. Yet at same time, there should be a desire to grow the sport and encourage investment in player development outside existing Tier 1 countries, and so some more nudges and incentives must be put in place in order to push that along too.