At a luncheon in Fiji, Samu Kerevi revealed a desire to play for the country of his birth at the 2023 Rugby World Cup in France. His unexpected comments made headlines across the Pacific, but he later claimed they were taken out of context and that he just “having a bit of a laugh”.

Yet even if Kerevi was joking, the fact that he would not be allowed to play for Fiji is a serious matter and raises a question mark over the validity of rugby’s eligibility rules. At present Kerevi finds himself in an international no-man’s land. The Wallabies’ vice-captain at the World Cup in Japan, Kerevi is no longer eligible to play for Australia after signing a three-year deal with Japanese club Suntory.

Israel Folau under fire for implying bushfires are God's punishment Read more

Under Rugby Australia regulations, overseas-based players are ineligible for Wallabies selection unless they qualify under the so-called Giteau Law by having played 60 Tests. The 26-year-old Kerevi has played only 29 Tests so he will be lost to the Wallabies unless RA lowers the threshold of the Giteau Law, which the governing body is reviewing.

A powerful midfielder, Kerevi had become such a key player for the Wallabies it would not surprise to see a “Kerevi Law” introduced in the near future, but going from 60 Tests to 29 would be a big drop in one hit.

Interestingly, departing Wales coach Warren Gatland has suggested the Welsh reduce their 60-Test threshold for players playing outside of the principality to 30 Tests. Wales may or may not heed Gatland’s advice, but Australia might, although they would have to dip below 30 caps to keep Kerevi in the selection frame.

The Giteau Law was only introduced in 2015, which allowed Michael Cheika to select France-based Matt Giteau and Drew Mitchell for the World Cup in England. For the first 19 years of professionalism all Australian players were required to play for Australian Super Rugby teams to be eligible to play for the Wallabies.

RA imposed restrictions on overseas-based players to encourage players to remain in Australia and play Super Rugby, whose main purpose is to prepare players for Test rugby. Administrators feared Super Rugby would be severely diminished if players left en masse to play for foreign clubs and that would have an adverse effect on the game in this country.

But is it reasonable for a sporting body to limit a professional player’s work opportunities in an international game? It would be like the Matildas refusing to select Sam Kerr because she joined English club Chelsea, or the Boomers omitting their NBA stars.

A player like Kerevi, of course, is young enough to go overseas for three years and come back to Australia in time for the next World Cup. In fact, he would only have to commit himself to a Super Rugby team for the season after the tournament to be eligible again. However, while playing in Japan, Kerevi would not be able to help the Wallabies to regain the Bledisloe Cup, but that is the choice he has been forced to make: greater financial security or the gold jersey.

What would happen, though, if in four years’ time Kerevi was no longer a required player for the Wallabies? At around 30 years of age his Test career would be over. Maybe then playing for Fiji would not be so funny.

Fiji, which does not have a professional domestic competition, places no restrictions on overseas-based players, which means Kerevi could play for Suntory and Fiji if World Rugby regulations allowed it. But as things stand Kerevi can play for neither Australia nor Fiji because of World Rugby’s one player-one country regulation.

How Rugby Australia risks ending up with a Wallabies coach they don't want | Bret Harris Read more

This regulation was introduced to prevent players from changing national allegiances, even if they were dual citizens. World Rugby does not want to see players changing countries the way they change clubs in the English Premiership or the French Top 14. But given the high percentage of players of Pacific Island heritage playing for other countries, including Australia, there is a strong argument they should be allowed to represent their island homes if they were no longer wanted by tier one nations.

Despite the enormous amount of talent the Pacific Island nations of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga have produced for other nations, they are still regarded as minnows on the world stage. If the Pacific Island nations were able to take back unwanted players from the major nations, it would provide them with extra depth and experience at tournaments such as the World Cup. Maybe that’s what the rest of the rugby world is afraid of.

At the moment international eligibility regulations appear to favour the major unions at the expense of individual players and smaller countries. Maybe, if a high-profile player such as Kerevi challenged these restrictive regulations in court as a restraint of trade, it could potentially lead to a whole new world of rugby. That’s no joke.