RC Vannes are still waiting for Simione Kuruvoli, and nobody is saying exactly why.
RC Vannes are still waiting for Simione Kuruvoli, and nobody is saying exactly why.
The 27-year-old Fijian scrum-half, signed from the Fijian Drua, trained with the squad at the end of July before disappearing from sessions. He still had not joined the Brittany club on Wednesday, for administrative reasons, as his teammates prepared to host Connacht. The club has not explained the nature of the problem. The player is also serving a four-match ban for a red card against England, which rules him out of the first three rounds of the Top 14: the two situations are separate, and the second is disciplinary and on the record.
Among the possible explanations is a line in the regulations that few people know about, and one that costs the signing club money.
Rugby does have training compensation
World Rugby’s Regulation 4, which governs the international movement of players, provides in section 4.7 for compensation for training and development. The principle is close to football’s, the scale far more modest.
| Item | What the regulation says |
|---|---|
| Recognised training period | ages 17 to 23 |
| Maximum period counted | seven years |
| Amount per year of training | £5,000 |
| Overall cap | £35,000 |
| Trigger | first written contract signed outside the home union by a free player |
| Liable party | the signing club or union |
| Frequency | once per career |
Kuruvoli fits that framework: at 27, after five Super Rugby seasons with the Fijian franchise, he is signing his first contract outside Fiji. The amount can be adjusted according to the actual length of training, its cost, its quality and the player’s development. For a French top-flight club, the sums involved are marginal: the Top 14 salary cap stands at €11 million per club this season.
What the regulation forbids
A home union can refuse international clearance, without which a player cannot be registered in his new competition, in only two situations.
The first, under section 4.6.3, is an ongoing disciplinary suspension, unless it covers five weeks or less and the new union undertakes to enforce the remainder. The second, under section 4.6.4, concerns a player who has not met his own contractual obligations to his former club, typically personal debts. Section 4.6.5 closes the door: outside those two cases, the home union has no right to refuse.
Training compensation, however, is explicitly excluded. Section 4.7.8 states that a dispute over its payment must not affect the player’s activity, and that clearance cannot be refused on those grounds. A developing union can claim what it is owed, but it cannot use it as leverage.
Three possibilities, one visible outcome
No clearance means no registration in the new competition, so no approved contract, and the work permit application stalls. A player can end up stuck without anyone ever having to say no. That is what makes these cases so hard to read from the outside: three very different causes produce the same picture, that of an announced signing who never turns up.
The first is training compensation. It is plausible in this particular case, and yet it would be the only cause that should produce no hold-up at all, since the regulation expressly forbids it.
The second concerns the player’s own obligations: a contract with the Fijian Drua that has not run out, a notice period, a sum he personally owes his former club. That one would allow clearance to be withheld entirely within the rules.
The third has nothing to do with rugby: a consular processing delay, a missing document in the visa file. Neither the Brittany club nor the Fijian union has commented on the matter.
Sixty-four Fijians in French professional rugby
The issue is far from trivial for Fiji, which has supplied both French professional divisions for twenty years. For the 2026-2027 season, there are 33 Fijian players in Top 14 squads and 31 in Pro D2. Last season, there were 76 in total across the two leagues.
| Club | Division | Fijian players |
|---|---|---|
| Clermont | Top 14 | 5 |
| Racing 92 | Top 14 | 5 |
| Provence Rugby | Pro D2 | 5 |
| Castres | Top 14 | 4 |
| Soyaux-Angoulême | Pro D2 | 4 |
| Bayonne, La Rochelle, LOU, USAP | Top 14 | 3 each |
| Brive, Dax | Pro D2 | 3 each |
| Stade Français, Toulon, Vannes | Top 14 | 2 each |
| Biarritz, Grenoble, Montauban, Narbonne, Nice | Pro D2 | 2 each |
Vannes have two, and both come from the same franchise: Kuruvoli and centre Inia Tabuavou left the Fijian Drua this summer, in a wave of eight departures announced by the Fijian club. Not every Fijian in the table falls into the same category: the section 4.7 compensation only applies to the first contract signed outside Fiji.
In Fiji, the issue is growing
The Fijian union has tightened its control over departures. Since February, the FRU no longer issues clearance to play abroad without the approval of the players’ association, the FRPA, which reviews every contract. The system is presented as protection against unfair clauses, after a string of cases involving players in difficulty overseas, particularly after injury.
The financial side remains a subject of internal debate. In December, at the union’s annual general meeting, the president of the Tailevu provincial union, Joe Rodan, called for standardised transfer fees to compensate unions for their development work, alongside investment in coach education and refereeing.
At £5,000 a year and a £35,000 cap, the existing mechanism brings in very little for a union that develops dozens of players who move to Europe. That gap, more than the regulation itself, is probably what is driving the discussion.
Comments