There are not many sports which does not have its own World Cup and upon their creation at various stages of their respective sport's history, the idea was that participants would have either been born in the country or whose parents were of that nationality. However, several sports have progressed in such a way where the majority of nations are always looking for loopholes to exploit in order to ensure that they can field the strongest team possible, regardless of whether a sportsman or woman has any natural affinity to that country. Having grandparents - sometimes distant ones - from elsewhere is a popular route, whether that is to enable a representative from a smaller nation to play for a superior one, or vice versa, but the 2019 Rugby World Cup has provided evidence where almost each of the competing countries have attempted to take advantage of the lax regulations which are currently in place.

As you can see at this Betway Blog, out of the 20 teams who are in Japan, just three - Argentina, Uruguay and Namibia - have no foreign-born players in their squads, whereas there are double the amount of sides who are into double figures in the same category. They range between former world champions Australia to relative minnows like the USA and Tonga. It is a clear indication that few sides place national integrity over the potential of adding an extra 1% of ability or strength to their ranks. While there is an argument that the sport's governing body should have acted far sooner, World Rugby have at least now indicated that they are prepared to change their guidelines from 2020 onwards, with players now needing to have lived in the country which they wish to represent for five years, rather than just the three.

The move is a step towards matching the regulations used by FIFA, although football's governing body adopt far more stringent rules than their rugby counterparts. Nevertheless, the recent change in allegiance involving West Ham United midfielder Declan Rice showed why football still has some way to go on this subject. Despite having represented five different age groups - including the seniors - with Republic of Ireland, Rice was allowed to start playing for England - the country of his birth - because he had only featured in friendlies. The switch naturally resulted in a backlash from several quarters, but it was not the first time it has happened and it will not be the last. The consequences are widespread, with Rice's decision leading to another Englishman, who has remained committed to his nation, missing out, and an opening being created for someone else in the Irish camp.

There have been similar cases ahead of this staging of the Rugby World Cup. Despite being born and raised in New Zealand, Willi Heinz is now part of the England squad as a result of a grandparent. The 32-year-old was only handed his international in the weeks leading up to the tournament, thus leading to the omission of someone who has spent far longer with the ambition of representing England. Ireland have also drew criticism for leaving out 67-cap veteran Devin Toner in favour of a player in Jean Kleyn who only gained eligibility as recently as August. As far as the moral compass is concerned, is it wrong? Undoubtedly. Will many residents of either of those nations care if they win the World Cup? Absolutely not.

By the time that the next edition of the World Cup is staged in 2023, world rugby will have a different landscape. While there will still be some players who are able to switch allegiances within the boundaries, it will be less extreme than it is now with each nation having to focus their attention closer to home rather than looking to cherry-pick someone from elsewhere. Will that mean that there may be a surprise winner in four years time? Probably not, but at least whoever prevails in France will have done so with more players of their own heritage.