Dear Mr. Qais Al Dhalai,
I read with interest your recent public statement expressing support for Sri Lanka Rugby and its President during what you described as a difficult week for Sri Lankan rugby.
As a lifelong supporter of the game and someone who believes strongly in the values of rugby, I welcome solidarity and support among rugby nations. Rugby is, after all, built on respect, discipline, integrity, and accountability. However, it is precisely because of these values that I feel compelled to raise several concerns regarding your statement and the wider implications it carries for the governance of rugby in Asia.
Your message praises commitment, professionalism, dedication, governance reforms, and recent successes achieved by Sri Lanka Rugby. Yet, respectfully, I believe the issue confronting Sri Lanka Rugby is not one of sporting performance, nor one that can be addressed through words of encouragement alone.
The issue before us is fundamentally a question of governance, compliance, accountability, and the consistent application of regulations.
As President of Asia Rugby, your primary duty is not to defend or endorse individual administrators. Your responsibility is to safeguard the integrity of the sport by ensuring that every member union is treated equally under the rules and regulations that govern our game.
The recent non-participation of Sri Lanka Rugby in a scheduled international competition was not the result of events on the field. It was an administrative failure involving travel and visa arrangements. Whether that failure rests with the Sri Lanka Rugby administration, government authorities, external agencies, or a combination thereof is a matter that deserves proper examination.
What the rugby community seeks is clarity.
Were Asia Rugby competition regulations triggered?
Were any sanctions considered?
Were any exemptions granted?
If exemptions were granted, under what authority and based on which provisions of the regulations?
Were all member unions informed of the basis for such a decision?
Most importantly, will the same standards be applied to every other union in Asia should a similar situation arise tomorrow?
These are not unreasonable questions. They are the very questions that good governance demands.
For many years, Asia Rugby has spoken about transparency, accountability, integrity, and compliance. These principles cannot be selectively applied. They must apply equally to large unions and small unions, influential unions and developing unions alike.
If a union fails to participate in a tournament, the rugby community naturally expects the governing body to explain how the matter was assessed and what consequences, if any, follow. Silence or ambiguity creates uncertainty, and uncertainty undermines confidence in governance.
Your statement appears to move directly to praise and recognition without first addressing the regulatory implications of the incident. This is where many supporters, administrators, former players, and stakeholders may find themselves concerned.
The concern is not whether Sri Lanka Rugby should be supported.
The concern is whether the regulations that govern Asia Rugby are being applied consistently and transparently.
As President of Asia Rugby, your words carry significant weight. When you publicly commend an administration immediately following a governance or compliance controversy, many will understandably interpret that as an endorsement of how the matter was handled. Whether intended or not, such a message risks creating the perception that accountability is secondary to relationships and politics.
In sport, perception matters.
Governance is not tested when things are going well. Governance is tested when difficult decisions must be made, when regulations must be enforced, and when leaders must demonstrate impartiality despite personal relationships or political pressures.
History has shown that rugby suffers whenever governance becomes inconsistent. Rules lose credibility when stakeholders believe that one standard exists for some unions and another for others.
Asia Rugby has an obligation not only to manage competitions but also to protect the confidence of its member unions. That confidence can only be maintained when decisions are transparent, consistent, and fully explained.
As a supporter of Sri Lankan rugby, I want my country to succeed. I want our players, coaches, administrators, and supporters to be proud of the game. But I also want to know that the same rules apply to every nation in Asia.
Therefore, I respectfully ask:
- What specific regulations were considered in relation to Sri Lanka Rugby’s non-participation?
- What findings were made by Asia Rugby?
- Were sanctions available under the regulations?
- If sanctions were not imposed, what exceptional circumstances justified that decision?
- Will the same approach be applied to every other member union in the future?
These questions are not an attack on Sri Lanka Rugby.
They are questions about governance.
They are questions about consistency.
They are questions about accountability.
Most importantly, they are questions that every stakeholder in Asian rugby has a right to ask.
Leadership is not measured by the praise we offer in comfortable moments. Leadership is measured by the courage to uphold principles when circumstances become difficult.
For the sake of rugby in Asia, I sincerely hope that transparency, accountability, and good governance remain the guiding principles of Asia Rugby’s leadership.
Yours faithfully,
A Concerned Sri Lankan Rugby Supporter, Critic, and Believer in Good Governance
The recent decision by Asia Rugby regarding Sri Lanka’s non-participation due to administrative and visa-related failures raises serious questions about consistency, governance, and accountability within the regional game.
As a Sri Lankan rugby supporter, I am relieved that Sri Lanka Rugby was not subjected to financial penalties, suspension, or further sanctions. However, the broader issue is not whether Sri Lanka escaped punishment; it is whether Asia Rugby has applied its rules and regulations consistently and transparently.
If a team fails to participate due to circumstances beyond its control, such as a natural disaster, political unrest, or force majeure, then exceptional consideration may be justified. However, when the reasons relate to administrative shortcomings, planning failures, or governance issues, the rugby community deserves a clear explanation as to why established regulations were not enforced.
The concern is that selective interpretation of regulations creates uncertainty for all member unions. If one union is excused from participation requirements under circumstances that would previously have attracted sanctions, what message does this send to the rest of Asia? Does this now become a precedent that other unions may rely upon in the future?
Leadership in rugby must be founded on transparency, consistency, and good governance. The role of the President of Asia Rugby is not merely to administer competitions but to uphold the integrity of the game and ensure that regulations are applied equally to all member unions, regardless of influence or political considerations.
Many stakeholders now expect Asia Rugby to publicly clarify the basis upon which this decision was reached, the regulations that were considered, and the precedent it establishes going forward. Such transparency would strengthen confidence in the governance of the sport and demonstrate that decisions are made in accordance with established principles rather than discretion.
The rugby community across Asia deserves certainty, fairness, and accountability. Good governance cannot operate with different standards for different unions. The integrity of the game depends on it.