The need for Sri Lanka Rugby to stand firm against external interference

Asia Rugby President  Qais Al-Dhalai (left) gestures during a meeting with Sports Minister Sunil Kumar Gamage during the former’s visit to Sri Lanka last week 

By Waruna de Silva

As the 14 June deadline imposed by World Rugby (WR) looms, Sri Lanka Rugby (SLR) finds itself at a defining crossroads. What is being framed as a constitutional dispute is, in fact, a larger issue of autonomy, transparency, and double standards within global and regional rugby governance.

At the heart of this crisis is a concerning level of interference from the President of Asia Rugby (AR), whose recent actions suggest an attempt to override SLR’s internal democratic processes under the guise of institutional reform.

Equal votes, unequal influence

The AR President has repeatedly emphasised that each member union—whether Japan or Palestine—holds one equal vote. However, this principle is being selectively applied. Japan, a globally respected rugby nation with a strong presence in both 15s and 7s formats, contributes tens of millions of dollars annually to the sport. Yet, their vote is deemed equal to nations with minimal participation. Meanwhile, in Sri Lanka, the same AR President argues that local A-Division clubs, which invest heavily in rugby development, should be afforded more influence—completely contradicting his earlier claim of equality.

This contradiction exposes what many believe is a hidden agenda: to restore the previously ousted leadership of SLR, despite these individuals being decisively rejected by local stakeholders in fair, democratic elections. The rationale appears political—positioning these figures for potential elevation within AR itself.

Undermining SLR’s constitutional integrity

What is even more alarming is the AR President’s open endorsement of constitutional changes within SLR, accompanied by threats of a suspension that could last until 2027. This is a clear overstep. The financial practices or governance of Sri Lanka’s domestic clubs are not the concern or responsibility of AR or WR. This kind of pressure not only violates the sovereignty of SLR but also sets a dangerous precedent for other rugby nations in Asia.

The unresolved fine: £ 50,000 and counting

Adding to the controversy is the unresolved matter of the £ 50,000 fine imposed on SLR by World Rugby. This sanction, related to fraudulent documentation of player passports under a previous SLR administration, remains largely unaddressed. The office bearers from 2012 – 2016 have never been subject to formal investigation. 

Shockingly, development funds intended for Sri Lankan rugby were diverted to cover this fine, with no accountability demanded of those responsible. Now, the same officials are being endorsed by the AR President for a return to power.

A disregard for rule of law

 Sri Lanka’s legal system has clearly ruled in favour of holding the SLR Annual General Meeting (AGM). Yet, this directive has been ignored by the Sports Director General Shamal Fernando, who remains in contempt of court. The local rugby community awaits a final verdict, trusting that justice will prevail and constitutional integrity will be upheld.

Double standards in global governance

 In previous instances, the AR President justified suspending SLR from international tournaments by citing political interference. However, despite the current suspension status, both AR and WR have now lifted bans on international participation. This shift, while welcome, also highlights inconsistent and selective enforcement of rules. 

Rising discontent across Asia

Many Asian rugby unions have begun to express concern about the growing concentration of power within AR. It is understandable should these trends continue, we may witness a collective pushback—or even withdrawal—from AR-affiliated competitions.

The path ahead

 As we approach 28 April, the date when the Sri Lankan courts are expected to issue their final ruling, it is crucial for both AR and WR to respect the outcome. The Sri Lankan rugby community is calling not for defiance, but for dignity, transparency, and the preservation of democratic processes.

Governance reform should not come at the cost of national sovereignty. External bodies must support—not dictate—the development of rugby within member nations. Anything less risks eroding the very values on which sport is meant to be built.

SLR at all given times in the history of 145 years has respected good governance by WR & AR only time SLR had to lag a fine of £50,000 the Fijian passport fiasco which all are aware of. All suspensions have come due to the local political influence for ulterior motives to support individuals.

(The writer is Secretary of the Western Province Rugby Football Union.)