Kumuls or PNG Franchise: Where Should Torres Strait Islanders Play?

-

The question of whether Torres Strait Islander rugby league players should don the Kumuls jersey or align with PNG’s forthcoming NRL franchise goes beyond sport. It touches sovereignty, cultural identity, and strategy. The answer lies in distinguishing between the national symbolism of the Kumuls and the commercial and cultural inclusivity of a professional franchise.

 

A Torres Strait Islander rugby league player in traditional dress gazes down at a map of Papua New Guinea surrounded by cultural motifs, symbolizing shared identity across the Torres Strait and PNG. AI-generated image.

Legally, the rules are straightforward. International Rugby League eligibility is based on citizenship or direct ancestry through parents or grandparents. Torres Strait Islanders are legally Australian citizens, not Papua New Guineans. The Torres Strait Treaty recognizes their cultural and subsistence links across the Strait, but it does not create nationality rights. In short, unless a Torres Strait Islander player can trace a parent or grandparent to PNG, they cannot play for the Kumuls under current rules.

The Kumuls are not just a rugby team—they are a national institution. They represent the statehood of Papua New Guinea, its sovereignty, and its unique identity in the rugby league world. Opening eligibility to Torres Strait Islanders purely on cultural grounds would undermine the link between citizenship and representation. It would also invite uncomfortable questions about other culturally linked communities such as Bougainville or West Papua. For this reason, the Kumuls must remain a team for PNG nationals and those with direct PNG heritage.

Yet the cultural argument cannot be dismissed. Torres Strait Islanders and PNG coastal communities share centuries of kinship, trade, and tradition. In rugby league terms, players like Hamiso Tabuai-Fidow or Ezra Mam carry a Melanesian identity that resonates deeply in PNG. They may not be PNG citizens, but they embody a shared heritage that transcends colonial borders. Denying this connection entirely risks overlooking the lived reality of the Torres Strait.

This is where the planned PNG NRL franchise, backed to enter the competition by 2028, becomes strategically significant. Unlike the Kumuls, a professional club is not bound by international eligibility rules. It can sign talent from anywhere. Recruiting Torres Strait Islanders would be both commercially smart and symbolically powerful. It would show that the franchise is not just PNG’s team but a Melanesian team, bridging cultures while still flying the PNG flag in the NRL.

For the players themselves, the distinction matters. To play for the Kumuls, they would need to satisfy ancestry requirements and accept the strict legal boundaries of international representation. But to play for the PNG NRL club, all they need is a contract. That opens the door for Torres Strait Islanders to strengthen the squad, bring in elite NRL experience, and deepen the cultural story the franchise tells.

For PNG rugby league, the best strategy is to keep the Kumuls tightly tied to nationality while using the franchise as a broader platform of inclusion. The Kumuls protect the sanctity of citizenship and national pride, while the franchise allows space for cultural kinship and commercial pragmatism. One safeguards sovereignty; the other builds bridges. Together, they can complement each other without blurring the lines.

In the end, Torres Strait Islanders should not play for the Kumuls unless they meet the clear heritage rules. But they should absolutely be part of the PNG NRL franchise in 2028, where their presence would honour Melanesian bonds without compromising PNG sovereignty. This dual approach preserves the integrity of the Kumuls while allowing the franchise to stand as a living symbol of regional solidarity. In rugby league, as in geopolitics, clarity of roles matters.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

-
Image
Liberal internationalism is defined by Griffiths, O'Callaghan and Roach (2008, p.190) as a project to transform international relations so that they conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity allegedly enjoyed within constitutional liberal democracies. The same scholars go further by dividing liberalism into three distinct groups. They say these are the three ways to implement the project. The way they present liberal internationalism as a project makes their work interesting. Three distinct groups Firstly, commercial liberalism is about free trade between states. States bilaterally or multilaterally via a platform like APEC pursue the goal of trade liberalization. Griffiths, O'Callagahan and Roach (ibid.) argued that economic interdependence would decrease the likelihood of going to war. Republican liberalism is about democratic peace. The scholars argued that the spread of democracy among states so that governments will be accountable to their citizens makes it di...
Read more

FPA: Organizational Process Model

-
This model centers on the fact that different bureaucracies have different standard operating procedures. These procedures are made in order to allow day to day operations to be carried out. Thus, a foreign policy decision is made based on these standard operating procedures. It is hard for a bureaucracy to make a decision or let alone function out of character or contrary to their standard operating procedure. The reading Chapter 4: Foreign policy shares a straight forward explanation of the OPM: "An alternative to the rational model of decision making is the organizational process model. In this model, foreign policy decision makers generally skip the labor-intensive process of identifying goals and alternative actions, relying instead for most decisions on standardized responses or standard operating procedures. For example, the U.S. State Department everyday receives more than a thousand reports or inquiries from its embassies around the world and sends out more than a ...
Read more

Allison's rational actor model

-
There are 3 common models of foreign policy decision making according to Graham Allison: rational actor model organizational process mode government politics model.  We will discuss the 3 models and compare them with the 3 levels of analysis. However, I challenge you to use your own initiative to learn about the other models of decision making. This will help you as future decision makers or analysts to understand how decisions are made and the processes. When one wakes up from bed he or she decides whether or not to brush their teeth, comb their hair and have a shower. These decisions are paramount, they affect and influence how the individual interacts in a social setting. This highlights the fact that as human beings we make decisions every day. Decision making is defined as the thought process of selecting a logical choice from the available options. In the case of the ‘Kibung peles boy’ analogy; the male student had a choice of approaching the girl to ask he...
Read more