The rule book just got thicker. World Rugby has laid down the law on player workload, a hard, necessary line in the dirt. Thirty games. That’s the limit. No more than six consecutive weeks of action. A mandatory five-week off-season break, and a minimum of one week’s rest after pulling on the international jersey. They call it a “solid backstop”. They say it’s based on science, designed to put player welfare at the heart of the global game.

But in rugby, the rule is only as good as the exception.

Take Ollie Chessum. The new Leicester Tigers captain was meant to be sidelined, like most of his British & Irish Lions teammates, serving a mandatory 10-week pause after those three Tests against the Wallabies in July and August. But Chessum got a pass. Special dispensation. He returned to domestic action against Harlequins ahead of schedule.

The Player Load Group – a bureaucracy of experts overseeing player welfare – cleared him. Why? Chessum missed a big chunk of the previous season, racking up only 16 starts and four bench appearances. The ledger was in his favour.

Compare that to Harlequins’ own Lions standout, Marcus Smith. Smith clocked 34 matches last season, including five non-Test Lions tour games. He waits another week, required to serve that mandatory full 10-week cooling period. Two Lions, same tour, two different verdicts. The rules are clear, but the application is complicated, personal, and immediately open to negotiation.

Good for the player?

The guidelines are hailed as a landmark moment. They are the governing body’s response to the hard reality of professional rugby. It’s simple mathematics: limit the match count, reduce the injury count. Previous efforts, like tweaking foul play sanctions or lowering the tackle height, made little material difference to concussion rates. The real impact comes from managing the sheer volume of competitive contact.

These new mandates – which were a condition for World Rugby approving the new Nations Championship starting in 2026 – provide certainty that athletes can protect their long-term health while still performing at the elite level. Research confirms that limiting players to 30 game involvements is necessary to prevent a significantly higher injury burden in the following campaign. For the men and women slugging it out week after week, this isn’t politics; it’s survival.

Good for the Game? The price of protection

For the integrity and long-term health of the athletes, the 30-game rule is essential. But for the game’s competitive landscape, it introduces immediate friction.

Unions with centralised contracts – like those in New Zealand and Ireland – are already set up to manage these restrictions, controlling their top players’ availability down to the minute. But in Europe, particularly in the Premiership and the French Top 14, where match loads are heavy (a potential 44 games in a season was previously possible before mandated rest periods), clubs now have a major headache.

The rules force rotation. This can be a benefit, forcing coaches to develop squad depth and giving younger players a shot at big game time. But the pressure mounts on clubs, especially when international duty pulls players away. If a club knows an international player already has a heavy test schedule (13–15 tests a year for some top nations), they will have to sit him for domestic fixtures just to hit the 30-game ceiling.

And for Tier 2 nations like Fiji or Samoa, whose players earn their living in foreign tournaments, the situation is brutal. Clubs may be less inclined to sign players who must prioritize international rugby and miss critical club matches to stay under the 30-game cap. One player, Jack Lam, reportedly went into a prior World Cup without a club because multiple teams wouldn’t sign him if he left for international duty.

The new calendar reforms promise “opportunity, certainty and growth”. They align the international and domestic game to complement each other. But the cost is paid in roster management and complex negotiations over who rests and when.

The global game finally drew a clear line on player workload. It was necessary. It was overdue. It will save careers and reduce physical trauma.

But the moment the rule was announced, the exceptions began. Chessum got a waiver because of a prior injury, an individual calculation overriding the blanket ban. This confirms the reality of professional sport: The limit is 30 games, unless the circumstances – or the club – demand one more. The 30-game cap is a good law, a step away from chaos. Now we wait to see if the system has the spine to enforce it when the big money is on the line. The battle for player welfare just moved from the pitch to the contract negotiation table. And that might be a tougher fight yet.