Tokyo — A Tongan veteran rugby player who has lived most of his adult life in Japan and played for its national rugby team, has been downgraded under new league rules limiting his status as a domestic player.
Lomano Lemeki, who moved to Japan at the age of 19, built his life in the country—marrying a Japanese partner, raising a family, and gaining Japanese citizenship. He also went on to play for Japan’s national rugby team.
Despite those ties, the country’s top-tier rugby league has ruled that Lemeki will no longer be considered a fully domestic player under its revised classification system.
Under the new regulations, players are grouped into categories that determine their eligibility and playing opportunities. To qualify as an “A1” player—the highest domestic classification—individuals must have either completed at least six of their nine years of compulsory education in Japan, been born in Japan, or have parents or grandparents born there.
Players who do not meet those criteria, including naturalised citizens like Lemeki, are classified as “A2,” a category subject to limits that could restrict their time on the field. While teams can field unlimited A1 players, A2 players must compete for limited slots.
The decision has drawn criticism, particularly from Lemeki himself, who expressed his frustration publicly.
“I am a Japanese citizen, but just not on the rugby field,” Lemeki posted. “Rugby is a sport for all people.”
The league has defended the rule change, stating that it is designed to protect opportunities for players developed within Japan’s domestic system. Officials say the model is similar to long-standing foreign player limits seen in other professional sports in the country, including baseball, basketball, and football.
However, the move has raised broader questions about how nationality is defined in sport, particularly for athletes who have built long-term lives in countries different from their birthplaces.
Lemeki’s case highlights the tension between legal citizenship and sporting eligibility, as governing bodies seek to balance inclusivity with the development of local talent.
For many observers, the situation poses a fundamental question: whether national identity in sport should be based on birthplace and heritage—or on lived experience and contribution.
