First-class and second-class citizens: the controversial regulation that shakes Japan

TokyoThere are images that explain better than any headline what Japan's rugby growth has been. One is of Lomano Lemeki running with the ball under his arm in the 2019 World Cup, in the midst of a victory against Scotland. That day Japan ceased to be a surprise to become a competitive reality, with a team also built with players born outside the country, but fully integrated. Seven years later, some of those names are once again at the center of the focus, but for a very different reason: an uncomfortable debate that goes beyond sport and directly challenges the concept of citizenship.

The new regulations announced by the Japan Rugby League One for the 2026-2027 season have opened an unexpected conflict: players with Japanese passports denounce that, despite being full citizens, they are treated as foreigners for competitive purposes. The case has exploded with names like the aforementioned Lemeki, Timothy Lafaele, or Ji-won Gu, protagonists of a key generation in the international rise of Japanese rugby, which is now being questioned within the same league.

The conflict arises from the new player classification. The competition establishes an A1 category –with no participation limits– for those born in Japan or who have completed at least six of the nine years of compulsory education there. In contrast, it creates an A2 category for naturalized players who have not gone through the Japanese educational system, despite having a passport, and strictly limits their presence on the field. It is in this second category that Lemeki is included, despite having lived in the country for more than a decade and having defended the national team.

The affected players maintain that this criterion introduces a barrier that does not depend on legal citizenship status, but on the life trajectory of each athlete, and excludes professionals who have obtained nationality but have not gone through the Japanese school system. They believe that the regulations establish, in practice, a distinction between legal citizenship and formative integration in Japan, with a direct impact on professional development within the competition.

The case of Lemeki exemplifies this tension with particular clarity. Born in New Zealand and of Tongan descent, he arrived in Japan in 2009 and has developed practically his entire professional career there. Married to a Japanese citizen, with children and a family established in the country, he obtained citizenship after years of continuous residence. His image celebrating the victory against Scotland in the 2019 World Cup became one of the symbols of Japanese rugby's entry into the international elite.

With the new classification, however, this same player may be considered "external" for competitive purposes, due to not having completed primary education in Japan. The paradox is particularly significant in his case, as he is one of the athletes who have contributed most visibly to the international projection of the Japanese team in the last decade.

Japanese without ifs and buts

Faced with this situation, Lemeki has publicly expressed his disagreement with the system. In recent statements he has argued that possession of a passport should be the determining factor: “If I have a Japanese passport, I am Japanese. There should be no 'but' after that statement,” he stated. An idea that sums up the shared unease of some of the affected players.

The debate, in any case, goes beyond the playing field. Underlying it is a growing discussion in Japan about the criteria for integration and belonging in a country that, faced with an aging population and the need for external talent, has progressively opened its doors to qualified immigration. In this context, rugby, a sport that has been one of the most visible laboratories for this openness, now returns to the forefront of an uncomfortable issue: who is truly considered Japanese when moving from the national team to the regulation of domestic competition.

In parallel, the sports debate coincides with a more sensitive political climate in Japan regarding immigration and the integration of foreigners. In a country marked by demographic aging and the need for labor, the discussion about who is part of the “us” has been gaining ground on the public agenda. The case of rugby merely transfers to the sporting arena a broader question that still lacks a clear answer: how far does the idea of belonging really extend when a passport is no longer enough.