And if a European player challenged the restriction in court, would they be likely to win?

No. its certainly been looked at whether it is a restriction, but its more about the practicalities: our academy surely would welcome a talented European or Kolpak youth, but would they and most likely their family want to come to live in England?

Ok, so a French player, born in France, French passport, moved to New Zealand where he trained then came to England to play.
So non-quota as French, non-fed trained though as not trained in Europe, so could be excluded from playing as he would not get into team due to non-fed status? So he must have a legal challenge there as he is a French man being denied his freedom of trade due to his nationality?
Or as I missing the point?

Yes you are. His nationality is irrelevant. He would not be club trained, nor federation trained, regardless of whether he was born in Rochdale or Rorotunga. He is not on either of those quotas [idespite[/i being a French national, not [ibecause[/i of it.

Nor does it even prevent him from playing. Of course he could still play for any of the clubs, the only impediment he MAY face is that obviously no team whose quotas are already full will sign him, but that's NOT because he's a French national.

When I first read these definitions, my first thought was that it would probably work as a means of getting round the employment laws since, as has been pointed out, neither nationality nor ethnicity is used as a criterion. I do though, keep coming back to how it would sound when when spit out by some sneering, slick Willie solicitor trying to make his point in court. It would be interesting, that's for sure.

Yes I have revisited the stuff on the web and one of your Willies (Wupert actually) does in fact say it could be seen as a restraint of trade, not just for eg a French player but for other British players, such as older ones or rugby union players. but the RFL have put in a clause that it is the spirit of the rule that is important, and Alex Ball presumably a case in point as he has not got three years rfl etc etc. I think that the reason for it not being challenged tho is down to the practicalities, I would love it if there were millions of talented Luxembourg German Italian etc etc young league players or French players trained in NZ all wanting to bring their talents here, but no there are not. Interesting to know why Elima is not non fed trained as he must have trained in France, probably due to the transitional arrangements that covered Jeffries.

Did the post above your's inspire that statement......?

In general any player that the non-fed quota could apply to who was already in Superleague when the non-fed quota was introduced (feb 2008 from memory) gets a dispensation as long as they stay in superleague. Its actually a little unclear as to status of players that were in SL prior to quota coming in but had already gone back to NRL when quota came in. There was discussion earlier in year as to whether Hull had managed to get a dispensation for Heremeai (sp) due to him playing in SL previously.
Dont think it was ever clarified.

In Elimas case french federation trained is classed exactly the same as uk fed trained for quota purposes. They brought this in last year to encourage player movement between uk and france. Although Elima may actually be uk fed trained anyway, How young was he when he came over to wakefield?.

No I am even more confused now.

That must be it. It must be one of my slower days but I couldn't (still can't) work out what TT was alluding to in his reply.
Not like the Tigertot to be obtuse.......