A subject once dismissed by rugby bosses as a non-issue is now a priority focus and we could even see a new set of international eligibility regulations as soon as May.
In time-honoured fashion, World Rugby has set up a research committee to canvass opinion on whether Regulation 8 needs to change.
The major questions are whether the three-year residency rule should be extended, possibly to five years, whether players should be allowed to represent more than one nation in their career and whether players should no longer qualify for the birth nation of a grandparent.
These questions are being asked because former Pumas halfback Augustin Pichot took over the role as World Rugby deputy chairman in June and picked eligibility as his cause celebre.
Of all the areas of the game that need attention, it was the increasing number of players coming into the test arena via the three-year residency rule that Pichot felt was the most urgent to address.
A few old hands from the established nations looked at him sideways, rather hoping he'd take the hint not to poke about in an area they didn't really want put under scrutiny.
The three-year residency route is one of those regulations everyone can see isn't quite right but few countries want changed because they exploit it.
It is working well for the likes of Ireland, Scotland, England and France, and the moralistic arguments about it damaging the credibility of test rugby and putting Pacific Island athletes in danger of being lured into bad situations at a young age can be ignored on the grounds that most countries rather like having access to exotic, foreign players.
Ireland can't see much wrong with the status quo when it has brought them Jared Payne and CJ Stander and, in time, Bundee Aki. They have arrived in Ireland via the highly contentious "project player" route where the national union identifies foreign players who could in time solve a positional drama. These players are then enticed by financial packages put together by club and country and have the carrot of a potential test jersey thrown in.
Scotland are also fans of the current set-up, having brought over Josh Strauss and WP Nel from South Africa as project players.
England, too, are now loaded with residency players and curiously had two Fijians in their team when they played Fiji in November, while the French are picking residency players in ever greater numbers. They had two Fijian wings in action against the All Blacks and a Kiwi prop.
Opinion is divided on the credibility of this migration of talent. The countries that use the rule to their advantage see no issue.
It is a professional sport and player movement is significant. If individuals end up playing club rugby in France or England, settle there, bring up their families there, why can't they change allegiance after three years?
There's no drama, everyone move on please. But Pichot sees it differently - and a growing number of fans are siding with him.
In Pichot's mind, residency players may be within the laws of the game, but not the spirit. During the Six Nations, there were times when it felt like the 90 best players from the Celtic, French and English leagues had been randomly assigned to each international side.
There were Kiwis, South Africans, Fijians, Samoans and Australians splattered across each team. That same feeling existed last month when up to a third of some northern hemisphere starting teams were drawn from players qualified through the residency rule.
There's no doubt the influx of foreign players has strengthened northern national teams, but it has also chipped away at the integrity of test rugby.
Take the example of Nel and Strauss. They were picked in Scotland's World Cup squad even though they weren't going to be eligible until after the tournament started.
Nel then had to endure one of the more awkward press conferences in the tournament when a French journalist asked him, as a Scotsman, what he thought about the ban on bagpipes in stadiums.
The French questioner wanted to know about the cultural importance of the pipes to the Scottish players ... and it brought one of the more memorable silences.
Last year, former Blues and Hurricanes wing David Smith was invited into the French Six Nations squad as injury cover. He had served his three years but the French hadn't realised he had also played sevens for New Zealand and his eligibility had been captured.
And of course there is the perennial oddness of hearing during match commentary how a Fijian has just scored for England, or a New Zealander for Ireland.
Pichot has had enough and in May he wants change.
However strong the case may be to amend the existing regulations, it's unlikely to happen. There are too many disparate and competing views, and change can only come about if 75 per cent of World Rugby's voting council is in favour.
New Zealand, for instance, are thought to be in favour of increasing the residency requirement to five years and allowing players to switch allegiance once in their career - but only from tier one to tier two.
Argentina are thought to hold rigid, narrow views about eligibility - scrap the residency law entirely. South Africa are thought to be in favour of lowering the bar to parental birthplace - that is, no longer allowing players to represent the country of a grandparent's birth. The South Africans want to find ways to reduce their player drain.
And most of the Six Nations are happy as is - they are the main beneficiaries of the current set-up, as they have the most powerful clubs.
What England also knows is that their new deal of paying close to $50,000 as a test-match fee is an incredible recruitment tool.
Fijian-born Nathan Hughes made his England debut against Fiji this November and it gave him a clear appreciation of the choice he had made. Had he been playing for the country of his birth, he would have been paid $800.
If he manages a few more tests, he can radically improve the lives of many in his village. But when was test rugby ever about the money?
