The development of young British rugby players and cricketers could be hampered by a European court ruling that may prove as influential on the two sports as the Bosman ruling was in football.  Legal experts and leading figures in rugby warned yesterday that a European Court of Justice ruling has the potential to destroy the quota system on foreign players that has been operating in both sports and could open the door for an unlimited number of players from countries such as South Africa and the South Sea islands to come into the games.  The case in question concerns Maros Kolpak, a Slovakian handball player whose name could become as infamous as that of the Belgian footballer now synonymous with the free transfer.  Last year Kolpak, a goalkeeper with German second division team TSV Ostringen, took the German handball federation to court to protest at a quota preventing more than two non-EU nationals playing for any team. In May the ECJ found in his favour, ruling that the quota amounted to discrimination in employment law and that the system should not apply to nationals of countries that have an association or co-operation agreement with the EU who are legally employed within the EU.  More than 100 countries have such agreements, including South Africa and the South Sea islands, which have strong rugby heritages. The case establishes a precedent that players, once granted a work permit, will be able to play in this country without restriction.  Yesterday Howard Thomas, chief executive of Premier Rugby, warned that the ruling would have dire consequences for the development of home-grown talent if it forces the end of the quota system that allows only one non-EU player in domestic matches and two in European games.  "The decision of the Rugby Football Union to continue automatic promotion and relegation for another six years means that sides will be tempted to put short-term success before long-term planning," Thomas said.  "We warned the RFU of the dangers of continuing with one up, one down. We have seen in the last two seasons that clubs who are near the bottom of the table around Christmas time react by bringing in players from abroad and it is going to be easier to do that because of this ruling. We have told our clubs what the ruling means and it is up to them how they react to it."  Despite Thomas's warning the RFU said it did not expect a rush of foreign imports to hamper British player development.  "We do not believe this case will lead to an avalanche of foreign players into the Premiership and we believe there will be continued investment in club academies," said a spokesman. Players from the South Sea islands and South Africa will no longer be regarded as foreigners and will have the same rights as EU workers but they will still need to obtain a work permit."  A leading club official said that the ruling could prevent England producing a team capable of winning the World Cup. "England may win the World Cup this year but they will be hard pressed to do so in 2007," he said. "I think this ruling will lead to more and more foreign players coming into our league at the expense of home-grown talent."  Domestic cricket operates a quota that limits overseas players to two in any match, and four in a squad, but in contrast to rugby the implications of the ruling appear not to have reached the highest level.  Mark Roper-Drimie, director of legal affairs at the England and Wales Cricket Board, said he was unaware of the case and declined to comment. South Africans who qualify as EU nationals because of their parents' passports have already caused some controversy in the game, and disquiet is likely to increase if the ruling prompts more players to try their hand in county cricket. Football does not operate a quota system so is largely unaffected by the ruling.  Non-EU nationals require a work permit to play in Britain and should have played in 75% of their country's internationals over the previous two years to qualify. Premier League clubs approached the Home Office about introducing a quota system that would scrap the 75% rule in exchange for limiting the number of foreign players at any club to three. They had hoped the change would allow English clubs to bid for promising young foreign players, rather than limiting them to established international stars, but they were swiftly rebuffed. Classification Language: ENGLISH Subject: ATHLETES (90%); INTERNATIONAL COURTS & TRIBUNALS (90%); EUROPEAN UNION (90%); EUROPEAN UNION COURTS (90%); DECISIONS & RULINGS (90%); RUGBY (90%); EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS (89%); SPORTS GOVERNING BODIES (78%); INTERNATIONAL LAW (78%); LITIGATION (78%); HANDBALL (78%); EUROPEAN UNION LAW (77%); SOCCER (77%); LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW (75%); SUPREME COURTS (73%); EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (72%); LICENSES & PERMITS (67%); EXECUTIVES (50%); CHRISTMAS (50%) Company: SOUTH SEA HOLDING CO LTD (84%); SOUTH SEA DEVELOPMENT CO LTD (84%); SOUTH SEA HOLDING CO LTD (84%); SOUTH SEA DEVELOPMENT CO LTD (84%); EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (84%); EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (58%) Organization: EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (84%); EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (58%); EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (84%); EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (58%) Geographic: GERMANY (92%); EUROPE (92%); EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATES (92%); BELGIUM (79%); SLOVAKIA (79%)