By Ian from NZ
September 24th 2008 @ 8:06am
Loading ...International Player Series (IRB steals my idea)
The IRB are desperate to add some meaning to the rugby calendar outside the World Cup and have devised the idea of a biennial World Series which would involve the world’s top 10 nations – New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, England, Wales, France, Ireland, Scotland and Italy.
According to UK newspaper, the Daily Mail, the World Series would begin as a round-robin competition, the sides playing each other once, with all Six Nations games and some Tri-Nations results counting towards the World Series.
Argentina would play Sanzar nations when they’re not involved in Tri-Nations tests. For example, Argentina would play the All Blacks the same week the Wallabies play the Springboks. Tests between the northern and southern hemisphere nations would take place in the June and November test windows.
At the end of the two-year period the top-placed nations would play each other in a one-off game to claim the title of World Series champions. Wembley Stadium is being eyed as the venue for this game because its 90,000 seats make it the most financially attractive.
My comments: I posted a similar idea on my blog months ago here : International Playing Window with Revenue Sharing [April 2008]. Thank god the IRB reads my blog. I hope it works out.
Possible ideas.
1) The playoffs should be 4 teams playing a semi and grand final, just like the current super 14 playoffs. Complete this over two weeks.
2) Have two divisions. Division 1 – The top 10 teams mentioned. Division 2 – The teams numbered from 11 to 20 ( Samoa, Tonga, Japan, USA, Canada, Georgia, etc).
3) Play the division 2 playoffs as pre match for divison 1 playoffs. So the grand final is two games 1.00pm division 2, 2.30pm division 1. Now wouldnt that pull the world wide audience ratings .
4) Division 1 prize money 75%, Division 2 prize money 25% of all total price money available. As I said in (1) with 4 teams in each division making the playoffs, I suggest all teams get some level of prize money for making the playoffs. You cant have teams going to the playoffs and lose money due to travel and living costs. The tournment is about generating cash for teams, so no playoff team should lose financially just for being there !
5) Should the ranking be based on how the teams finished in the most recent rugby world cup. Could you imagine Wales or Ireland in division 2. I guess it will be based on commercial clout, rather than recent performance.
NOW thats a good idea!
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(6)
Gatesy said | September 24th 2008 @ 9:34am | Report comment
…and you have promotion and relegation, in all divisions!.. I actually suggested three pools, to really get the depth going. All finals to be played in one place, say over a weekend, a couple of double headers, the fourth game being a Baa-Bahs fixture, or some such.
Ian Noble said | September 25th 2008 @ 4:52am | Report comment
Having read the same article my immediate reaction was whether it would lessen the importance of the RWC held every four years as the pinnacle rugby festival with attendances and viewing figures to match. If the World Series happens every twoyears, what happens to the early summer and autumn internationals in the intervening year, surely it should be on a yearly basis excluding RWC year.
As the elite players in the NH play more rugby than players in the SH, there is the problem of player burn out. However, as an idea it has merit particularly as the elite game in the NH is becoming more professional and better prepared, with the elite players are being more carefully managed particularly in England following the recent agreement between club and country which starts this year. I also like the idea of relegation and promotion with more leagues to encourage smaller nations to be more competitive. Relegation will also focus the mind in the top league and make the series competitive and meaningful.
Spiro Zavos said | September 25th 2008 @ 8:19am | Report comment
The additional revenue should allow the NH nations to be the paymasters of the top local players. There is the possibility too that the SH will have more money to pay their better players not to go north. This could force the NH club sides to develop their own stars rather than being them from the SH.
The model wculd be something like football’s European Cup (the Rugby World Series), together with the Football World Cup (the Rugby World Cup)
Nick (KIA) said | September 25th 2008 @ 8:24am | Report comment
I think this is a tremendous idea. Undoubtably would improve the quality of internationals played and reduce ‘development’ sides touring south in the middle of the year.
I’d imagine would increase interest from advertisers and broadcasters and increase rugby revenues globally.
Finally, and perhaps therefore a sticking point for it actually happening, suspect this would see funds diverted from NH club competitions (in terms of adverstising and gates) and towards internationals. And if the winning sides get a chunk of the cash, also likely to see money heading south frequently, which would also reduce attractiveness for the northern unions to support…
Ian in NZ said | September 25th 2008 @ 8:58am | Report comment
..”I also like the idea of relegation and promotion with more leagues to encourage smaller nations to be more competitive”…
That may be easy on paper, but not so easy in commercial clout. Say if Wales missed out on the top 10. They would have to play division 2 teams during the next 2 years along with division 1 teams in Six nations and Nov SH vs NH tours, that a lot more rugby. I am afraid its who has the gold makes the rules. But a division two final in London and the winner getting a couple of million dollars/pounds, now wouldnt that be good for the likes of Samoa or Georgia etc ! Bring it on !
Ian Noble said | September 25th 2008 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
Spiro
Do you mean the European Nations cup, which in many peoples eyes is considered to a more competitive tournament than the World Cup? The qualifying period takes nearly 18 months and is arranged in pools with countries seeded I think according to the FIFA ranking. Transferring a similar format to rugby, in Europe there would be enough countries to arrange at least three pools of four/five teams. There could an Americas pool , Asia pool, Africa pool, and two Oceania/ Pacfic rim pools. The winners of each pool would proceed to the final series.
At the moment the existing top nations would probably rise to the top, although in Europe at least three of the 6N’s wouldn’t make it. What an opportunity for the smaller nations to come through although in the early years they would be swamped by the top nations. It would raise the profile of the game worldwide, increase revenue streams and allow the IRB to invest more capital into the emerging nations.
It would probably mean that there would be less early Summer/Autumn internationals between NH/SH but in some peoples eyes that format is getting a little worn around the edges.