Comments on: What’s rugby’s stance on Football World Cup?

By: MV Dave

MV Dave — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:17:23 +0000

Once the bid is submitted in May 2010 (with the backing of all Oz governments already in place) the only decision is for FIFA in early December. If Oz gets the nod everything else will be worked out…l am sorry but to say otherwise underestimates the size and scope of the WC. Imagine the Olympics in 8-9 cities spread across the country,operating at the same time and you begin to get a picture.

By: AndyS

AndyS — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:16:02 +0000

And the IRB still wouldn’t care if the 3N or Super Rugby took a break. As you say SARU and NZRU would, but then News would have exactly the same stick to wield with them as they do with the ARU – they supply the cash. It might be more expensive (& maybe less likely) for them to side with Soccer over Union, but it will simply be a cash flow decision. If they make enough from the WC, they will do what is necessary. Same with League, same with AFL.

By: AndyS

AndyS — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:06:03 +0000

That is right. Folk talk as though it is merely a decision for the various governing bodies, but it isn’t. No-one is going to make any decisions without seeing how their broadcaster, all their major sponsors and maybe their corporate members feel about it because, at the end of the day, that is where their real money comes from. If those parties are against it, it won’t happen. Loss of a major sponsor would have an ongoing impact that any likely compensation won’t address, and none of the other codes would feel so strongly in favour of a WC that they would jeopardise long term relationships. And I’d suspect the same would apply if they thought their sponsors might desert them for the big event.

The same cuts both ways of course – if their sponsors and broadcaster are strongly in favour of a WC and pressure them to help, then they will. At the end of the day the same truth is always evident – the person with the money will set the rules. Everything else is noise.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:32:36 +0000

Dont forget that News also pays for AFL so they are everyones paymaster to a degree…

By: rugbyfuture

rugbyfuture — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:17:14 +0000

because the ARU’s major competition is an international competition with the NZRU and SARU, the other unions would reject such a proposal, and so the competition would have to be staged, however those circumstances could be applied to the NRL, and as i said, the NSWRU own concord stadium independantly, the QRU own ballymore, the melbourne rectangular stadium and perth stadium are too small for the world cup, so it doesnt effect the rugby union world like it does the league world. Theres also a thing in business about ongoing brand identity and this would be halted.

the NRL on the other hand are at a risk because they play so many game at large capacity stadias in a small region. and News ltd own that game, so they can do whatever they want with it

By: AndyS

AndyS — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:48:25 +0000

Why would the IRB care? I am merely saying that, as the major source of funds for both codes, if News went to either and said “We are going to make a motsa from the WC, so we’d really appreciate you lads taking a rest and we’ll pay up like normal” I wouldn’t expect either code to say otherwise. Similarly, if News found themselves being left out of the WC bonanza and wanted the codes to play on, could either realistically take the line that News could go whistle because FIFA said they had to stop?

By: rugbyfuture

rugbyfuture — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:35:22 +0000

technically news ltd don’t control rugby, they only broadcast it, the IRB wouldnt let them decide, whereas the NRL has news ltd as a controlling partner, and the NRL is also at a greater risk as outlined in a news article today, even without pokies 10 of the 16 clubs would go bankrupt, union only has the state and local games rather than the existance of a financially lost national competition, independant from any web of international games.

By: AndyS

AndyS — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:26:56 +0000

Really, ‘cos they don’t have the same paymaster?

By: rugbyfuture

rugbyfuture — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:21:47 +0000

lets not go and group league and rugby in the same category here

By: AndyS

AndyS — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:16:57 +0000

FFS! The Rugbies stance on the WC will be that, if News wants them to take a break and is prepared to pick up the bills because they will make so much more from the Soccer, then Rugbies will take a break. If News will be losing money, Rugbies will play on and/or News will have a word with the FFA/Government about the value of a contract.

By: Terry Kidd

Terry Kidd — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:37:06 +0000

JON and the ARU have not said anything because they know it will not be a problem for them ….. alternate venues and scheduling away matches ….. also I think that quite sensibly they are waiting to see the final proposal before committing. I don’t think there will be an issue for the ARU and they will support the FFA bid.

By: Rob

Rob — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:43:55 +0000

The silence of rugby has been both interesting and commendable…Does it have anything to do with the fact that John Oneill has seen the size of FIFA first hand? or maybe just a more commensense approach of dealing with the facts when they come…not the hysterical propoganda weve seen from AD this week.

Strangest thing is that FIFA are more likely to consider rugby a major sport than they would grooky or nrl.

Id like to see Rugby come out and say they support the bid…and Id like FFA to reward this by channelling the focus into rectangular stadia as a first priority so that all rectangular codes can share the legacy.
Leave the mexicans to their own circus games.

By: Evertonia

Evertonia — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:29:07 +0000

I’d love rugby to publicly come out and say ‘we support WC bid’.

By: Evertonia

Evertonia — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:27:58 +0000

They could also use the central coast stadium as i think newcastle is going to be a world cup city.

By: Corey

Corey — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:22:32 +0000

Mostly true, except Broncos traditional homeground is Lang Park (which is now Suncorp Stadium), and I think the Gold Coast stadium would be taken for Soccer to use in the World Cup, so Gold Coast Titans would be suffering. And to find stadiums for the AFL, when they have over 35k crowd average, it is pretty hard to return to tradition when money is the driving force…as it always is. They should have a segment where sport is not dominated by money, but by love of the game, passion, allegiance and loyalty. That’s the sport I love. I guess that is what Rugby tried to do up until 1995. Good bye sweet sport.

By: rugbyfuture

rugbyfuture — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:02:43 +0000

i think they converted the car park of concord oval into a hockey centre, not sure though, but if they have it would be interesting

By: crashy

crashy — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:35:57 +0000

Allblack fan – QLD own Ballymore and rent it out to other codes ( women’s football etc).
How about we see the Tahs again at Concord Oval just for a bit of fun!
yay rugby

By: Shahsan

Shahsan — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:22:42 +0000

Ther other thing is that rugby union doesn’t really compete with soccer/football in terms of supporters and in terms of players. They’ve always managed to coexist.
On the other hand, soccer/football, while also being the biggest sport internationally, impinges more on the AR/RL space than it does on RU’s. It draws on the same type of athletes as Aussie Rules does and it draws on the same type of supporter, socioeconomically speaking, as Rugby League does.
That”s why the AR/RL crowd is worried about the World Cup, while Rugby Union by and large will not be.
In any case, I’ve always felt that Rugby League has more in common with Aussie Rules than it has with Rugby Union. The two rugbys are similar in terms of the game itself, of course, but the former two share similar supporter bases, and fill the same headspace in terms of the sporting heart and mind.
Union has always been slightly apart, being more international, more middle class. It;s own world cup is successful, teh crowd figures internationally are healthy and with Rio 2016 and the impending Four Nations, the game will keep growing, on its own comfortable trajectory. The World Cup Soccer here won’t make much difference.

By: Bay35Pablo

Bay35Pablo — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 06:24:32 +0000

All comments to date have been that the ARU will work with FFA within reason. JON knows how it works, and that rugby will need the quid pro quo down the line if it ever wants to host another RWC.

Plus each state has only one team, meaning they only have to find 1 ground in each STATE during that period, and many of their games might be scheduled overseas to work around it.

Tahs can play at SCG, Parra Stadium, or any number of smaller grounds during that period, and “take it to the regions”. Reds can play at Ballymore, etc. Brumbies aren’t a worry I assume as Canberra Stadium won’t be big enough for World Cup games. Force can play at ME Stadium. Rebels will be at the new stadium, which by all accounts won’t be big enough for World Cup.

The only issue is that rugby will be only one of many sports queing to use some of these grounds. It’ll be like the planes coming into Sydney airport. The SCG will have games from 3 different codes Friday nights, Saturdays and Sundays, you watch!!!!

By: Rod

Rod — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 05:03:52 +0000

But no one cares about the S14, that’s why the ARU haven’t said anything, it’s irrelevant to the vast majority.

You couldn’t even call it regional out here, more postcodal lol.

By: Gary

Gary — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:57:13 +0000

Unlike the regional codes (AFL and NRL) Rugby is also a wlrd code. One day we will once again behosting a world cup. So it is our interests to cooperate with the FFA because one day we will be seeking the cooperation of other sports. All that is required from Rugby’s point of view is to schedule games in the conflicting period in overseas and play the Australian games either earlier or later in the season.

There would also be an opportunity to play some games in regional cities. The AFL does it (eg Collingwood V Eagles in Albany, Western Australia). A great opportunity to promote the game outside the major cities.

By: allblackfan

allblackfan — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:40:39 +0000

I agree. In fact, JON has been heard to support the FFA’s push (inevitably) but ….
The Australian unions don’t actually own any stadia.
The Aussie Super teams are vulnerable to the Fifa ruling but less so than AFL and the NRL because Super rugby is an international tournament.
Who would have thought that a smaller fan base may actually become an advantage?!
Failing everything else, the Aussie Super teams (exclud Force) could play their home games in NZ — I say NZ because of the time difference. And the fact that so many Kiwi players now play in Australia could help boost crowd figures.
Go figure — Waratahs vs Reds at North Harbour! Or Rebels vs Brumbies in Invercargill!