IRB sour a great Rugby World Cup
By David Lord, 23 Oct 2011 David Lord is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- IRB, NZRU, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup 2011
Will All Blacks captain Richie McCaw end the 24-year RWC drought tonight (AAP Image/Patrick Hamilton)
With the Richie McCaw-led All Blacks and Thierry Dusautoir-skippered France set to finalise the Rugby World Cup at Eden Park tonight, the curtain will fall on yet another example of where the International Rugby Board is crippling a great game.
Not only has New Zealand done a superb job hosting the seventh edition in a country with less population than Sydney, but they will lose over $40 million for the honour.
Simply because the IRB’s creed is greed.
The IRB takes all RWC television, sponsorship, and corporate boxes money, and all advertising around the grounds.
To magnify the one-way traffic, New Zealand paid the IRB $150 million for the right to host, leaving the NZRU with ticket sales as the only income.
Creed is greed alright.
The RWC is the IRB’s cash cow, ostensibly to promote rugby around the world for the next four years, and improve the standards of the lesser light nations.
Bollocks.
The top nations keep getting stronger by constantly playing against each other with the Six-Nations and Tri-Nations, plus regular mid-year and end-of-year tours between hemispheres.
But the lesser nations remain weak playing among themselves with the Pacific Nations Cup – Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, and Japan – leaving Argentina, the USA, Canada, and Romania as floaters, organising their own international itineraries.
Argentina’s scheduled to make it the Four-Nations with the All Blacks, Wallabies, and Boks, next year. If it happens, it will be a huge boost for the Pumas.
While Georgia, Namibia, Portugal, Russia, Spain and Uruguay have a tournament-type arrangement every year.
As do China, Germany, India, and Mexico.
Laughable.
But rarely does the twain meet between the haves and the have nots.
So where does all that RWC money go, somewhere in the vicinity of $300 million to $500 million every four years?
It’s rugby’s best kept secret, so is the actual amount.
RWC 2011 produced only one unlikely result – Tonga beating France 19-14 came from left field, especially after Tonga had been beaten by minnow Canada 25-20, and flogged 41-10 by the All Blacks in the earlier Pool rounds.
The biggest shock result, Ireland dumping the Wallabies 15-6 upset the balance of the play-offs for the men-in-gold who paid dearly for not turning up to play.
But the rest of the 45 games were predictable, so what has the IRB done in the last four years with all that cold hard to improve the overall standard among the many minnows in the 20-strong qualifiers?
Nothing.
But there is a moment of truth looming, if the NZRU goes ahead with the threat to withdraw from the 2015 RWC in England unless there’s a far more equitable financial arrangement in the future.
The governing body needs an uppercut, an awakening to what’s fair and just to rugby across the globe. Hiding in Dublin’s ivory tower has run its course.
A no-show from the men-in-black in 2015, hopefully as deserving reigning champions, would be impossible for the IRB to explain to potential television execs, sponsors, corporates, and advertisers.
The RWC would justifiably collapse.
So go for it NZRU, as the only country with enough clout to make a telling impact and right so many wrongs.
© AAP 2012Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- IRB, NZRU, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup 2011
October 23rd 2011 @ 6:20am
Geoff Brisbane now California said | October 23rd 2011 @ 6:20am | Report comment
So isn’t that why NZ are contemplating not competing in the next WC??? And being derided about considering that option??? The nay sayers on this Blog were giving the NZRFU a flogging for äiring”that thought. Boy get rid of Top Heavy Beauracrats who think they are the game.And especially their structures could be a tip here for you JON and Tew
October 23rd 2011 @ 6:45am
peterlala said | October 23rd 2011 @ 6:45am | Report comment
David, thank you for writing this horrible story. It’s almost unbelievable. Good luck to NZRU and John O’Neill as they try to rectify this … outrage.
October 23rd 2011 @ 7:03am
cjones said | October 23rd 2011 @ 7:03am | Report comment
Maybe the IRB should make public where the money is being spent but what real purpose would boycotting the world cup serve if this is the biggest moneymaker to assist minnow! nations.
October 23rd 2011 @ 8:11am
Viscount Crouchback said | October 23rd 2011 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Utterly bizarre article. Mr Lord obviously does not understand that the NZRU is demanding more cash for ITSELF from the IRB. This would mean LESS money for the developing nations, not more. In effect, the NZRU intends to steal from the poor to give to itself.
The truth is that much of the money does indeed go to the minnow nations at present, as it should. How else do you think the likes of Georgia and Russia are able to pay for professional head and defence coaches? Likewise, who do we think pays for the hotels and travelling costs of the USA, Canada and Russia when they play in, say, the Churchill Cup each summer. It’s all reliant on IRB wonga.
I’ve read lots of strange articles about how to close the gap between the minnows and the elite, but lauding Steve Tew’s disgraceful plan to take from the poor and give to the All Blacks has to be the wackiest yet.
October 23rd 2011 @ 8:23am
David Lord said | October 23rd 2011 @ 8:23am | Report comment
You miss the point VC. It’s not the financial handouts that will improve the lot of the minnows, it’s regular games against better teams where they will learn how to compete. Just a token appearance once every four years at RWC time achieves nothing worthwhile, nor lasting. There are well over 100 countries playing rugby, but realistically only the ABs, Boks, Wallabies, and possibly France can win the RWC. A miniscule percentage don’t you think?
October 23rd 2011 @ 9:44am
Pillock said | October 23rd 2011 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Good article David.
What happens to the $500 million plus is a major concern.
Until the IRB comes clean on what happens to the cash how can anyone say if they are doing their job?
Sounds like the IRB run along the same lines as the Olympic Committee and Soccer World Cup, a hotbed of bribery and corruption.
October 23rd 2011 @ 2:09pm
GaryB said | October 23rd 2011 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Er, to be fair that’s not really the IRBs fault though is it? The tier 1 nations are the irresponsible ones who arrange to play each other ad infinitum each year. They are the ones who have failed to schedule matches against the second tier. Judging by recent behaviour i seriously doubt the tier 1 nations would let the IRB take control of their fixture list each year either. Not reall inclined to stick up for the IRB but let’s be serious about what the problem is.
October 23rd 2011 @ 2:49pm
mitzter said | October 23rd 2011 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Exactly, it’s all about the money thats why we play England every year. It the national unions that have very little concern for the minnows
October 23rd 2011 @ 2:49pm
Rob9 said | October 23rd 2011 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Id throw England onto the list of possible winners you have there. This cup also showed Ireland and Wales are right up there too. Of the many more countries playing soccer, how many of them do you think could realistically win the fifa world cup? No team sport has more than a pool of 15-20 nations with a realistic chance of being crowned world champions. Rugby is still a young professional sport. 7 Nations with a realistic hope is a good competitive pool considering. With the ongoing development, Argentina and Italy will be added to this group in the coming years. Scotland may experience a resurgence in the same way Wales have recently. Further down the track the rise of the US, Canada and Russia will ensure Rugby has a strong pool of nations from almost all continents that all have a realistic chance of winning the top prize.
I get the point of this artcile, but you’ve sold the message short by using what has been a landmark tournament for Rugby as the prime example of the irb’s shortcomings. No doubt the irb needs to do more to prop up those outside the top 10, what’s happening with the funds generated from the world cup is questionable and the old fuddy duddys at the irb look almost too set in their ways to shake things up. Despite all of this, the last 6 weeks have been a great festival of Rugby that has shown that the game is headed in the right direction, just at a slower pace with the irb running the show.
The funding issues with the top nations need to be sorted out quickly. Whether the irb likes it or not, they’re the drawcard and need to be renumerated accordingly. Not excessively to the point where the development money is sucked dry but it’s a disgrace that they’re loosing money by being a (important) part of the games showpiece event. The irb needs to stop being so lazy and start looking for other ways to create revenue by investing money in more global events that are played on the big stage (not just your pacific nations cups etc.). Hemisphere Cups between world cups is an idea. Like the world cup it will need a few years to grow in status but in time it can become another funds generator where the big countries can be payed fairly for their involvement while the tier two’s can recieve more money for development. It also provides the tier two’s with another opportunity to come in from the shadows every second year as opposed to every fourth and they get that all important game time and experience against the big fish to continue their development process.
Lets get proactive on the ideas front instead of shooting down what’s been an great tournament and suggesting boycotts in 15′. That’s not going to get Rugby anywhere!
October 23rd 2011 @ 5:23pm
Brian said | October 23rd 2011 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
How is lauding the NZRU going to help. What they are proposing is to take away the one time in 4 years they play the weaker nations!
The best way to help the minnows apart from the RWC is to open up all club rugby to foreigners so the Super 15 and European leagues are filled with as many Argentinians, Canadaians, Pacific Islanders etc who warrant a place
Its the individual unions who reject this not the IRB
October 23rd 2011 @ 5:33pm
Ross said | October 23rd 2011 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
Spot on VC.
October 23rd 2011 @ 8:13am
jaysper said | October 23rd 2011 @ 8:13am | Report comment
Hmmmm, I fail to see how the NZRFU and other Tri-nations teams getting MORE money will help the causes of the minnows!
I think the IRB needs to have the reset button hit, but lets be honest – NZRFU, SARFU and ARFU are pushing their own causes not those of the minnows.
October 23rd 2011 @ 8:31am
Mr_herkt said | October 23rd 2011 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Great article, but a little misleading.
The NZRFU complained about how much money they lose every four years when they play in the WC, through shortened tournaments, or missing northern hemisphere tours. People seem to think that the ABs have these huge coffers but in reality they don’t, and losing millions to be in the world cup isn’t really right. After all, they are running a business. They were not saying if lower tier teams should get more cash.
Yes it terrible that the money the RFU takes from ALL the sponsorship etc doesn’t get spread across the lower tier nations, this should be their priority in fact, hopefully one that happen soon. Beacuse imagine THOSE teams not being at a WC. A 7-8 team WC.. boring.
I am a massive All Black fan by the way, so any thought of them not playing in a WC, fills me with horror.
COME ON ALL BLACKS!
October 23rd 2011 @ 9:18am
Kuruki said | October 23rd 2011 @ 9:18am | Report comment
On what planet should the host nation have to pay 150 million dollars to host a tournament and then be hugely regulated as to how they are allowed to make money from it? IRB is the Mafia no two ways about it. They are ruining our game with nothing but greed in their eye’s. Nothing has been done for the minnow nations whatsoever. They struggle to fund there appearances in any competitions. The IRB has huge amounts of cash and nobody even knows where it is all going, there is nothing to show for it. The countries own governments are funding more of their rugby needs then the IRB. Why should the All Blacks go to the next world cup and help the IRB make another fortune when this one we hosted cost us tens of millions. In what world can you continue to run at a loss this significant immediately after hosting the biggest money maker in the game???
October 23rd 2011 @ 9:59am
mace 22 said | October 23rd 2011 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Agree whole heartedly kuruki hosting nation should just have a one off payment to irb. With all proceeds going to the host nation. With this structure the nzru would have run at a profit not millions in the red. Also smaller countries like new zealand would have a better chance to host the comp, with amore guarenteed return for their money.
October 23rd 2011 @ 9:23am
mace 22 said | October 23rd 2011 @ 9:23am | Report comment
I think sanzar could help more with the minnows by allowing one or two players from the pacific rim countries to be recruited into the each super rugby team. At least the nortern hemisphere club sides have a good mix of european secound tier players at their clubs. Don’t know what the deal is with argentina about players playing in the four nations and how that works.
October 23rd 2011 @ 9:30am
Sailosi said | October 23rd 2011 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Possibly the worst article I have ever read.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
October 23rd 2011 @ 10:29am
David Lord said | October 23rd 2011 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Blinkers on special this week Sailosi?
October 23rd 2011 @ 9:57am
Ian Noble said | October 23rd 2011 @ 9:57am | Report comment
If I was the IRB and I wanted to make a real impact and grow the game I would direct the majority of the resources into Europe and the Americas. Reality suggests that some countries particularly those in the Pacific Islands have reached saturation and have no way to grow, whereas, Russia, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Germany, Georgia, Romania, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile et al have enormous potential. Not only would their potential be more realisable, but they would be underwritten by the opportunity to develope another annual European tournament to sit alongside the 6Ns and a stronger competition in the Americas. They are “homebankers”.
Expansion into Asia, Africa, and the Middle East will take longer and frankly may never be sufficiently realisable. probably a combination of physical attributes, sport awareness and culture in some areas, I am not saying that these countries including the Pacific Islands should not be supported but the rapid growth of the game will be elsewhere. If the IRB can crack the markets in Europe and the Americas, then the income flows will be more than sufficient to continue to support these countries and fund the longer term expansion into other areas.
Frankly there are no growth opportunities in NZ and OZ and whilst they will continue to be a force on the playing field, they are small beer. To put it in context, England is assumed to the richest rugby nation, yet rugby is nothing when compared to football, it is estimated there are 7 million registered football players and 40K+ clubs whereas rugby has circa 1 million players and 2K+ clubs in England. Looking at other strong football nations such as Russia, Italy, Germany, Argentina etc the opportunity for real growth is enormous although rugby will still be a minority sport. This is where the IRB should be directing it’s resorces.
October 23rd 2011 @ 10:04am
mace 22 said | October 23rd 2011 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Here here Ian one of if not the best post I’ve read.
October 23rd 2011 @ 11:05am
Bakkies said | October 23rd 2011 @ 11:05am | Report comment
There already are european competitions for countries outside of the 6 Nations. It’s called the European Nations Cup or 6 Nations B. The bottom team gets relegated to a lower division. Georgia, Romania, Portugal and Russia with Spain are in the next tier below Italy, Wales, Ireland, England, Scotland and France.
Politics in African sport has held Rugby back in that continent (with the game being amateur for so long didn’t help either). Zimbabwean rugby has suffered big time due to the Mugabe regime. They would have been the next best African nation and have produced some fine players like Chavhanga, The Beast, Pocock,Ngenwya, Ray Mordt. Bobby Skinstad was eligble for Zim as well. Outside of Zimbabwe and SA other African nations have had some excelllent players eligble for them such as Dusatoir, Benazzi, Nyanga, Tchale Wachu (Perpignan player), Betsen. The talent is there. Kenya look really good on the 7s circuit whether or not their national union is capable of organising a competitive 15 a side team remains to be sen.
October 23rd 2011 @ 12:04pm
Bakkies said | October 23rd 2011 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
Further to add you could argue that the French have been propping up Argentinian Rugby over the last 8 years with the Saffies on board to develop their younger players (Pampas). A large amount of Argentina’s star players have developed their Rugby in France due to the game still remaining amateur in their home country. This has enabled them to be developed as professionals enabling The Pumas to get better results with a limited schedule and it’s no coincidence that Argentina have beaten France on several occasions during this time frame.