- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
As the World Cup approaches, rugby’s haves and have-nots come into stark contrast.
The haves are Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the teams of the Six Nations – although I can see a future where the three southern hemisphere powers will join the have-nots.
The have-nots are everyone else, including countries which are player rich but cash poor, such as the Pacific Island nations, Argentina and Georgia.
Teams such as England and Wales name huge training squads and hold specialist camps in exotic locations. Teams such as Samoa and Fiji struggle to secure availability of players from clubs, and struggle to pay players – sometimes even to provide jerseys.
Equally contrasting is the difference in strength of some of the have-nots between World Cups and during World Cups. As difficult as it is to secure the services of players contracted to European clubs during a World Cup year, it is even more of a struggle in the years between.
How to go about levelling this playing field?
Profit sharing
One of the key reasons the have-nots struggle is the financial imbalance. They struggle to raise any money, and this leads to an imbalance in power with clubs and other unions.
International rugby unions make money off home games, but the have-nots host few home games, have small stadiums, and their populations tend to have low incomes, meaning they cannot charge high ticket prices. Consequently they are lucky to make any profit.
It is time to revisit the logic of this system.
A solution is for profits (not revenues) from all international games to be shared between the two teams. The hosting team should still get the bulk of the profits, they are taking the risk of organising the game and providing the facilities and it maintains an incentive to maximise profits. The visiting team however also deserve a share of the profits, without a visiting team there can be no game, no crowds, no broadcast, no profit.
Even a percentage as low as 25-30 per cent would be a huge boost to the have-nots: between the haves it would merely be reciprocity, France get 25 per cent of a game at Twickenham one year and give 25 per cent of a game at Stade de France the next. However for those at the other end of the food chain it would be vital sustaining funds, funds that ultimately lead to a more competitive international rugby scene.
International window
Yes, I know we’ve been here before but there should be a window in which international games don’t overlap with any professional club competitions. This is fiendishly difficult to achieve with a sport played in two hemispheres, as it would inevitably involve rearranging the international schedule and club competitions involving private entities.
The difficulty of the negotiation levels involved are probably up there with climate change talks, but the benefits are enormous. It would result in a window where all countries can have their players available for international duty, and if done as a single window it would mean national squads assembling only once a year.
Transfer fees
The flow of players to the wealthier countries seems never-ending and in truth as a result of economic realities is unlikely to stop anytime soon. The flow of money in return however is non-existent. A system of transfer fees would result in a return flow back to the game in the source countries, allowing further growth in areas where the game is typically run on a shoe string.
I am cautious that this system would have to involve input from the players’ association to balance the return flow with the players’ right to progress their careers.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.