By all reports, Union is 'stuck in a ghetto'

Ian, I believe the cosy idea of giving out more voting rights to the smaller nations would just make the voting process even more convoluted and would lead to even more deals done behind closed doors. The current system might throw up controversy sometimes but you'd have to be very careful just handing over the power of the game to the smaller nations like that. What's to say that the agenda of the poorer nations is the best for the future of the game? All it would likely mean is that the AB's would be playing test matches in half the countries around the world in order to host the 2011 WC, not just the home nations. How can anyone argue that the game is in bad shape at present and that the game is going backwards? The IRB system has seen the game of Rugby Union grow a heck of a lot in only 11 years of proffessionalism. I'd wager that, in terms of growth percentage, Rugby would be one of the best performing sports codes over that period. The problem is that growing a sport takes time and money and that most arm chair critics are miles away from the emerging nations front anyway. That means that most of the investment and work that goes into developing the game wouldwide isn't even noticed. Critics use the awarding of WC2011 to NZ instead of Japan as their prime evidence of IRB mismanagement, but all arguements on this topic aside (because it was never the perfect bid anyway) how else could it be argued that the IRB are not leading the growth of the game well?

The Sale Sharks connection to the report is quite amusing as they remain too timid in their own back yard. In next season's Heineken Cup. Cardiff are moving matches to the Millenium, USAP are proposing to play the Ospreys at Nou Camp in Barcelona, Stade Francais will play Harlequins at Stade de France. Sale will play Munster and Clermont Auvergne at Stockport capacity 11,000 max. Last season Wasps moved their home game with Munster from their ground in High Wycombe to Coventry which is 100-150 miles away. The Munster game offers the chance to switch a game to a larger football ground like Old Trafford, City of Manchester Stadium or even the Reebok.

Spiro Although there was alot of support for Japan in England for RWC2011, I don't think they have had any input in this report. I would suggest that people such as Kennedy the wealthy owner of Sale Sharks, a number Europeans at RWC2007 and SH expats who live and may even still play in the NH is probably nearer the truth. Your suggestion that you would support the award of RWC2015 to England in return for their support for the ELV's smacks of a cosy deal behind closed doors, exactly the problem highlighted by this report. I think netrug and others have made some very good points. What about an IRB council of twenty made up of the 8 foundation countries, 2 from N America (Canada and USA), 2 from Europe ( Italy and one from the energing nations), 2 from Africa (Kenya and Namibia), 2 from the PI ( Fiji and Samoa), 2 from Asia ( Japan and another chosen from the emerging nations) and 2 from S America ( Argentina and another from an energing nation)? One vote per representative, it will be more transparent allowing emerging nations to have a say at the high table and would be more representative of the global game. The countries outside the present struture must be more directly included and play a real part in the growth of the game.

The IRB certainly controls the game but there are a number of ubions conteolling the game throughout the world;- Afica- CAR (Confereration of African Rugby) America South - CONSUR (Consortium od South American Rugby) America North - NAWIRA (North American West Indies Rugby Association) Asia - ARFU (Asian Rugby Football Union) Europe - FIRA (Federation Internationale de Rugby Amateur) FIRA has the most members and FIRA is a direct member of the IRB as is Japan, Canada and Argentina. Thus the pyramid organisation means that all countries can have a say through their regional representatives. It is just like a government, the populous vote for their representatives but have no power in parliament which is what the IRB is. If that is the way democracy works, then the IRB is democratic. However, I don't believe that it is a good sysyem, too much control by the "big 8". On the other hand, you don't see complaints by Kazakhstan, Tunisia or Slovakia. No countries have got upset about the laws and tried to form breakaway groups as happened in England, New Zealand and Australia a century ago. If that was the case, league would be worldwide now. The IRB functions ineptly, but all countries are able to give some input, and somrhow it works.

Knees - but if you're spending the cold hard cash on PR, development, marketing and all of those other things that might be achieved by holding the RWC in a different place, suddenly the equation, like most things in life, is not quite so black and white. I'm not particularly advocating that 2015 must be in Japan, just saying the decision is not as simple as which place has the higher projected dollar profit. As you say, the opportunity for people to play in tournaments is priceless (and I know that from having coached a team that went to one of the very low level tournaments mentioned by Matt above) - equally however, putting something in front of people which they haven't seen or seen much of before has a value. Maybe not priceless, but certainly not valueless. I can only agree that you have to hold the IRB to account for how it spends the money, and indeed for how it conducts all its activities, but that applies regardless of where the RWC is.

As much as it is a huge grab for cash, the recent financial anouncments for the next two WC's is astute business by the IRB. Whilst I totally agree with the sentiments that the WC in NZ can only be a financial fizzer based on WW2 sentiment by a bunch of tottering old farts, the premise of getting as much cash as you can to grow the game in the shortest possible time, makes a whole lot of sense. Sure from a PR point of view it would be good to have a WC in Japan. But what actually grows the game is cold card cash. The more cash you, the more that you can do. The only question to be asked is whether the money will be spent wisely and on that fron tthe IRB seems to be doing well i.ei Pacific Island Cup, the Churchill Cup etc. The opportunity for players to play in these tournments is priceless, the return back to Rugby should be considerable. Japan will have its turn for a WC - hopefully sooner than later.

NZ definitely deserve to host the RWC in 2011, if only so that Robbie Deans can hold the cup aloft. He will then be the first New Zealander to do so since 1987!!!

Spiro, You think Japan shouldn't get the RWC till 2019?! Haven't you said in the past they should have been awarded it in 2011? Giving NZ the RWC was a mistake, Japan in 2015 and Italy in 2019. RWC is a great promotional tool for the game and should be used as such.

What about the recent Bledisloe Cup game in Sydney? The highest watched program on PayTV in Australia this year and he most watched Rugby game of all time on Pay TV? That is surely a tick in the 'more attactive to watch' column? Either way I thought that SHammers point, about the reports stated desire to remove parochialism as being hypocritical, was a good one. That is if the

Sledgehammer, there is nothing at all to suggest that the ELVs have made any recent games more attractive. I would prefer the term pragmatic to parochial. The ELVs are another topic - but equally if you choose to question the motivation of those behind the report then you should not so willingly accept the development of the ELVs.

As either Pickering or Tew already stated this report is about 3 years out of date, and as has been pointed out by others, the IRB is already a hell of a lot to promote rugby world wide. If you are interested in reading about some of their initiatives from actual rugby players and supporters in second tier countries go to the FIRA website and read some of the blogs. There is some interesting things happening. The other glaring oversight of this report is the fact it doesn't mention the ELVs. It talks of parochialism, and of making the game more attractive to new markets through sevens and 10s etc and uses 20/20 cricket as a model. Yet, the ELVs are designed to do just that without destroying the structure or ethos of the game. The opposition of the clubs (who may well have commissioned the report) to the ELVs is a perfect example of the parochialism the report claims to be opposed to.

Not sure Chris, I would hope so. The PI's are playing England at Twickenham on November 8th, and I don't think there are any prem. games during that period so I would think and English based players would be available. Can't comment on the French based players though. The PI team is not going to play Ireland, Scotland or Wales which is a bit of a blow. It's a shame they even have to play as a united team but Canada are playing all four, or definitely at least three, of the home nations so it is a balancing act. It would be nice to see the occasional tour of the PI islands, obviously not from a financial perspective, but as a gesture.

thanks Benjamin thats great news, i'll really be looking forward to that - i check their website occasionally, but it hasnt been updated for while. Hopefully the matches will be available on Fox Sports if not be it setanta - then ill gladly pay for it. Do you think all their players will be available, ie, club sides holding them back? Let's hope their performance is more in line with how they played against the 3N, rather than their last NH attempt which resulted in some heavy defeats.

Chris Ash, the PIs are touring the UK this autumn.

Rickety Knees - pound is worth a bit under 2.1 AUD, but I doubt that your basic point that you have to look at exchange rates in assessing profit is in any sort of serious dispute. The questions remain though (a) would you get more profit out of a RWC in Japan or in the UK - that there are about 200 Yen to the Pound does not answer that question; and (b) what value do you put on the development benefits of having the RWC in Japan (or some other place outside the "foundation" countries) compared to the benefit of having it in a "foundation" country. Surely the actual "profit" from a RWC is something like the sum of those 2 amounts - it is not just one of them.

With due respect Ian, you answered a question I didn't ask. The authors are identified in the FAQs on the Putting Rugby First website, minus any mention of the Sale connection that I can see. What is not identified, and what I asked about, is whoever commissioned this report, ie who paid for it, established its parameters and drove the direction of its investigation? The Sale connection indicates that this may be the brainchild of some or all of the professional English clubs. If that is the case, we should be told. Because they have their own agenda which overlaps in part with that of the IRB and the other Unions around the world but differs substantially in many areas. Key to the points of dispute is the amount of control the clubs have and will have over players, revenues and competitions compared with the traditional authorities. A big red flag for me is found in the executive summary where the authors laud what it calls the "proactive" approach of the American NFL to grow its game in places like Russia. Well, the day I see a Russian national team take on an American national side at gridiron with a reasonable chance of being competitive, I'll eat my hat. Americans don't believe in spreading their games; they believe in broadening their audience. There's a difference. The Americans couldn't care squat if nobody outside their shores ever picks up a baseball bat or dons a football helmet. Their games are already entrenched, their rigid franchising, salary caps and draft structures are already in place. They don't lend themselves well to outside interference. Their attitude is, we have built the stage, it is set, now please come and applaud. And while you're here, please buy the baseball caps, the replica jerseys (or uniforms as they call them) etc. You too can be a Dodgers fan. This report's executive summary hints that this is the model to pursue. It reeks of the self interest of club proprietors who think their club can be the rugby equivalent of Manchester United or Liverpool: clubs with global support bases. There is a subtle difference between a global game and a globalised game. Rugby at the moment is a global game: it is played and watched around the world and people support their local teams. The vision of a globalised game such as soccer is fast becoming is that it is played and watched around the world and everybody supports Manchester Bloody United or Real Bloody Madrid. Is that what you want? Export the game. Not the audience.

well said the two above posters... one thing i would like to see is the Pacific Island team touring the UK... i remember when they played Australia in Adelaide a few years back and although we won (29 - 14) we came away with alot of injuries as they play such a hard hitting game - a great spectacle indeed...

Hey guys, let's be pragmatic - it is all about MONEY and getting your best bang for buck. So let's take a look at exchange rates. The fact is that an English pound in England buys what an Australian dollar buys in Australia. An English pound is worth about 2.5 Australian dollars, so every pound made in profit is actually worth a shite more around the world (and I'm an Aussie). A good reason to have the next WC in England! There are two ways to build Rugby around the world - make as much money as you can and distribute it wisely and the top ten nations conduct there development tours in far flung corners of the world preachering good rugby, good brotherhood and lot's of giveaways ie swap game jerseys and hand out memento's!

There will always be a 'better way' that the IRB can be run. But the truth is that no company or sport would sacrifice itself for 'greater good'. Their plans are working pretty well at present. What exactly are they comparing rugby's growth too? Soccer? Because ti would be rather harsh to compare it to a sport which hsa been professional for a very long time and which already has a huge global following and participation rate anyway. What other sports are growing faster than rugby? I believe their current business plan is a sound one. The money and development happening because of the IRB is due mainly to the significant money generated throught well supported WC's. Outside the boardroom of the IRB it is easy to fantasise about WC's in far flung places, but often this is spouted without a true grasp of the disparity in support the game of rugby recieves in lower tier nations. It seems like reverse logic to firstly criticise the IRB for not taking the WC's out of the established 8 nations, but then stating that the game isn't expanding because nearly all of the viewers for the last WC were from those established nations? So they are suggesting that they take the jewel of the rugby crown to a place where the game isn't even watched? Isn't that the corperate equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. I think the IRB are clever in that they realise that all sports these days need money to grow their game. If the profits are wisely invested (as I believe they are, with the numerous competitions going on) then the game will grow, which it is. The other think to remember is that the IRB do not control club rugby, they only control international rugby. But a list of the numerous new competitions brought about through the money generated from hosting the previous WC's in established rugby nations, as well as those older tournaments sanctioned by the IRB is quite impressive. Aside from the World Cup, the Junior World Cup, The Junior World Trophy, the 7's World Series and the Womens Rugby world cup you have: The Pacific Nations Cup - Australia A, New Zealand Maori, Japan, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji The Pacific Rugby Cup - 2 Samoan teams, 2 Tongan teams, 2 Fijian team The Nations Cup - Italy A, Emerging South Africa, Georgia Russia, Uraguay The Asian 5 Nations - Japan, Korea, Arabian Gulf, Kazakstan, Hong-Kong Asians 5 Nations Div 1 - Sri Lanka, China, Chinese Taipai, Singapore Asians 5 Nations Div 2 - Malaysia, Thailand, Pakistan, India Asian 5 Nations Regional teams - Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Philippines, Guam, Brunei, Iran, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, Mongolia, Macau Churchill Cup - England Saxons, Scotland A, Canada, USA North America 4 - Canada East, Canada West, US Hawks, US Falcons Africa Cup - Botswana, Cameroon, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, Swaziland, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe The European Nations Cup - Georgia, Germany, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Belgium, Czech Republic, Moldova, Poland, Ukraine, Croatia, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Sweden, Andorra, Armenia, Lithuania, Serbia, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Israel, Luxembourg, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Monaco, Slovakia The IRB has done alot to ensure that all these nations compete in games each year. They cannot control the way National Unions contract players and cannot force Argentina to adapt to professionalism and they cannot force the French Clubs to release their players for foreign national duties. I think the claims that the IRB are not doing enough have a hint of arrogance in that many rugby fans (like other sports) beleive their game is so much more amazing than other sports and that all people have to do is see the game once and will take to it. the fact is that transitions in sporting popularity takes decades and either a dictatorlike government regime forcing it on the masses or millions of dollars to force feed it to the public. The game is growing just fine and there isn't THAT much that the IRB can do. They will give the next WC to England and generate even more money to find the lower end growth of the game. They will push 7's cart until it is accepted into the Olympics. They will give the 2019 WC to Japan knowing that they will finally have had the experience of hosting a rugby tournament (JWC next year) as well as having televised International rugby for 10 years (Asian 3 Nations) and possible also a Super 14 team. So I for one think this document is unrealistic and also question the motives of a Chairman of one of the privately owned European Club teams. The new ELV laws could be argued as being neglective of the grassroots, but that is as speculative as suggesting that one style of game is more attractive than another.

Spiro, you mention USA, but what has the IRB done for the weaker European sides; Georgia, Romania, Portugal etc? That isn't rhetorical btw it's a genuine question.