The IRB is a jolly club where some old amateurs of the game can go to earn a good living, travel the world a little and watch some of their favourite sport, rugby.
These men are doubtless good fellows at heart, charming comrades for a beer and should they be English, which a lot of them are, cheery reminiscences over thatched cottages may ensue and a raised glass to the success of Britain in keeping out of the Euro will be easily had.
But perhaps it has not dawned yet everywhere in the rugby world that the game is now professional. This means things like money, efficiency, performance and accountability.
When summoning an image of Will Carling’s old codgers, one that will be found identical to the IRB board today, such ideas do not spring easily to mind. Is the IRB accountable, professional?
How many of these men became involved in rugby during its amateur days, and how many are children of the professional era? Given there is seldom a hair of anything less than purest grey hair in sight at a meeting of the IRB, it is obviously the former.
This warm, nostalgic state of affairs is all very well and good except for one problem: some people in the game may actually want to expand it. Do the IRB have the same desire?
Would they really wish to bring into being a world in which Canada could defeat England, or Romania thrash Scotland?
This is a question that will be left in abeyance for the moment, but the sight of Martyn Thomas, the arch-reactionary RFU management chairman, involved in awarding the next two World Cups should have sent shivers down the spine of anyone interested in rugby becoming a global game.
In effect, there has been no expansion whatsoever of rugby since it turned professional.
The usual argument to the contrary proposed, that teams like Tonga are more competitive than they used to be, is the result instead of the players from these smaller rugby countries plying their trade professionally for clubs in Europe and the Super 14 and hence becoming better at the game. Within countries outside the Six Nations and Tri-Nations, there has been zero expansion.
It should all be straightforward to an ambitious, high-quality body charged with expanding the sport. In Georgia, Romania, Russia, Canada and Japan there is already a very good base on which to build interest further.
The IRB assumes the only way to do this is through the international representative game, but is that the case?
When Rugby league wishes to expand, they create and fund clubs in new countries and persuade the existing clubs to integrate them into their competitions. Witness the founding of league clubs in Wales and France in the northern hemisphere, and New Zealand in the southern hemisphere.
Why can’t the IRB do exactly the same: create and fund clubs in Tokyo, Buenos Aires and Vancouver and persuade SANZAR to accept them into the Super 14, and likewise ask the Magner’s league to integrate clubs from Bucharest, Tbilisi and Moscow.
Obviously money would be needed to make these teams competitive, but the IRB have an awful lot of this, and they spend it on precious little else besides expanding their already fulsome bellies.
I would suggest basing such clubs around the national teams of each country, with a number of high quality players from elsewhere brought in to increase overall strength. Even if this is not possible, teams consisting of mainly foreign players can still achieve their goal.
That is to provide high quality rugby live and on television around the year in developing rubgy countries.
There is considerable interest in the game in Georgia, or Japan, but it is dormant and unexploited.
Then the IRB themselves must be accountable, and should receive a high level of media scrutiny, with their expansion plans called to account and hauled before inspection in the same way as David Gallop and the NRL are. Members should not be chosen because solely because they have histories as players, but on account of their professional ability in what is essentially a business.
Entry into the Olympic Games should not be assumed to work the kind of magic that transforms rugby into a rival of football in the blink of an eye, nor should the IRB leave the clubs to do the work.
When John O’Neill proposes taking the Super tournament to Tokyo, he should be acting on the IRB’s instigation. Instead they are nowhere to be seen. They need not stand aloof, they can work with the clubs should they wish.
If it is in the clubs interest, they will accept IRB ideas.
The club game is if anything a better way to expand a sport, as it runs around the year, whereas internationals are more occasional and in a way rely on the strength of the tier immediately below in any case.
Then there is the generation of countries beyond those I have mentioned to consider. What are the IRB doing to develop the game in Spain, Portugal, Brazil, countries where it has a small foothold?
But do the IRB really want the game to grow? Wouldn’t it be nice to keep the sport one where Scotland can beat someone occasionally, and England are still in the hunt?
Given the huge British Isles presence in the IRB and its amateur nature, the answer might be worrying.
Nonetheless the challenge remains.
The IRB could turn the game global within a decade, or we might still be watching the same little world of ten nations with all its too familiar dramas and tribulations for many years to come.
Katipo
Guest
Hey Matthew, I agree with you. The make-up of the IRB has always irked me. It's even worse than you say. The four home nations belong to only two countries: Great Britain and Ireland. So they should have two (or at the most 4) representatives on the IRB not 8 or 9 or however many they actually have at the moment. England, Scotland, Wales are not really countries. They are more like states of Great Britain. Hey, New South Wales has it's own parliament and no direct IRB representation yeah. In fact this home nations thing creates the problem with national eligibility. If you use a passport to measure eligibility, which is perfectly good system, then all British passport holders are eligible to play for the 4 home nations. So why not let them use the one country rule and every one else can use passports. No the rest of the world can't use passports. We are forced to use the one country for life rule which disadvantages so many to accomodate so few. Here is another better idea. Have a meritocracy. Allocate two seats on the IRB to the countries that make the quarter finals of the World Cup. Let them earn it on the field every four years.
Matthew Skellett
Guest
I really think that if the IRB REALLY believes in the widespread expansion /development of the game then the Five Nations and Oz , NZ and South Africa have to give up their veto and make it 'One Country -One Vote' . The inexcusable farce of having a gerry mander of power by the Five Nations to oppose reform/change of any kind is anachronistic and backward in this day -in-age . I know very well that freemasonry has a lot to do with the present status quo BUT even freemasonry has to change with the times -so "Justice for All !! not just for some against the majority !!
Ramirez
Guest
Good article. I agree that a strong local league in an emerging nation does a lot more for rugby in this given country than some Mickey Mouse IRB competition. When you have a good league you have better players, which in turn makes for a better national team. At the moment, extra games for emerging nations will only mean that these nations will keep on playing with their amateur/semi-pro players who are nowhere near the guys playing in Europe or the SANZAR countries. This way, the gap between old and new countries will continue forever (I also agree that IRB doesn't really want a World where Canada beats England and Namibia beats Scotland)
Emric
Roar Rookie
Katipo. I agree a nice mix of local derbies followed by a international comp would be perfect. 4 conferences - Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina, 5 teams per conference - Each Conference plays each other and crowns a national champion and 2 runner ups The top 8 teams go into a cross conference round robin playing for a super champion The bottom 12 teams go into a cross conference playing off for a best of the rest type of reward Its a very basic model and could probably do with a lot more thinking and rework but it’s how I envisioned the competitions working. Whichever system is picked the system has to be simple so all us stupid folk can follow what’s going on
kovana
Guest
Hopefully still on topic.. But the IRB should keep on helping the Georgians.. This weeks Test match between Georgia vs Canada at the National Stadium.. with capacity of 56'000, looms as a hopeful sell out. 40'000 tickets sold.. And by Talk on the FIRA forum.. More tickets going as i type...... Great news.
Symo
Guest
If by "south Auckland schools" you mean Kings College... Lets be honest Otahuhu College is a bottom Feeder and while St Kents is technically in Manukau I'd say it's more of an Eastern Bays school. Especially considering its clientelle. Basically that leaves us with Kelston. Awesome.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Evan Over extending would do far more damage to the game. However, using existing structures building leagues is achievable but not necessarily required. You bring up Spanish teams in ProD2. That would be a interesting proposal but I would prefer to see the IRB or even FIRA step in to sort out the current situation with the FER regarding the Iberian Supaliga. In its inaugural season it had some success with ratings and their constant dillying and nonsense has meant that it won't be help this year losing all moment. Someone externally needs to come in a back it, tell the FER to get on with business and move on.
Evan Roberts
Guest
You are asking to Run before we can Walk, Over-expansion is as dangerous in rugby as it is in any other business. That said, I would like to see a couple of IRB funded spanish teams (in Catalonia and the Basque Country) compete in the Pro D2, this would be financially viable as the league is only semi-pro and the travel could be done by coach. I think the french union would prefere there own teams to play the odd game in Spain instead of allowing spanish teams though.
King of the Gorgonites
Roar Guru
they had none of there european based players though.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Russia were absolutely thrashed by Japan last weekend. They're a long way off.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
KOGS Russia are developing well. And its a good sign they have been awarded the last ever 7s RWC thanks to the Olympics and the IRB's commitment to ensure that the Games are that version of the games pinnacle tournament. As for when the USA would be ready to host a RWC. Well, after Japan in 2019 I would expect to see Italy host the 2023 event. So at the earliest maybe 2027 but more than likely well into the 2030s.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
The fact that England is expected to make a record profit is a major reason for the 2015 RWC being awarded to them. It appears to be the tournament the IRB see's as the one that could really set Rugby up on the international stage thanks to the profits it has projected.
King of the Gorgonites
Roar Guru
What this thread has failed to mention is that Russia have been awarded a world cup! they are hosting the 2013 sevens WC. is that not a big deal? thats a great step to gorw the game in russia, then hopefully move on to hosting big 15s tournaments. come on guys, good steps are being made. syd millar said the other day that its not if the USA will host a WC, but when.
King of the Gorgonites
Roar Guru
Gavin, Like a lot of posts on this thread, that is simply factually wrong. profits from WC's do not go to the host union. they go to the IRB. the host union get monies from gate takings. broadcast deals etc go straight to the IRB. NZ will make the IRB 100s of M, whilst NZRU will lose money. england may make money, but the vast magoirty of profits from the 2015 WC will go the the IRB. the IRB will use that money to grow the game.
Katipo
Guest
And while I'm at it - the other great advantage rugby had in amateur days was a variety of teams to play against. Every year was different. The locked in tournament structures of Sanzar deny this. I wonder if it's occurred to Sanzar that they could run a different tournament every year on a 4 year cycle. Run a four-nations one year, a five nations the next year, then back to 4 nations but with a grand final in Asia, then an 8 nation knock-out tournament, great for developing the second-tier, then back to four-nations. Same with Super rugby - mix up the tournament formats from year to year. Are we ever going to see Toulose play the Canterbury Crusaders? (Even if it's a friendly) I think it's great the Wallabies are playing mid-week games again though. Let's hope they head off to Georgia or Russia in future years... and let's hope that the NH teams play some mid-week games while they are down here. Would have liked to see England v NSW Country this year for example. The possibilities are endless but the reality is the same tournaments every year aren't firing the imagination like they could do. Time for a strategic review.
Katipo
Guest
kingplaymaker - you have hit on a very interesting dilemma for rugby: should the games future growth be powered by international, international provincial/franchise or local competitions. What is the best model? In the amateur days local competition made the game strong in some countries and international competition spread the game around the planet (well, some of it). When we turned professional rugby (in the southern hemisphere anyway) pushed forward with an international-provincial competition: Super rugby. It was supposed to take advantages of rugby's strengths - international competition - and contrast with the weaknesses of the competing codes: AFL, ARL and soccer who had mainly domestic competitions at the time. The theory was people would be more interested in an Auckland v NSW international than Auckland v Waikato local derby. At first this was true, but in time, the regional identities were eroded by franchise identities and this point of difference was lost to the game. More recently, super crowds have been bigger for local match-ups than international ones. The best way forward for the developing rugby nations is possibly a combination of both approaches - a strong domestic tournament, building up local rivalries and containing logistical costs, with the best teams qualifying to compete in shorter international champion-of-champions tournaments. I think it is time for rugby to reflect on the best business model going forward (don't you love that management speak, but it's appropriate here I think).
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
There are many interesting proposals here, but one question I would ask is whether the public in say, Canada or Georiga, would be more excited by taking part in a top level competition like the Magner's league or Super 14, than having a more detailed local competition. Surely they will recognise and understand that these top club competitions are a better and more glamourous thing than their local competitions? Well-marketed, such involvement could have far more impact. They would get to see good teams and internationally famous players throughout the year, playing a far higher level of the game.
Katipo
Guest
I like the proposed South American conference. But reality suggests it should eventually compete with a North American conference - for logistic and commercial reasons. It's interesting, I think rugby jumped quickly in to professionalism, made big strides, only to get a bit stuck in recent years. Growing pains. It's about time for a clean out of the leadership (not just irb but all unions) - new people, new ideas. And my opinion on the irb? The 8 founding members get 2 seats each - which gives 8 seats to the UK. Instead of inheritance, the representation should be a meritocracy. The 8 RWC semi-final qualifying countries should get 2 seats each, the rest get 1, for the following four years.... the better the performance of you country at rugby, the greater your influence on the game. Sounds fair to me.
GavinH
Guest
Thanks for the article KPM, it has generated plenty of good ideas. Some of the competitions set up by the IRB have not been mentioned. The Asian 6nations contains the top teams in Asia (incl Japan) and has multiple promotion/relegation grades below it. There are also lower grade american tournaments such as the one on Total rugby this week, which followed Colombia, Peru, Venezuela and Costa Rica in the Sth America B championship. The Colombians were saying they have had massive government support and player numbers have gone from minimal to 5,000 (from memory) in the last few years. I think we need to remember that funding tournaments for say 20 asian countries is a lot cheaper than going into each country and funding teams and domestic tournaments. I think the IRB has got that balance about right with what are very limited resources when you break it down per country per year. Admittedly Tier2 nations (versus 3,4,5 etc) are a bit different and require more specific approaches in each case eg the Islands have the playing talent but don't get much time together as a national team to develop combinations. Whereas the US is developing great infrastructure (just look at cal berkley or BYU) but need to get top players overseas for week in week out professional standard play.
GavinH
Guest
This was on sky movies recently http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi422314009/ Suprisingly good for a rugby movie.... and it is all based on true events from an American high school, so very relevant to this thread!