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.
Bakkies
Guest
The World Cup win could do more harm than good for NZ rugby. The focus on the win will paper over the cracks that appearing in how the game is run in that country. - Poor crowds at provincial and super rugby level. - Hasn't been able to cull the amount of unions in the NPC - The focus on re-signing Carter, McCaw, SBW and Mealamu rather than focusing on keeping players who will take their places. Guys like Stephen Brett and Luke McAlister have gone overseas and had more to offer to in terms of depth and had longer futures with the ABs. Stephen Donald has gone too.
Bakkies
Guest
Craig Joubert
Katipo
Guest
How often have Steve Tew's All Blacks played the minnows outside of of RWC? When did the All Blacks last play a test in the Pacific Islands? How many minnow test players supported by Super rugby franchises in comparison with France's Top 14? The Northern nations are doing more to grow rugby globally than NZRU are. NZRFU would rather play Australia four times per year and the same 6 nations in Europe every year while offering no pathways to players from minnow nations. And now a gtrab for money from RWC. I have very little sympathy for Steve Tew to be honest. (No doubt the IRB will roll over to his bully boy tactics though)
Damo
Guest
Brilliant idea! I've noticed on this thread a strong feeling for power and money sharing - until it comes to our own tier one nation. NZ and OZ need to keep in mind that we too are the beneficiaries of an imbalance of power. Sure Scotland should not have two votes while Samoa has none but if Samoa got more international parity we may lose some boys from the suburban player pool (eg the next Digby) who may choose to play for their ethnic homeland. And giving Samoa more tests may tip the balance between the two teams. The IRB are only part of the 'unfairness' in world rugby. The Tier 1 nations have their own grip on their own part of the power imbalance. And Australia and NZ are two of them (for now) who may have to give ground as well.
Ross
Guest
"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." How disgraceful of the IRB to force the NZRU to bid to host the RWC.
bernie
Guest
Firstly David, if you'd put any effort into the article, there's clear disclosure of how much the IRB made from France in 2007. It delivered the IRB a profit of A$215mm. That equates to $53mm per annum over the four year cycle. Where your $300 - $500mm figure (particularly the top end) comes from is anyone's guess. I think you're angry and thought big numbers would be all the more damning, and damn the facts in any pursuit of your story Secondly, let's think about those IRB profits of $53mm per annum and consider how far they go. In isolation that seems like a tonne of money, but now for some context. The Sanzar broadcast deal to Australia, NZ and SA was announced in April as being US$437mm for five years. That contract alone equates to US$29mm per annum to each of those three countries. On top of that, there are additional ticketing and merchandising revenues within each country. I'd argue $53mm per annum total to be shared across 10-12 Tier 2 nations is a pitiful sum generated by the World Cup, when you compare it with what individual nations like Australia, South Africa and NZ each get from their own broadcast deals. I'll further note that the ARU and NZRU are arguing that they should receive a larger portion of that IRB profit because of lost revenues they get in World Cup years. So that $53mm per annum may have to be reduced even further for the lower Tier teams. My point is - if you want an indication about the gap between rich and poor, it's not about the proceeds of the World Cup. The World Cup isn't making enough money to share with those 10-12 teams to make up for the massive gap between them and the Tier 1 nations. It isn't anywhere near the pot of gold in sporting terms that some people seem to think when you consider it only occurs once every four years, and is then split between so many parties. That's just the basic maths of it. By all means, distribute the IRB profits to the second tier, and for goodness sakes, distribute them wisely. Genuine investment in grassroots in those countries needs to be substantially developed. But let's not kid ourselves that that amount alone will close the gaps between the sides.
Comet
Guest
David. You might want to consider writing an article comparing how the IRB runs the RWC with how FIFA runs the Football World Cup and the IOC runs the Olympics. I think you will find that the RWC is not much different. There are lots of reasons (boosting tourism, promoting the country, etc) for hosting big sporting events but making money is not usually one of them.
Ross
Guest
Spot on VC.
Brian
Guest
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
Professor Rosseforp
Guest
I've always assumed the money goes straight to the IOC to enable Rugby Union to become an Olympic sport. In IOC terms, $500m is whipout money that probably covers a few flights and hotel bills for delegates.
Football United
Guest
it might be meaningless for some australians who has the snob attitude of only caring for playing the top teams but it would mean a hell of a lot for the others. Tri nations has begun meaningless. South africa and NZ treated it just as a warm up to the wc. 6 Nations does not include all Europe teams, it's a closed shop model for only 6 countries, not a continental championship.
DaniE
Guest
I agree, this wasn't the first article I was hoping to see on the morning of the cup final
stillmissit
Roar Guru
It strikes me that the IRB and the major playing nations act just like the clubs I used to play against in the UK in the 60's. Didn't matter how good you got or who you beat - you had to wait for an invite to play against a higher team. That never came until they built a promotion relegation league, which is what we need in International rugby. Tier one: NZ, AUst, SA, England, France, Wales, Argentina,Ireland, . Tier two: Italy, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Georgia, Canada, Japan, Scotland (chose arbitary number of 8 nations per teir - from IRB rankings) Other teirs on down the rankings at a set time when you start the table of rugby nations. Then the IRB should be forced to support development and annouce their financial support as a prize say for the top 2 nations in the bottom half of the table. That way there is a lot to play for and the improvements if NOT shown up by making the top 2 in the next year are taken away, if they get promoted then the finacial asistance should go on for ONE year extra. Jumping on an plane is no big deal these days and atheletes do it all the time. There is enough money to support the top tiers it is the lesser lights that need finacial assistance.
Louis
Guest
New Zealand wont boycott. End of. And on a side note rwc 2015 will be the best ever.
Hansie
Guest
Why publish an article today whinging about the IRB, etc, etc? Surely today is the day to focus on the final.
stuff happens
Guest
Correct & the shortfall in revenue for the SANZAR nations was partly because of a truncated TN. But the decision to truncate the TN was SANZARs. They have known for years that the RWC would be in Sept/Oct 2011 and the implications for their revenue. There was nothing to stop SANZAR from starting the S15 earlier and have a complete TN before the RWC. This was their decision not the IRBs.
Rob9
Guest
Yup, right on! I suggested it above. Brings in the minnows for another large scale event while not detracting from the rwc. In time it has the potential become another revenue stream for the irb to put back into development (while still ensuring tier ones are paid fairly for their involvement too). Its nothing like the icc champions trophy because that's effectively another world cup. North and south hemisphere cups are proper regional competitions that arent meaningless. Rugby's not big enough to break into continents like they do in soccer yet. Id go 2 groups of 4 in the south and i think the north could do 4 groups of 4. Do it irb!!!!
Football United
Guest
so quick to put down things nashi, I would imagine england would host a fantastic world cup. They have excellent massive RECTANGULAR stadia, the atmosphere at games and in the pubs will likely be much better, there will be more traveling fans than to a SH world cup and the grounds are all much easier around to.
Johnno
Guest
Sancho i see a Southern hemhisphere cup every 4 years as a meaningless sports trophy. A bit like the ICC champions trophy cricket tournament, or the World club soccer championship they have (eg where all the confederations send a team you get like a seem pro NZ side(not wellington phoenix but a local semi pro NZ side play manchester united united it is ridiculous). And also the other matches to are meaningless the fans or players do not care who wins . 6 nations rugby works in europe as it is all Europe teams, it is a real continent championship. A southern hemphisphere cup just feels too much Sancho like the sports tournaments i used as examples above. Both lack meaning just as this model does in my opinion at least.
Johnno
Guest
IRB, i hope reforms or collapses and dies, and a new breakaway rebel super league style gorup(eg ICL in cricket, USA rugby league splitting, world rugby group, world series cricket, simply a rebel breakaway rugby group form a new association and kicks the IRB out and signs all the players). USA and Russia will increasingly have more political power in rugby union and even china one day massive countries that can not be ignored. Same with Japan hoisting world cup in japan in 2019 will be great for the sport. But NZRU is a disaster group to. No business plans, MR Tew has no idea. He is very bad for NZ rugby. NZRU needs reforms, as does the super 15 comp. It has to work out a model that helps grass roots rugby but also makes money.