Is there room for a second division Rugby Championship?

Guaranteed winners isn't relevant. Giving the lesser nations regular competition, especially against say one high level team (even an A team) is designed to lift standards over a period of time.

Good point CizzyRascal - just because the SANZAR nations are 1, 2 and 3 in the world, doesn't mean they have money to spare - in fact quite the opposite, especially for Aus and NZ. Surely this is what the IRB is meant to spend the money on from the RWC proceeds?!

The Economic reality in the Pacific Islands will mean promotion and relegation to the Rugby Championship is impossible. It would be financial suicide for SANZAR + Argentina and to include them. The inclusion of the US and Canada to the Pacific Nations Cup sounds like a very good proposal to me, and at this time the most viable one.

What's the point of divisions where one team is a guaranteed winner? South America and Southern Africa would be walk overs for the top spot and the lesser sides will gain nothing from being thrashes 100-nil by Argentina A and RSA A. You can't have such a gaping gap between the competitiveness of sides. And financially, I doubt there will be any interest in most of these conferences, thus making them unviable as a competitive sporting product. The developmental approach to getting the lesser sides involves is a good idea though. But not at the cost of a top flight tournament like the Rugby Championship.

Good article FU - Lots of great ideas, and at face value, it should work. You are right to point out that the major obstacle is the release of players from club duties. Unfortunately this is a major issue and one which will probably be the stumbling block. The only sustainable way for this structure to work is to be tied in with SR somehow - many have tried to solve this issue and there is no right answer IMO. SR just cannot compete on sallaries with the NH for the majority of these players. Revenue opportunities are long term in US and Japan but outside of that it will be tough to find the cash to pay the players. Funding teh comp itself is the other key issues many have commented on above. The only solution would be for the IRB to chip in and subsidise as the top tier actually arent in a position to subsidise. Heaps of other issues too - quality of venues, etc which would need to be resolved but is worth the effort.

Rugby already has a 2 Tier Champiohship. All Blacks in Tier 1, rest of world Tier 2.

Soccer's euro chamipnship is continental not regional a big difference there. Rugby has euro HEK cup too in europe it is awesome. -Travel time/player welfare issues is the big issue with super rugby expansion

Similarly, I've always been disappointed that Rugby has never attempted an event like Football's European Championship: a regional competition that would allow some of the even more unfamiliar "minnows" a chance to take on the bigger boys. A 16 team comp involving the 6 Nations (or perhaps their development or B teams) and the best from the ENC might be just the thing to engage the public in countries where rugby is seen as a secondary, or even smaller, sport. If that sort of competition could then be applied to other geographical regions, with the Pacific/Asian market probably having the greatest potential, then all the better. As for a second tier to the Rugby Championship (still an awful name!), the idea was suggested by some in the NH media a while ago for the 6 Nations but was dropped as soon as it was suggested. It was proposed that there would be relegation and promotion between the tiers. Obviously no-one in any of the Unions that could potentially be wooden-spooners were going to agree to that!

Rugby 50-60 team plan: -Europe: Will be able to sustain about 25 teams, coutnries like Porutgal,Spain,Belguim are rising rapidly. Spain is now in top 20 has overtaken Namibia SPain is massive large coutnry so heaps of potential there just look at there soccer and basketball teams. -Asia-pacific- About 20 teams and 4 billion out of the world 7 billion population massive expansion -Americas - about 10 teams consistently USA/Canada/Mexico/Argentina/Brazil/Chile/Uruguay/Columbia/Peru/Paruguay/Venuzuala all making good progress and have the population to progress further -Africa will be able to get 10 teams going consistently to and are making good progress.

The long term goal of rugby I would say is to have about 50 competitive teams by about 2050. It takes time but there is development everywhere, the IRB is investing in rugby far more progressive than the ARU. Global rugby is booming, madagascar got 40,000 to a world cup qualifier vs Morocco. They have targeted many countries for high performance money eg China ,India,Mexico. -1 thing why i worry about June test window having a future is player welfare and club VS Country issues Clubs which pay the bills will increasingly want there players fresh and to get an off season and pre-season.

Add Namibia, Zimbabwe and Kenya to that!

Expansion of these competitions is potentially a great thing, but it needs to go further than the countries that have been discussed so far. One of the problems with the development of the game globally is not enough countries having regular games together as teams, against any sort of quality opposition. At the moment, its very difficult for many countries to develop their playing standards, particularly those that just fail to qualify for the world cup. It's pointless having 15 or so strong international teams if the rest are so far off the pace they have no chance of getting within 50 points. Now obviously I don't have the financial answer to this, so it is very easy for me to say, but if rugby wants to be strong globally, we need to develop ourselves to having up to 40 or so international teams that are at least competitive; obviously the bottom ones out of that group will never beat the top ones, but there needs to be competition for those middle of the road teams, to make them at least work to qualify for things like the RWC. With that in mind, I would propose that each of the following nations needs some form of regular competition for the game to develop worldwide. These are either established rugby nations or ones who at least show potential now or in the past (southern hemisphere and pacific rim nations only): AUS, NZ, SA, ARG Uruguay, Brazil (recent developed partnerships with the Crusaders), Mexico, Chile, Peru, Paraguay, USA, Canada, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, PNG. That provides 17 nations from this group, not necesarily saying what the competitions should be or how they should be structured, but these are ones I would idenifty as priorities for regular competition. Looking at the northern hemisphere, the following are the six nations countries, plus all team in divisions 1a AND 1b of the european nations cup (18 nations) England, France, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Georgia, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Moldova, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine. Already there, we have 35 nations...which is much better than the maybe 20 competitive countries we have now, some who are still admirably compeitive without any form of regular competition, apart from RWC qualfiying.

Here is an article on proposed pacific nations cup http://www.fijilive.com/sports/news/2012/05/irb-mulls-over-expanded-pnc/27320.Fijilive

FU, I would suggest something like this: South Pacific Conference (5) - Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Australia A. New Zealand A. North Pacific Conference (5) - USA, Canada, Japan, Korea, China. South America Conference (6) - Argentina A, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Peru, Brazil. Southern Africa Conference (5) - South Africa A, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania. Northern Africa Conference (5) - Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Kenya, Uganda. From a travel & cost perspective, I think this would work much better. Obviously, the bones of all these comps I think, are already in place.

Would Australia drop down to the 2nd division to allow for Samoa to play in the 1st division? From next year the Pacific Nations Cup will involve USA, Japan, Tonga, Canada, Fiji and Samoa. I think the majority of matches will be played in one country.

I think you'll find there really aren't very many rich unions. Maybe only the RFU.

And God Forbid the rich unions help out the developing ones !

I think the inclusion of the US and Canada to form this Pacific 6 Nations is a very positive step in the right direction for the game in this region. Obviously it's going to go some way to raising the profile of the tournament and the profile of the game in these new markets. Plus the competition is (roughly) pretty even so all games will be tough contests and all teams have a good chance to achieve successes in the tournament. But to involve these sides in more meaningful competition more often, I'd like to see them mixing it with the big boys in hemisphere cups in between RWCs. In the south the tournament could involve 2 groups of 4 with the top two progressing to the semi finals. Groups could look like this- Group A: NZ Argentina Samoa Namibia Group B: Australia SA Fiji Tonga

That's going to be a heck of a lot of travel for Unions struggling for money!