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.
Bogdan the turnip boy
Roar Rookie
In the 1980's I worked for a company based in Sydney owned by Equitycorp. On one of my early trips to NZ for an internal group management meeting I sat next to a bloke at dinner who worked in their HR dept. His sole job was to look after the families of the school boys from the Pacific Islands who had landed scholarships, this included organising rental properties, making sure Dad had a job [ usually storeman or forklift driver ] within the group, liaising with the school to make sure every thing was on track and ensuring the spotter was happy. I couldn't believe the amount of time and money was invested in this and was told it was all about being a good corporate citizen in the eyes of the NZRU and the govt.
pat malone
Guest
yet the Pi have the most overseas born players of any team
PeterK
Roar Guru
The NH get 10 votes to the SH 6 votes for nations that get 2 votes. Say both transfer fees and revenue sharing was voted in by world rugby could it be legally enforced if challenged in courts?
Wal
Roar Guru
I recall NZ digging their heels in a few years ago, sick of filling Twickernam for the RFU only to have them send a 2nd 15 south and struggle to get good interest form the NZ public
leftfield
Roar Pro
This is true, but it's a balance. The clubs know there's a limit to how many magical injuries and off-season surgeries they can get away with.
leftfield
Roar Pro
Really fair points. Obviously it is fairly aspirational stuff, transfer fees work (to an extent) in football and various American sports but that isn't to say it would work in rugby. Players could still be registered to an amateur club, even if they weren't being paid. I might point out that 25% of Argentina vs Australia on the Gold Coast would still be more than 0% anywhere (I hope anyway!). That sort of thinking was in my mind though when I considered the weighting, a large majority of the money needs to go to the host union to retain a good incentive to make a profit - particularly bearing in mind that they assume the financial risk of staging the game (and of those fickle gold coast fans not showing up).
leftfield
Roar Pro
This sort of thing would help support growth in the Americas and the rest of the world as well I think I think you are correct in that the Pacific Island teams are unlikely to have strong domestic competitions due to population and income issues (having lived in the islands myself) but I disagree with the notion that their teams couldn't approve. I think it actually wouldn't take too much, they do surprisingly well as it is. Extra money wouldn't result in lavish academies but in being able to get access to their best players, compensate them adequately and have a bit more time together before games. Even the Wallabies wouldn't look that flash if they only have a weeks prep as a team.
Jibba Jabba
Guest
And expenses can be huge - just look at the cost of feeding Big Willy !
Lion Down Under
Guest
You do realise that Australia, New Zealand and South Africa also have two votes each on the World Rugby council don't you? And that Italy, Georgia, Japan, USA etc. don't. By all means criticise the decision making process of IRB / World Rugby but be truthful about it. I agree developing nations should be listened to more but, at the same time you don't want a situation like FIFA where everyone has one vote and it's very much for sale by the smaller nations or, more likely in rugby union, go like the ICC where the powerful nations crush the smaller ones by refusing to play them or fund them (India, England and Aus being the culprits in cricket).
PeterK
Roar Guru
I believe they only get expenses plus a little bit within the scheduled fixtures. That was a while ago so may have since changed.
leftfield
Roar Pro
This isn't necessarily just about the pacific islands. Teams like Argentina, Georgia or even the USA and Canada have similar issues. Given some of the financial gremlins Australia may not bee as far off as you think either.
Jerry
Guest
"NZ, Samoa, SA would get very rich very quick." I dunno if Samoa would do that well once they paid NZ for all those test players.....
Jerry
Guest
It only happens when a test is added outside of the scheduled fixtures. Because within the scheduled fixtures, the away team has no negotiating leverage. From memory it's not really a 'profit sharing' structure, it's just the visiting team negotiates a set appearance fee.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Re transfer fees not necessarily pk. It can also be a source of income for clubs to buy a cheap young player, develop him for a few years and re sell him for much more down the track. The net profit can be massive and some clubs do that very well in nh fooball. Gorgodze had a couple of years of rugby when he moved to france in 2005 as he comes from basketball. He was worth a pittance then. 3-5 years later he was a buffalo worth much more. I would even say that hus club Montpellier wiuld have loved to be able to sell it to richer clubs then. So no the nh isnt necessarily agai st that as we have been doing this for decades in all sports. Fyi last night anthony martial 19yo was signed for 80 M euros by man u. Monaco had bought him for 5M 2 years ago, you do the maths.
zer0
Guest
It does happen here and there (the RFU & the NZRU, for instance), but I don't think there are set rules in place governing the practice. There are certainly none mandating it.
JimmyB
Guest
I maybe wrong, but I was under the impression that profit sharing from gate receipts already happens, although to what percentage I'm not sure.
Reality
Guest
I'm totally ignorant to this, I just assumed the profits would be split between the two teams since all the fans turned up to watch both of them. What currently happens, I'm assuming visiting teams get something??
richard
Guest
This.And it is why it hasn't happened yet,and never will.
Wal
Roar Guru
Watch the accountant come out if profit sharing became a rule, all of a sudden matches at twickenam would be loss making ventures with a holding company in Ireland charging licensing fees. Even 5% of the gate would make a major difference to some teams, for a Samoa or Tonga a NH tour would net about half a mill. I would also love to see a transfer fee, NZ, Samoa, SA would get very rich very quick. But it would be an administrative nightmare. And how would the fee structure be set, more money for a Test level player or more for a 19 year old phenom?
zer0
Guest
Scouting for players to take overseas, of course, being different to supporting the local rugby infrastructure.