As the pool stages of the World Cup wind down this weekend, the smaller (some bigger) nations will be wrapping up their tours and heading home. Barring a spectacular run of luck, not even the incredible Springbok-slaying Japanese team will be pushing on into the quarter-finals.
This is disappointing, but the last three weeks of rugby and conversation have given world rugby’s confusingly named governing body, World Rugby, plenty of opportunity to continue to address the intertwined issues that face the development of the game globally.
The communication around the lower-ranked teams needs to be reinvigorated. Outside of vaguely condescending nicknames, the teams outside of the top 10 have been consistently referred throughout the World Cup as Tier 2 nations-an outdated (as of 2008) IRB designation to separate the top 10 countries from the next 13.
2008 saw a change in the banding of nations, but it has clearly not flowed over into perception. No team has been on the end of the sort of true one-sided thrashings that were a feature of previous cups, and each team has produced genuine stars and exciting rugby-consistently pushing top teams for much of their matches.
It must be part of World Rugby’s edict to change the way that world rugby is perceived, and like any product that starts with communication.
The financial situation of the game is complicated, but World Rugby must be more proactive in finding better ways to give these nations players exposure to top-level rugby.
More money has been going into the wider development of the game, but it must continue to increase. At the World Cup, the best performed players among the lower ranked sides have been playing professionally-that is, their development is being funded by clubs in nations other than their own.
A growing problem as these nations continue to produce better players will be that the big nations are going to become less willing to fund this development, and those that do play professionally will be increasingly pressured to make themselves unavailable for their national team.
High level exposure at a national level is a key to player development. The countries in the Rugby Championship and Six Nations need to be playing more often against the smaller nations.
Promotion and relegation into these competitions should be on the table. Given the packed playing schedules and precarious financial situations across the globe, World Rugby is going to need to be proactive and creative to achieve this. Something like the Future Tours Program employed by the ICC in cricket should be considered, with every team in the top 20 playing at least once in a five-year cycle.
The World Cup tournament itself has come under much criticism. The schedule and early draw of pools has been especially criticised. However, if the standard of international competition continues to rise, there are less and less likely to be easy pools which top nations can coast through.
Far from a problem, this has to be the goal. Japan showed what this future could look like when they threw pool B wide open with their win over the Springboks on the first weekend. This schedule of matches was far more balanced than in 2011, and to keep tournament lengths down midweek games are unavoidable on the current format.
The real solution is to alter the format of the competition. Japan 2019 seems to be locked in to be the same as this one, but there are myriad options. Twenty-four teams across eight pools and a round of 16 as the Football world cup has, or alternately decreasing the tournament to 16 teams and running a parallel tournament for the next 8 nations are both potential options.
Adding a plate or bowl would be another way to increase the meaning and exposure of the nations who don’t qualify out of their pool in the current format.
The opportunity is there, and now more than ever the global game seems ready for change. If it is approached properly and the inherent self-interest of the stronger nations can be shelved, this World Cup can mark a true turning point for world rugby.
splinter
Guest
Agree
Emric
Guest
Really.. What makes a sport big then?
Pat malone
Guest
Yes, league is smaller than Union. That doesn't jake Union big
Emric
Guest
The first rugby world cup in 1987 sold 600,000 tickets across New Zealand and Australia. The last league world cup was played in the sports place of birth and still hasn't cracked the 500,000 mark yet. As for the viewing figures from Japan thats coming from the Japanese TV people themselves and they are truly remarkable figures.
Pat malone
Guest
Can you fund the pacific nations with no home grown players?
Pat malone
Guest
20 million is a total fabrication England is a lot bigger with bigger stadiums than NZ so of course crowds are bigger 90% of countries don't care about RWC. When a country like NZ is a powerhouse it's not a real global sport
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Ryan, The last RLWC drew a total of 480,000 spectators and was considered a rousing success. The RWC passed that figure on its third match day. A fortnight ago 20 million Japanese viewers tuned in to watch the team play Scotland. They lost. But everyone was amazed at the viewing numbers. Surely they wouldn't be beaten. The next week 25 million Japanese viewers tuned into watch their team play Samoa. They won. They have one more pool game. If they make the quarters I'd be very interested in seeing those figures. By the third match day just under 3 million Germans had watched games on TV. This is a country with no representation at the tournament. Rugby League is a long, long, long way behind.
Simmo
Guest
Commercially its hard to break into the 6nations as much sense as it makes and there are too many traditionalists to resist it up there, Japan could not perform in RC yet it would be harder than a WC for them. Nth/Sth Am start their 6 nations next year this should be a great comp for them and its what other regions should develop as a platform to compete with tier 1. Asia has regressed as they dropped back from a top 5 to top 3 as Japan is clearly on its own Korea and HK are their to humour them and teams like India and China WR want to embrace the game are developing too slow or are doing it wrong. Africa is a very difficult place to get teams to be consistent, Ivory Coast anyone? Europe has great structure but need more contact with the 6n teams. Why cant Oz and NZ cant rotate regular games with Fiji, Tonga and Sam as NZ did this year, it would do wonders for them, their fans over here and us who want to see than PI flair and quite franfly we owe PI rugby a debt for obvious reasons.
Simmo
Guest
Why cant the top ten adopt an 11-20 team and play them for two to 3 years then rotate again based on rankings, we teams are rich enough to schedule one test in early June or when lower teams have players available. Regular competition is the main solution to this issue. Dont reduce numbers that would be regressive and show the game isnt growing, we are not ready for another 4 teams in Japan yet to make 24. Hopefully 2023. This issue is old, at least 3 world cups old, WR need to stop ring fencing the quarters to the top 8.
Dat Mavis
Roar Pro
The key element for me is regular competition against the bigger countries. The Pacific Nations Cup and the European Nations Cup both happen and are World Rugby sponsored. Who said "I dream of a day where South Africa could hit Georgia, Spain, Romania and Italy on their November tour and they all be meaningful matches..." ? It was me, but you get my drift (haha)
Dat Mavis
Roar Pro
I haven't seen this written, but i'd say the ARU scrapped it because they couldn't afford it. I'd love to see nations go on a pacific tour. Samoa, Fiji, Tonga all at home. May not be a money-spinner, but would be so good for the game. Similarly regular stop-offs in Japan would be great.
Derm
Roar Guru
Ireland has 3 test teams that it fields - Ireland, Wolfhounds and Emerging Ireland. Emerging Ireland has taken part in the Tblisi Cup featuring Georgia, Spain and Uruguay along with emerging sides from Argentina Jaguars, SA Presidents XV, and Emerging Italy, for the last couple of years which is a good development cup tournament. I would like to see Georgia given an opportunity to join the senior tournament and make it the 7 Nations. Equally, SANZAR's grip on SH rugby needs to be loosened and the 4N try to accommodate PI teams and/or Japan who look the best of the Tier 2 nations in this RWC. The RWC also needs to have some more winners outside the big 4/5 nations of NA/Sa/Aus/Eng/Fra (although Fra haven't won it yet). It would send a much needed signal that the game isn't confined to the same old names year in, year out. So hopefully one of Argentina, Wales, France or Ireland can wrench the cup from the grasp of the old guard and help build growth further heading towards Japan 2019. It would be just depressing to see the semi-finals and final occupied by the same old names once again.
Emric
Guest
I've always thought the better solution was based on a 4 year world cup cycle. Where at the end of a world cup there is an increase of 1 team to each of the major international competitions e.g. Georgia could join the 6 nations and make it 7 nations and perhaps Japan could join the RC making it 5 nations at the end of the 4 year cycle a new challenger will challenge that team for its position in the established competition. Yes this does protect the big boys still (and thus the money) but it would add a new dynamic and expose 2 more teams to 4 years of hard competition.
IceBlue
Roar Pro
Tried that in the Pacific Nations Cup and Churchill Cup (North America), among others, a few years back. The success of that scheme can be judged by the fact that these teams no longer play in those competitions.
IceBlue
Roar Pro
With the Six Nations, I was meaning that there would actually be two divisions of four nations each, with p/r between the two. So on current form, it would be England, Wales, France and Ireland in one, with Scotland, Italy, Georgia and Romania in the other. I'm not a fan of permanent members, if they can't hack it, they can't hack it. As for the money issue... While I see your point, it is one that seems to lead into a dead-end alley. It's a short step from "grow where the money is" to "money above growth", and that way madness and the ICC lie. I'm not saying we shouldn't target places where there are clear opportunities, but, to take your example of Germany, the thing that excites me is the pool of potential players, not the revenue. After all, if profitability is too large a factor, Australian rugby might have to be let go ;). On a more serious note, FIFA strike me as a better example to follow in terms of growth. While their horrendous corruption is better avoided, what is also undeniable is that they have succeeded in growing the game basically globally, even in areas where money can be hard to come by. It would be nice to see rugby in a similar place.
wilbur starn
Roar Rookie
What about the strongest couple of teams in the six nations play a second team in a second tier of European nations. That would help teams like Scotland and Wales build depth and give teams like Romania, Georgia, Russia, Portugal etc more games against good opposition. I have no idea who would win between Georgia and Ireland no2. I would still watch it. You could do the same with the RC teams having a second team in the Pacific Cup. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Sports Prophet
Roar Pro
That's the one
Ryan Meyer
Guest
Ok, point taken. I could have left off the comparison with League and said soccer.
Ryan Meyer
Guest
I agree with some of your proposals, particularly promotion/relegation for the 6 Nations. Leave the home countries and France as permanent members but open up the 6th spot for promotion/relegation. The European Nations Cup victor would play the current 6th team in an elimination game each year after the main tournament, to decide who gets to play in the next 6 Nations. In general, I think growth should be encouraged in places where there is money. That would be western Europe, Japan/Asia, and North America. By western Europe, I mean the non-traditional rugby countries, such as Germany, Iberia, the low countries, Scandinavia, Austria and Switzerland. Why grow the game in places it won't make money? I read that ratings for this WC have been unexpectedly high in Germany, maybe there's an opening to grow the game there.
IceBlue
Roar Pro
An issue I have thought a bit about. Here are some of the things I would like to happen. In Europe, I would like to see the 6 Nations split, with Scotland and Italy playing Georgia and Romania. Promotion/relegation could be an option. In the south, Super Rugby should have taken a Pacific based team, not a Japanese one. Perhaps a similar system to the European one is an option, but I don't see that working so well down here. All of the 10 Nations (RC + 6 Nations) should be required to play a country outside that grouping once per year. They all tour each other often enough, there is no reason why they can't have a stopover at a Pacific Rim or Eastern European or wherever destination. Perhaps there should be some ruling to ensure that they just go for the same ones over and over. The governance structure of World Rugby needs to be seriously overhauled. There is no good reason, to pick just one example, for Scotland getting two votes on the board, while Italy gets one and the three PI nations get one between the three of them. A much wider range of nations need to be added, rather than just having the big boys and the next lot down. While the top 20 or so countries are getting closer, it seems increasingly difficult to break into this group. Think about the current World Cup and who would replace the teams currently in it. The options seem to be Russia, maybe Portugal, Spain or even Zimbabwe, but that seems to be it. Growth needs to happen in more places than just Europe.