Trigger warning. In my opinion, any world-wide championship format put forward by World Rugby has to be discussed with a peg on your nose.
The reason for this lies in the fact that World Rugby, formerly the International Rugby Board, has for over a hundred years acted in the interests of the so-called Home Unions: England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Whether the issue is a matter of improving the laws of rugby, abolishing the ridiculous ‘shamateurism’ rules, the establishment of a Rugby World Cup tournament, or a cap on countries poaching talent from other countries, World Rugby has virtually always reacted in a way designed to protect the Home Unions, even if it means that the interests of the wider world of rugby – especially in the southern hemisphere – are harmed by this intransigence.
At a summit of rugby leaders in January at Los Angeles, World Rugby proposed a 12-team World League involving the Six Nations sides together with the four Rugby Championship sides, Japan and the USA.
The suggestion was put forward that because the Six Nations does not have a promotion-relegation system, along with the Rugby Championship, that World League will run for 12 years without a promotion-relegation system.
Apparently, opposition to a promotion-relegation system comes from Scotland and Italy, potential early candidates for relegation.
The reason why we need a peg on the nose to even consider this proposal is that it would destroy rugby in the Pasifika nations and all the other minnow nations outside of the 12 favoured rugby nations.
Gregor Paul, a tough-minded NZ Herald rugby journalist, makes this point very forcibly.
“The prospect of any of Fiji, Tonga or Samoa having credible international teams is dead if the World League, as it stands, becomes a reality,” Paul wrote.
“The self-preservation tactics of those struggling Tier One nations will have won out and incredibly not only will they have saved their seat at the top table, they will have opened the door to picking off the best Pacific talent for themselves.”
Pacific nations like Fiji will be the big losers if the proposed World League becomes a reality. (Aude Alcover/Icon Sport/Getty Images)
Also, and I am speculating here, but the broadcaster promoting the tournament would want no promotion-relegation system because Japan and the United States, two potentially massive markets, are the most vulnerable sides to be relegated.
Each of the teams will play each other once each year in the World League tournament, with semi-finals and finals played in late November or early December.
What happens in a Rugby World Cup when October/November are the designated months for playing the tournament are as yet unknown.
A broadcaster has, apparently, put forward an offer that guarantees about $US 10 million to $US 14 million a season for each nation.
World Rugby claims, without elaborating or giving convincing details, that the proposed tournament has generated high interest from supporters around the world.
How accurate the claim is about high interest from supporters is debatable. World Rugby has made the claim but has not provided any hard evidence for it.
But there is no debate about how unpopular the World League proposal is with players around the world if there is no annual promotion-relegation system built into the format.
There will be another summit at Dublin where the World Rugby chairman Bill Beaumont and CEO Brett Gosper will try to push through the World League proposal.
The World League was first mooted last November. Last week saw a tirade of attacks on the concept as many eminent people in the rugby world started to analyse just what was being proposed and how harmful to the world game these proposals will be.
The tirade started on Thursday when the Rugby Players Association (RPA) issued a detailed statement titled: Players Highlight ‘Major Concerns’ Around World Rugby’s proposed International Competition.
“The world’s top players have warned of serious ‘player welfare and integrity concerns’ around World Rugby’s proposed competition structure for the global game,” the statement reads.
“While senior players have consistently voiced their support for the concept, ongoing concerns exist around the detail of the competition format that has been taken to the market in recent months.”
Related
Pause here. RPA is claiming that the World League ‘format’ has already been taken to the market. But what format is being taken to the market?
The RPA also raise concerns around player load involving multiple top-level Tests in different countries and time-zones on consecutive weeks, lack of opportunity for Tier Two nations to progress, and the potential impact on Rugby World Cup and Lions tours.
My straw poll of one – myself – would insist that there would be far more interest in the Rugby World Cup tournament and in Lions tours than a sort of annual rugby ‘Big 12 Bash’ tournament.
Ireland’s Jonathan Sexton has raised concerns over the proposed World League. (Photo by Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)
Anyway, moving on. The International Rugby Players President Jonathan Sexton complained in the RPA statement that the “future of the game is being negotiated at a rapid pace with little consideration given to the important points we raised with World Rugby in November.”
This position was endorsed by the Player Council member Kieran Read and England captain Owen Farrell.
The bombshell in the RPA statement, however, came with this allegation and the response from Samoa’s captain.
“The Players Council understands that promotion and relegation will not form part of the new proposal, preventing Tier Two and emerging nations from accessing top level competitive matches and creating a ceiling on their aspirations to advance and improve.
“Samoa captain Chris Vui said: ‘We feel that a 12-year deal is not workable, particularly when it presents no hope of advancement during that period. This will have the dangerous knock-on effect of luring senior players away from their countries and more towards the clubs, which is the exact opposite of what we are trying to do’.”
And it is not only the European clubs that will benefit from this ‘knock-on’ effect.
The Six Nations sides will benefit greatly by being more attractive to southern hemisphere players than they are already.
Commentators in New Zealand have noted, for example, that there are 12 players in the Six Nations tournament this year who were eligible to play for the All Blacks.
The RPA statement forced a media release from New Zealand Rugby Chief Executive Steve Tew.
“Any new competition must have a pathway for new and developing countries to join including our Pacific neighbours,” Tew said.
“We cannot add to the work load burden of our players without making other adjustments and we are also mindful of the role of our other competitions Investec Super Rugby and Mitre 10 Cup.
“World Rugby has been proactive and bought an idea to the table, we have been refining it over several months and a positive spin-off has been some real commercial interest backing it.”
Pause here. Is this a case of commercial interest being the key component?
Doesn’t Tew’s statement indicate that the ‘Pacific neighbours’ will be given some crumbs, perhaps even a small slice of the cake, to somehow appease them in the interests of getting the 12-year no promotion-relegation rule through?
If that small slice of the cake be a second-tier tournament with no rights for the winner to move up to the top tier for at least 12 years, then it is totally unacceptable.
It is no concession worth having that the second-tier teams will be offered double the number of Tests they usually play but only against second-tier nations.
Now let’s go to Friday’s media release from Raelene Castle on behalf of Rugby Australia concerning the proposed World League.
“These exploratory discussions have been robust and complex, with player welfare, the growth of developing nations and protecting the great history of the game front and centre in the conversation,” Castle said.
“The competition model must provide opportunities for the Pacific Islands nations and developing nations continuing to grow and compete with tier one nations.
“While these discussions are progressing with representatives from World Rugby and the National Unions in the room, nothing has been agreed and finalised. We continue to work to find a proposal that could have universal stakeholder support, deliver to Rugby Australia’s growth targets and grow international rugby’s footprint.”
Now this is an important point to pay attention to. Neither Steve Tew nor Raelene Castle has categorically ruled out the no promotion-relegation proposal.
Admittedly, in talking to journalists after her statement was published, Castle conceded that “first of all, there is no deal done” and that “SANZAAR’s view is that there should be a promotion-relegation and it should be open to protect the integrity of the competition.”
If this is the case, why didn’t Castle and Tew mention SANZAAR’s view in their official media releases?
My guess is that the no promotion-relegation edict is still very much part of the negotiations.
The reason why I say this is because Gregor Paul has revealed these worrying details in the NZ Herald.
“Last November, Fiji were told they would be in the new competition along with Japan and the Rugby Championship and Six Nations sides,” Paul wrote.
“But when the concept was put in front of potential broadcasters, they said they wanted something with more consumer reach – which was code for kick out Fiji and bring in the USA.
“So neither Fiji nor player representatives were invited to the hastily scheduled meeting in Los Angeles where the new proposal was unveiled.
“Fiji found out through the Herald that they had been dumped and their indignity about that has been intensified by hearing that it was Scotland and Italy who refused to allow for there to be promotion and relegation in the World League.”
There is something very underhand going on here.
World Rugby vice-chairman Agustin Pichot (right) is using the proposed World League to position himself as Bill Beaumont’s replacement (left). (Andrew Redington/Getty Images)
This brings us to the architect of the World League concept, World Rugby’s deputy chairman Agustin Pichot.
Pichot is next in line to be the chairman of World Rugby when Beaumont finishes his stint in the office.
But he will only get there through the votes of the Home Unions.
If the “twelve plus twelve” concept – Pichot’s phrase – is introduced without a promotion-relegation rule, Pichot’s elevation to the chairmanship of World Rugby will be assured.
And with this, Argentina’s position as a world rugby power, on and off the field, entrenched for decades.
Remember, it was Pichot who engineered the elevation of the Jaguares into the Super Rugby tournament and the Pumas into The Rugby Championship.
So what does Pichot say about the promotion-relegation issue? “Nothing has been decided yet and I won’t stop trying (to ensure it is put in place).”
This sounds rather like, it seems to me, Raelene Castle and Steve Tew saying that they will try hard but if they fail, they’ll take the money and run with the no promotion-relegation rule if they have to.
Now I go back to Wayne Smith for a comment about Pichot in The Australian.
“The rugby world hopes he is true to his word. Pichot is the man who lobbied for his native Argentina to come into The Rugby Championship: he argued, too, for his Jaguares to be admitted to Super Rugby. He is regarded as an effective rugby politician, which has been seen as both good and bad, but if it transpired that, after securing Argentina’s future, he then pulls up the drawbridge to ensure no other tier-two nation gets to sit at the main table, then his usefulness in rugby would be over.”
This is right. And the same declaration must be made about Raelene Castle and the board of Rugby Australia.
If they vote for a World League, without an annual promotion-relegation rule, they must be forced out of their positions. No ifs, no buts.
Moreover, as it stands now, even with a promotion-relegation rule, the World League is just too problematical in too many areas for it to win the support of the rugby world.
Back to the drawing board, Gus.
Coconut
Guest
I don't understand this 'knifing' of the PI's business, and there is a little too much virtue signalling going on here. I live in the islands, we get a ton of support from NZ through coaching clinics, tours, technical support, and dare I say it, players for national rep duties. Our sevens team are virtually all playing in the NZ club scene and have lived in NZ all their lives. We have all talked about 'giving something back' to the Pacific Islands, and I agree only to a point. NZ doesn't 'owe' Samoa or Fiji. If anything, its the other way around. Pacific Islanders have made New Zealand and Australia their home since the 70's, we have raked over these coals all before.. there is a pathway for Pacific Islanders through these countries in sport, music, the arts, jobs and a better life for their families. This is the reality. What people like to spend time talking about here is unrealistic - it simply does not reflect the real situation on the ground. In the islands where I have lived my whole life, you're not seeing people complaining about whats fair and unfair - we just see opportunities. Here, we accept that having a competitive national team of 100% locally based players is just not going to work - and a combined 'island team of will never be economically viable, for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam. We are always going to need help with our domestic game, and world rugby needs to continue to provide that support at the grassroots level. Rugby scribes, especially those from the NH like to beat up on NZ and Australia (perhaps less so now than before, since they appear to be guilty of what they always accused NZ/Australia of): for being derelict in their 'responsibility' to support the Pacific Islands, and for 'pillaging' the Pacific for their players. It is complete nonsense, mostly. NZ can only support Pacific Islands so far, but why should they prop up Pacific Islands rugby and lose access to a skill/talent pool which they invested in, nurtured and developed - not us here in the Pacific Islands. They don't owe anyone anything, in my view, but they do anyway, and in many different ways. NZ is a net exporter to the world of players, coaches, and importantly its significant rugby IP. Back home, we support the All Blacks because we often have extended family members playing in the team, we are proud of them because they reflect our people, we have a sense of ownership of that team. Having said all that, World Rugby support for Fiji (and maybe Samoa/Tinga) through providing access for their team to top-level competition, including making the French and UK club players available is a different story. This needs to happen in order for the game to continue to flourish and prosper in an increasingly competitive domestic sporting environment - by inspiring youngsters - otherwise we'll lose all these promising players to football. So, by all means let the global ranking system we have dictate the tier one/tier 2 divisions, have a relegation system in place, but lets ease off a little on this 'everyone has been knifing us poor islanders' business - its too much.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yeah, I get all that, doesnt excuse them from being hopeless.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Looks they have viable proposal that has relegation and promotion AND protects the home nations. 2 European divisions of 6 teams, initially the current 6 nations. 2 Rest of the world divisions of 6 teams. The first division is the rugby championship teams and the next 2 by ranking (Fiji and Japan). Georgia looks like the unlucky team by ranking losing out to Italy. The bottom division 1 team plays relegation matches against the winner of division 2. Italy will obviously be at risk after 1 year against Georgia. However Scotland , France etc have little to worry about since they would need to be bottom of their group and lose home/away to Italy / Georgia. Teams that could really challenge the established Div 1 teams in the future Fiji, Japan, Samoa, Tonga, USA are all in Rest of the world division 2.
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Rugby needs to watch its back in the Pacific Islands. Just last month it was reported that the Australian government is going to support the development of rugby league in the region in an attempt to offset the growing Chinese influence. Training camps and exhibition matches are in the pipeline.
Fred
Guest
And Fiji is going to have a team in the NSW version of the Intrust Cup (I forget what it's called). League is really taking off in Tonga too, though maybe not as much in Samoa.
Munsterman
Roar Rookie
Professional players and coaches follow the money taylorman, you're use of the term 'plundering' suggests there is no free will involved. Fact is that the 6n tournament has for years been the most lucrative tournament in the world after the world cup. To expect the 6ns countries to vote to change that is akin to turkeys voting for Christmas. Yer 'advanced, innovative & skilled' comps down south funnily enough don't seem to have caught on with your paying public....go figure!! Of course the sh, like the writer of this article, would love to promote the propaganda that the 'home' nation's are at fault for trying to scupper 'sh driven progress....just looks like improverished sh unions trying to push through a cash grab to us
Fred
Guest
Which out of the USA and Japan is south?
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes, your first example proves how backward thinking those countries were, as its now the most celebrated instance of our game, the second prevented the game spiiralling into boredom. As is usual, the north need to be lead on matters rugby. They are incapable of being innovative, leadership, and certainly lack vision and skills, hence the need the heavy borrowing from the south. An embarrassment of riches.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Advanced inventive and skilled Neil, not crowd size. Always has been, always will be. The north are notoriously inept at producing their own elite players, hence the plundering of the south.
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
The thing is, everyone is acting like things are just fine and dandy right now and World Rugby is intent on coming along and wrecking all the fun. But how many times do we find ourselves groaning with horror when tier 1 nations release their schedules? Tier 1 nation v tier 1 nation is practically all we see. New Zealand playing Australia 3 times a year is ridiculous. & the 6 Nations even play World Cup warm-ups against each other nowadays. Forget Georgia, Romania and Russia. We need them to make up the numbers at the World Cup, but they barely get a look-in the rest of the time. Current scheduling is both selfish and monotonous, and for the life of me I can't understand how people can stay interested. World Rugby is right that something needs to be done to remedy this. But setting up yet another exclusive competition for the elite teams is heading in completely the wrong direction.
Henry Honey Balls
Guest
Yes the six nations is a league. Not sure what the issue with that is.
Henry Honey Balls
Guest
Not sure that world rugby always acts in the best interests of the "home union". The RWC was objected to by Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland. It was NZ and Australia that were pushing for it. Also the ineffective ELVs introduced after the 2007 RWC were because of pressure Graham Henry put on world rugby. The ELVs were first trialled in South Africa and were meant to benefit running rugby which was more suitable for drier conditions that you tend to get in the rugby championship.
Wise Old Elf
Guest
If the World League kicks off then we may as well do away with the World Cup. Why not do a FIFA and just have a 48 team competition? Then every nation that has actually even heard of rugby will be able to take place.
JohnMc
Guest
I’m with you Spiros. Add me to your straw poll. With a World League (WL) in place, with the usual mid-year and November tours extended to accommodate 11 round matches instead of 7 (3 mid-year and 4 in November), what then happens to Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship? Does it inconvenience the Northern hemisphere as much? The RWC would become just another tournament rather than the pinnacle tournament it is every 4 years. This doesn’t happen in Soccer. Seems to me this is all about commercial dealings and making money for one broadcaster which must be Murdoch again through Foxtel and Sky. Is it a way to drag test matches away from free to air which he currently cannot control to force people to subscribe? I’ve already cancelled Foxtel and won’t resubscribe.
Sting
Guest
The kangaroos came to Fiji in 2017 during the Pacific tri series and the stadium were empty compared to when the super rugby game that was held that year where it was full to the brim. Fiji is a union stronghold.
Highlander
Guest
Be my guest NB A universal truth
Philip O'Donovan
Guest
I agree with many if not most of the players concerns with this proposed league.However,as usual the writer takes the opportunity to have a go at the most successful annual tournament,the Six Nations.Wonerfully parochial,massively supported and financially successful.What would Australia,NZ,SA and Argentina do to mimic that competition. Equally I struggle with the hypocrisy of the writer,after years of New Zealand and Australia plundering the indigenous talent of the Pacific Nations you only now voice concern for their future.
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Agreed, though I think the proposed World League could work on a biennial basis, to slot in between World Cup and Lions tour years. I think it should involve two divisions and a mandatory cross-division warm-up during the Autumn leg, with each of the top 10 required to meet a team from the 2nd division in the Northern Hemisphere. Lions tour years would simply continue as normal, with teams playing whoever they choose in the Autumn. Meanwhile, Hong Kong and Korea should be given the chance to field their test teams in the Pacific Challenge tournament, with a view to getting an Asia-Oceania 6 Nations off the ground by the 2020s, from which the winner would progress to a 4-team Confederations Cup, also involving the ARC, ENC and African Gold Cup winners. Or this, too, could be a biennial or quadrennial event with teams qualifying on a points system.
sheek
Roar Guru
Neil, Well, I certainly agree everyone has been knifing the PIs. No disagreement there.
Kevin Higginson
Guest
Yes, a PI Super Rugby team is the first step. GRR, if it ever gets started, is a way of getting the PI and Asia to develop and create higher quality matches.