Officials details of the proposed Nations Championship have today been revealed by World Rugby, with a complex two-conference, six-division structure to be used.
Despite earlier reports that the Six Nations and Rugby Championship sides would be joined by Japan and the USA for an exclusive 12-team competition in 2022 – at the expense of higher-ranked Pacific Nations sides – it now appears as if this won’t necessarily be the case.
World Rugby clarified in a statement this morning that the European Conference and ‘Rest of World’ Conference would be split into three divisions, with promotion and relegation between those divisions possible after each Nations Championship season through playoffs.
The competition would run every year, except for World Cup years – while promotion and relegation between the top two divisions would not occur in British and Irish Lions tour years.
World Rugby is also looking at expanding the World Cup from 2027 onwards, to ensure it remains the centrepiece of the international rugby scene.
The top two divisions in each conference will have six teams, while the third division will feature 16 teams split into pools of four. The top two teams in the top divisions will qualify for cross-conference semi-finals and, ultimately, a final.
Conversely, the bottom team in the top division of each conference will play-off against the top team from the second division and, if the latter side wins, they’ll take their opponent’s spot in the top division the next season.
The top teams in each of the four third division pools will play semi-finals and a final, with the winner of that tournament earning the right to play the bottom team in the second division in a promotion-relegation play-off.
While the teams are as of yet unconfirmed, an explainer video released by World Rugby floated this as the likely line-up of teams at the inaugural 2022 tournament.
| Europe Division 1 | World Division 1 |
|---|---|
| England | Argentina |
| France | Australia |
| Ireland | Fiji |
| Italy | Japan |
| Scotland | New Zealand |
| Wales | South Africa |
| Europe Division 2 | World Division 2 |
| Belgium | Hong Kong |
| Georgia | Namibia |
| Portugal | Samoa |
| Romania | Tonga |
| Russia | Uruguay |
| Spain | USA |
| Europe Division 3 | World Division 3 |
| Euro A | Africa |
| Czech Republic | Kenya |
| Germany | Tunisia |
| Netherlands | Uganda |
| Switzerland | Zimbabwe |
| Euro B | Asia |
| Lithuania | Malaysia |
| Moldova | Philippines |
| Poland | South Korea |
| Ukraine | Sri Lanka |
| Euro C | North America |
| Croatia | Canada |
| Israel | Cayman Islands |
| Malta | Mexico |
| Sweden | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Euro D | Latin America |
| Andorra | Brazil |
| Hungary | Chile |
| Latvia | Colombia |
| Luxembourg | Paraguay |
Despite earlier reports that high-ranking Pacific Nations sides were set to be snubbed by the new 12-team competition, it now appears they’ll be able to take part – albeit as potentially a second division side initially.
The Six Nations sides will almost certainly make up Europe’s top division immediately, however, it appears the other top division will be made up of the four Rugby Championship sides and the next-best ranked nations – at this stage, Fiji and Japan.
While this news will go some way to assuaging fears of a Pacific Island boycott of the 2019 World Cup, it is understood some countries and players were opposed to the promotion-relegation system.
Players had already expressed concern as to the increased workload this competition would force them to endure, although a World Rugby statement tried to allay those fears as well.
“Player welfare is fundamental to our sport,” it reads.
“Change is always difficult, and nobody expected complex multi-stakeholder discussions to be simple, however for a sport to grow and thrive, it must explore ways to innovate and evolve.
“Within the original proposal, players would play a maximum of 13 matches if their team reaches the final, compared to an average of between 12 and 14 Test matches presently.
“Most teams would play 11 matches.”
John
Guest
Also , for player welfare , just run this Nations Championship every second year. So like 'the Ashes' it would just be on twice in a four year cycle.
John
Guest
I think 'division one' of both the European conference and the rest of the world conference , should contain seven teams each instead of six. So , based on world rankings , division one for Europe would be: Ireland , Wales , England, Scotland , France , Georgia and Italy . Division one for rest of the world conference would be : New Zealand , South Africa , Australia , Fiji , Argentina , Japan and Tonga ( until a couple of days ago this last place would have been USA) Why 14 teams instead of 12? Well , for the health of the game globally we NEED to have the USA and Japan both playing in this competition as much as possible and as soon as possible. Many rugby fans don't seem to realise that rugby is in a real struggle for its very survival in a competitive global marketplace , and that the great asset of rugby is international tests. Also this would give more Pacific Island countries the opportunity to play top teams regularly and it would mean that the system is more meritocratic because otherwise (in a 12 team com) 14th placed Italy is playing instead of 12th placed Georgia. Now , I can see two objections which people will raise about this idea . 1-it will lower the standard of games and 2. It means that too many games will be played . Well , regarding standards , the US has huge capacity to improve quickly in rugby when given the resources ($) ,match experience and incentives that being in the Nations Championship will provide . Also , Samoa or Tonga would improve a lot for the same reasons . Regarding too many games being played : If it was a 14 team comp , the finals could be scrapped and the team at the top of the ladder would be the winner. This would mean each team plays 13 games. Other advantages of a 14 team comp would mean that lower ranked teams like Italy, Japan, US , Tonga wouldn't just get thrashed all the time but would actually be able to play a fair few winnable games. I mean how entertaining has it been for Italian fans watching their team lose 21 games in a row in the Six Nations? Another thing is not playing finals would take less away from the world cup.
Wal
Roar Guru
It is interesting as to how the broadcast will work out. NZRU reported $107 mill in 2017 (lions year) $73 mill in 2016 in broadcast revenue. They don’t split it via stream so no data on RC, SR, NPC but you would have to think a fair chunk is from the top. @ $20 mill NZD it might be a zero-sum game. Adidas and IAG would perhaps love the new format, more exposure in Japan and Europe. I am sure the bean counters in NZRU headquarters will be counting every penny.
Ibika
Guest
There never was a plan to snub the Islanders.. this was a beat up to try and once again damage Union by commercial interests that has most to lose in any markets by this plan becoming a reality.. IR newscorp and Murdoch’s empire for one.. for example Newscopr has led a propaganda campaign against Union in Australia for years..
Wise Old Elf
Guest
Have a law like FIFA has, no leagues are allowed to have multiple nations. So scrap Super rugby. Every nation needs to have it's own separate competition as a part of membership.
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
PeterK - from what I've read in many comments a lot of southern hemisphere fans aren't convinced about the proposal, so how is it worth conceding the finals games? I'd think the NH would want to convince the SH countries to agree, not the other way round!
Thaikiwi
Roar Rookie
Like to hear a UK perspective, is the Euro portion the “six nations” tournament wrapped in this or do they play that seperately?
Paulo
Roar Rookie
I think the basic concept that to get better teams need to play better competition. If this were true, we would have seen Italy drag themselves off the bottom of the 6N ladder, but we haven’t. Arg are still inconsistent at best, Japan/Sunwolves have shown ‘some’ improvement (beating the Chiefs in their current state is hardly sound evidence), and teams at the very top could not improve at all as they don’t get to play a better team. My point is, teams can get better without a requirement of playing top their teams and getting flogged.
soapit
Roar Guru
will the promotion relegation carry through to the 6n then i suppose? im surprised with such a shake up they didnt put it out for wider consultation.
soapit
Roar Guru
with a bit more thought think itll be between 10-25% reduction (1 or 2 matches from 8 or 9) will also be a drop in quality of opposition overall
soapit
Roar Guru
oz rugby will have some work to do (but some cash to do it it sounds). from the low rugby viewing already this will be reducing by 1 or 2 games from their fta offering i reckon (and replacing others with lower quality games)
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Correction: Europe division 2 winner hosts Europe division 1 6th-place getter.
tsuru
Roar Rookie
I guess this answers the question of where finals would be played.
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
I would expand the promotion-relegation to at least 4 teams to create more inter-divisional contests. These one-off fixtures could take place in the semi-finals weekend: Europe division 1 5th-place-getter hosts Europe division 2 runner-up, Europe division 2 winner hosts Europe division 1 6th-place getter. Rest of World division 1 5th-place-getter plays Rest of World division 2 runner-up Rest of World division 2 winner plays Red of World division 1 6th-place-getter
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Reading the comments here and elsewhere one of the main concerns is obviously the relative lack of matches between 1st and 2nd tier, notwithstanding the addition of two 2nd tier teams to the non-European 1st division conference. So why not use the semi-finals weekend to remedy this and have each of the teams not involved in either the semi-finals or the promotion-relegation fixtures sign off with an inter-divisional friendly? Alternatively, expand the promotion-relegation series to at least double the number of inter-divisonal ties. ie Europe division 1 5th-place-getter hosts Europe division 2 runner-up, Europe division 2 winner hosts Europe division 2 6th-place getter. Rest of World division 1 5th-place-getter plays Rest of World division 2 runner-up Rest of World division 2 winner plays Rest of World division 1 6th-place-getter
Aussieinexile
Roar Rookie
The issue of player welfare and schedule overload is their own doing (NH) in addition to League matches the amount of cup games and competitions is crazy, reduce the amount of cup games etc and then the season would be more manageable.
Jacko
Guest
Yeah the RC ceases to exist as a comp and this world comp replaces it....As it does the 6N. I presume that each comp would still have a trophy for their half of the bigger picture
Amateur Hour
Guest
Congratulations to you both for the most sensible and polite thread I’ve ever read on this site.
soapit
Roar Guru
so that'll mean a few less matches to watch over winter for sh fans then if they do that. they'll have to find a way to maintain some visibility to compnsate in oz from already low levels otherwise the game will go further back. extra cash gives them options i spose but not ideal dropping about 25% of your fta content ion the competitive winter market
soapit
Roar Guru
seems that they wont be tho jacko? wonder if this means the RC is a bit of a non event now,