"A landmark moment": New global competition announced for women's rugby, WXV

Why protect Tier 1 from relegation/promotion? Not all details are in a press release so I'm guessing a broadcast deal in Europe for 3 tournaments with three Euro teams to keep broadcasters happy, plus a WC to try to build interest all over the world. Harsh that the 4 non-euro teams fighting out for three places contain three countries that have played in the final of the WC and the fourth is the current Olympic champions. So Billy, what's the TV rights split between tiers and teams?

I am trying to get excited but I just can’t. I understand the rationale but cannot see how this is going to help the developing nations and Women’s Rugby outside of the 6N and the likes of USA, NZ and Australia. On paper it looks good. In practice is full of holes and it seems to be a carbon copy of the world League concept that was rejected. If we follow the Rankings: it should be like this Based onthe actual World Ranking : WXV1 : Oceania/America : New Zealand, Canada, Australia 6 Nations : England, France, Italy WXV2 : Europe : Ireland, Wales Oceania/America : USA Oceania : Samoa Asia : Japan Africa : South Africa WXV3 : Europe : Scotland, Spain Asia : Kazakhstan America/Africa : Kenya or Colombia However this is not te case, there will be no relegation from top tier for at least 2 years and the year after is the next world cup so any relegation from WXV1 wouldn’t happen until 2026 I'd say the main rationale behind the whole structure is money. World Rugby absolutely needs that certain developed markets are in WXV1 because they are the only ones where TV and sponsors will be willing to pay enough money to sustain costly intercontinental travel in WXV2 and WXV3. The truth is that this is not a World League, but Women's Super Series plus an organised distribution of test matches. WXV1 is being ring-fenced so WR can sell it TV and media/sponsors as a north v south tournament, 3 north, 3 south. WR still do not know how the will decide which European teams will be in WXV2 and WXV3, but the teams will obviously be W6N 4-6 and the Rugby Europe Champions. The fear the RE Champions will be dumped in WXV3, because Spain would in that case never get out of WXV3 regardless of their performances and ability. You hope that won't happen, but it is clear that the W6N hold all the cards and power (and votes). And Spain just does not seem to be seen as a revenue-producing market. One of the most glaring points I found in the press release is as follows: “A play-off between the fourth-ranked team and next best ranked team from the World Rugby Women’s Rankings will determine regional position for the next year”. What that ‘regional’ means? May they risk that, for example, Russia substitutes the south-american nation after the first cycle and Netherlands substitute the second African team in the next edition or cycle, so ending to have nine European nations out of 16? Or, instead, there will be a fixed contingent for every continent? But in this case it would be illogic to talk about a play-off between the WXV3 bottom ranked and the best other nation ranked, because the subsequent regional tournament would be itself a play-off? Which Begs the question? Did not someone look at the release and say "this makes no sense"? I know the whole thing is clear as mud we get that, but lets look at it from the other side of the coin if there is such thing We know investment is important and needed, some compromises NEED to be made to get it off the ground & attract the needed interest. However, how will it even out over time with the entire women’s Programme? e.g. Spain, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Colombia to name a few. A true vision of a global competition is needed. This is step 1 & there are several steps still needed. Putting on my PM Hat on you need to create performance markers (commercial and on field) before you can move to the next step. What Metric they have in place? What are the collaborative effort of self-organizing and cross-functional teams to make it happen? How you going to reach the end user (existing and new fans) This should allow for strategic investments to get to the end goal. I would like to see the strategic paper and what's on it.

I will have to confess that I do not follow women's rugby.. That has less to do with chauvinism and more to do with the fact that my country South Africa lags so far behind in standards....nobody likes to follow a poor team and I'm no exception.... But apparently if Rassie Erasmus is to be believed all that is about to change.. As Director of Rugby he has made a promise and commitment to change things....there is no reason why SA shouldn't consistently be amongst the top 3..lets see.

Great to see for women's rugby. I'm no expert in the quality of Canada and USA but they seem to have some good players, at least 20 plus are playing for clubs in the UK. Also the USA would have a good talent pool from their colleges. So it will probably be battle between Aust, Canada & USA for 2 spots - NZ will be certainties for 1 spot.

Love it, we don't see enough top Women's Rugby. This will also help the lower levels as well as they will have to build structures to help improve the international level. Only positives from this.

Good news, about time World Rugby got off it's behind. Agree with you Kevin on them doing something similar with the mens.

Now just copy that with the mens teams and we might be gettibg somewhere. The only difference, would be in the 4 Nations as the cross region elite event. Imagine Autumn 2022 in Europe Div 1 Top 3 RC, Top 3 6N Div 2 rest of 6N, 4th place RC, Top 2 Pacific Nations Champs Div 3 rest of PNC, Top 2 in REC, winners of African Champs. 2 Windows, 1 for regional, 1 for this event. Autumn alternates between NH and SH. Autumn 2 groups of 3, 2 matches in 3 weeks, then play offs semis and final.