Always a Wasp

Author Topic: Where does it end - Rugby’s radical plan for new global competition  (Read 1324 times)

Heathen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3101
    • View Profile
Rugby’s radical plan for new global competition with grand final every two years

From The Times. Apologies if you have already seen the article.

Global rugby executives have been urged to embrace plans for the sport’s biggest revolution since the dawn of professionalism — including a world grand final every two years.

The leading unions will meet for critical talks in Dublin today and World Rugby wants them to commit to the new competition by the end of the week, with a view to a formal vote on its introduction being held in November.

That would trigger the most radical change to the structure of the sport since 1995, when rugby turned professional and the Tri-Nations — featuring New Zealand, South Africa and Australia — was created, backed by investment from Rupert Murdoch.

The Times can reveal that the working plan for the new two-tier competition is for the top division to be founded in 2026, featuring 12 teams: England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France and Italy from the Six Nations, as well as South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, Fiji and Japan.

The emerging nations are already on board, having agreed at a meeting in London last week to sacrifice annual fixtures against top-ranked teams so that they can form a global second division in 2024.

The competition would be held in even years — avoiding clashes with the World Cup and British & Irish Lions tours — and reach a climax on the fourth weekend of November, with a final and two promotion/relegation play-offs, one for the north and one for the south. Membership of the Six Nations would be unaffected. The so-called “Nations Championship” — there is no formal title as yet — would be based only on results from the July and November windows.

Each northern hemisphere team would play a southern hemisphere rival once, either home or away. To reduce travel time, the southern hemisphere nations would be divided into two blocks, with the lowest-ranked team required to play their July Tests on neutral territory.

For example, in the first year, England, Wales and Ireland could go on a July tour and play Tests in New Zealand, Australia and Japan. Meanwhile Scotland, France and Italy would travel to South Africa and Argentina, with Fiji deciding in which of those two countries they would like to stage their games. In November, the fixtures would cross over, with England hosting South Africa, Argentina and Fiji.

The top two teams after those six fixtures would then meet in a grand final. There would also be the drama of two relegation play-offs against leading teams from the second tier.
Sponsored

The emerging nations league — featuring Samoa, Tonga, the United States, Canada, Uruguay, Chile, Namibia, Georgia, Romania, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands — is being referred to as the Challenger division and would also involve games on neutral territory to limit travel costs.

Traditional tours would return in Lions years, with the leading teams in the Challenger division rewarded with top fixtures. There is a commitment within the structure for teams such as England, albeit without their Lions players, to play a Test series in Samoa or Tonga. It would also allow France to play a full-strength series against South Africa, New Zealand or Australia while the Lions are in action.

The focus of the meeting in Dublin — which will precede World Rugby’s vote to confirm host nations for men’s and women’s World Cups through to 2033 — is to drive greater alignment on the project between the southern hemisphere unions. The Sanzaar body has weakened in recent years, with Argentina, South Africa and Japan no longer part of Super Rugby.

The two biggest hurdles to the global competition being ratified are an agreement over how to share the revenue, because the model would replace the existing system whereby the host nation retains all the receipts, and plans for a finals weekend in November.
Advertisement

The initial projections are that the new competition would drive a 40 per cent increase in revenue above that generated by the present fixtures schedule, although insiders believe that it could be more lucrative than that.

At present, clubs are only required to release players for three autumn internationals, so a commercial deal would need to be done with Premiership Rugby and LNR, its French counterpart.

There is also a debate about whether every team should play on that final weekend: is there any commercial interest in a fifth versus sixth play-off, for example? There is little support from the players or Sanzaar for dead-rubber Test matches.

A knock-on effect of trying to secure an extra international weekend in November could be the loss of one of the two fallow weeks in the Six Nations. There are player welfare implications involved, however, and it is not an idea supported by the smaller nations.

“The bigger unions are up for losing a fallow week but you would need to persuade the smaller unions who have less squad depth and who cannot cater for six Tests in seven weeks,” a source said.

The clubs and the International Rugby Players (IRP) group were not involved when the idea was first proposed but they have contributed to all the talks since a plan collapsed in 2019. Other than player release, Premiership Rugby and LNR want to get their World Club Championship idea over the line.

The IRP has urged the big unions to grasp a chance to revolutionise rugby. “The model that’s now on the table is the best for all sides,” Conrad Smith, the former All Blacks centre who is head of player welfare at IRP, said.
Advertisement

“Along with player welfare considerations, International Rugby Players has always fought for a fair deal for emerging nations to get regular game time. This will hopefully make those sides more competitive and allow them to plan their calendar years, something they’ve never really had before.

“This model isn’t perfect, and there are details still to iron out, but if we’re serious about growing the global game we can’t let commercial interests get in the way of doing the right thing.”

NellyWellyWaspy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4044
  • Getting older a couple of minutes every day
    • View Profile
Change for change's sake.

What they are doing isn't working, so change it. Classic failure of management, just as in British industry in the 70s. Get 'consultants' in (actually mates), pay them a bundle, then implement that, give yourself a few years of 'We've got to give it time to bed in.'

hopwood

  • Guest
Obviously certain things do have to change.
There's not enough revenue coming in to the game to sustain it long term.

But rather than find creative ideas to broaden its appeal...they seem to have just decided to cram yet another competition (involving our elite players) into an already crammed schedule.
It seems counter-initiative. Why not just run the World Cup every 3 years if you're wanting to overlook player welfare!

I'm not quite sure how this plan evens things up?
Maybe it simply provides the Southern Hemisphere with much needed cash injection.
I'm confused by the proposals.


Rifleman Harris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
  • Wasps Rugby Fan and MND Runner
    • View Profile
It feels to me a bit like the Nations Cup (or whatever it's called) in football.  Basically they felt that friendlies weren't as attractive as competitive games so created the competition.  I don't think that is the case in rugby as a test win is highly valued whatever.  Maybe they feel the TV package would sell for more if the games were competitive?  Adding in an extra game or 2 would help the coffers too. I guess that is what they are trying to do? Player welfare probably comes way down the list on this basis. 

MarleyWasp

  • Guest
Personally I think the problem with Internationals is that we play the same teams over and over again. I remember as a 13 year old being extremely excited for the 1997 All Blacks Tour, especially as I had tickets for the Wales game at Wembley. Since then they've toured Europe every Autumn outside of a RWC year with the exception of 1998 and 2020, although a Europe tour was scheduled and for me the excitement of a visit from the All Blacks isn't what it once was.

This year is the first Autumn series since 2006 where England haven't played Australia (RWC and 2020 aside), but England have a three-test series in Australia in July.

Bloke in North Dorset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2472
  • Wasps Rugby Fan
    • View Profile
MarleyWasp,

You've just brought back a few memories. During the All Blacks tour of '79 they trained at Signals training regiment in Catterick before playing the Northern Division at at Otley. I was on a course at the time and we went to watch them train. As there wasn't a security issue we just stood along the touchline to watch. My main memory is of how big they were, even then.

That was the tour when England came very close to beating them, losing 9:10. I see they lost to the Northern Division, but I don't remember anything of that game, I presume it was the 2/3 team who played.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_New_Zealand_rugby_union_tour_of_England,_Scotland_and_Italy

Its a shame touring sides don't (can't) do those provincial games.

Shugs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4425
  • Wasps Rugby Fan
    • View Profile
They’ll be no-one left fit enough to play. You really can’t go on with a duel agenda of player welfare and more and more games. ERC teams wouldn’t see many of there players at all.

Lwasp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
  • Wasps Rugby Fan
    • View Profile
RFU and FFR will veto this again and be painted as the bad guys.

Spend a fortune building huge stadiums and then vote for a plan that demands you give up the income those stadiums earn you? No thanks.

Neils

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14811
  • Wasps Rugby Fan
    • View Profile
RFU and FFR will veto this again and be painted as the bad guys.

Spend a fortune building huge stadiums and then vote for a plan that demands you give up the income those stadiums earn you? No thanks.

You can but hope they do.
Let me tell you something cucumber

westwaleswasp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Wasps Rugby Fan
    • View Profile
Test cricket needed something to give it a champion, but rugby has a world cup, like soccer, and having anything else will be a pale imitation. It is like the world athletics, with the Olympic Athletics being the pinnacle, a world championships always feels a bit off. Rugby also has sell out matches every autumn up here, and the Lions. Leave well alone.   

jamestaylor002

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
  • Wasps Rugby Fan
    • View Profile
To be honest, I wouldn't blame England and France objecting.

I go back to a Lima interview, who said that the difference between NH and SH rugby is that the NH prioritised the business aspect of the sport whereas the SH prioritised playing the game.

What we have now is the NH, relatively speaking anyway, doing much better financially than their SH counterparts. My opinion on this is - by all means prioritise playing the game, developing very skilful players and dominate international rugby (I'm basing this off World Cup wins). But that shouldn't mean you should go sniffing after the money of other national bodies (thinking predominantly the RFU and FFR) because you didn't think making money was as important.

DGP Wasp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2447
  • Wasps Rugby Fan
    • View Profile
We already have a Global Grand Final every 4 years.  What's the point of adding in one either side of this?

MarleyWasp

  • Guest
We already have a Global Grand Final every 4 years.  What's the point of adding in one either side of this?

Exactly this.

Why not group off the Rugby world into groups and have the 6 Nations plus Georgia making proper tours. A suggestion:

New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
Argentina
Japan
South Pacific (Fiji, Samoa, Tonga
The Americas (USA, Canada/Chile, Uruguay)

With the November internationals, stipulate that in every RWC cycle, each one of the 11 nations above must play the 7 European sides at least once and that the Rugby Championship must also play a game against a Tier 2 European side every year. Imagine what having the All Blacks going to Spain or Portugal would do for the sport in that country?

Peej

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 862
  • Wasps Rugby Fan
    • View Profile
Think this will kill the domestic game. At what point to clubs give up having England players if they aren't going to be available half the season?

westwaleswasp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Wasps Rugby Fan
    • View Profile
Also worth noting that England and France have seven WC finals between them, they are doing well  on the global scale over the last 30 years, these proposals won't make them more cash, and won't help them win more matches. Yes, we have a duty to help the game globally, but that means helping their tier two nations, not lining the old Tri Nations'  pockets.