The ‘big white lie’ by NZ Rugby

The contest between Bill Beaumont and Agustin Pichot for the leadership of World Rugby has generally been represented as a battle between the dark, repressive forces of the establishment and a younger, enlightened movement for change. This is a fairytale.

In reality everyone is in it for themselves. The northern hemisphere wishes to preserve its own income streams. The southern hemisphere envies the money which the larger European populations generate for their countries and wishes to cut in on it.

Both halves of the world are driven by selfishness and greed and the idea that one is nobler than the other is romantic fiction. The Pacific Islands give that particular game away. If Pichot represented the noble forces of change, then the whole of the Pacific would have voted for him. They did not. They do not trust the Argentine.

The reason is simple. A few years ago Pichot caused outrage when he published a rugby league table graded according to the players country of origin. The countries with 100 per cent representation of players born inside their borders were South Africa and Argentina. And so with the self interest typical of the Rugby World, Pichot wishes to tighten eligibility rules. Argentina would be a big winner, you see.

But the Pacific Islands would be big losers. One of the few glories of professional rugby is the financial benefits that it has brought to many poorer Pacific families. Talented players from the islands have migrated around the world and been able to send back large amounts of money to their villages. If Pichot changed the eligibility rules, as he would like to do, then the Pacific Islands would be the poorer for it.

Seven months ago Brent Impey, the chairman of New Zealand Rugby, said of the failure of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa to advance to the knockout stages of the World Cup; ‘‘You can point the finger straight at the likes of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England. You look at them, you look at their teams and what they have done in terms of rules that suit themselves. I’m very tempted – I probably won’t go quite this far – but I’m very tempted to say it’s virtually colonialism.’’

Now that is probably true. But Impey’s words also seem to emerge from some fantasy island called New Zealand where his own people haven’t been equally guilty of colonialism. That will have the Pacific laughing themselves into the ocean. New Zealand rugby has benefited massively from the economic migration from the islands and given just as little back as the European countries.

They have not shared their wealth. They have not promoted islanders into proportional positions of leadership either as players within the All Blacks or as coaches. They have not gone to the islands and played games. For decades New Zealand Rugby has looked after its own self-interest.

So why should the islands feel loyalty to anyone other than themselves. Eight and a half years ago Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu was banned from the World Cup for criticising World Rugby for an unfair schedule and exploiting the islands. He never played for Samoa again. But when Impey did the same thing at the Japan World Cup, no action was taken against him. These are the double standards of colonialism.

When Samoa and Fiji voted for Beaumont, the former England coach Clive Woodward reprimanded them in print. He wrote; ‘‘Our sympathy will be limited if those nations utter a word of complaint ever again at the lack of opportunity to play tier one nations or, in the case of the Pacific Island teams, about their best players being nicked by other countries.’’

This caused Fuimaono-Sapolu to tweet; ‘‘*looks at what Clive Woodward has done for Samoa and Fiji* Nope. F... all. He’s done f... all for Samoa and Fiji and yet here he is running his mouth about what Samoa and Fiji shouldve done.’’

You understand the outrage. And Fuimaono-Sapolu knows that

New Zealand is every bit as bad. England, Scotland and Wales, from the other side of the world, have each played more internationals against his country than neighbouring New Zealand has done. The All Blacks have played Samoa just seven times, England eight, Wales 10 and Scotland 12.

The same is true of Fiji whom the All Blacks have played on just five occasions. Even the ‘evil’ France have played them twice as many times. The All Blacks have played Tonga on six occasions, 86 less times than Tonga and Fiji have met. In rugby terms the Islands certainly do not owe New Zealand a living.

Impey said; ‘‘We did our best to persuade Fiji and Samoa that it would be in their best interests to vote with the countries of the southern hemisphere ... I understand the frustrations, but the islands have also got to help themselves.’’

How patronising is that last statement. Is it any wonder that the Pacific does not trust New Zealand in rugby terms. They were given a choice between the devil they know and the devil they know fairly well. And so Samoa and Fiji voted for Beaumont, partly on the grounds that he has promised to revisit regulation 8, which would allow players to return to play for their country of origin after representing another nation.

Now, if New Zealand had really been honest about wanting to change the world, they could have nominated a woman or a Maori or a person of Pacific island origin to sit on the World Rugby Executive Committee. As Robert Kitson of The Guardian amusingly observed, there are twice as many blokes named Brett as women on that committee.

Instead NZR put up the well-fed white bloke who they reckoned could rake them back the most dosh. That dosh will not be going to help Pacific Island countries. So let’s not pretend NZR were the sadly defeated heralds of a great new era of change. Just like everybody else, they voted for their own self interests and they lost. End of story.