NZR must back Pichot to break stranglehold
The numbers are against Argentina’s Agustin Pichot in his bid to become World Rugby’s next chairman but that should not stop New Zealand Rugby from doing everything it can to make sure he is elected next month.
The alternative is to let Bill Beaumont and Bernard Laporte, who are running as chairman and vice-chairman, assume the levers of power.
It’s unpalatable. Europe’s grip on the game is already too firm, with Italy and Scotland holding a total of six votes on World Rugby’s council, six times more than Fiji despite onetenth of the talent.
Indeed, the European bloc has 22 votes out of a total of 50, an anachronistic structure not fit for purpose that serves only the older powers whose attitudes towards eligibility have been described as ‘‘virtually colonialism’’ by NZ Rugby chairman Brent Impey.
As Hale T Pole told Stuff in February, Impey’s own house is not perfect order in regard to the Pacific Islands, but he had a point on the northern hemisphere unions.
The impending sight of NZ Maori wing James Lowe in an Ireland shirt will reinforce the feeling that the system has been played to benefit those with deeper pockets, and that’s not to mention the absurd ‘grandparents’ rule that allows the Home Unions to pluck talent from thousands of kilometres away.
The mathematics facing Pichot are as follows.
The winning candidate when the election is held under a secret ballot system on May 10 needs a majority of 26 votes from the 50 available.
With Europe accounting for 22 votes it is easy to see how the Home Unions could mobilise to defeat him, but there is a sliver of hope for rugby’s dreamers.
New Zealand and Australia have three votes each in the Oceania bloc of 10 votes, Africa has five in total, South America likewise.
One would assume the Sanzaar powers could vote together, collecting 20 votes for Pichot, which would leave the North America (four votes) and Asia (four votes) regions as potentially crucial.
Here, Pichot’s candidacy as the classic ‘insider-outsider’ candidate might serve him well.
He has served as World Rugby vice-chairman for four years and during that time should have a decent grip on the mood for change and on the issues where there is the most unhappiness. It is absurd, for example, that Italy’s votes (three) count for almost as much as Asia (four), and more than Japan’s (two).
But Pichot’s pitch is not just to the countries currently locked out of rugby’s top table. In fact, it is well crafted to appeal to financially distressed southern hemisphere nations as well as the minnows. Clearly, he sees the possibility of an alliance between the two.
‘‘The Nations Championship is the starting point but we need more people at the table to discuss the proposal: clubs, players, unions, private equity,’’ Pichot told the Daily Mail in words that could have been spoken by former NZ Rugby CEO Steve Tew.
‘‘Things were blocked last year but I believe this virus will change people and change the way they do things. I think it could create a revolution in our game because you have to look again at the whole ecosystem.’’
New Zealand has nothing to gain from a Beaumont-Laporte ticket. What is the future for the southern hemisphere under this Anglo-French alliance?
Instead, NZ Rugby must turn away from its naturally conservative instincts and ask if it really is a time for a little revolution.
If that can’t persuade them then look across the ditch at their ailing neighbours Australia. A vote for Pichot may also be a vote for selfpreservation.