World League leak was just a scare story

THERE is often a gap as wide as the Grand Canyon between a good idea and a botched version of it, which is a bad one. The picture of plans for a World League being painted this week were in the bad category, with World Rugby accused of botching them so badly that the whole scheme was heading for the knackers yard. This started with the leak in a New Zealand newspaper of a blueprint which prompted a storm of protest because it claimed that the Pacific Island nations are going to be excluded from the World League.

It stated also that the 12-team league would be ring-fenced until 2030, and would consist of the ten teams in the Six Nations and Rugby Championship, with the addition of the USA and Japan. The inclusion of the USA, who are not among the world’s top 12 ranked teams, was presented as being a commercial sell-out to an American broadcaster.

If that turned out to be the case it would be a disgrace, and it would fully justify the Pacific Island threat that followed soon afterwards to withdraw from the 2019 World Cup.

However, there were tell-tale signs almost instantly that the leak had glaring inaccuracies. Steve Tew, the NZRU’s chief executive, was soon on the record saying that nothing had been decided, and no nations were about to be pushed over the edge. He said: “No decisions have been made about the future format for international rugby, and the most recent proposal was less than 24 hours old when it was made public.”

A source close to World Rugby backed Tew’s statement, telling me that the scare story was wrong on numerous counts.

Namely, that the World League plans are for two divisions in which there will be promotion and relegation, and that they will be based on World Rugby rankings and naturally will not exclude Pacific Island nations, who are an intrinsic part of that table.

The merit-based prototype is for Fiji, who are ranked 10th, to play in the top league, as will Japan who are 11th – while the USA, who are 13th, will be in the second division, along with Tonga (14th) and Samoa (16th).

Pat Lam, the Bristol head coach who is a former Samoa captain and coach, provided an informative insight into the Pacific Island protest before his club’s Friday night Premiership game against Gloucester. He said that the Pacific Islands were making sure their voice is heard before any decision is taken.

That pre-emptive strike is not the worst move, because there are frequently times in this sport where rampant self-interest blocks the greater good of the game – and it would be a mistake to assume that the World League is immune from that blight.

In fact, there is every reason to believe that the ring-fence tendency at large in the Premiership is also in danger of afflicting the plans for a more competitive international structure to replace the current stew of semiorganised ‘friendlies’.

Ben Morel, the new chief executive of the Six Nations, has made no attempt to hide that promotion-relegation is not on the agenda of his member unions. This reinforces reports that World Rugby’s attempts to persuade the Six Nations to introduce a promotion-relegation play-off every season – with the bottom side playing the winners of the Rugby Europe Championship – have been rejected.

It is no surprise that those said to be totally opposed to it are Scotland and Italy, the two teams most regularly at the foot of the table.

Morel and the Six Nations committee should take a long hard look at whether a Scots or Italian veto – and any other Six Nations union which supports it – is in the best interests of their tournament.

Preventing merit-based opportunity is not the way to run a relatively young professional sport which is trying to win new hearts and minds around the globe.

Why do Scotland and Italy have such a lack of faith in their own abilities to bounce back, should one of them drop down?

The Six Nations should also consider that if they do not accept a merit-based format in their annual tournament, World Rugby have another string to their bow. There is nothing to prevent them stipulating that membership of the World League requires the lastplaced Six Nations side to agree to a promotion-relegation play-off.

This means that if Italy, for example, finish last in the Six Nations, and that tournament’s competition rules are that they remain part of it in perpetuity, that’s up to the Six Nations.

However, if Italy want to be part of the World League, they will have to agree to a play-off – and should an upand-coming team, like the Rugby Europe champions Georgia, beat them, they will be promoted to the first division and Italy relegated to the second.

That sounds like a concept which is merit-based, and fair, and therefore it remains a good idea for the international game. At the start of last month I supported the concept of a World League in this column – and despite its teething problems my view has not changed.

Those teething problems include not just the Pacific Islands, but a number of top international players like Kieran Read, Johnny Sexton and Owen Farrell voicing their concerns about increased World League fixture and travel demands being detrimental to player welfare.

It is up to World Rugby to ensure that the delivery of the World League answers those concerns before any blueprint is put before the World Rugby Council for approval in May, and that it is open and transparent about the plans.

If they are not able to resolve those issues by May, then the consultation period should be extended until they do. The World League is too important to be a rush-job which becomes snared in a minefield of disinformation.

“World League plans are for two divisions in which there will be promotion and relegation”