Probyn: League of Nations is simply an idiotic proposal
Democracy: an ideal where people have freedom, equality and the ability to make choices in how either they or their elected representatives govern a way of living and working, or, in the case of sport, playing.
The desire for rugby to be run in a more democratic way is currently the focus of all who believe that World Rugby is controlled by a selfinterested minority at the expense of all others, which, to a degree, is probably true.
With the results of the World Rugby election due to be released next week, all are anticipating that the self-interested elite of the sport will use their extra votes to ensure that change doesn’t happen, and everything continues on the same road with perhaps a few minor variations.
Let’s be truthful, in every democracy people generally don’t vote for what is best for all, they vote for what is best for them, which in life tends to be the same for a majority of people – but not all.
There are times when to allow an equal vote to all would be counterproductive, creating a paradox that would ultimately be bad for all.
World Rugby is such a paradox, with the suggestion that if all were equal, the game would turn what is a minority sport in all but a handful of nations, suddenly into a global phenomenon.
However, I think World Rugby should be seen like a benign dictator that is trying to slowly expand the game without financially ruining all its member unions.
Like it or not, all rugby-playing nations are envious of the money generated by the Six Nations (including the Rugby Championship) and would like to get their share.
An important point to remember is that it has taken over a hundred years for that competition to achieve the financial success it now has.
Back in the 1980/90s the TV rights were less than £1m for each of the countries competing in the Five Nations and then increased only with the advent of competition from BSKYB.
The proposal of a league of countries with relegation and promotion as a viable prospect, is quite frankly idiotic at this time.
Despite the fact that rugby is played in Germany, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Holland etc. the following for rugby in most European countries outside France and the UK remains minimal. Thereby making it unlikely that there will be a major increase in the sponsorship or TV deals currently on offer, in fact they may actually reduce.
Many of the teams at the top of Tier 2 have played against a Tier 1 side and lost, including Georgia who have been suggested as a replacement for Italy, and who also lost both times they played against Italy.
Even if played in two leagues, one in Europe and one in the Pacific as suggested in last week’s Daily Mail, the distances and cost involved, as the current Rugby Championship contenders would testify, are horrendous.
The competition would damage or replace the Rugby World Cup with uncertainty, thus probably reducing the money for World Rugby to invest in the development of the game as a whole.
As for promotion and relegation: if relegation from the Premiership is seen as a disaster, imagine the potential impact on participation in a relegated country, let alone the loss of revenue that would probably end professional rugby there.
For the ‘Top’ nations, the losses in staging games between newly-promoted countries (even games against Italy in the Six Nations are still heavily discounted) will have a substantial financial impact on revenues and may see a reduction in the number of travelling supporters.
The suggestion of a global calender always seems to involve Europe moving their competitions, which have an historic place in a busy sporting year, possibly bringing rugby into competition with other sports.
One thing that has struck me is the arrogance of some of our Premiership clubs, who feel that they have a special place in the game which is greater than any other club.
Bruce Craig, Bath RFC owner, along with EPCR chairman, Simon Halliday, have demanded that World Rugby give the Premiership and EPCR a ‘voice at their table’.
They believe, for some reason, that
World Rugby, whose remit is as a collective organisation for the various unions across the world, should now allow their clubs to influence World Rugby’s decisions even though the clubs already have representation through their various unions.
Why they think they should be entitled to a place at the top table more than any club at any level of the game is beyond me.
Neither the Premiership nor EPCR are worried about the game of rugby as a whole. They are businesses and have no concern as to the future of the worldwide game, they are interested only in their parochial competitions and their financial success.
The money they raise through the expensive hire of their contracted players doesn’t help fund the growth or survival of the game and they make no contribution to the money raised by World Rugby or their home unions.
Instead they actually damage the survival chances of many clubs in the various unions by taking a lion’s share of their union’s money, reducing what is left to invest in the grassroots game.
Whatever Craig and Halliday think, every club is just as important as any other to the survival of the game and all are playing their part in delivering rugby to those who want to play or watch our great game.
“Imagine the potential impact on participation in a relegated country”