Is North v South the right change of direction?
NZ Rugby would welcome the money from a global tournament, but doubts remain it will become a reality
World Rugby’s latest attempt to fling the south and north together for a global competition isn’t fresh.
The difficulty is creating the chemistry to ensure all parties, and there are many, involved in the pre-agreement ritual don’t reject it.
In 2019 World Rugby’s plan to launch anations Championship, which like the current proposal was to be held every two years, ended in failure.
Several Six Nations unions hated the promotion-relegation concept, the less selfish had concerns about the lack of pathways for the Pacific Islands, the thorny issue of player welfare couldn’t be resolved and the French and English clubs were cold on the concept.
Protecting the World Cup, which is held every four years, was also vital.
So the Nations Championship was shelved. Now World Rugby is having another crack. It wants a 12-team competition to hit the market in 2026, and not be played during the World Cup and British and Irish Lions years.
This time, according to reports, there’s a better chance of turning the concept into reality because the parties involved are supposedly better aligned. Rugby bosses were scheduled to discuss the proposal in Dublin this week.
Few could argue that the international test window doesn’t need to be reset. As it stands, when the teams from the two hemispheres tour they are only playing for bragging rights on World Rugby’s complicated ranking system.
The new plan is for the north to comprise the Six Nations teams – France, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Italy – while New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, South
Africa, Japan and Fiji represent the south.
Teams from the north would play the south members in three
matches mid-year and with competition points on offer, there would be an added incentive for them to ship fullstrength teams.
This would be followed by crossover games up north in November. The top two teams from each pool would then play semis, followed by a final.
In 2019 World Rugby faced a considerable backlash after it was reported there would be no promotion or relegation for 12 years.
Not from everyone, though. The survival instincts kicked in for Six Nations unions, which recoiled at the possibility of being dumped from the top tier.
Under the current proposal a second-tier competition involving the likes of Samoa, Tonga and the United States would be introduced as early as 2024.
It still seems likely that talk of promotion-relegation would receive a cold reception from the likes of Scotland and Italy.
It could be argued, quite reasonably, that the southern hemisphere unions need this tournament more because their northern counterparts have the Six Nations.
This is where the subject of money comes into the conversation.
No-one should be surprised if private equity has played a role in bringing this deal back to the table.
Last year CVC paid $509 million for a 14.3% stake in the Six Nations, and NZ Rugby is edging closer to a deal with major Silver Lake, worth $200 million with the option of an additional co-investment of $100 million, if the provincial unions vote for it to go through at a special meeting on June 2.
Those companies are there for a reason: to generate more cash.
NZ Rugby has long complained that under current guidelines they haven’t been able to reap the benefits of the All Blacks’ packing stadiums when overseas, unless they arrange extra revenue-sharing games.
This is an opportunity to wring more money out of the All Blacks’ brand, at a time when there’s no certainty the Rugby Championship won’t be diluted by the defection of South Africa to the Six Nations after 2025.
Revenue-sharing, albeit every two years, may be edging closer to reality.
Few could argue that the international test window doesn’t need to be reset.