World Rugby’s moral obligation
ANALYSIS: New Zealand Rugby has a great opportunity – and a moral obligation – to push for Pacific parity at a summit meeting to discuss a proposed World Rugby League.
To have any credibility at all, any new structure must provide a pathway for Pacific teams and other emerging nations to have a shot at the big gigs. The chief executives of the world’s top tier unions will meet in Los Angeles this week to discuss the global competition concept.
It’s inevitable that some form of annual contest will be introduced, but the sport’s kingmakers have to first make sure the Rugby World Cup cash-cow is not milked dry. The World Cup must remain the game’s pinnacle. Somehow.
Suggestions have been made that the winners of the Six Nations and Rugby Championship tournaments could meet in a global final at the conclusion of their regional competitions.
If that’s the case, then the playing field must be made more level. The Rugby Championship currently has four teams – New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina. Ireland, Wales, England, Scotland, France and Italy comprise the Six Nations conclave.
The first step towards equity would be to expand the Rugby Championship by admitting Fiji (ranked eighth in the world) and Japan (ranked 11th).
It would be an injustice if Fiji was excluded from the new format when it currently ranks higher than France (ninth), Argentina (10th) and Italy (16th).
Fiji beat France in Paris for the first time last November, while Japan drew with France in 2017 – after tipping up the Springboks at the 2015 Rugby World Cup.
There might be some blowouts when the two new teams meet the All Blacks, but no more so than Italy endured in the early Six Nations editions. New Zealand and Australian rugby have benefited massively from the Pasifika diaspora and owe it to their neighbours to fight their cause in LA. Why should they? Remember Sitiveni Sivivatu, Josevata Rokocoko and Waisake Naholo? Not to mention Malakai Fekitoa and Shannon Frizel. A global competition has the potential to more equitably spread the sport’s income, which would help the All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks retain more players, but the rewards should also filter through to the next tier.
Any new structure should include a playoff between the bottom team in each regional championship and the winners of a single-round regional qualifying competitions.
The Six Nations could be backed by a five-team European tier-two division comprising Georgia (13th in the world), Romania (18th), Russia (19th), Spain (21st) and the Netherlands (23rd).
In the first instance, the fiveteam Southern tier-two division would include the United States (12th), Tonga (14th), Samoa (16th), Uruguay (17th) and Canada (20th).
The two tier-two winners would have the right to playoff with the bottom team from their respective tier-one conferences.
That format should still favour the existing Six Nations and Rugby Championship wooden spooners – Italy beat Georgia, 28-17, last year – but, it at least gives a glimmer of a chance to ambitious, emerging nations.
Rugby must not be ringfenced. The Six Nations and Rugby Championships look like cosy old boys’ clubs at present, as closed a shop as cricket.
Football makes its top teams qualify for leading international competitions – hence Italy and the Netherlands weren’t at the 2018 Fifa World Cup, but Iceland and Serbia were.
To make a World League work, World Rugby would have to introduce FIFA football-style ‘‘international windows’’, whereby clubs must release players for international duty. World Rugby and its affiliates would have to encourage compliance by punishing miscreants with hefty fines and points deductions.
For far too long, emerging rugby nations have had to field under-strength teams because European clubs refused to release their players. The richer English and French clubs hold a lot of sway, but football is a club game and FIFA has managed to enhance the international game.