Put survival of strong first, expansion of rugby second
• Existence of top nations not a given, so selling the sport to new markets should not be the priority amid the coronavirus pandemic
When Japan made a tenacious exit to their own Rugby World Cup at the hands of SA just over seven months ago there was a strong narrative leaning towards the expansion of the sport to new markets, but the world has changed since then.
In a time when the strong have to fight for survival in the face of the threats posed by the coronavirus pandemic, the idea of prioritising the sport’s expansion, so agreeable in the immediate aftermath of the World Cup, now feels like a case of putting a whole train of carts before the proverbial horse.
That thought prompted me to take an opposite view to the consensus of opinion among critics when Bill Beaumont was re-elected as chair of World Rugby a few weeks ago.
Beaumont’s re-election was decried on the basis that it beat the candidacy of former Argentina star Augustin Pichot, who promised to be more aggressive in the push for rugby’s expansion into new markets. Beaumont was seen to represent the old guard, the traditionally strong.
The criticisms of Beaumont’s re-election were reasonable from the viewpoint of the perceived need for the sport to expand and more clout to be given to smaller nations. But as the destructive effects of the suspension of play hit home, so it feels progressively less sensible to be obsessed with selling the sport to new markets when plain survival should be the main priority.
This is a time when it is crucial that the nations that make up the foundation pillars of the sport survive, and survival is far from a given right now, even for the wealthiest rugby nations.
For instance, it was reported last week the cuts that have been incurred in England’s club rugby because of the coronavirus may end up not being temporary. The sacrifices made by SA rugby have been covered exhaustively, and we know New Zealand is under pressure too.
But it is the plight of Australia, where three players were released by Rugby Australia last week because they refused to buy into an average 60% pay cut until September 30, that is most concerning.
In my first decade of rugby writing — the 1990s — the Wallabies won the Rugby World Cup twice. They were the leaders both in terms of their play and when it came to coaching innovation. They were consistent, formidable global rugby contenders. They are far from that now and even before coronavirus arrived Australian rugby was struggling.
Instead of talking about the need to expand to Asia, which became the topic of discussion in Australian rugby this week once it became apparent the Sunwolves might not get to play in their planned replacement tournament for Super Rugby, Australian officials should be focusing on finding a way to get their own game strong again.
That is the only way to bring the eyes back, which is what they need now more than searching for new eyes in foreign markets. It is eyes, meaning viewership, that drives the financial strength of sport now.
And World Rugby, mindful of how important having a strong Australian national team is to the balance of power in the sport, should be finding a way to help them too, and SA and New Zealand too for that matter.
We are not talking just cash from an equitable spread of profits necessarily but help in the form of putting measures in place that will make it less easy for the northern hemisphere to plunder the southern hemisphere resources.
It is true that there needs to be greater protection of the nations that have been around for a while but have not quite cracked it up from tier-two level, such as the Pacific island teams, but right now what the global game needs more than anything else is money. And to get money you need strong nations competing against one another.
In its conventional 15-man code rugby is not the easiest sell. There is a reason Sevens is popular among the emerging rugby nations — it is easy to understand. There is a clear need to make the laws of rugby less complicated and to make other changes that will make it more watchable.
There are several things that need to be done to achieve that objective, but the bottom line is that whatever needs to be done to make rugby more accessible is going to take time. For now though rugby needs to survive — and that means looking after the strong so that they stay strong.
Like that road bike, swimming pool or house alteration that you have put on the back-burner because of the financial hit of Covid-19, so rugby should be regarding the expansion idea as a luxury and putting it on hold.
The strong nations that provide the foundation stones for the sport hold the key to its survival in the short-term.
Expansion is something you think about only after that survival has been assured.