Undoubtedly Rugby’s biggest problem internationally is its
lack of depth. The top of the game is
actually reasonably wide, if stagnant in terms of new blood, with 4 different
winners of the World Cup in 7 tournaments and no team ever retaining the
trophy. But outside the 8 foundation unions of the
IRB only 4 others have got to a quarter final or better, Argentina in 1999,
2007 and 2011, Samoa in 1991 & 1995, Fiji in 1987 & 2007 and Canada in
1991. That is really an indictment of the IRB’s
efforts to spread the game.
The reason for this?
The fundamentally unfair and uneven way Rugby is governed. Those founding 8 members get 2 votes each on
the IRB’s central council whilst Canada, Japan, Italy and Argentina get 1 vote
and the other 90 odd countries associated with the IRB get 6 between them
through the 6 continental associations which of course the 8+4 are also members
of! Given the distain Sepp Blatter is treated
in the British press, despite being elected in a true one man one vote system,
you’d think the IRB would get an even worse treatment for a “democracy” that
would make F.W. de Klerk blush, but no the cosy club that controls Rugby gets
away with next to no scrutiny by the press.
So would a FIFA style one man one vote system be the best
option? Possibly not, even a staunch
expansionist such as RM can see that giving the Bahamas the same voting rights
as South Africa is perhaps not the most sensible way to grow the sport; “pork
barrel” politics where favours are given to nations for their votes has lead
FIFA down a difficult route. A better
option might be to look at the UN, with both permanent and termed members of an
executive council elected by the full council.
England, France, New Zealand and South Africa could be the permanent
members of the council with a further 5 elected from the full congress on a one
man one vote system on two year terms.
The World Cup host should be decided in an open ballot, no more secret
horse trading that blighted the 2011 vote where New Zealand pipped Japan to the
post with some dodgy deals.
Rugby has a big advantage with the spread of the few teams
it does have, Asia is the only region not to have provided a semi-finalist of
the Rugby World Cup (if we follow the IRB as regarding the Americas as one
region) and Rugby is well established in Japan with a professional league and a
World Cup to host in 2019. The
bridgeheads into Africa and the Americas that South Africa and Argentina
provide have never fully been utilised but remain as hopes for the future. Argentina does a good amount for the other
South American countries as it continues to play test matches, and compete in
one of two truly continental championships rugby has, against their neighbours
Uruguay and Chile as well as allowing those countries to take part in its
domestic tournaments in a similar arraignment to the Pampas XV playing in South
Africa. South Africa have toyed with a
similar idea for their Vodacom Cup, Namibia have competed in the past, but have
never really fully bought into the idea that they have a duty to spread Rugby
throughout southern Africa let alone the whole of Africa. The, pretty outrageous, capping of
Zimbabweans like Mujati or Mwatarera might be welcomed by those players as a
chance to compete at a higher level but with props like that and someone like
Pocock in the backrow Zimbabwe would have surely qualified for another World
Cup, and that might have acted as a spur for improvement and populised the game
further domestically as World Cup success has in Argentina and Georgia.
But whilst those nations are no saints they aren’t the real
bad guys. That is surely reserved for
the arrogant elite that dominate and stifle European Rugby. Georgia have consistently been the 7th
best side in Europe, winning 5 European Nations Cups, yet shockingly have NEVER
played an old 5 Nations team outside a World Cup or its qualifying
tournament. In the past two World Cups
they have run Ireland then Scotland extremely close, they are clearly a good
side, as good as the Pacific Island sides that seem to still get international
invitations, but get NO exposure against “Tier 1” nations. If each of the 6 Nations committed to playing
Georgia once at home and once away during the November Test series over the
next 6 years then Georgia would have 2 tests every year until 2020 to measure
themselves against their European peers whilst each nation would only have to
give up 1 home November Test series match out of 18 (or more as the likes of
Wales play matches outside of the International Window). That is an incredibly small sacrifice to
make to widen European Rugby horizons.
Perhaps cynically the reason this hasn’t happened is such a series of
fixtures would make the case for reforming the 6 Nations into a true European
Championship almost unavoidable. It is
also due to economic snobbery. The RFU
blazers and committee men just aren’t interested in going to Tbilisi, if Spain
or Germany had produced Georgia’s results over such a sustained period of time
the Blazers and their Wives (and their wives’ tennis partners) would be knee
deep in tapas guzzling Rioja in Madrid or downing Steins of Weissbier and
munching on Pretzels in Munich in no time, but a trip beyond the Iron
Curtain? No thanks chum.
I suppose to be fair to the RFU blazers (and their wives and
their wives’ tennis partners) they never lowered themselves to playing Italy in
a test match either nor have they ever deemed Canada or the USA worthy of a
test match, and those would all be wonderful trips.
The Rugby World Cup is the pinnacle of the sport and has
been the greatest driver of growth in international Rugby, but it too has
challenges it must face. The biggest
challenge is threat to its integrity that uneven and unfair scheduling
creates. It seems perverse that those
nations most able to deal with short turn arounds are the only ones which don’t
face them. In the 2011 Rugby World Cup it
was the weaker nations who faced 4 day gaps between games where the 8
foundation unions got no less than 6 days between games. This also has the unhelpful effect of
lengthening the tournament, the Rugby World Cup must be the longest major
championship. It is pretty obvious that
this is a symptom of the uneven voting structure of the IRB, after all those
nations with votes are the ones least affected, perhaps this will be the issue
that brings about change in the voting structure. We can but hope.
The knock out element of the tournament also needs to be
shortened, a week’s gap between the end of the group stage, the quarter final,
the semi final and then the final lose all of the momentum that has been
generated during the group stage. That
is perhaps a challenge too far as you want the best sides available to decide
the tournament.
Refereeing is also a contentious subject. Hopefully the ascension of Argentina to the
Rugby Championship will provide a pathway for elite referees better than Italy’s
acceptance into the 6 Nations has for Italian Rugby. The total domination of elite refereeing by
the 8 foundation unions is a disgrace and is highly damaging to Rugby’s appeal
and growth. Samoa have already raised
the issue of bias, both overt and subliminal, but have been rebuffed with the
typical arrogance that is associated with IRB.
The perception of a refereeing cosy club is damaging even though I do
have faith in the IRB that it isn’t true.
More to the point someone must be refereeing the domestic Argentinean competitions
that produce such prodigious players, someone is refereeing matches in Japan,
Fiji, Canada and the professional league in Russia. These countries produce high quality players
by the bucket load but not a single referee to the standard of Greg
Garner? Give over. This could be the easiest of all problems to
fix, if only the IRB recognised it as a problem.
But it all comes down to the inequitable foundation stones
upon which the whole edifice of International Rugby is constructed. A move to fairer voting system at the heart
of the IRB is a complete must. At the
very smallest of incremental steps that MUST be taken would be the increasing
of Argentina and Italy to 2 votes each and the creation of votes for the USA,
Samoa, Fiji and Tonga. That would leave a
handful of European nations outside the formal voting structure rather than the
majority of major world nations. A UN
style mix of permanent and elected board members would be even better. Fix that and a lot of the other problems
would soon follow because those at the sharp end of the decisions would finally
have a voice.
No comments:
Post a Comment