"International" Rugby Board or Old Colonial Tie?

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 7^th 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.

Rugby's Future Challenges: Heineken Cup and Cross Border Competition

Martyn Thomas has been stirring the pots on this subject again as the various interested people discuss and decide how any cross border competitions will look in the future.  His rather foolish view that the Celts can simply say “Shan’t!” and stop all progress or change is far too stupid to waste any more breath on.  If the French and English clubs decide the current set up of ERC is not in their interest then they won’t play in it, just as the Irish and Scots are free to not play in a new proposed competition.  The Franglais alliance is sure that the current 6 way financial split is inequitable as they provide half the teams but only get 1/3^rd of the rewards; this means an English club gets 1.4% of the total compared to 8.3% for a Scottish or Italian team.  With the French clubs having 14 mouths to feed their individual take is more like 1.2%.  The idea that this split is fair, before we consider where this money comes from, is perverse.  The English and French TV markets are overwhelmingly larger than the other 4 countries.   A change to an equal split per club seems a far fairer way to distribute the centrally generated income.  It is only greed and spite that makes the Celtic masses oppose this move.  The times of the English and French subsidising the rest of the club game is over.  If the RFU continue to do so through the 6 Nations that is their business.

The next question is who should qualify?  One camp contends that fair entrance means that the three leagues have equal representation; the other camp maintains that the 4 nations in the Celtic league are still separate entities.  This might be a popular view within those countries but is frankly pathetic.  They made their bed and now they must lie in it, Munster and Cardiff are as intertwined as Leicester and Exeter.  They are one league and do not deserve 10 qualification places, 4 of which are automatic, leaving 8 sides to fight over the remaining 6 spots.  People might cite Edinburgh but London Irish and Saracens both failed to appear in the Heineken Cup the season after reaching the semi finals due to their poor league form.  Rugby Matters doesn’t remember the rivers of Scottish tears for their plight. 

The idea to cut the top tier of European rugby to 20 teams is not only motivated by the desire to balance out qualification from the three leagues but also as a way to toughen up the Amlin Challenge Cup, the second tier of European Rugby.  Currently there are too many uncompetitive matches where amateur or semi-pro sides from Romania, Spain and Italies Super 10 get thrashed by the fully pro sides from England and France, plus occasionally Newport or Connacht.  A big consequence of the Scottish and Welsh decisions to murder their club games in the fruitless quest for Heineken Cup success is the drop in numbers and standard in the Amlin Challenge Cup.  These thrashing do nothing to grow the game in Spain or Romania nor do they help the clubs handing out the thrashings.  Strengthening the Amlin Challenge Cup would help cushion the blow when a side misses out on the Heineken Cup, games against Perpignan and Llanelli are far more attractive than games against Rovigo and Gernika.  It is also hoped that a stronger Amlin Cup would be reflected in its commercial value to broadcasters and sponsors, you would think opening up the possibility of Munster, Leinster or any of the Welsh sides would make the broadcasting contract more valuable. 

But what of the likes of Spain or Romania?  Would they just be cut adrift and forgotten about?  Not under the current plan to introduce a third tier aimed at the developing semi pro leagues around Europe.  Limited cross border competitions already exist between clubs in Eastern Europe and Northern Europe such as the Regional Rugby Championship and the North Sea Cup, the plan would see these competitions effectively merge and new nations join the fray too.  The two finalists would then qualify for the next year’s Amlin Challenge Cup.  The exact form of that competition is up for discussion, involving as many countries as possible has to be the prime goal.  Economic snobbery has to be avoided at all costs; the likes of Romania, Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltics are just as important as Portugal, Spain, Germany and Belgium.

Refereeing in the big Heineken Cup games are also a source of controversy.  It is frankly offensive that referees from Wales are considered neutral when they officiate in matches involving Irish or Scottish sides.  They referee these sides regularly and with the vagaries in the laws regular contact with referees is a significant advantage.  Neutral refereeing is about far more than what country a person was born in, nobody would suggest Northumbrian Dave Pearson would favour Exeter just because he was English any more than they would suggest he would favour Sale just because they are northern.  It is about the referees becoming more accustomed to one side than the other, so that that side knew where the referee’s blind spots are.  See Leinster’s ruthless exploitation of Nigel Owens’s weakness at penalising interference with a line out jumper.  This is another issue that should have been sorted out when the Celtic league was formed, rather than be left to fester as a source of resentment. 

The timings of the tournament have also come in for criticism; taking out the prime attendance weekend of Easter from the domestic schedule is a long time compliant, as are the semis and final taking prime weekends at the end of the season.  A move for the Heineken Cup or a successor to September should free up the end of the season for domestic matters as well as the prime Easter weekend.

But these aren’t the only cross border competitions we also have the British & Irish Cup competed for by second tier sides in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland as well as the Anglo-Welsh Cup, which is pretty self explanatory.  The B&I Cup has had a strange existence so far with the Irish using it as a proving ground for young talent and fringes players whilst the English primarily wanted it for the extra games.  With the Championship being shrunk to 12 teams there is a definite need for more games amongst the English second tier clubs, and the B&I Cup has stepped into the breach.  The Anglo-Welsh Cup was also initially brought about as a revenue generator, it apparently still fulfils this function even in it’s somewhat emasculated recent format. 

So what is the future of cross border competitions?  The 2015 season could become a watershed for cross border competitions, it is hard to work out how the Aviva Premiership can be fit in after the World Cup, thanks to the IRBs cowardly compromise over the final date, without playing the Anglo-Welsh mid week, playing all through the 6 Nations and shortening the proposed Australia tour to one or two test matches, let alone the how Orange Top 14 in France will be organised.  There is a significant chance of no European competition that season.  Beyond that all Rugby Matters is sure about is that the Heineken Cup under its current format will not last.  Too much propping up of the Celtic fringe and too much interference with the domestic calendar.