This week reports have emerged that World Rugby and, in particular, Vice-President Agustín Pichot are considering scrapping summer and autumn tours in favour of a new ‘World League’.
The plan has reportedly been discussed with the heads of the New Zealand, South African and French unions already, and would start in 2020. It would be an annual competition, hosted alternately by the northern and southern hemispheres, featuring the top 12 teams in the world rankings. The teams would be divided into four groups of three and would then play out a ‘group stage’, semi-finals and final across five weeks in November.
A mock-up tournament schedule by Midi-Olympique can be found here.
To this author, it seems a misguided and unnecessary idea. Rather than the ‘World League’, they might as well call it the ‘Rugby World Cup Lite™’. If World Rugby are looking for ways to mix up the international calendar, a European Championship might be a better place to start.
A Flawed Concept
Possible Advantages
The apparent aim of this new proposal seems to be increasing the number of competitive fixtures throughout the calendar year. In the same way that UEFA have created the ‘Nations League’, World Rugby seem to want another way to fill the gap between World Cups. Perhaps they want to give teams more practice in a knock-out format. Or perhaps they are simply looking for an easy fix to the global calendar dilemma. Scrapping the June and November test windows and replacing them with one series of games over five weeks does seem a straightforward way to reconcile when international rugby is played across the two hemispheres…
From a player welfare perspective, too, it might be advantageous. England, rather than the 12 tests they will play in 2018, could end up playing just seven games under this new proposal, should they fail to emerge from the group stage as they did at the 2015 World Cup. It might also be argued that it would give more opportunity to Tier 2 nations which make it into the world’s top 12.
But such benefits are entirely superficial.
A Misguided Idea
Firstly, the concept is flawed for the simple reason that it almost entirely diminishes the significance of the Rugby World Cup. Unlike in football, where World Cups are contested by 32 (or even 48) teams, rugby’s equivalent involves just 20 teams. Creating an annual tournament involving 12 of these teams (60%) is, frankly, absurd.
The prestige of a World Cup exists because it is rare. It is a rare meeting of the world’s best and, like an Olympics, if you miss out on the gold medal, you have to wait a whole four years to try again. Having a truncated version every year would have far less charm and prestige. World Cups are special: let’s keep them so.
Indeed, the concept is also financially questionable. A World Cup brings in so many people because of its aura – it generates huge revenue from TV rights deals, ticket sales, memorabilia etc. because it is a scarce product. It is simple economics that if supply increases, the price will fall. Not only will the league be less financially successful than a World Cup, but a World Cup will also become less financially successful because of the league. World Rugby would be generating revenue every year as opposed to every four years, but host countries would also want a cut. As it stands, the November internationals are one of the main ways of generating revenue for northern hemisphere unions, as the June internationals are for the South. It would be a significant hurdle to overcome if World Rugby could persuade the likes of the RFU and WRU to give them up.
“This is not soccer” – Nigel Owens
An Unnecessary Change
Furthermore, while a drive for more competitive fixtures was behind UEFA’s creation of the ‘Nations League’, rugby has no such need. The Six Nations and The Rugby Championship, as well as several Tier 2 international tournaments, are annual fixtures: there is no dearth of international competition.
What’s more, rugby does not have ‘friendlies’, like football. To describe any Test Match as a ‘friendly’ would be ignorant not only of the passion, desire and effort of the players, but also of the history and meaning of each fixture. In rugby, test caps are never given away.
There would also be the question of Lions Tours. If the June test window was to be written off, would this mean the end of the Lions?
What About the Rest?
Lastly, if this idea was to go ahead, there would need to be far greater provision for Tier 2 nations. As it stands, they would be getting a bad deal out of the proposal. Primarily, with it only including the top 12 teams, Tier 2 participation would be limited full-stop. Moreover, as the weakest teams, it would be inevitable that they would often play only two tests in the new tournament, while others might play as many as five. This difference is understandable in a World Cup but, in an annual competition, during periods when teams are supposed to be developing, it is unacceptable.
The Autumn and June internationals give Tier 2 nations the opportunity to test themselves both against opponents of a similar standard, and against Tier 1 nations. It also allows them to generate some desperately needed revenue (though there is much left to be desired in this area). Rather than doing away with these windows, World Rugby should be working out how they can best utilise them to develop the game worldwide.
A European Championship?
There are many possibilities for the reform of rugby’s global calendar but one that does not seem to have received any discussion is that of a ‘European Championship’. With the power of the Six Nations, and the existence of equivalent competitions in the tiers below, it is not usually thought that there is a lack of competition on the continent.
However, with the Six Nations having ruled out relegation, there is a lack of direct competition between Tier 1 and Tier 2 sides in Europe. Of course, there is a reason for this: most Tier 2 sides would get well beaten by Tier 1 teams.
Yet many of the lower teams would benefit hugely from playing better opposition from time to time. My proposal would be as follows:
“A 12-team European Championship consisting of the Six Nations and the six teams in the Rugby Europe Championship (currently Georgia, Romania, Spain, Germany, Russia and Belgium)
Four pools of three teams (seeded)
Semi-Finals, Final
A play-off system to determine final positions from 3rd – 12th
To be hosted by one country, over five consecutive weekends
To be played instead of the Six Nations/Rugby Europe Championship in the third year of a World Cup cycle”
The biggest flaw to this proposal is, of course, the fact that the Six Nations is unlikely to give up its prestigious tournament any time soon. That said, perhaps it could be tempted by a 50% stake in a European Championship.
This proposal would create some variety in international rugby without compromising the prestige of the Rugby World Cup. It would provide a focal point for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams in Europe and could tap in to a profitable and passionate European sporting market at the highest level. Matches to determine final placings would also ensure that there is interest for all countries until the final weekend, and that valuable playing opportunities are not lost.
Perhaps the Southern Hemisphere could introduce a similar tournament to give other teams a crack at its best sides, too.
Conclusion
Rather than the ‘World League’, they might as well call it the ‘Rugby World Cup Lite™’
The issue of creating a global rugby calendar is a real one; but a ‘World League’ cannot be the answer. The reported proposal by World Rugby would be nothing more than a truncated version of a World Cup, which would do far more harm than good. It is an unnecessary addition to the rugby calendar which would neglect the need to involve Tier 2 nations at the highest level. As referee Nigel Owens famously said, “this is not soccer”. Agustín Pichot’s aims to emulate UEFA are well off-target.
Nonetheless, this author believes that a European Championship is something worth considering. As in many sports, it would give the opportunity for teams to pit themselves against their neighbours on a big stage, as a precursor to the main event: The Rugby World Cup. It would certainly take some negotiating, but it would solve many of the problems of Pichot’s ‘World League’ plan.