Ring fencing, glass ceilings and maintaining the status quo etc.

There are often debates in regards to how rugby should be developed at grass roots and on a global scale. The reality is breaking into existing structures are akin to breaking the barriers down of an old established gentlemen's club to allow their first female member.

There is the idealistic view that rugby union should be available to all and that the established countries should assist developing nations as much as feasably possible to attain a sustainable structure for rugby Union to evolve in these countries, to a point where they can represent their countries with pride on the interntional stage.

The reality is however far removed from what would be attainable in an idealistic world.

When looking at the manner in which different Unions are forever cowering at the sight of any financial agreement, be it sponsors, broadcasters etc. It soon becomes clear that rugby union is but only at the infancy stage of professionalism. As such it has not yet managed to sustain itself as a collective financially, and often there are rumours of clubs being in financial strive such as the Wasps, Golden Lions and Otago. Most of these clubs or Franchises in financial strive will need private investment or Governing bodies to bail them out of these situations and to be fair most Rugby Unions are barely making a significant enough profit to sustain their own structures.

So you ask where am I going with this?

Well the reality of the situation is that whilst we are aware of the realities facing professional sport, the idealism of expanding competitions such as the Heineken Cup, Super XV are all reliant on market demand, and therefor broadcasting rights and revenue.

It is all good and well to advocate that these competitions and tournaments should expand to include some of the tier two nations to provide greater exposure for them at a higher level of rugby than what they are currently exposed to, and often the terms "glass ceiling", ring fencing" etc will be banded about and the tier one nations with their "lucrative" situations will be accused of "protecting" themselves from having funds allocated by the IRB distributed to more nations and therefor reduce their own slice of the pie.

They also often find themsleves in a situation where the ranking system is criticised due to the fact that smaller nations cannot gain access to the Rugby world Cup tournament because the "lesser" nations are not afforded the opportunity to play higher ranked teams which would enable them to climb the rankings.

The conundrum regarding this whole debacle is finance. When considering a broadcasting deal for let's say the Super XV competition, the broadcaster do their research and thereby informs the Participating Unions of what the market is demanding. No broadcaster unless perhaps a public broadcaster will devalue the "brand" of product his audience is demanding. This means that whichever way you want to expand these competitions to allow "lesser" teams to be part of the tournament, there will be no financial backing coming from the broadcasters in question or even the existing participating Unions.

The only other alternative would be the IRB, as is the case with the Argentinian team joining the Rugby Championship (formerly known as the tri nations) whereby subsidy from the IRB allows the entry into such a competition.

The question would be if Argentina had any aspirations to participate in the Super XV or an expanded version of it, how will it be financed?

There is currently no professional setup in Argentina, and before they could even consider joining the Super Rugby Tournament, they would need to establish a domestic professional structure.

Even Australia which is a sports mad country, and most likely one of the leading nations when it comes to finding ways to finance domestic sport, couldn't get a sustainable professional structure in place without SANZAR.

The next reality is time, or perhaps more correct the absence of time. As the European season and the SANZAR nations seasons stand at the moment, there is simply no place for additional countries and/or clubs in any of the existing tournaments.

Which leads me to believe expansion of existing tournaments is simply not viable. Not only because of the absence of time, and money, but also the dillution of quality.

The only solution in my view is therefor to look at the development of rugby Union as "Pockets".

We currently have the SANZAR nations (now including Argentina) and the SIX Nations Teams as pockets. On the whole both sustainable even though they all have their odd franchises or clubs that need to be bailed out.

Japan, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa have been competing in the Pacific Nations Cup for some time now, and it would make sense to see them as a "Pocket". Japan may be the only country with capital but with an economy their size the IRB should task them to work in collaberation with the pacific Island nations to find a sustainable solution.

There are a number of Eastern block nations, such as Georgia, Russia and Romania who could be slotted into another "'Pocket".

Well you get the point. It is unrealistic to suggest or expect all the nations developed enough to be included in the two existing "pockets" due to the abovementioned issues. The alternative solution would be more workable and executable and that is where the IRB needs to take responsibility and lead.

I might be totally off the mark, but I sincerely doubt it.

Bil I think that when you look at world rugby you have to look at Europe and the rest.

Europe if you include Russia, up to the Caspian sea, possilbly the Gulf, and North africa as they are more like us then lik the rest of Africa is still a small pocket.

The problem with glass ceilings is there is no path to progress.

Like you said Agries were brought into 4n but was there any plans to develop their league into s15

I think you are right for pockets but there has to be a path into the bigger pockets.

The African Cup should Include the SA A team and if a team finishes top they should play SA for a place in the 4n or at least to be added.

Same with the pacific cup winners should play a maybe agries for a place in the 4n.

In aisa you can go all the way up to the pacific cup by progressing up each teir, and I wish it was like that more.

Euope have the population to have a Euro cup with ten strong teams but as it is now it wouldn't get there.

any team has to develop its domesic league too. either in a rabo esq league or just rasing the standard.

I'm not sure anyone can say rugby is not making progress.

Rugby is an Olympic sport.

Grass roots rugby is booming in many countries. Sri Lanka has 103,325 registered players. The USA is fast approaching half a million registered players. Canada is fast catching Wales up.

Scotland for example have 96,404 preteen male players, yet Wales only has 34,000 in the same catagory. Scottish rugby is booming, Welsh rugby is struggling. In terms of player numbers Scotland has over taken Wales by 3 to 1. 217,057 in Scotland to 79,800 for Wales.

When people just make assumtions on players numbers and the progress of countries then the IRB stats don't match when you might imagine.

Money is being invested at Grass roots levels in a lot of countries, that money is producing athletes and those athletes are being noticed by professional teams. Several Russians for example have recently signed for English clubs. While the French league seems to have players of almost every possible nationality.

Progress is slow but it is being made, Argentina have been added to the Tri Nations, Italy to the 5 Nations. Tours to Tier B nations have been restarted.

Biltong - Unfortunately your vague title and rambling first post has all but killed what might have been an interesting thread!

I think the gist of what your saying is that rugby can't grow without money?

For me the key word is 'grow' not 'money'. Rugby will grow if it catches people's imagination. For that to happen I'd like to see the 'lesser' teams become more competitive. They will become more competitive through having more numbers playing at higher standards - so the challenge is to get more players from 'lesser' countries playing at higher levels.

I'd achieve this by restricting nationals from every country with a professional league from moving to any other professional league.

Basically the 6N and 3N teams plus Japan have their own pro leagues, so their nationals shouldn't be allowed to play anywhere else but their home league. This would stop countries importing so many T1 foreign players and get them to look for players from countries without a pro-league. Increasing the opportunities to make a living from rugby would see more lower tier players playing at a higher level and so increase those countries' player bases. This in turn would make them more competitive and potentially increase interest in their home countries.

So for example South African players would only be allowed to play in their own pro league in RSA. So all those places they currently take up with teams in (say) the AP would have to be filled by English players or players from countries without a pro-league. The increased numbers of Romanians/Russians/PIs etc. may allow all those Test teams to become better and increase interest at home. If say more Georgians became interested in the game then there might be enough support for say a semi-pro league (no restriction) that could then employ Saffers to help them grow further.

Auskter, wasn't sure what to call the thread. forgot my juornalism certificate at home, and unfortunately missed the class about how to write caption that attract attention.

What you say is very valid by having the 235 South africans taking up spots in europe and Japan that developing players could better benefit from.

Most of your thread titles are fine, just this one could be about barbed wire, glazing or supporting long haired rockers...

I'm astounded SA have more players playing outside SA than Ireland have in total!

I think the largest development we will see over the next few years is countries that have set up sustainable rugby at club and international level benefitting over those who rely on an autocratic and ineffectual system.

Player base and population base are largely irrelevant in sporting growth, it is opportunity for youth players and local perception of rugby versus other sports that seems more relevant.

For example Rugby in most areas of Scotland and England will never surpass Soccer.

Is this thread not about growing the game in new countries, rather than grow it where it is already established within a country?

I think the same rules apply in all countries.

I wonder how costly would it be to get lesser countries games at a higher level?

Let's take Georgia as an example. What if they set up a rugby franchise in the capital Tbilsi and got entry into the HC every year. They'd have the best players currently playing in Georgia to start with. With some good financial backing they could lure some of the best Georgians home, who are playing abroad.

In time the franchise could be close to the Georgian test side. Maybe even with a few foreign stars to help. They'd get regular games against Europe's best sides year in year out. Every year. Obviously this would drive up their standards over time. Which would make it easier for the Georgian national team to step up to compete at tier 1 test level intensity.

Would it be that costly to set up this 1 franchise in a country where rugby is quite popular? Surely there'd be local sponsors and investors willing to help something like this? As well as a modest investment by the irb?

FR - good idea but the problem is who else do they play? If there were about eight such teams they could play each other in a league of their own but there just aren't enough players or funds to support that. (BTW 8 teams + 10 Pro12 + 6 T14 + 6 AP + HEC&Amlin winners= 32 HEC entrants)

There has to be a step before that and that is why I suggested the restriction on T1 players.

Doh. I forgot that they'd also need a league.

Maybe there should be an eastern version of the PRO12 with Russian, Georgian and Romanian teams. Maybe keep it down to about 8 sides. Quality over quantity.

Thing is I have no idea how financially viable it all is. A problem for all of Europe is that the French league is inflating wages and could cause financial difficulties for everyone.

If the T14 weren't allowed to sign tier 1 players from other nations the wage caps wouldn't be an issue.

I'm kind of horrified by how the club game in France has such a huge influence over the development of rugby almost everywhere else. The pocket idea sounds practical but if France hoovers up so many of the best players from everywhere will this ever take off?

Feckless Rogue wrote:Doh. I forgot that they'd also need a league.

Maybe there should be an eastern version of the PRO12 with Russian, Georgian and Romanian teams. Maybe keep it down to about 8 sides. Quality over quantity.

Thing is I have no idea how financially viable it all is. A problem for all of Europe is that the French league is inflating wages and could cause financial difficulties for everyone.

I think a professional league could be viable, what you have to remember is if your earning £100 a week in Russia then your on a decent wage, certainly enough to be professional. I have some Russian friends who play world of warcraft and one of them is a manager in a business and and does very well, yet when we converted his wages into British money it was laughable. Georgia, Romania and the Ukraine aren't any better off either.

I think a professional league could be set up in Eastern Europe if the IRB wanted to do it. It would seem the IRb id focussing on asia though as that is where most of the worlds population live.

bilt good thread- however the point is to grow this game your right we do need money- but the only way to make more money is to expand markets.

therefore you have to sometimes go through abity of a bad patch to get better in the long run.- we need the 6nations and tri nations expanded as annual events- the lesser teams have to get involved-we need to stop this classest system he have- the big nations must gvive back and except less pie.

nations like NZ and oz need to stop whinging and demanding more money of the IRB because they have to make a mends for there crippling doemstic structures. The irb have got to stop bailing them out as well and just call there bluffs. If NZ cant afford a domestic set up- they should have a domestic set up.

I will reitterate- the only way to make more money is to grow and get into other markets and spend time and money on these other markets

The title maybe clumsy,bit it is aposite,player numbers mean little for Example RFU is secondary,in England to Soccer,also in Scotland.In Ireland possibly behind Gaelicfootball,hurling,Soccer etc.expanding some thing for it`s own sake is counter productive.THE PRODUCT is only really of interest to the Winners not the losers.Sky Tv as an example has a dedicated Rugby channel in Nz,and Soccer clubs like Man Utd.and Chelsea there own deidicated sites.Money in Rugby Union come through Gate receipts,Tv rights,replica shirts,boots,socks and all the other fan ware.BUT most of that stops at the successful teams,how much TV coverage is there of london Welsh versus Cornish Pirates?.The truth is the haves and the have nots will always be with us.The Pacific nations and Churchill Cups used to be contested by and often won by A teams from Sa,OZ and NZ.
The argument about expanding the market for the sake of doing it is crass and counter productive.How long before Italy reach the standard of the other 5 Six nations sides.Or An expanded 4Ns,it may the ego good to keep on beating them
BUT what about the teams concerned,does it do them any good,would you pay to watch Canada versus Georgia?
Super Rugby,and International Rugby in genaral imposes work loads that are intolerable already.BUT for the sake of money you want to expand it?How good is NH Rugby without its SH imports.fact is the players are in the SH.money in the NH.Ban imports in the Top14 and half the teams would cease to exist.
Nz or Aus Domestic set up not economically viable?maybe but they are currently the best two sides in the World.NH can`t wait to grab as many SH players as possible for there own leagues.Truth is IF the SH and Argentina Tier 2
players were formed into fulltime Professional Clubs.THEN they could compete in a two tier Super Championship with relegation and promotion.
Tv is only interested in broadcasting Winning Rugby not some of the dross that passes for Aviva or equivalent matches at a lower level.
You need to take reality pills,THE most prestigous Tournament on the planet has had only 4 Winners,and 5 Finalists in 7 attempts and that isn`t likely to change soon.Reality is London Welsh or Cornish Pirates despite winning promotion on paper to the Aviva League can`t afford thr minimum.To pass a RFU inspection for teams to play there,let alone a wage bill that would allow imports so they can compete with the Saracens or Leicesters of this World.

I think, despite Italy's failure to achieve much in the 6 Nations, it's a good thing that we got them in. Eventually they will produce a better team. In fact their pack has been good enough for a long time now. It's the complete absence of half backs that's been the problem. They're getting regular competition in the PRO12, the HC and 6 Nations now. They're being exposed to tier 1 rugby.

They just need another Dominguez or two to spark them into life, and achieve more regular wins. If this happens and rugby's popularity grows, and more money comes in then they're on their way. We've seen how Ireland have gone from a country with totally rubbish domestic rugby and regular wooden spoons in the 5 Nations, into a nation that's dominating European domestic rugby, pulling large crowds, swelling the coffers and is the 2nd most consistent team of the 6 Nations after France.

It could have been argued that the Irish shouldn't have even been let into the Heineken Cup in the beginning, because their domestic sides were so poor. But they got the exposure to the superior English and French and eventually caught and surpassed them. Munster went from getting 500 people to watch them play to 15,000 in a few short years. If something similar could happen in Italy in terms of winning over new fans, then a large Nation could be really added to tier one, which benefits everybody in terms of competition and generating money.

Argentina could permanently raise their game too after years (many years) exposure to the top 3 teams in the world. They'll take some beatings along the way. Lots of beatings. But growing the game step by step can only be a good thing.

It's particularly difficult with rugby though. For one thing, when a poor team meets a really good team, it's invariably a thrashing. It's not like football where a very poor team, with enough discipline can hold out a very good team. Or even sucker punch them with a goal and win. Like Ireland beating Italy or Brazil. As well as that, in rugby a team can be really punished badly for deficiencies in certain key positions. Italy's lack of good half backs means huge amounts of good work by the pack aren't rewarded. And a lack of a tighthead is fatal. It's difficult to mask these things with good tactics. You really need to be strong from 1 to 10 at least, to be competitive.

The Great Aukster wrote: I suggested the restriction on T1 players.

Unfortunately European law makes that pretty much a non starter. Anyway if les french didnt sign theme the Japs would instead.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9286952/How-dare-Premiership-Rugby-criticise-London-Welsh-and-deny-them-right-to-play-in-top-flight.-It-is-gross-hypocrisy.html
this article sums up the bottom line the rich get richer,the poor go to the wall.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: I suggested the restriction on T1 players.

Unfortunately European law makes that pretty much a non starter. Anyway if les french didnt sign theme the Japs would instead.

Similar restrictions apply in cricket, so are they breaking the law?

Japan aren't a tier 1 country and so should be allowed to recruit whomever they want. Some of those players will qualify through residence and improve their national team.

emack2 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9286952/How-dare-Premiership-Rugby-criticise-London-Welsh-and-deny-them-right-to-play-in-top-flight.-It-is-gross-hypocrisy.html
this article sums up the bottom line the rich get richer,the poor go to the wall.

Exactly how many other leagues allow promotion at all?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: I suggested the restriction on T1 players.

Unfortunately European law makes that pretty much a non starter. Anyway if les french didnt sign theme the Japs would instead.

Similar restrictions apply in cricket, so are they breaking the law?

Japan aren't a tier 1 country and so should be allowed to recruit whomever they want. Some of those players will qualify through residence and improve their national team.

No they limit the number of non eu or non trade partner players which is perfectly legal. The "Kolpaks" (ie non qualified south africans) theres no actual limit on, as that would be illegal, however the ECB ties player development funding to limiting the number of them in a side which means the counties for the most part have controlled the numbers. Bear in mind in cricket theres very few non british euros playing, in rugby a huge chunk of the "foriegn" players in the jeff and T14 are other euros, plus south africans and various pislanders who all fall under the "trade agreement" banner and have to be treated the same.
Its easy to forget the Jeff actually does have limits on foreign players in match day squads, the problem is they cant legally apply this to players from countries with who Britain has free trade agreements. Sure the RFU could threaten to withdraw funding, but that would break the EPS and screw the clubs chances of competing in the HC even more.
Now what you are talking about is very different, trying to get a single agreed limit to all players and enforcing that in a legal way across all tier one nations ( the IRBs top tier now includes the pislands and canada btw) would be somewhere between impossible and as likely as gavin henson appearing in the next world cup.
Its a nice ideal but not grounded in reality.

And who will all these Argentinians, Samoans, Fijians and Canadians play for?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:And who will all these Argentinians, Samoans, Fijians and Canadians play for?

Since they don't have their own professional leagues they should be allowed to play in the other pro leagues - that's the whole point! i.e. The players from countries without pro leagues will have more opportunities to play at a higher level and so strengthen their Test sides initially. This will increase interest in their home countries and maybe pave the way for a pro league eventually.

My point Great Aukster you could have super sides from each of Argentina,Tonga,fiji,samoa in a Super league 2 tier system with non performing Aus,sa,and Nz sides in a managble system.Sanzar teams players would play less games at Super level.more at ITM/Currie Cup level.Hopefully less injuries
players competing in a higher level filtering thru to the Test sides.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:And who will all these Argentinians, Samoans, Fijians and Canadians play for?

Since they don't have their own professional leagues they should be allowed to play in the other pro leagues - that's the whole point! i.e. The players from countries without pro leagues will have more opportunities to play at a higher level and so strengthen their Test sides initially. This will increase interest in their home countries and maybe pave the way for a pro league eventually.

Samoa and co are" tier one" nations under the current system (the names changed to something like advanced unions)

But Ok sorry I got a bit confused about what you were saying, freedom of signing for those from countries without professional league systems, restricted movement for those with. New Zealanders would no longer be able to top up their pensions in France and would have to do it in Japan instead