Do the Tier 1 nations have an obligation to help the minnows?

First topic message reminder :

Do the top rugby nations have a duty to help the lesser nations?

This is something we hear regularly, especially here in NZ where some believe we have abandoned the Pacific Nations.

But do we have this duty or should we be allowed to focus on being the best that we can be?

When all is said and done, I think that the leading rugby nations would be happy to help the small guys but aren't willing due to the financial consequences.

The main way to help these minnows is perceived to be to play them more often. An example often cited is that the All Blacks have not played a test match in the Pacific Islands (though we did play Fiji in a non-test match up there once). Those pointing fingers at NZ (and indeed the other top nations) show that we have Ireland, Wales, France and England journeying over here to play us regularly, but we rarely host the Pacific Nations in the same capacity (we used to play a match against one of them at the start of the season a decade ago, but that was discontinued. I recall Tew mentioning that was due to the matches being not well supported but looking at the attendances they're not too bad 20k+ at North Harbour so he must have been referring to the networks not liking them). The argument against these matches is always that they draw less revenue than the bigger teams

So should we play more games against tier two nations? And how? Do we add these matches onto an already full schedule and demand our leading players to endure more matches? Or do we remove a fixture against an England or an Ireland to accommodate a tier two side and take a financial hit? What about for the elite nations that are struggling financially like the Aussies? Can we demand that they lose money and not play Wales or France so that Tonga or Romania can play a top team?

One idea I've thought about are tours, but I don't think they would be feasible. New Zealand, South Africa, France and England (maybe include Ireland/Wales/Scotland as one entity here) have pretty good provincial sides who would provide competition for the minnows. So why not have the minnows tour one of these nations, taking on the provinces? I think that local fans would be keen to see their province take on an international side, even if it is a Georgia or a Russia. If we can get two tours at the same time in the same country then they could meet up at the end in an international at the main rugby stadium. Imagine the thrill for these players to be playing at Ellis Park or Eden Park or Twickers! It may have to be a curtain raiser to a big game though. But of course this has problems. If the country is amateur (e.g. Namibia) then they would have to provide income to the players to compensate them, whilst if the team is semi-professional with some players in the French leauges (e.g. Georgia) then they'd face issues getting the players released. And then there's scheduling in the host nation.


So what can we do? I'm sure we all would like to help these baby nations, but how? Hopefully when they introduce the global season in a couple of years they also include provisions to allow for more interaction between the different tiers

profitius wrote:SA teams will never play in Europe. They pride themselves in being from the southern hemisphere.

SA prides itself on being South African

The top tier nations are caught in a cleft stick on this one: whilst wishing to expand the game they don't want and can't afford to give up their top table privilges.
Take for example an expansion of the 6Ns - if there was some form of promotion/relegation to the 6Ns for the other European teams would this improve the standard of rugby elsewhwre, it probably would but on the other hand could the 6Ns work without all the home nations - both as a competition and more importantly as a fan event. If say Scotland went out and were replaced by Spain, firstly you'd expect the Spanish side to get fairly one sided stuffings from the English, Irish, Welsh and French so the competition would be diluted - the winners might be decided by how many points were racked up V Spain and when their game was V Spain in the fixtures, the financial impact on Scottish rugby would probably collapse it, no home nations games and probably no SANZAR AIs, and of course Spain would be relegated the following 6Ns anyway.
Of course the TV would also have problems trying to sell a 6N's without one of the home countries involved, and the crowds would drop at the grounds unless the tickets were heavily discounted.
Another option may be to expand the 6Ns to 7 or 8 and live with the one sided results for a couple of seasons (as when 5 went to 6), however would the clubs/leagues put up with 2 extra international games mid season?
In fairness to the SANZAR sides expanding the tri-nations to four will pay off for Argentina in the long run - it may be too soon to ask them to add Japan or PI sides as well.

I made a suggestion that rugby at the highest level dispenses with club commitments and just plays internationally thereby reducing player burnout, the dominance of richer rugby clubs and allowing minnows to compete regularly at the same table as tier 1 nations. It was titled 'global game, global competition, my proposals but nobody chise to comment. Maybe if id have done a poll on what garlands favourite pie filling had been or something like that it would have sparked more of a debate on here.