World League Proposal to shake up the Rugby calendar

by Intotouch Mon 28 Jan - 7:00

I was surprised that there wasn't a thread on this already. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on the subject so I'm posting this one. If there's already a thread on the subject that I missed then mods, please delete or merge this one.

This week there are meetings in LA between union heads to discuss plans to host an annual world competition in international rugby. According to different sources either the 6 nations will act as a pool stage for the knock out rounds or there will be three pools of three nations followed by a semi final and final. The motivation behind this is to bring in more income for struggling SH unions. It is the idea of Pichot and inspired by the nations cup in soccer in Europe which effectively got rid of soccer friendlies and instead provided plenty of matches but all leading to a title.

Here is one recent article about this:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/sport/2019/01/all-blacks-new-world-rugby-league-to-be-proposed.html

Since this competition would naturally involve more matches for the semi finalists and finalists at least it is going to increase the amount of matches international players compete in which brings up concerns for player welfare and clubs resistance. As is mentioned in the article it would turn the world cup into nothing special. Taking the 6 nations from free to air is I think a terrible idea as it's incredibly popular with people who are not really rugby fans, but tune in to it because it's an event and growing up with it builds up an emotional connection with people that would be lost. Since away fans would probably have vast distances to travel the atmosphere at the semis and final could be a bit flat.

However if rugby is in trouble in the SH then something must change to help them. Personally I think the unpredictability of the 6 nations make it exciting, and the predictability of the rugby championship is it's main problem. A world league might turn out to be just as predictable. So solving little. But maybe I'm wrong here and people in Australia for example will get really excited about this and attendances will increase? How do you think the internationals should be changed to increase it's popularity down south and make more money?

by **LondonTiger** Tue 29 Jan - 11:12

Just moved this from the general section as it discusses the international game.

When I read about Pichot's proposals I had the following thoughts:

1) The 6 Nations would either disappear or have to move in the calendar
2) The World Cup would be diminished
3) The Lions tours would probably die

Sure there would be consequences for the club game (and as someone who regularly goes to club matches I prefer it to internationals) but the current season set up is a complete mess.

I feel something has to happen but do not think that this is the solution. With the Six Nations Committee, RFU and FFR already opposed, Pichot will need to demonstrate immense political skill to get it through. If he does perhaps he should be appointed Brext Secretary?

by SecretFly Tue 29 Jan - 12:24

by lostinwales Tue 29 Jan - 12:38

Would be hilarious seeing the response of the Brexit brigade to having an Argentinian appointed to that position

by Brendan Tue 29 Jan - 22:31

This seems to be all about the SH. NH loses their gate receipts while still having the bills to pay for their bigger stadiums.

Not sure what the SH give up, seems like a win win for them while a loss for the NH

by **LondonTiger** Wed 30 Jan - 8:38

More info coming out with compromises that suggest this may happen. At the very least the major unions have told World Rugby to continue development.

Premise seems to be:

Top 12 teams split currently as 6Ns + 4Ns + Japan + Fiji play each other once.
For 6Ns sides fixtures would be the current 6Ns format, 3 summer matches in 3 different countries and the 3 AIs against 3 different opponents.
The other group of 6 would play matches between themselves in the current 4Ns window.

After all 11 matches have been played there will be two weeks of playoffs to determine the winners and also whether anyone is relegated.

Will not happen in WC year. Truncated version in Lions year.

A lot more detail is available but hidden behind the Times paywall.

by robbo277 Wed 30 Jan - 11:02

So in a standard year, England (for ex - read any NH team)

Will play a Six Nations tournament
Will play 3 away tests in July in EITHER New Zealand, Australia and Fiji OR Argentina, South Africa and Japan
Will play 3 home tests in November against the group they didn't play against
Will potentially have two weeks of play-offs (always in the NH? Or will they all fly down to the SH after the autumn series?)

In that case, it isn't wildly different to what we have now - just those play-offs. Would potentially widen the gap from Georgia, Samoa, Canada, etc.

I really like the Nations League this is apparently based off, but I'm not sold on this. I don't like the format and I don't think there is enough variety in the teams to separate it from the World Cup, just a more drawn out format. I also wouldn't really like it without a further degree of season harmonisation. It would be odd to have some teams on 8 games played while others have 3.

I've said before if right now we started with a blank piece of paper and said "design professional rugby", no-one would come up with what we have now. This competition would initially bring scepticism but then eventually bed in to part of the calendar I'm sure, I just think if we're changing things we shouldn't keep tweaking what we have and should try to design a system that works for rugby, not just mimic everything football does.

There are other sporting models. NFL players will probably play less minutes in a regular season than Maro Itoje played in the Six Nations last year. Bringing another competition in may be good for a few quid, but it won't help the players. Instead of getting a bit of a rest after the AIs, you'll go straight into a play-off, Champions Cup, Christmas derby, more Champions Cup and the Six Nations again. It's an intense schedule.

by Gooseberry Wed 30 Jan - 11:26

LondonTiger wrote:More info coming out with compromises that suggest this may happen. At the very least the major unions have told World Rugby to continue development.

Premise seems to be:

Top 12 teams split currently as 6Ns + 4Ns + Japan + Fiji play each other once.
For 6Ns sides fixtures would be the current 6Ns format, 3 summer matches in 3 different countries and the 3 AIs against 3 different opponents.
The other group of 6 would play matches between themselves in the current 4Ns window.

After all 11 matches have been played there will be two weeks of playoffs to determine the winners and also whether anyone is relegated.

Will not happen in WC year. Truncated version in Lions year.

A lot more detail is available but hidden behind the Times paywall.

This proposal wouldnt see a significant change in the number of tests played by the 6 nations teams, most of them play 4 AI's now anyway. The playoffs is the only real change, and the big problem there is the unpredictability of it and how that impacts the club season.
It would also make summer tours more onerous with a lot more jetsetting and less preparation time for the NH players.
Long term its more likely to be the death of the Lions than stay truncated.
The big impact seems to be on the Pacific islanders with Fiji and Japan treated as a special case ( would that vary on world rankings / relegation? ) , and its not clear the impact this has on the Pislands cup. Them getting the opportunity to play the 4N teams outside of world cups would be a bonus.

Overall though it seems like a bit of a sideshow, and something that detracts from a world cup. And the idea of development tours and experimental sides. It maybe adds more meaning to AIs, but there was something gratifying about a series for the summer tours vs these one off games every year. In the same way that its no longer a big deal when the home nations play at least 2 of the SANZARS every autumn the tour cycle made it feel like a real special occasion to go to these places...making it yearly one offs takes that away. Its also not so good for the travelling fans and all those retired IT contractors who spend 2 months travelling New Zealand, theres a genuine financial impact there too if less people travel with the NH teams.

by Brendan Wed 30 Jan - 11:43

So the NH will help fund turning the Rugby Championship from 4 to 6 team. I assume Japan represent the Asian Champs and Fiji the PI champs.

It also cuts Georgia adrift and any expansion of the 6 Nations or growing the standard of European Teir 2 sides.

Would much rather the top 3 in the 6N play the top 3 in the RC home and away.

Winners - every SH team
Losers -Europe T2 (esp Georgia), USA, Samoa, Tonga (who all lose T1 matches) plus Uruguay, Nambia, Canda
No winning 6N

by maestegmafia Wed 30 Jan - 11:53

To me this seems like it is designed to improve revenue not to improve the game outside the top tier.

Word rugby previously were encouraging more established nations to arrange fixtures with the less competitive nations to help spread the game and improve the lower levels.

I hear the New Zealander’s are keen on the world league as it may bring in the revenue they need to exist against the buying power of the English French and Japanese league teams.

by Brendan Wed 30 Jan - 12:58

maestegmafia wrote:To me this seems like it is designed to improve revenue not to improve the game outside the top tier.

Word rugby previously were encouraging more established nations to arrange fixtures with the less competitive nations to help spread the game and improve the lower levels.

I hear the New Zealander’s are keen on the world league as it may bring in the revenue they need to exist against the buying power of the English French and Japanese league teams.

I assume that means not no extra fees to be charged by the ABs which is substantial.

The only problem with their assumption of more money is that if all the unions would have more money, so then more money goes to the European game which ups prices due to improved fees for player access agreements. You would assume that each country will keep their home game revenue (as most leagues do) and only share the TV deal money. 6 Nations would still be ring fenced which is the cash cow of the NH nations so the SH would still struggle.

Super Rugby would still loose money especially if they go back to playing each team once and only play your home teams once. This would result in two away games to other countries and to home games being less sellable. You still have the issue of 60k watching Italy at home in the 6 nations brings in more money that NZ can with their 40-50k. Italy have access to 80k stadiums for really big games if they needed to. New Zealand are running 5 Pro teams and need to drop to 4 if they want to keep their stars.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 30 Jan - 13:02

I forgot to mention that as part of the playoffs, there would be two relegation matches. Bottom team in Europe (after all 11 games not just 6N ones) to play winner of the European Championship, Bottom "SH" team to play winner from Americas and Pacific Championships.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 30 Jan - 13:17

The Times wrote:Relegation from the Guinness Six Nations could be introduced for the first time after World Rugby held talks in Los Angeles about creating a world league.

The Times has seen details of the proposed tournament, which would aim to start in 2022 and involve the world’s top 12 countries — six from Europe and six from the southern hemisphere — playing each other once a year before a play-off series and final every autumn. It would not be held in a World Cup year, while a truncated event would be staged in years when the British & Irish Lions are touring.

World Rugby, the international governing body, held positive discussions with executives of the tier-one and tier-two nations on Monday. The project was greeted cynically when it was first proposed last September and although there are a number of issues to be resolved, the new league seems likely to go ahead after being given approval to progress on Monday.

If relegation is factored in, there will be two divisions in Europe and two in the southern hemisphere. The team who finish bottom of the top-tier group of six would contest a play-off against the winner of the second tier. Italy oppose relegation and the league could be adopted without certain aspects, such as relegation.

The Six Nations would take place as normal and act as the European top tier. The five games each nation play in the Six Nations would count as world league points. For the other six of their 11 group games, three would be played in the summer, in place of a tour, and three in November. The semi-finals would be on the final weekend of November between the top European side and the second-placed southern-hemisphere nation and vice versa, with the final seven days later.

In the southern hemisphere, the Rugby Championship, contested by Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, would continue to be held in August and September and would act as the top tier, with Japan and Fiji joining the competition. The second division would comprise six teams from the Pacific Nations Cup and the Americas Championship.

The purpose of the proposed format is to maintain rugby’s traditional competitions, such as the Six Nations, but to add greater depth through a global final series, as well as providing the opportunity for emerging nations.

There is widespread concern over player welfare because the addition of the play-off series would mean intense Test matches are played on five successive weekends in November and December, which could also lead to opposition and a possible legal challenge from European clubs over player release dates.

World Rugby is championing the new tournament as a way of providing greater context and coherence to the international game, giving encouragement to tier-two nations aiming to move into the elite and to drive international growth, particularly through securing more lucrative television deals, which would be sold centrally.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 30 Jan - 13:20

LondonTiger wrote:
The Times wrote:
World Rugby is championing the new tournament as a way of providing greater context and coherence to the international game, giving encouragement to tier-two nations aiming to move into the elite and to drive international growth, particularly through securing more lucrative television deals, which would be sold centrally.

Only just noticed this point. If the TV deals are sold centrally I wonder how the income would be distributed. Right now I would assume that 6Ns sisdes receive more money from their TV deal than Rugby Championship sides do

by tigertattie Wed 30 Jan - 13:32

It's all a crock!

The issue is the AI and Summer "tours" where the little fella's don't get much of a look in.

Last year's AI matches:
Japan vs NZ
Wales vs Scotland
England vs SA
Ireland vs Italy

Itlay vs Georgia
Scotland vs Fiji
England vs NZ
Wales vs Oz

Ireland vs Arg
France vs SA

Itlay vs Oz
Wales vs Tonga
England vs Japan
Scotland vs SA
Ire vs NZ
France vs Arg

Italy vs NZ
Scotland vs Arg
Engalnd vs Oz
Ireland vs USA
France vs Fiji

Wales vs Scotland and Ireland vs Italy were jsut reruns of the 6Ns matches, these should have been opened up to playing against Tonga, Canada, Samoa, etc.

Tonga came all the way over to play Wales but there were no other games! Surely they could have gotten a 2nd game against someone. Anyone.

Then there are the Summer tours where the home nations often play a 2 or 3 game series against Oz, SA or NZ. This simply isnt fair. We should be doing what the other teams do. We should play a game against NZ and Oz then a game against Fiji or Samoa or Tonga. Or a game against Arg then Uraguay. SA and then Nambia!!!

by Brendan Wed 30 Jan - 13:46

tigertattie wrote:It's all a crock!

The issue is the AI and Summer "tours" where the little fella's don't get much of a look in.

Last year's AI matches:
Japan vs NZ
Wales vs Scotland
England vs SA
Ireland vs Italy

Itlay vs Georgia
Scotland vs Fiji
England vs NZ
Wales vs Oz

Ireland vs Arg
France vs SA

Itlay vs Oz
Wales vs Tonga
England vs Japan
Scotland vs SA
Ire vs NZ
France vs Arg

Italy vs NZ
Scotland vs Arg
Engalnd vs Oz
Ireland vs USA
France vs Fiji

Wales vs Scotland and Ireland vs Italy were jsut reruns of the 6Ns matches, these should have been opened up to playing against Tonga, Canada, Samoa, etc.

Tonga came all the way over to play Wales but there were no other games! Surely they could have gotten a 2nd game against someone. Anyone.

Then there are the Summer tours where the home nations often play a 2 or 3 game series against Oz, SA or NZ. This simply isnt fair. We should be doing what the other teams do. We should play a game against NZ and Oz then a game against Fiji or Samoa or Tonga. Or a game against Arg then Uraguay. SA and then Nambia!!!

I think the problem is that the 3 big SH sides don't play the teir two sides. The AIs always have the NH playing a lesser team

by maestegmafia Wed 30 Jan - 13:57

I want to see more games like SA vs Japan at the 2015 Rwc.for that we need more tier 1 vs tier 2 nations games.

by robbo277 Wed 30 Jan - 13:58

LondonTiger wrote:I forgot to mention that as part of the playoffs, there would be two relegation matches. Bottom team in Europe (after all 11 games not just 6N ones) to play winner of the European Championship, Bottom "SH" team to play winner from Americas and Pacific Championships.

So what happens when Italy are the bottom team in Europe every year, have to play Georgia every year for 10 years and inevitably lose one of those fixtures? Do they get relegated from the 6 Nations as well? Or do Georgia play the European Championship and try to crowbar 11 other tests into their calendar.

by robbo277 Wed 30 Jan - 14:12

maestegmafia wrote:I want to see more games like SA vs Japan at the 2015 Rwc.for that we need more tier 1 vs tier 2 nations games.

They need to be meaningful and in a context to be appreciated. If Japan had turned South Africa over in the 2014 Autumn Internationals, how much would we care? Probably as much as we care about Fiji doing France this past Autumn.

Does this league bring us closer to harmonisation of the season? Say the NH moving the Six Nations to the summer and having tests in July, hemisphere competitions in August/September, tests in October and finals by the first week of November would give us the global international window that is sometimes mooted. If this tournament comes in in 2022, I wouldn't bet against seeing something like that happen in 2030, especially if the "traditional" Six Nations is ripped up by relegation.

What's Italy's recourse if they want to oppose relegation? Drag their feet and eventually go along with it? Assuming the rest of the world wanted it, would the other nations be able to strong arm them into it by saying "accept relegation or expulsion"?

by **LondonTiger** Wed 30 Jan - 14:13

robbo277 wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:I forgot to mention that as part of the playoffs, there would be two relegation matches. Bottom team in Europe (after all 11 games not just 6N ones) to play winner of the European Championship, Bottom "SH" team to play winner from Americas and Pacific Championships.

So what happens when Italy are the bottom team in Europe every year, have to play Georgia every year for 10 years and inevitably lose one of those fixtures? Do they get relegated from the 6 Nations as well? Or do Georgia play the European Championship and try to crowbar 11 other tests into their calendar.

My assumption was they would be relegated from 6Ns too, but at the moment this plan is, to use the political word of the month, nebulous.

by robbo277 Wed 30 Jan - 14:30

LondonTiger wrote:
robbo277 wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:I forgot to mention that as part of the playoffs, there would be two relegation matches. Bottom team in Europe (after all 11 games not just 6N ones) to play winner of the European Championship, Bottom "SH" team to play winner from Americas and Pacific Championships.

So what happens when Italy are the bottom team in Europe every year, have to play Georgia every year for 10 years and inevitably lose one of those fixtures? Do they get relegated from the 6 Nations as well? Or do Georgia play the European Championship and try to crowbar 11 other tests into their calendar.
My assumption was they would be relegated from 6Ns too, but at the moment this plan is, to use the political word of the month, nebulous.

I guess there is still a long way for the proposal to travel The idea is an interesting concept at least, I think it would definitely help boost the June and November tests. I think the Six Nations may feel a little bit watered down, yeah someone will win, but if you can "stay in touch" for the World League then that might be seen as a job well done, which would mean losing the second is nowhere feeling.

by Gooseberry Wed 30 Jan - 15:13

Expanding on some of the comments above I do suspect that the biggest stumbling blocks to this will be the French and English domestic clubs, the distribution of TV rights, and the issue of relegation from the 6 nations.
On relegation its not just Italy (and lets face it France given their recent record) who would be worried about this , but also the other nations who would see a drop in revenue and a host of other problems if Georgia came in. The domestic competition that Wales, Ireland, Scotland rely on and SA are stakeholders in would also be concerned about the instability that 6 nations relegation would bring.

Its an interesting concept, but one with a lot of barriers and different bodies with competing interests that would need to align to make it happen. Given that the French really don't value international tests much they are perhaps going to be the hardest ones to convince of the benefits.

If they could do it without the playoffs and relegation I think it has more chance of being a thing. But that wouldn't suit what the SANZARs want from it ...

If we cant negotiate ~~brexit~~ a global season I dont see this going further than the drawing board.

by Guest Thu 28 Feb - 7:29

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12208175

Interesting article. So many potential problems, and issues, with money seemingly/obviously the primary motivator here.

Thoughts?

by Cyril Thu 28 Feb - 7:57

Is there not already a thread on this?

https://www.606v2.com/t68371-new-world-rugby-league

by whocares Thu 28 Feb - 8:00

So while a NH team might have to travel across 3 continents and multiple time zones in June to play 3 games, a SH team will have maximum 2 hours travel between each games in November ... that’s hardly fair...

by Guest Thu 28 Feb - 8:47

Happy to have them merged Cyril. This story seems to be breaking with concrete details now though, lots of talk on twitter from rugby journos etc and Farrell and Sexton coming out and criticising the strain on players. All told, a very strange move by World Rugby.

by BamBam Thu 28 Feb - 9:07

Sounds like the initial proposal included some form of relegation playoff against teams outside of the league. This has now been removed, so essentially the likes of Georgia and the PIs are on the outside for 10 years if this goes ahead

by BamBam Thu 28 Feb - 9:13

Its pretty disgusting to treat the tier 2 nations like this, just because of the coin that the US might one day be able to bring. Say what you like about FIFA diluting the football world cup with extra teams, but they're giving more and more countries the chance to play at the very highest level.

We're doing the opposite here, and shutting out countries who produce some of the finest players in the game when you think about the quality of props that Georgia produce and the unbelievable attacking skills that the Pacific island teams bring

by **LondonTiger** Thu 28 Feb - 9:19

This bastardised version of Pichot's vision seems to keep the worst parts and add some more. The best parts of his plan have been scrapped if this report is to be believed.

by Ricardo74 Thu 28 Feb - 9:31

The lack of promotion and relegation ostracising the "second tier" nations makes this worse than it was before. Italy are the lowest ranked team, and USA, Tonga and Fiji are all ranked above them.

That said, if Italy were relegated, and Fiji promoted, for example, that would make a mess of the 6N (as Fiji couldn't just assume Italy's spot), and the RC, as they couldn't just drop in there.

The logistics of the countries concerned, and the described fixture layout mean that promotion and relegation could only work if you had a Europe pool and a SH pool - which is effectively what we have now.

Madness.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 28 Feb - 9:35

The original suggestion was that there would be a second tier competition mirroring the main one, with the bottom performing European team playing the top performing European team from the 2nd tier in a play-off.

This may (or indeed may not) have meant relegation from the 6Ns if the bottom performing team lost the play-off, even though the relegated team may not have finished bottom of the 6Ns. Should they not impose relegation from the 6Ns then there would have been 1 extra fixture for five teams and 5 extra fixtures for the relegated team.

by robbo277 Thu 28 Feb - 10:30

whocares wrote:So while a NH team might have to travel across 3 continents and multiple time zones in June to play 3 games, a SH team will have maximum 2 hours travel between each games in November ... that’s hardly fair...

I guess the counter-argument for this is that it should be slightly easier to get a NH grand slam than a "SH" grand slam, because there's less travel in the Six Nations. "SH" teams will do the bulk of their travel within their tournament.

The other one is that some teams will have 6 home games and others 5. The tournament is inherently unfair, but I guess that's why the play-offs are there.

by robbo277 Thu 28 Feb - 10:41

Is a 6 Nations winner vs Rugby Championship winner in a neutral location as the "4th AI" too simple?

The other idea would be to have four qualifying tournaments.

Six Nations
Rugby Championship (with or without Japan and USA)
Rugby European Championship
Pacific Nations Cup (with or without Japan, USA and possibly Canada to make 6?)

You can then have the 4 winners enter a play-off in November as your World League final. You can seed the Six Nations and the Rugby Championship if you want, but then instead of making something exclusive you make something inclusive. Existing tier 2 tournaments take on a new meaning and get elevated to the same level as the current tier 1 tournaments.

For a while you would probably get the Six Nations winner play-off the Rugby Championship winner after each side has a warm-up game, but the first time Fiji knock off the Six Nations winner or Georgia turnover the All Blacks would be huge for the game.

I guess it doesn't generate the year-round revenue they want for the cosy club at the heart of World Rugby, but I think from a rugby perspective this would be a stronger proposal.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 28 Feb - 10:47

Pichot originally stated the intention was to improve international rugby. Even then the underlying motive appeared to be about propping up the finances of SH countries.

Excluding Tier 2 countries entirely, almost eliminating matches with Tier 1 countries outside of the RWC shows this is clearly a money grab. I guess we could see development tours in Lions years when it was previously suggested the World League would be truncated.

I assume, admittedly always dangerous, that the 12 teams would automatically qualify for the RWC as there would be no space for them to participate in a qualifying program.

by robbo277 Thu 28 Feb - 10:51

LondonTiger wrote:Pichot originally stated the intention was to improve international rugby. Even then the underlying motive appeared to be about propping up the finances of SH countries.

Excluding Tier 2 countries entirely, almost eliminating matches with Tier 1 countries outside of the RWC shows this is clearly a money grab. I guess we could see development tours in Lions years when it was previously suggested the World League would be truncated.

I assume, admittedly always dangerous, that the 12 teams would automatically qualify for the RWC as there would be no space for them to participate in a qualifying program.

This is key. Not only would they be frozen out, they also wouldn't get the token game they get now.

I think the 12 teams probably would qualify automatically with the remaining qualifiers being drawn from Tier 2. Although World Rugby have already shown that they're not beyond altering the qualifying format to ensure the same teams make it each time.

by Taylorman Thu 28 Feb - 11:33

Yes this hasnt been handled well. Be Good to see how the northern sides face flying all over the Southern hemisphere in winter as we do.

But a typical money grabbing exercise. Japan and US ahead of the Island countries? Money money money. Sounds like a typical northern idea. At least its one they might win. A final at Christmas time? Doesnt get odder than that for our sides.

by Collapse2005 Thu 28 Feb - 11:37

Taylorman wrote:Yes this hasnt been handled well. Be Good to see how the northern sides face flying all over the Southern hemisphere in winter as we do.

But a typical money grabbing exercise. Japan and US ahead of the Island countries? Money money money. Sounds like a typical northern idea. At least its one they might win. A final at Christmas time? Doesnt get odder than that for our sides.

Yeah cause New Zealand has a history of playing the island sides? Eh no they don't, not by comparison to the number of NH games v the islands.

by LordDowlais Thu 28 Feb - 11:39

What sacrifices are the SH making here ?

by Taylorman Thu 28 Feb - 11:47

Collapse2005 wrote:
Taylorman wrote:Yes this hasnt been handled well. Be Good to see how the northern sides face flying all over the Southern hemisphere in winter as we do.

But a typical money grabbing exercise. Japan and US ahead of the Island countries? Money money money. Sounds like a typical northern idea. At least its one they might win. A final at Christmas time? Doesnt get odder than that for our sides.

Yeah cause New Zealand has a history of playing the island sides? Eh no they don't, not by comparison to the number of NH games v the islands.

Got a thing about the islands havent you? All Im saying is that as rugby nations they deserve to be in whatever this outfit is more than Japan or US, do you not agree with that, or are you just being childish again?

. And by the way, weve played Fiji, Tonga and Samoa 17 times since 87. None of the six nations sides have played more. So your point is? Besides from being weak that is....?

I see theres a few more for a couple. Second tier sides do seem to play them more I see. More the reason to put them in this. The USA? Thats a joke.

by SecretFly Thu 28 Feb - 11:52

Two sheep per year I think, Lord. What the hell do you mean, what sacrifices are SH making? The same as everyone else if they go for it... a decent into madness? Who attends all these big yearly world games? You can't get a Welsh regional fan to get on a bus (their own oft mentioned issues with attending games) and yet fans are going to be swanning around the world in big numbers to populate these games? Not all fans have such flexible jobs or loaded pockets and not all expatriate backpackers like rugby.

by tigertattie Thu 28 Feb - 12:16

Why has this headfeck of a plan been announced at this time? The players (half of them anyway) are currently embroiled in the oldest international compitition in the sport and this is just a distraction.

by robbo277 Thu 28 Feb - 12:34

AP9 wrote:Dear friend stop lying . I will never support a league that doesn’t have a pathway for emerging Nations. Should ask first. Besos.

https://twitter.com/AP9_/status/1101093816826818564

by robbo277 Thu 28 Feb - 12:44

Taylorman wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:
Taylorman wrote:Yes this hasnt been handled well. Be Good to see how the northern sides face flying all over the Southern hemisphere in winter as we do.

But a typical money grabbing exercise. Japan and US ahead of the Island countries? Money money money. Sounds like a typical northern idea. At least its one they might win. A final at Christmas time? Doesnt get odder than that for our sides.

Yeah cause New Zealand has a history of playing the island sides? Eh no they don't, not by comparison to the number of NH games v the islands.

Got a thing about the islands havent you? All Im saying is that as rugby nations they deserve to be in whatever this outfit is more than Japan or US, do you not agree with that, or are you just being childish again?

. And by the way, weve played Fiji, Tonga and Samoa 17 times since 87. None of the six nations sides have played more. So your point is? Besides from being weak that is....?

I see theres a few more for a couple. Second tier sides do seem to play them more I see. More the reason to put them in this. The USA? Thats a joke.

We did that. Then everyone decided it made more sense for us to play series. Now that's being torn up to go back to hopping about to create a world league.

Cricket is the same at the moment with the Test Championship. Although in both cases there will be a potentially lucrative play-off series, the real money is in the TV rights. The 6 games everyone already plays in the summer/autumn will command higher prices and with the global TV rights for the play-offs to be sold it wouldn't really matter if the ticket sales only covered the cost of the ground and the travel.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 28 Feb - 13:23

As ever seems contrasting reports. Supposedly having acceptance across all unions is hard to believe as with the tweet above surely world rugby are looking to develop teams as a priority not creating another fence to be vaulted.

by whocares Thu 28 Feb - 13:28

robbo277 wrote:
whocares wrote:So while a NH team might have to travel across 3 continents and multiple time zones in June to play 3 games, a SH team will have maximum 2 hours travel between each games in November ... that’s hardly fair...

I guess the counter-argument for this is that it should be slightly easier to get a NH grand slam than a "SH" grand slam, because there's less travel in the Six Nations. "SH" teams will do the bulk of their travel within their tournament.

The other one is that some teams will have 6 home games and others 5. The tournament is inherently unfair, but I guess that's why the play-offs are there.

I think it s fair to say that only a couple of European teams will manage to be competitive in June if they have to play SA , NZ and say Japan within 4 weeks. From a French perspective i’d much rather end up playing Fiji and Samoa during that time frame and rest a few players but at least we are unlikely to waste time in some playoffs. Player’s fitness is more important than this. Of course you could always reduce club season by a couple of games but it won’t be enough imo.
I don’t see many benefits for NH appart from airmiles and rather expand the 6N into a larger European competition . You can always have once a year a 4 teams tournament involving the best 2 of each hemisphere as they do in football.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 28 Feb - 13:30

tigertattie wrote:Why has this headfeck of a plan been announced at this time? The players (half of them anyway) are currently embroiled in the oldest international compitition in the sport and this is just a distraction.

Probably because reports of Six Nations teams looking to sell joint TV rights for all home internationals, so including AIs, was leaked earlier this week - along with them having talks with CVC who bought a PRL stake.

The main aim of this World League seems to be to give money to Sanzar teams and this would only be possible if they can hook into the NH TV rights.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu 28 Feb - 14:23

I despair of all these global discussions, because they never appear to address the whole picture. I could understand if there was an attempt to pin one problem down, and then accept the logical consequences for the rest of rugby, but that never seems to happen.

When the global calendar agreement was thrashed out, it was obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the game in the North, that it meant our players going deeper into the summer to play Tests. There was no attempt to get a rounded agreement from England and France to adjust the league structure, so we've ended up with an 11 month season and scant additional allowance for player welfare.

World Rugby says daft things like wanting top XVs players to play Olympic sevens, seemingly oblivious to the fact the XVs World Cup will always come 9 months or so before the Olympics, which leaves little time for anyone to make an effective switch.

Then World Rugby says the Lions should continue as an institution, without trying to find a place in the calendar to keep everyone onside.

It seems evident to me that to set up a global rugby schedule of Test and club competitions, which can live in some kind of harmony. we'll have to lose some parts of the sport which are currently held very dear, because there isn't room for everything. I don't know which parts will have to lose out, but some compensation should be paid, and then we can get on promoting like crazy whatever we have left.

by Duty281 Thu 28 Feb - 14:37

Absolutely terrible idea and it appears to have united fans and players in disapproval. There is already too much rugby being played, too much travelling etc. and this will further harm players welfare and lead to strikes and mutiny. It will also render the World Cup a near-pointless affair.

As others have said, it is only about propping up the seemingly financially unstable Southern Hemisphere and promoting the game in the USA. Though how many Americans will be enthused by a sport that sees their country regularly take absolute hammerings from tier one nations remains to be seen.

Judging by Sexton's statement, it appears as though the International Rugby Players' gave World Rugby an inch, and World Rugby gladly took several furlongs.

by marty2086 Thu 28 Feb - 14:39

Rugby Fan wrote:I despair of all these global discussions, because they never appear to address the whole picture. I could understand if there was an attempt to pin one problem down, and then accept the logical consequences for the rest of rugby, but that never seems to happen.

When the global calendar agreement was thrashed out, it was obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the game in the North, that it meant our players going deeper into the summer to play Tests. There was no attempt to get a rounded agreement from England and France to adjust the league structure, so we've ended up with an 11 month season and scant additional allowance for player welfare.

World Rugby says daft things like wanting top XVs players to play Olympic sevens, seemingly oblivious to the fact the XVs World Cup will always come 9 months or so before the Olympics, which leaves little time for anyone to make an effective switch.

Then World Rugby says the Lions should continue as an institution, without trying to find a place in the calendar to keep everyone onside.

It seems evident to me that to set up a global rugby schedule of Test and club competitions, which can live in some kind of harmony. we'll have to lose some parts of the sport which are currently held very dear, because there isn't room for everything. I don't know which parts will have to lose out, but some compensation should be paid, and then we can get on promoting like crazy whatever we have left.

It's possible to keep everything we had before but it would require a reset of everything and that seems to be where the problems fall, WR seem to want to shoehorn everything into whats already there rather than taking everything apart and putting it back together

by robbo277 Thu 28 Feb - 14:39

Rugby Fan wrote:I despair of all these global discussions, because they never appear to address the whole picture. I could understand if there was an attempt to pin one problem down, and then accept the logical consequences for the rest of rugby, but that never seems to happen.

When the global calendar agreement was thrashed out, it was obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the game in the North, that it meant our players going deeper into the summer to play Tests. There was no attempt to get a rounded agreement from England and France to adjust the league structure, so we've ended up with an 11 month season and scant additional allowance for player welfare.

World Rugby says daft things like wanting top XVs players to play Olympic sevens, seemingly oblivious to the fact the XVs World Cup will always come 9 months or so before the Olympics, which leaves little time for anyone to make an effective switch.

Then World Rugby says the Lions should continue as an institution, without trying to find a place in the calendar to keep everyone onside.

It seems evident to me that to set up a global rugby schedule of Test and club competitions, which can live in some kind of harmony. we'll have to lose some parts of the sport which are currently held very dear, because there isn't room for everything. I don't know which parts will have to lose out, but some compensation should be paid, and then we can get on promoting like crazy whatever we have left.

You'd think an easy fix would be to start the leagues in October and finish them in June, just shifting all the games back a month. But I'm sure the clubs will use the expansion to take matches out the international window and put further demands on the top players.

I still think the Southern Hemisphere season is better. 3 tiers of rugby, International, Continental and Domestic. Players either play International and Continental, Continental and Domestic or just Domestic depending on their ability. Then you can have 3x 12 game seasons that overlap.

The bastardised version of the football season we use up here is not fit for purpose.

by Sponsored content