When World Rugby gave us their new "Nations Championship" idea their press release made sure to reassure that the 6 Nations, Rugby Championship and British & Irish Lions formats would be all totally retained and protected at all costs as the "jewels in the calendar".
However whilst it is worth acknowledging this may not be a very common view in the rugby world, from the perspective of the global game, those traditional "jewels in the calendar" in their current format are actually a big part of the problem in holding back expansion and growth of the sport.
When Fiji coach John McKee told Reuters recently that he is concerned "rugby becomes more like football where there's not really that much interest in internationals outside the World Cup" you had to laugh at the ignorance and total lack of self-awareness of his own sport.
International rugby for those not involved in those "jewels in the calendar" has become all about the RWC to a far greater degree than in football, where there are major tournaments in between World Cups that are more inclusive in involving more nations. Indeed in another interview earlier that same week McKee himself had already been talking about planning for 2023 and how pretty much everything before that was all part of the preparation.
He said not having to play qualifiers means rather than play some experienced players not certain to make another RWC he can now "try some new, young guys" and not be overly concerned about winning as "the real goal is to build the best possible team for 2023".
This thought process is not unique to McKee amongst coaches of Tier 2 nations. Almost immediately after the end of their RWCs you will already hear talk begin immediately of preparing for the next one in 4 years time, with discussion about moving on any players around the age of 30 or over (even if in some cases the players could certainly maintain a good level for another couple years at least).
Rugby fans frequently overrate the strength of international rugby outside the RWC based just on the success of the 6 Nations, Lions tours, or November tests between major nations. Below that top tier the international rugby system is broken, precisely as it creates little interest outside RWCs, is not inclusive for many nations, and does not work financially and relies upon subsidies from RWC money. This situation almost perpetually puts Tier 1 in a dominant position with Tier 2 left with a begging bowl.
In fact football, the sport that McKee ignorantly derides, actually has a far better more inclusive international game involving more nations. If rugby were to move to something closer to their model of having more inclusive tournament style major events in between the RWC it would do a lot of good for the spread of the global game outside just the traditional Tier 1 powers.
Whilst rugby does have two major competitions in between RWCs the exclusiveness and round-robin league style format of both of them acts as a complete buffer for potential growth and expansion.
Firstly the format limits the amount of teams you can practically ever involve. Already the 6 Nations and Rugby Championship from start to finish takes almost as long to complete as the 20 team RWC. Without a format change there is barely room in the calendar for one extra team let alone multiple more.
Secondly this format creates a higher barrier to entry for expansion to new emerging teams. Some weaker teams in a tournament like the RWC are more manageable. They are out after 4 games (3 in a 24 team RWC) and then have to go back and win some games again to get back there.
There is less appeal though of a minnow making up the numbers in round-robin format where they keep playing many games long after having been eliminated. Seeing Russia play Ireland once every few years is fine, seeing a long line of such games repeated annually though would get somewhat tedious. Some may say that has arguably become the case to some degree after an entire 4 year cycle of Italy losses in the 6 Nations, and Italy are a lot better than a team like Russia.
It's hard to see for example if rugby wanted to expand with the USA in a major round-robin tournament for instance, that putting them in an Italy position of sub 20% career win percentages is the ideal way of doing it and attracting new fans. This is different to a poor RWC on a 4 yearly basis. If repeated year after year any novelty of the fixtures wears off and some level of demoralisation and tediousness begins to slowly creep in. All Blacks notably sold out Soldier Field vs USA in 2014, but this would be less likely to happen year after year.
Similarly right now there is serious talk of Japan entering a major tournament. Now this shouldn't be understood at all the wrong way. Obviously it is great for them (as it would be for anybody) to enter a major tournament and become Tier 1 with access to better funding, fixture lists, and off field voting power that comes with it when the alternative is being stuck in Tier 2 just playing lower profile friendlies outside the RWC. However nevertheless putting them into the Italy position of likely losing streaks can hardly be seen as the ideal way of capitalising on momentum from the RWC either.
Perhaps many are not bothered about the higher barrier the round-robin format creates. But it must be understood appearances at a tournament of the nature of RWC which can manage more lower sides has proven to be the best vehicle to elevate them. The growth of the RWC brand itself has been the big success story of the global game. It has pushed forward rugby considerably in nations such as Argentina, Georgia, and Uruguay, delivered huge TV audiences in nations like Japan, and become a cash cow that services the development of the sport from top to bottom.
Involvement in a similar style of major tournament mid-RWC would possibly further boost them and more nations in terms of publicity and money coming into their programs.
It can't be stated enough that the commercial value a major tournament brand brings is massively significant for smaller teams who do not carry the historic team brand like the All Blacks, Wallabies, Springboks, England, Wales etc who can sell international friendlies. It is far harder to sell a friendly vs Uruguay for example, even for other Tier 2 nations who would be closely matched with them. For these smaller teams it is the context of the major tournament that brings crowds and large global TV audiences.
For example Fiji vs Uruguay played in a major tournament sold out reasonably sized stadiums in Milton Keynes or Kamaishi in games that were televised across the world on TV. Whilst when they played in a friendly at Hartpury College there was a crowd of closer to around 800 with tickets probably about the same price as fish & chips in a game that was only seen streamed by World Rugby on YouTube.
The international friendly system that mid-RWC cycle rugby is built on only works commercially for the big dogs (and only for the lower teams when one of those big brands visit them). Much of the rest involving Tier 2 has to be mainly subsidised by World Rugby (using that money that comes from those sold out games and TV rights from RWCs) as it is not sustainable on its own.
Again this demonstrates the lack of self-awareness of McKee as was pointed out earlier. When he said "there's not really that much interest in internationals outside the World Cup", he ought to look at his own sport outside matches involving the top few leading teams including some of those of his own.
Fiji vs Georgia in the RWC recently was played in front of a packed 21,000 stadium in Osaka paying Japanese prices and shown across the world on TV. But when the Lelos visited Fiji in 2016 there were barely 1,000 paying Fijian prices and it was played before mostly empty seats and you could only watch it was on an internet stream.
Whilst it may not be the exact same degree as a RWC, a mid-RWC tournament which involved more sides would be able to increase interest and funding across more nations. A fixture like Scotland vs Spain for instance would sell and get a lot wider coverage in the context of a major European tournament than it ever would in a November friendly. And also as shown by the likes of Fiji vs Uruguay or Georgia so too would the Tier 2 vs Tier 2 games in such a tournament as well.
That increase in interest and funding is without doubt the most critical factor in the long term ability of the sport to grow and eventually become more competitive globally.
Thirdly the round-robin formats also deny the chance for really small nations, most notably the Pacific Islands, to seriously ever compete in a major tournament outside RWC.
There has also been some talk of Fiji joining the Rugby Championship which was mentioned as part of the proposed "Nations Championship" plan. However fact is this simply is unlikely to work.
A point that has been strangely ignored by many is that if Fiji were to compete in the Rugby Championship in its current calendar they would be removing a lot of their market value at European clubs (which no Fijian domestic side even if they had one that is fully pro will ever be able to compete with for wages).
It is totally unrealistic to ask these players (many from poor backgrounds) to make significant sacrifices to their earnings for international rugby. Any rugby career is relatively short in the grand scheme of things and can come to an end very quickly, but a typical international rugby career is even shorter and can come to an end even quicker. You are highly unlikely going to see too many Pacific Island players gambling on the value of their club contracts and livelihoods in the sport like that.
Also there is the fact that nations like Tonga or Samoa have very small facilities by the standards of the major nations. It is unlikely financially viable for them to be able to play as a host in round-robin formats year upon year without large subsidies. Samoa notably lost money when they hosted the All Blacks.
Involving them in more of a RWC style tournament is far more practical than a round-robin. Both in terms of the calendar for player release and preparation time, and also not having concerns over the expense and logistics that would come with Tonga hosting in a round-robin home/away tournament.
Tournaments held in one nation (or a few nearby nations) would not only bring in more money into the sport for these nations. It would also save WR a lot of money from the amount of enormous travel and logistical costs that comes with loss making subsidy reliant tournaments such as the PNC.
In addition to this mid-RWC tournaments would allow more nations who are perhaps more experimental, or traditional but too small for the size the RWC has become, to be able to host major events.
It is for all these multiple reasons why I personally believe that some form of major mid-RWC tournament style events the are the most practical way of expanding the sport to more new nations both big and small than the existing annual round-robin league formats they exist in today.
Compared to a round-robin it would be far more likely to allow for nations like Fiji to be involved at full strength as they do at a RWC. It would be more likely encouraging for a nation like Japan to enter a tournament style competition with a diligently prepared team than a lesser prepared one which is ground down by huge amounts of travel and losses as we saw with the Sunwolves in Super Rugby.
More broadly it would also be a way of getting more mid-RWC high level competition to smaller nations who get none of it such as Romania, Uruguay, or Namibia. Plus most importantly of all it would likely be financially beneficial to these smaller nations and add more funding to their programs.
The possibility of anything like this happening though is absolutely zero. There is no way the 6 Nations or Rugby Championship going to change significantly if at all. Any expansion that does seem possible only involves maintaining the same historic round-robin formats they have always had.
Furthermore the Lions tour currently fills the role in the international calendar as the sport's major 4 yearly mid-RWC event. That obviously won't change either.
Also there is New Zealand/Australia led way of thinking shared by various high profile thought leaders in the game, including those in positions of high influence regards global development at World Rugby, who have seemingly little clue around reality and practicalities of the sport below Tier 1 and whose vision is of international rugby being more even based around round-robin league style formats not less so.
Hence we got the awful "Nations Championship" plan shaped by SANZAAR interests and pushed like it was great for the wider global game ignoring a lot of practical difficulties it involved for Tier 2 nations which would have made the global game far worse than the status quo is now.
And those seem to be the only two options currently on the table from the major powers at WR. It is either status quo favoured by the 6 Nations with just some tinkering here and there, or the awful ill thought out Nations Championship plan that SANZAAR love and tried their utmost to push through.
However just because there is no possibility of change doesn't alter the fact that this setup is not ideal for growing the game. The Lions tour is a much loved tradition from the amateur era that has survived into the professional era as a commercial beast off the pitch along with memorable games on it.
But this is also something that only involves and promotes the interests of 7 of the most established Unions from the sport's founding. Having that as the sport's main four yearly mid-RWC "jewel in the calendar" as opposed to something that would involve more nations is actually a quite stifling move from point of view of growing the game almost virtually anywhere outside those 7.
Unfortunately moving forward international rugby looks destined to stay in a system based on major tournaments outside RWCs being for the exclusive few along with fundraising friendlies which only work well if you are one of the big teams. It is hard to see any vision of productive change in the decades to come and this is something that will likely continue to limit rugby's growth as a more global sport.
However whilst it is worth acknowledging this may not be a very common view in the rugby world, from the perspective of the global game, those traditional "jewels in the calendar" in their current format are actually a big part of the problem in holding back expansion and growth of the sport.
International rugby outside Tier 1 now all based around RWCs
When Fiji coach John McKee told Reuters recently that he is concerned "rugby becomes more like football where there's not really that much interest in internationals outside the World Cup" you had to laugh at the ignorance and total lack of self-awareness of his own sport.
 |
| Fiji coach John McKee says he "try some new young guys" next year and not prioritise winning as "the real goal" is now 2023. |
International rugby for those not involved in those "jewels in the calendar" has become all about the RWC to a far greater degree than in football, where there are major tournaments in between World Cups that are more inclusive in involving more nations. Indeed in another interview earlier that same week McKee himself had already been talking about planning for 2023 and how pretty much everything before that was all part of the preparation.
He said not having to play qualifiers means rather than play some experienced players not certain to make another RWC he can now "try some new, young guys" and not be overly concerned about winning as "the real goal is to build the best possible team for 2023".
This thought process is not unique to McKee amongst coaches of Tier 2 nations. Almost immediately after the end of their RWCs you will already hear talk begin immediately of preparing for the next one in 4 years time, with discussion about moving on any players around the age of 30 or over (even if in some cases the players could certainly maintain a good level for another couple years at least).
Rugby fans frequently overrate the strength of international rugby outside the RWC based just on the success of the 6 Nations, Lions tours, or November tests between major nations. Below that top tier the international rugby system is broken, precisely as it creates little interest outside RWCs, is not inclusive for many nations, and does not work financially and relies upon subsidies from RWC money. This situation almost perpetually puts Tier 1 in a dominant position with Tier 2 left with a begging bowl.
In fact football, the sport that McKee ignorantly derides, actually has a far better more inclusive international game involving more nations. If rugby were to move to something closer to their model of having more inclusive tournament style major events in between the RWC it would do a lot of good for the spread of the global game outside just the traditional Tier 1 powers.
Round-robin format is a buffer for expansion
Whilst rugby does have two major competitions in between RWCs the exclusiveness and round-robin league style format of both of them acts as a complete buffer for potential growth and expansion.
Firstly the format limits the amount of teams you can practically ever involve. Already the 6 Nations and Rugby Championship from start to finish takes almost as long to complete as the 20 team RWC. Without a format change there is barely room in the calendar for one extra team let alone multiple more.
Secondly this format creates a higher barrier to entry for expansion to new emerging teams. Some weaker teams in a tournament like the RWC are more manageable. They are out after 4 games (3 in a 24 team RWC) and then have to go back and win some games again to get back there.
There is less appeal though of a minnow making up the numbers in round-robin format where they keep playing many games long after having been eliminated. Seeing Russia play Ireland once every few years is fine, seeing a long line of such games repeated annually though would get somewhat tedious. Some may say that has arguably become the case to some degree after an entire 4 year cycle of Italy losses in the 6 Nations, and Italy are a lot better than a team like Russia.
 |
| Round-robin nature of rugby's major mid-RWC tournaments has had some difficulty in the success of expansions with demoralising lopsided win/loss records and relatively slow progress. |
It's hard to see for example if rugby wanted to expand with the USA in a major round-robin tournament for instance, that putting them in an Italy position of sub 20% career win percentages is the ideal way of doing it and attracting new fans. This is different to a poor RWC on a 4 yearly basis. If repeated year after year any novelty of the fixtures wears off and some level of demoralisation and tediousness begins to slowly creep in. All Blacks notably sold out Soldier Field vs USA in 2014, but this would be less likely to happen year after year.
Similarly right now there is serious talk of Japan entering a major tournament. Now this shouldn't be understood at all the wrong way. Obviously it is great for them (as it would be for anybody) to enter a major tournament and become Tier 1 with access to better funding, fixture lists, and off field voting power that comes with it when the alternative is being stuck in Tier 2 just playing lower profile friendlies outside the RWC. However nevertheless putting them into the Italy position of likely losing streaks can hardly be seen as the ideal way of capitalising on momentum from the RWC either.
More inclusion in major events vitally significant booster for the sport's global profile and funding across a wider spread of nations
Perhaps many are not bothered about the higher barrier the round-robin format creates. But it must be understood appearances at a tournament of the nature of RWC which can manage more lower sides has proven to be the best vehicle to elevate them. The growth of the RWC brand itself has been the big success story of the global game. It has pushed forward rugby considerably in nations such as Argentina, Georgia, and Uruguay, delivered huge TV audiences in nations like Japan, and become a cash cow that services the development of the sport from top to bottom.
Involvement in a similar style of major tournament mid-RWC would possibly further boost them and more nations in terms of publicity and money coming into their programs.
 |
| Fiji vs Uruguay at RWC 2015 broke the stadium record at Milton Keynes selling over 30,000 tickets at not cheap prices. Outside of the context of the RWC though the match would have barely got 1,000 at fish & chip prices. International friendlies only work commercially for the biggest brands in the sport. For others it is RWC that drives the funding for them. |
It can't be stated enough that the commercial value a major tournament brand brings is massively significant for smaller teams who do not carry the historic team brand like the All Blacks, Wallabies, Springboks, England, Wales etc who can sell international friendlies. It is far harder to sell a friendly vs Uruguay for example, even for other Tier 2 nations who would be closely matched with them. For these smaller teams it is the context of the major tournament that brings crowds and large global TV audiences.
For example Fiji vs Uruguay played in a major tournament sold out reasonably sized stadiums in Milton Keynes or Kamaishi in games that were televised across the world on TV. Whilst when they played in a friendly at Hartpury College there was a crowd of closer to around 800 with tickets probably about the same price as fish & chips in a game that was only seen streamed by World Rugby on YouTube.
The international friendly system that mid-RWC cycle rugby is built on only works commercially for the big dogs (and only for the lower teams when one of those big brands visit them). Much of the rest involving Tier 2 has to be mainly subsidised by World Rugby (using that money that comes from those sold out games and TV rights from RWCs) as it is not sustainable on its own.
Again this demonstrates the lack of self-awareness of McKee as was pointed out earlier. When he said "there's not really that much interest in internationals outside the World Cup", he ought to look at his own sport outside matches involving the top few leading teams including some of those of his own.
 |
| The tiny crowd for Fiji vs Georgia in June 2016. The same fixture at the RWC was recently played in front of a sold out 21,000 crowd and broadcast across the world on TV. |
Fiji vs Georgia in the RWC recently was played in front of a packed 21,000 stadium in Osaka paying Japanese prices and shown across the world on TV. But when the Lelos visited Fiji in 2016 there were barely 1,000 paying Fijian prices and it was played before mostly empty seats and you could only watch it was on an internet stream.
Whilst it may not be the exact same degree as a RWC, a mid-RWC tournament which involved more sides would be able to increase interest and funding across more nations. A fixture like Scotland vs Spain for instance would sell and get a lot wider coverage in the context of a major European tournament than it ever would in a November friendly. And also as shown by the likes of Fiji vs Uruguay or Georgia so too would the Tier 2 vs Tier 2 games in such a tournament as well.
That increase in interest and funding is without doubt the most critical factor in the long term ability of the sport to grow and eventually become more competitive globally.
Round-robin formats very difficult for very small nations such as Pacific Islands
 |
| Fiji in the Rugby Championship annually would be practically impossible to do successfully on the current calendar. |
Thirdly the round-robin formats also deny the chance for really small nations, most notably the Pacific Islands, to seriously ever compete in a major tournament outside RWC.
There has also been some talk of Fiji joining the Rugby Championship which was mentioned as part of the proposed "Nations Championship" plan. However fact is this simply is unlikely to work.
A point that has been strangely ignored by many is that if Fiji were to compete in the Rugby Championship in its current calendar they would be removing a lot of their market value at European clubs (which no Fijian domestic side even if they had one that is fully pro will ever be able to compete with for wages).
It is totally unrealistic to ask these players (many from poor backgrounds) to make significant sacrifices to their earnings for international rugby. Any rugby career is relatively short in the grand scheme of things and can come to an end very quickly, but a typical international rugby career is even shorter and can come to an end even quicker. You are highly unlikely going to see too many Pacific Island players gambling on the value of their club contracts and livelihoods in the sport like that.
Also there is the fact that nations like Tonga or Samoa have very small facilities by the standards of the major nations. It is unlikely financially viable for them to be able to play as a host in round-robin formats year upon year without large subsidies. Samoa notably lost money when they hosted the All Blacks.
Involving them in more of a RWC style tournament is far more practical than a round-robin. Both in terms of the calendar for player release and preparation time, and also not having concerns over the expense and logistics that would come with Tonga hosting in a round-robin home/away tournament.
Tournaments held in one nation (or a few nearby nations) would not only bring in more money into the sport for these nations. It would also save WR a lot of money from the amount of enormous travel and logistical costs that comes with loss making subsidy reliant tournaments such as the PNC.
In addition to this mid-RWC tournaments would allow more nations who are perhaps more experimental, or traditional but too small for the size the RWC has become, to be able to host major events.
The reality of the unchanging rugby landscape
It is for all these multiple reasons why I personally believe that some form of major mid-RWC tournament style events the are the most practical way of expanding the sport to more new nations both big and small than the existing annual round-robin league formats they exist in today.
Compared to a round-robin it would be far more likely to allow for nations like Fiji to be involved at full strength as they do at a RWC. It would be more likely encouraging for a nation like Japan to enter a tournament style competition with a diligently prepared team than a lesser prepared one which is ground down by huge amounts of travel and losses as we saw with the Sunwolves in Super Rugby.
The possibility of anything like this happening though is absolutely zero. There is no way the 6 Nations or Rugby Championship going to change significantly if at all. Any expansion that does seem possible only involves maintaining the same historic round-robin formats they have always had.
Furthermore the Lions tour currently fills the role in the international calendar as the sport's major 4 yearly mid-RWC event. That obviously won't change either.
Also there is New Zealand/Australia led way of thinking shared by various high profile thought leaders in the game, including those in positions of high influence regards global development at World Rugby, who have seemingly little clue around reality and practicalities of the sport below Tier 1 and whose vision is of international rugby being more even based around round-robin league style formats not less so.
Hence we got the awful "Nations Championship" plan shaped by SANZAAR interests and pushed like it was great for the wider global game ignoring a lot of practical difficulties it involved for Tier 2 nations which would have made the global game far worse than the status quo is now.
And those seem to be the only two options currently on the table from the major powers at WR. It is either status quo favoured by the 6 Nations with just some tinkering here and there, or the awful ill thought out Nations Championship plan that SANZAAR love and tried their utmost to push through.
 |
| It's not a popular thing to say but the Lions in their role as the sport's main mid-RWC showpiece event only helps 7 of the most established nations and is a stifling thing from a global view |
However just because there is no possibility of change doesn't alter the fact that this setup is not ideal for growing the game. The Lions tour is a much loved tradition from the amateur era that has survived into the professional era as a commercial beast off the pitch along with memorable games on it.
But this is also something that only involves and promotes the interests of 7 of the most established Unions from the sport's founding. Having that as the sport's main four yearly mid-RWC "jewel in the calendar" as opposed to something that would involve more nations is actually a quite stifling move from point of view of growing the game almost virtually anywhere outside those 7.
Unfortunately moving forward international rugby looks destined to stay in a system based on major tournaments outside RWCs being for the exclusive few along with fundraising friendlies which only work well if you are one of the big teams. It is hard to see any vision of productive change in the decades to come and this is something that will likely continue to limit rugby's growth as a more global sport.
