 |
| Can the Six Nations be persuaded to open their doors to expansion? |
The risk (albeit for most Unions it would be tiny) would pose to any Six Nations side would be huge. A large percentage of each Unions budgets is based on the income generated by the tournament. Relegation would be potentially ruinous. It is a total non-starter and if you suggest it they just will slam they door in your face.
Whilst it is true this also makes the Six Nations blazers utterly hypocritical, as they know how much worse off they would be in the REC, yet talk down to those in Europe with ambitions to join for not being at their level. It nevertheless is not a good idea from the perspective of the overall growth and competitiveness of the sport. The potential gains of the side being promoted would be cancelled out by the consequences for the one being relegated.
Instead those who want to the sport grow must focus on making the argument for expansion. The problem here is of course there is unfortunately there is not much sign the Six Nations blazers want to spend a second contemplating this idea either.
However if the chance they accept relegation rounds down to something like 0%. The chance of expansion, although also small, is surely a tiny bit better. Also even if something is unlikely, doesn't mean there is never any value of making the argument for it, and the discussion always needs to start somewhere. Meekly accepting the status quo will doom "Tier 2" forever.
The Pacific Islands have vocally campaigned in the media for various things that were not supposed to happen (All Blacks in Samoa, looser eligibility laws) and managed to win. They should be a model for European "Tier 2" to fight for their interests.
The actual problem is the Six Nations run the European game like the continent's governing body but without the responsibility to help anyone but themselves. So pointing out that it would obviously help the sport grow enormously isn't enough. You need to make the case it will benefit "Tier 1" too and try address their biggest problems. So this a first draft attempt to think of ways of giving it some appeal to them and open the door maybe just a little.
The format
If the initial expansion is to 8 teams. The format would be two pools of 4 teams. It would be necessary to ditch the round robin league format with expansion as there is no room in the calendar to expand in that way.
The two pools could look something like this:
Pool 2: Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Spain
This would be followed by a round of semi finals, bronze final, and grand final. To keep all teams maintaining revenue from five matches it would also require ranking matches from 5-8.
To avoid scaring the Six Nations. The proposal would be for this expanded format to take place only once every four years in between RWCs (like football's European Championship).
The first monster hurdle to overcome
 |
| Will attachment to the traditional Six Nations clashes forever block any hope of rugby's growth? |
It is hard, but unfortunately this is something that the sport has overcome. If you follow through the line of thinking that an England vs Scotland or England vs Wales match has to happen every year as part of the tournament and that is non-negotiable. Then it will be simply impossible for the tournament and the sport to ever grow. Only a round-robin can guarantee these fixtures and that format cannot move beyond six teams. If the sport can't get beyond this point then we may as well give up any hope of rugby ever becoming significantly stronger on the continent.
Already suspect many in Six Nations tempted to slam the door shut again. But would note a couple of things. The added England vs Georgia match to the tournament would be of far more commercial value as part of a big event than in a friendly (remember Ireland vs Romania set the RWC record attendance in 2015). Whereas the "traditional" fixtures like England vs Scotland could always be replaced and sell equally well as standalone friendlies. So they could still have all their "traditional" rivalries and make just as much money from them, but also gain more than they would otherwise from the "Tier 2" fixture.
Also remember. In football there was an annual England vs Scotland fixture for 117 years up to 1989. The sport did not crumble going a year without it. There are other interesting matches and rivalries to make if more teams were allowed to grow.
The losing 5th/6th nation
Whilst it might not be so bad for the top four sides who reach the semi finals, for the 5th or 6th placed of the Six Nations, it would see a reduction in their level of fixtures with them playing two "Tier 2" sides. Admittedly this may be a hard sell (even though to repeat they can still organise the historic matches which would still sell well as friendlies).
But at least it is not nearly as hard a sell as the idea of promotion and relegation where a Six Nations side would in theory be exposed to risk of dropping out of the tournament completely.
Also we need not forget to think not just of the present but the future. A side like Spain coming up could bring big crowds and grow significantly with the benefits of inclusion. The atmosphere and vibe around the games as part of a big event should make the "Tier 2" games a lot more exciting for "Tier 1" an standard friendly.
Many "Tier 1" fans do not respect the REC (as seen by various predictions prior to Italy vs Portugal or Georgia this summer) but these sides have worked hard to improve and with increased resources available could be more competitive quicker than some think. It is not as if we are asking to consider sides who would frequently ship 60 points.
Rugby World Cup seeding bonus
Another concern is the tournament could fail to carry the big event if it seen as pointless. If held once every four years, with ordinary Six Nations still being held in other years, it would risk carrying little prestige when it is clearly harder to win the round robin format.
 |
| RWC seeding could add increased importance to the tournament |
Obviously this would require both Six Nations and World Rugby to agree to this. But there has long been a missed opportunity to add more intrigue and tension to some mid-RWC matches if WR put RWC seeding directly at stake.
More revenue from "Tier 2" matches in tournaments than friendlies
As mentioned in detail in a previous article. If "Tier 1" played their "Tier 2" matches in a tournament context would have much higher commercial value than in friendlies.
Ireland vs Romania set the RWC attendance record at Wembley at far from cheap ticket prices. If the tournament managed was promoted and marketed in a way that created the same big event feel around as in RWCs. There would be little to fear in terms of revenue loss from those matches.
More matches to sell to TV broadcasters
Another point mentioned in the previous article. The tournament would also see an increase from 15 to 20 matches (whilst not adding more weekends). This would create more content to sell to TV broadcasters and more possible exposure for sponsors in more markets.
The potential pay offs from long term growth
In spite of the Six Nations undoubted success. It still has recently struggled to attract a title sponsor at the asking price. Opening the door to new markets could increase its visibility.
Finally it is important to repeat of thinking of the long term not just the present. Including sides like Georgia and Spain would allow them substantially more extra room to professionalise and improve. Both could also surely fill football stadiums if given a chance in an expanded Six Nations and bring excellent atmosphere and added colour to the tournament.
In addition opening the door to expansion (presuming qualifiers for the two new places) in the much longer term could also attract more sponsorship and investment in other less rugby oriented places like Germany if they saw the door was held open.
Talking about long term payoff may seem unpersuasive as it is vague and nobody can see in the future to guarantee it. But we have seen over the last 20 years the biggest success the sport has had in growth come from the RWC. The examples seen there show the best evidence that more inclusion is the most important factor in growing the sport.
South Africa
 |
| South Africa at the U20 Summer Series opened up a place for Georgia to compete at the tournament |
First steps
Whilst accept it is a long shot to ever persuade the Six Nations to open up. Hopefully more articles like this can be the first baby steps to at least getting expansion some sort of hearing and start to create momentum for some change. It would be good to hear journalists start pressing the Six Nations blazers about the positive case of a rising tide lifting all the boats up with expansion and not the more negative case to bring Italy down with promotion and relegation.
Even if the idea of expansion sounds unappealing or not quite ready right now. Hopefully some will start thinking about it as a concrete goal to be achieved in the not too far future.
Even if the big goal remains a way off. Hopefully the idea of expansion being more widely discussed can at least perhaps lead to some smaller concessions from the Six Nations which would help the sport grow. For example one being the inclusion of Georgia and Portugal/Spain to the U20 Six Nations.
If you have any other good ideas of how the Six Nations can possibly be persuaded to consider expansion in the rest of Europe. Leave them in the comments below.
No comments:
Post a Comment