How come World Rugby keep getting the RWC right?

World Rugby finally confirmed this month the Rugby World Cup will expand for the first time since 1999 and increase from 20 to 24 teams in a move that should be welcomed by all who care about growth of the sport.

Now once the tournament comes around you can inevitably expect to hear quite a few complaints from "Tier 1" fans at the presence of a few more less impressive teams and a format where the pool stage poses very little challenge to get through.

Even as a big supporter of expansion, you have to concede these complaints to some extent do have merit. The 24 team format is indeed far from perfectly ideal.

Hopefully there can still remain some excitement in pool stage. Even if there is little jeopardy for any of the top 10 or 12 in advancing, it ought to still be worth coming 1st in a pool rather than 2nd for a more favourable knockout pathway (if Wales for example as 2nd pool seed could upset Ireland to 1st it could get them say Samoa rather than France in the next round).

Meanwhile for sides ranked 13-19 the scramble for the final spots to the last 16 would reliably go to the final day with for them at least with every point being vital for points difference and no dead rubbers. It might not be meaningful for "Tier 1" fans, but for those teams supporters the challenge of getting that one extra match the format may be quite engaging (for instance the idea of Portugal beating Fiji for the prize of reaching the knockout stage, just sounds more of a positive sell than the same game with the prize of just not finishing last in their pool).

However there is a no getting around the fact a cross pool ranking can't possibly avoid being slightly unsatisfactory and unfair due to vagaries of the draw (facing Romania instead of Portugal on their respective 2023 form would be a big advantage for your points difference).

Portugal's win over Fiji in 2023 would probably see them advance to the last 16
knockout stage in a 24 team format rather than merely avoid last in their pool

Also true that in theory top seed (say NZ or SA) could draw the 12th seed (Japan) as next best in their pool, then draw 16th seed in the last 16, so reach the quarter final without any challenge. Not ideal, but should only apply to the very top, for others the format essentially switches what were 2nd place pool deciders in 2023 like SA vs Scotland, Argentina vs Japan, Fiji vs Australia into the last 16 knockout stage instead. So the trade off may be duller start to the tournament for those mostly likely to win it, slightly more exciting for those not.

But the main point to remind those complaining is whilst it is true the format is imperfect, the pros still clearly outweigh the cons next to the alternative status quo 20 team 5 team pool format, which has its own even bigger flaws.

From 1999 to 2019 the RWC involved short turnarounds, which for "Tier 2" sides (who tended to get the bulk of them) meant either fatiguing a full strength team to the detriment of performance, or sacrificing an unwinnable game vs "Tier 1" by fielding a reserve team and getting thrashed by an even larger margin than they would normally in order to rest players for the more winnable game (although this carried its own risk of a damaging morale).

In 2023 WR added a week to avoid short turnarounds (although inexplicably still gave Namibia short turnarounds which resulted in them opting to field a reserve team against France and playing their final match two days before New Zealand even played their third game). Yet this just caused different equally bad problems. A 5 week pool stage becomes far too long and tediously spaced out, with some teams resting two weeks between games, and the tournament loses momentum and festival feel of a steady flow of matches nearly every day throughout the week and becomes more like a regular international weekend schedule.

Some fans can enjoy the minnows, and some of the stories behind them, giving it their all against the top sides, even if it may be restricted to celebrating and cheering on "mini-wins" in moments or passages of games as opposed to actually winning (think Brian Lima's crunching hit on Derick Hougaard in 2003, or Takudzwa Ngwenya's classic try outpacing prime Bryan Habana in 2007, as the most memorable often replayed moments in what were otherwise resounding Springbok wins). 

Although there is no denying a lopsided mismatch is obviously a generally less intriguing game, and when the minnow, like for instance Romania last year or Canada this year vs Scotland, is really underperforming they can turn into quite grim watches for any fan. This is all the more reason to get the very worst performing teams out quicker in just 3 weeks though.

Takudzwa Ngwenya outpaces prime Bryan Habana for the most
memorable moment of an otherwise wide 64-19 Springbok win

So here is what should be said in response to those "Tier 1" fans who will really hate on the 24 team format and the presence of some weaker teams like the African and Asian qualifiers or Repechage winner.

"Okay, you are right the format is not perfect, but just think at least it now can be over and done in just 3 weeks rather than 5 before the big business stage of the tournament can begin. The more condensed pool stage, also means even if there is an unenjoyable mismatch, instead of it being one of your main rugby offerings for the weekend, it will be among 36 pool matches packed in and played nearly every day over those 3 weeks, so can easily be skipped if you choose, or at least easily moved on from as you won't have days to wait for next match".

Of course the "Tier 1" fan might respond that a 16 team format solves 5 team pool issue and with fewer mismatches. This is correct, but the harm to global development (especially with no big continental tournaments between World Cups like football), plus harm to World Rugby revenues from cutting back from a 52 to 32 match format is so significant (that could be maybe 500,000 ticket sales down the drain) the proposal should not be taken seriously.

Cutting the pool stage from 5 to 3 weeks really is a win-win both for "Tier 1" fans who dislike the weaker teams being at the event and also those fans who support and enjoy watching "Tier 2" teams play as well (fortunately latter category includes plenty with the "Tier 2" vs "Tier 2" games in 2023 getting average crowds of 37,454, whilst France vs Uruguay on a Thursday on TF1 had a peak of over 13m viewers more even than any Six Nations game and equal to France's opening Euro 2024 football match vs Austria).

France vs Uruguay at RWC 2023 drew over 13m viewers on a
Thursday evening, more even than any Six Nations game 

It should be more affordable for fans of "Tier 2" teams to travel for all their games. Also for players of "Tier 2" teams as well, it reduces the financial hit on market value to clubs and thus should give a bit of help around availability issues. And whilst the four bottom teams of the 20 team format now play a game less, this really is no loss, often that fourth game for the worst sides with fatigue ends up one too many anyway, and it gets more than offset by opportunity to promote growth in four extra countries who gain three games they never had.

There remain some major disagreements on other points in WR's announcement. For instance playing all qualifiers in 2024-2025, closer in time to the previous World Cup than the next one is too far out (there ought to be a different major mid-RWC cycle event like in football). There is some debate over whether gifting Hong Kong an Asia spot instead of making them qualify as one of the top 24 teams is the best idea (both sides of argument make reasonable points). Also WR has allowed the sport to wither post-pandemic below the top 30 in the rankings so the number of sides involved in qualifiers has nosedived.

All this needs to be addressed later, but considering how often they make terrible decisions around "Tier 2" rugby, it is a relief at least the most important thing in expansion is now done.

This leads to another question; how come World Rugby for the past 25 years keeps getting the Rugby World Cup event (mostly) right?

The expansion of the event is in total contrast to WR blazers attitude and proposals for international rugby in between World Cups which tends to be entirely "Tier 1" establishment focused and generally anti-expansionist (indeed they now risk undermining and watering down the prestige and status of their own biggest success story by essentially staging three World Cup finals in four years thanks to their Tier 1 owned "Nations Championship" plan).

It still actually remains a surprise how the RWC ever got expanded to 20 teams in the first place back in 1999. As it went totally against the anti-expansionist instincts of certain influential "Tier 1" Unions, as displayed by the RFU who spent the following decade pushing hard for it to go back to 16 (only France winning hosting rights stopped that in 2007).

Former RFU CEO Francis Baron spent years pushing for the RWC
to be reduced back down to 16 teams in 2007 in a move that would
have been more characteristic of anti-expansionist idea held by
many of the "Tier 1" blazers who control World Rugby 

Now WR despite initially being reported to only be considering expansion in 2031, which would have been a needless delay and forced us to suffer another 5 week pool stage, wisely brought it forward to 2027. This is a move that again bucks the trend of how "Tier 1" runs just about every other part of the international game in an anti-expansionist way.

The 20 team expansion has been vindicated by time with several newer "Tier 2" nations having either grown (Georgia, Portugal, Uruguay, Chile) or at least remained far better off than they would have been otherwise (USA) as a direct result.

More broadly, since expanding to 20 teams in 1999 the RWC as a commercial event has grown bigger just about every tournament (with the exception of the one hosted by smaller New Zealand in 2011). Last year it was the RWC which brought ITV their highest viewing figure of the year with a peak of 8.7m watching the England vs SA semi final. In France TF1 also got their highest viewing figure of the year with a peak of 18.4m watching the quarter final vs SA (the second most watched rugby match ever in France behind only the 2007 RWC semi final vs England). Irish TV also got their highest viewing figure (1.5m) of the year for their quarter final vs NZ. Whilst Japanese TV got 13.8m to watch them play Chile in the middle of the night in their timezone. Overall it was the most viewed rugby event in history with numbers that defy the more gloomy prognostications about the health of the sport and illustrate how the Six Nations anti-expansionist views wastes huge potential for growth of a major Euros event between World Cups.

RWC branding and aesthetics have consistently looked superb
in giving the entire event a special and important feel and vibe 

On the branding and aesthetics front the RWC certainly from 2007 onwards has really looked the part as well. Tidy logos, theme music, travelling fans mixing cultures, packed stadiums for neutral matches, embrace of a now near 40 year history, and an iconic magical looking trophy all combine to make the entire event look and feel special and important even to the less informed casual. Again, this is not something rugby otherwise reliably gets right, compare and contrast with the hyper generic brand and aesthetics of "The Rugby Championship", or the bizarre Anglophone centric "SVNS" rebrand of Rugby Sevens.

Unfortunately though the horrible new slime green coloured clip art looking logo (this is not just speaking from personal taste, you can see the reaction on forums like Reddit, the vast majority of fans consider that logo awful) is a rare aesthetic misstep for the RWC brand that has up until then been so strong. One can only hope that it is very short lived.

Who the heck approved this horrible new RWC logo?!

There is a lot in rugby between World Cups that is poorly run, with a "Tier 1" stranglehold on power offering a lack of vision and ambition, with too many too happy with a very static idea of the sport forever being dominated only by the same handful of nations, which hinders even more growth potential to make the RWC more exciting, competitive, and bigger still.

However it is undeniable that the RWC's growth over the last 25 years is the one thing in modern rugby that has unambiguously been a huge success story. Those who helped the sport get to the right decisions over this period to achieve that success deserve applause.

Some of the good calls on expansion may have been down to a string of luck arriving at the right moments. They were only saved by France winning hosting rights from a terrible decision to go back to 16 teams in 2007. Then narrowly avoided going back to 16 again for 2011 thanks to "Tier 2" performances in 2007 (like Georgia nearly beating Ireland) changing enough minds. It was also by chance Australia hosted a successful women's football World Cup in 2023 which apparently convinced not to delay expansion to 2031. Also, whilst never seen this backed up by insider reports, some have guessed it is no coincidence USA failing to qualify in 1995 and 2023 was followed by expansions to 20 and 24 at subsequent events, which if true Chile's and Portugal's qualification in 2022 was another dose of luck.

Do we have Chile to thank for expansion to 24 teams after they
shockingly came from 19-0 behind to stop USA reaching the RWC? 

Anyway, whatever or whoever deserves credit for the RWC's success, hopefully good luck and fortune continues to shine on this event (especially as it takes its biggest risk yet going to the USA in 2031) and the latest expansion will over time be as vindicated by future growth as the previous one was, and then also maybe one day some of the sport's other tournaments will learn some lessons from it.