![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thoughts on the Rugby World Cup
Oct. 21st, 2007 07:51 amAll in all, a pretty good world cup. The knock out stages featured some close and exciting games even if they weren't great spectacles of running rugby. Knock out competitions are like that.
It does raise some questions that need answering though. The tournament is too long and there are far too many embarrassingly one sided games. I think a sixteen team competition with some sort of preliminary tournament for second rank teams may be the way to go. That would raise financing issues but there are a host of those that the IRB needs to address anyway so let's add that to the list.
Something must be done for Argentina. Logically they should be playing in an expanded Trinations. So far the money men in SANZAR have resisted the idea but, frankly, it's time South Africa and Australia in particular put something back into developing the game. At least England, Scotland, Ireland and New Zealand contribute by way of the Churchill Cup.
The IRB needs to address the growing gap between the top nations with full time professional leagues and the rest. Three things at least need to be done:
1. There needs to be a financial equalization scheme so that some of the money generated by TV revenues in the rich countries goes to developing the game in the poorer countries.
2. We need more meaningful international competition for the second and third tier nations.
3. Those teams need to have a chance to prepare adequately. That means that clubs must be made to release players for international duty. If FIFA can make it happen then so can the IRB.
Also, strategically, the IRB really needs to get to grips with the North American market. Rugby is a natural fit with North American sporting tastes and soccer has shown that if the marketing is right the fans will come. Toronto FC sells out a 25,000 seat stadium for every game. Canada are lucky if a third as many show up for a rugby international.
It does raise some questions that need answering though. The tournament is too long and there are far too many embarrassingly one sided games. I think a sixteen team competition with some sort of preliminary tournament for second rank teams may be the way to go. That would raise financing issues but there are a host of those that the IRB needs to address anyway so let's add that to the list.
Something must be done for Argentina. Logically they should be playing in an expanded Trinations. So far the money men in SANZAR have resisted the idea but, frankly, it's time South Africa and Australia in particular put something back into developing the game. At least England, Scotland, Ireland and New Zealand contribute by way of the Churchill Cup.
The IRB needs to address the growing gap between the top nations with full time professional leagues and the rest. Three things at least need to be done:
1. There needs to be a financial equalization scheme so that some of the money generated by TV revenues in the rich countries goes to developing the game in the poorer countries.
2. We need more meaningful international competition for the second and third tier nations.
3. Those teams need to have a chance to prepare adequately. That means that clubs must be made to release players for international duty. If FIFA can make it happen then so can the IRB.
Also, strategically, the IRB really needs to get to grips with the North American market. Rugby is a natural fit with North American sporting tastes and soccer has shown that if the marketing is right the fans will come. Toronto FC sells out a 25,000 seat stadium for every game. Canada are lucky if a third as many show up for a rugby international.
