I don't think it's as good as you think it is for tier 2 and 3 teams. Canada are listed in the video to play against Mexico and Trinidad! What the heck, that would just destroy rugby in Canada! The calendar proposed in 2017 (for 2020) stayed that tier 2 teams would have home and away games vs tier 1 teams every year but this nations league only allows a maximum of three tier 2 sides in at one time unless there's some serious shocks like Australia finishing bottom of the RC after Japan and Fiji. Japan, Fiji, USA and (maybe) Georgia May benefit but then we want a global game, not just a 14 or 15 teams game.
My reform to this proposed plan:
The bottom team of each conference AUTOMATICALLY is relegated and the team that finishes top of the lower division. The team that finishes second bottom then plays a playoff against the team that finishes second in the lower division.
I'm still not a huge fan though. I much prefer European championships or a NH/SH tournament.
You could have the 6N, USA, Japan, Georgia, Russia, Spain, Romania to make up the NH tournament. Then you could have the RC teams, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Uruguay, Namibia, Brazil.. hmm thinking about it, there's not that many SH nations up to the standard of this so I'm not sure. I'm just relaying ideas as they pop into my head but already my ideas are better than those proposed by world rugby. The key though is becoming a GLOBAL GAME and I don't see how the nations league would achieve this any quicker than current plans. Sides like Romania would be the big casualties of the nations league as their chances of getting promoted would be very slim.
There will always be better theoretical options for Tier2&3, but these options aren't on the table and frankly are unlikely to ever be. Those tiers dont hold many cards in this game, we know Rugby Europe are not even being consulted on this project - which underlines that a European Championship is a pipe dream (it is also my preference I would add). The only thing making this palatable for Tier 1 is the prospect of greater TV and sponsorship revenue due to greater interest in a truly global competition (rather than in something narrowly regional like the 6N). This is the only thing that can make Tier1 entertain the possible financial hit of relegation. So my reading is that it is a "World" league or it is status quo.
In terms of the Tier1 tests, my understanding was that this was to be only for 2x Tier2 nations, based on ranking. So Tier1 tests that were routinely going to Canada, US and PIs would be redistributed based on world ranking (although this is really murky and I agree World Rugby haven't covered themselves in glory there).
With a Tier2 Euro-centric focus I can understand negativity, but here are the positives from my perspective:
- immediate promotion of 2x Tier2 nations to Tier1, with both getting a minimum of 11 Tier1 tests each year
- PIs have a crack at the top table, making player capture and retention more viable for the PI unions (both in terms or salaries and player exposure (so they can put themselves in the shop window for clubs)
- A rugby championship where promotion is very credible, with say Tonga or US vs Japan or Fiji likely being competitive playoff matches in the first year. There will be large scope for mobility in the SH and Americas across divisions (that is admittedly perhaps not replicated in Europe in the initial years).
- bringing the huge Japanese market into the fold has the potential to be the financial saviour of the financially struggling SH Tier1 rugby
- replacing the developmental ARC with a meaningful tournament where the PIs mingle competitively with the likes of Uruguay, Brazil, Canada - which can only aid development of rugby in the Americas (more so than facing a near 3rd string Pumas or in the developmental Asia Pacific cup).
- every second year, the REC becomes a very meaningful tournament with the prospect of fighting for a shot at promotion. This invests meaning (and hopefully public interest) into the REC.
- France and Italy can't just coast along complacently. They either improve (thereby enriching the 6N) or they risk being picked off by the improving REC nations (not realistic now, but give it 5 years)
- each REC side will get annual exposure to the PIs in competitve fixtures. This is a better developmental opportunity than the likes or Germany or Spain are guaranteed at this time.
- it may be harder for clubs to refuse to release players to Tier2 nations, when they are part of the same global tournament as the Tier1 nations.
- it will be harder for Tier1 to ignore Division2 when they are part of the same overarching competition structure
- a possible end to the ever more frequent nonsense of meaningless Tier1 friendlies (like Pumas at home in London, Wales vs SA in the US). So less tests (taking into account player welfare)
- increased pressure for expansion to a 24 team RWC (essentially divisions 1 & 2 of the League) - meaning importance is invested in playoffs between divisions 2 & 3 in order to gain access to the RWC (rather than the convoluted RWC qualification process just now).
- an end to the insurmountable barriers for progression for Tier2&3 and likely greater voting rights on the World Rugby board for Japan and Fiji (or at least some further dilution of the Tier1 monopoly). This creates pressure for increasing mobility in the future and reduces votes for the closed shop mentality.
OR
Status quo (which I defy anyone supporting Tier2 or 3 to be supportive of - it doesn't matter if you progress on the field, if you aren't a big market you will 100% be ignored)
We wont be arriving at the promised land, but for the first time the gates will be unlocked.
