Sustainable Rugby

[tirawleybaron]

Professional Club/provincial rugby is currently unsustainable in every country playing serious rugby union today.

New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, South Africa not enough teams - exporting too many players

Scotland, Wales, Fiji, Argentina, Italy - not enough players and money

England, France, Japan - relying on sugar daddies and too many teams/ too much reliance on foreign player's

Ever since rugby went professional each country has lurched from crisis to crisis and it isn't getting any better

The whole system then requires top ups from international rugby, which keeps increasing the number of games, which further disrupts the club game.

What is the solution?

1. A defined calendar for all
(Dec & Jan off season)
2. International rugby
Six Nations/Rugby championship in March & April
3. Cross hemisphere competition in May & Jun (World Cup,.Lions Tour, whatever else your having)
4. Domestic club rugby, (without international players) Feb to August
5. Cross Country club/provincial Rugby from (September to November)

My solution for a Cross Country Club/Provincial competition?
36 Franchises -
Tier 5 - 1xPacific Islanders, USA, Basque, Georgia
Tier 4 - Scotland, Italy,
Tier 3 - 2x Wales, Ireland, Australia, Japan, Argentina
Tier 2 - 4x South Africa, New Zealand
Tier 1 - 6x England and France

4 Conferences based on Geography

Pacific - NZ, South Pacific Islanders, Japan, Australia
Atlantic - South Africa, Ireland, Argentina, USA
Europe - France, Italy, Georgia, Basque
Britian - England, Wales, Scotland

all franchises play 8 matches (4 home & 4 away) v own conference

Top two from each conference play off to enter finals competition
Finals comp played in a single country - Semi finals and finals played in November

Tier 1, 2, 3, 4 Franchises - min 20 domestic players
Tier 5 Franchise - min 15 domestic players right

Hold domestic draft first, then have all international squad players in a cross country draft - max squad size of 40

Best international players will play the following
1. six nations/rugby championship games - 5/6
2. Cross hemisphere internationals - 5-7
3. Local league playoffs - 4-6
4. Cross hemisphere franchise - 8-10

So max of 30 matches in 44 week's

Up an coming players (non international) will have somewhere between 20 and 30 matches
1. Feb - June of league matches (14/15 games),
2. July/August of local play offs - 2-4 matches
3. September/November - 4/5 matches
























A common predicable international calender -

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Yeh I prob wouldn't watch the club competition.

I get the idea but I think you underestimate how much club following in England and france is tribalism.

 

[BPM]

Yeah. I very much doubt you'd see many in favour of franchises.

 

[Mumbles119]

I appreciate the logic and process here that feeds the international game all round.

From an English rugby/club perspective, creating franchises like this just feels 'artificial'

As also said earlier, this would kill off domestic rugby interest for me.

 

[tirawleybaron]

Doesn't have to be franchises - each country would be free to select teams anyway they want.
In England they could do top 6 teams with a draft to add players from non qualified teams

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Not sure i get your point.
Could you define what by mean by unsustainable, exacty? .
What would be the first relevant thing to colapse if things were to continue in this unsustainable path? be precise. Lack of players? Fewer vierwers? Cancelation of competitions mid/season?
Clubs filing for bankrupcy across the board?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

@tirawleybaron ....thats the opposite of what i think is needed, at least in Aus and NZ we have ignored the unions for the fashy franchise and international games for too long

I think we need to concentrate on the local stuff...build more tribalism and real passion...and let the international (both international team and international competitions), just become the real cherry on the top, the show piece...proper old school representative rugby...underpinned by a strong and stable local comp

 

[tirawleybaron]

Not sure i get your point.
Could you define what by mean by unsustainable, exacty? .
What would be the first relevant thing to colapse if things were to continue in this unsustainable path? be precise. Lack of players? Fewer vierwers? Cancelation of competitions mid/season?
Clubs filing for bankrupcy across the board?

There isn't a country playing rugby today (maybe France being the exception) where the club/provincial system is constructed as a self sustainable model.
As an example
1. South Africa - outsourcing players to Europe as they can't keep them all at home because provinces Union can't afford them
2. New Zealand and Australia - outsourcing players to Japan to top up wages and losing senior players to Europe continuously. Game is losing ground to RL and Soccer by the year
3. England - most clubs are bankrupt or relying on sugar daddies - pumping money in to pay foreign talent instead of developing home grown academy system
4. France as above for past 10 years but clubs are finally getting academy system going
5. Ireland - Whole system lopsided towards one team, with the rest relying on on scraps that fall from Leinster table
6. Italy, Wales and Scotland - getting worse by the year - no academy systems, no professional club support base, no discernible plan to develop the game - relying on other countries clubs to pay their top players and relying on dodgy qualification process to obtain players
7. Argentina, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Georgia - hampered by a system which is designed to keep the other ahead of them
8. Japan - funded by corporations who seek glory through importing international players rather than building academies to improve home grown players
9. Everyone else (Romania, USA, Canada, Uruguay, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Spain, Russia, Holland) - no serious attempt to develop the game taking place, go further behind every year despite showing a potential to improve at various stages over the years

 

[tirawleybaron]

@tirawleybaron ....thats the opposite of what i think is needed, at least in Aus and NZ we have ignored the unions for the fashy franchise and international games for too long

I think we need to concentrate on the local stuff...build more tribalism and real passion...and let the international (both international team and international competitions), just become the real cherry on the top, the show piece...proper old school representative rugby...underpinned by a strong and stable local comp

New Zealand has the NPC, it has allowed it to decline as they promote the All blacks brand, but lets face it, there isn't t he E to population to keep pace with a properly organised France and England

Australia has never had a functional Provincial system of its own bar the NSW-Queensland rivalry. The club game just couldn't function as the main competition across such a large country. With Rugby now behind NRL, ARL, Soccer and basketball in popularity, the country only has the ability to fund a max of 8 clubs (Canberra, Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide, 2x Brisbane and 2x Sydney) but they would still be artificial franchises

 

[Kiwiwomble]

There isn't a country playing rugby today (maybe France being the exception) where the club/provincial system is constructed as a self sustainable model.
As an example
1. South Africa - outsourcing players to Europe as they can't keep them all at home because provinces Union can't afford them
2. New Zealand and Australia - outsourcing players to Japan to top up wages and losing senior players to Europe continuously. Game is losing ground to RL and Soccer by the year
3. England - most clubs are bankrupt or relying on sugar daddies - pumping money in to pay foreign talent instead of developing home grown academy system
4. France as above for past 10 years but clubs are finally getting academy system going
5. Ireland - Whole system lopsided towards one team, with the rest relying on on scraps that fall from Leinster table
6. Italy, Wales and Scotland - getting worse by the year - no academy systems, no professional club support base, no discernible plan to develop the game - relying on other countries clubs to pay their top players and relying on dodgy qualification process to obtain players
7. Argentina, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Georgia - hampered by a system which is designed to keep the other ahead of them
8. Japan - funded by corporations who seek glory through importing international players rather than building academies to improve home grown players
9. Everyone else (Romania, USA, Canada, Uruguay, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Spain, Russia, Holland) - no serious attempt to develop the game taking place, go further behind every year despite showing a potential to improve at various stages over the years

how is you model more sustainable? to be sustainable you need more fans...more fans makes teams more attractive to sponsors...the two of those brings in more money which leads to success which leads to more fans and cycle goes around again...but all starting with fans

what you've suggested doesn't actually explain how it will be more attractive to fans? there is already at least a connection to the unions in NZ for most rugby fans...why ignore that...if we put more importance on the NPC again by making the the primary comp then fans will come back because the results will matter...and you have the old rivalries and things like the ranfurly shield adding to it too

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Yea I don't see any suggestion that actually solves any of the so called problems, many of which aren't true either.

It looks like a lot of your info is out of date as well.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

There isn't a country playing rugby today (maybe France being the exception) where the club/provincial system is constructed as a self sustainable model.
As an example
1. South Africa - outsourcing players to Europe as they can't keep them all at home because provinces Union can't afford them
2. New Zealand and Australia - outsourcing players to Japan to top up wages and losing senior players to Europe continuously. Game is losing ground to RL and Soccer by the year
3. England - most clubs are bankrupt or relying on sugar daddies - pumping money in to pay foreign talent instead of developing home grown academy system
4. France as above for past 10 years but clubs are finally getting academy system going
5. Ireland - Whole system lopsided towards one team, with the rest relying on on scraps that fall from Leinster table
6. Italy, Wales and Scotland - getting worse by the year - no academy systems, no professional club support base, no discernible plan to develop the game - relying on other countries clubs to pay their top players and relying on dodgy qualification process to obtain players
7. Argentina, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Georgia - hampered by a system which is designed to keep the other ahead of them
8. Japan - funded by corporations who seek glory through importing international players rather than building academies to improve home grown players
9. Everyone else (Romania, USA, Canada, Uruguay, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Spain, Russia, Holland) - no serious attempt to develop the game taking place, go further behind every year despite showing a potential to improve at various stages over the years

I still don't see what you mean by sustainable. You are mentining problems, at best. If exporting (outsourcing) players make RU's unsustainable then we fundamentally disagree on the definition.

Has the level of rugby declined over the last 10 years? No.
Has any of the RU's you mentioned collapsed over the last 10 years? No (SR changed quite a bit but that had to do with covid more than anything).
Is rugby's total viewership declining with time? I don't have the numbers at hand but i seriously doubt so.
Is the number of players declining? Pro or grassroots? Again, i don't have the figures at hand but i don't buy that for a second.

You mention Wales shape. Didnt they win 2019 and 2021's six nations?

If players from country A have to play in country B at club level, well, i dont really have a problem with that. Not my favourite option but i dont see it as a catastrophe like you portray it.
If you read these boards you will prolly find out i am by quite some distance one of the most unhappy members of this board when it comes to how things stand. Particularly with regards to eligibility.
But i dont see evidence to support your claim.

Listen, this is not rocket science. You say the current systems are unsustainable. To anaylise something like this is quite simple.
- You define the term, in detail (unsustainable).
- you gather evidence (things attendance, viewership, growth of the sport, finances, clubs, etc)
- See whether the evidence confirms or denies your hypothesis.

The evidence that i see doesnt suggest for a second the system in place is unsustainable. It's far from perfect, i don't like a lot of it. But claiming it's not working and that it will collapse? Nah.
Arg had all pro players playing abroad in 2015 and we made the WC semis.
We had +90% of our players playing in Jaguares for 2019's WC and we didnt make it past the group stage. I know, it's just one data point, but it's a rather big one.


You wanna know what i think is unsustainable? The growth model 'we' have at a national level. The gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is arguably just as big now as it was 10-20 years ago.
Sport is growing, but i foresee quite a crystal ceiling we will need to deal with. Even in footie's world cup you can see a country ranked #20 beating or drawing with a top 3 every now and then. Japan beating Germany. Costa Rica beating Italy. Cameroon beating Argentina. Rare but it happens.

The greatest upset in the history of RWCs was a #8 beating #3 (Japan beating RSA at 2015's RWC). That speaks volumes.
People eventually get tired of having 20 teams playing a tournament where the same 4-5 teams have a shot. Every-single-time.
Works wonders with the old school crowd, but that is not how a sport grow.

Again, rugby has quite a few problems, some serious. The ones you mention are not on the top of my list.

 

[Firo_]

You wanna know what i think is unsustainable? The growth model 'we' have at a national level. The gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is arguably just as big now as it was 10-20 years ago.

The gap is not as big as before. Biggest 5 winning margins at RWC are from 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007. The early 2000's was the moment when the gap was the biggest and you had results like Romania's 134-0 defeat against England (test match in 2001). This was because tier 1 nations were starting to see the benefits of professionalism (introduced in 1995) while tier 2 nations were still amateur.

I think that right now the gap is the lowest it ever was.

Even between tier 1 nations, the times when NZ was rank 1 4-5 points away from rank 2 are over. From 2005 till 2019 only 2 teams achieved rank 1 (NZ and SA). From 2019 till today 6 different teams achieved rank 1 (NZ, SA, Wales, Ireland, England and France).

Tier 2 nations started improving because they started benefiting from professionalism:

• by having high performance programmes
• by playing in professional leagues (SLAR, RESC, MLR etc.)

Sport is growing, but i foresee quite a crystal ceiling we will need to deal with.

Yes and this is because tier 2 nations can't achieve more without interacting with tier 1 nations more and tier 1 nations don't seem to want that.

• the level of play in tier 1 national leagues is much better compared to SLAR, RESC, MLR and there are also more matches (SLAR, RESC don't have a lot of teams) but tier 2 players don't have access to tier 1 leagues except France and when they do chose to go to France they can't be available always for the national teams.
• the tier 2 professional leagues are struggling to attract fans; I can't talk about other leagues but in RESC many teams haven't fully committed and because of this fans won't be interested either (which means no sponsors, no money, no further development of the competition):
  • the Georgian coach said in an interview that they are playing in RESC right now but they would like to join a bigger competition anytime if possible
  • Romanian Wolves use young players in RESC (even players who haven't played a single senior match before) and clubs use the older / more experienced players in LNR (national championship) - should've been the other way but clubs value the LNR more.

I think the solution would be to include tier 2 nations in competitions not the occasional test match:

1. 6 Nations / Rugby Championship once every two years and when there is no 6 Nations play Euro Championship, Autumn Nations Cup etc where more teams take part.
2. best 4 teams in RESC (or something like that) to play in Challenge Cup next season instead of the last placed teams in France, England which anyway don't care about this competition since they are busy avoiding relegation / getting better results in Premiership.

Even in footie's world cup you can see a country ranked #20 beating or drawing with a top 3 every now and then. Japan beating Germany. Costa Rica beating Italy. Cameroon beating Argentina. Rare but it happens.

I don't like this example. Football rules allows minnows to win and every time a surprise result happens it is because of the same tactic: totally give up territory and possession, play with a 5-5-0 formation and hope for a goal from set piece / luck etc. It's not very healthy for the sport.
When tier 2 nations have a surprise result it usually happens in style and this is because in rugby you can't just give up territory and possession and hope for the best. You need to attack.

People eventually get tired of having 20 teams playing a tournament where the same 4-5 teams have a shot. Every-single-time.
Works wonders with the old school crowd, but that is not how a sport grow.

I agree and as I said this is because tier 1 nations don't interact with tier 2 nations outside of RWC.
Tier 2 nations interact with tier 3 nations and you have new tier 2 nations appearing out of nowhere recently: Portugal, Chile. Some african nations made progress recently (because they started playing in Currie Cup), Korea improved and closed the gap between them and Hong Kong after having stronger relations with Japan and my money are on Netherlands to be the next emerging tier 2 nation.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Nice post. Welcome!

I think that right now the gap is the lowest it ever was.

I just did excercise.
1 vs 20. Today that would be Ire vs Por
In Jul 2000 (arbitrary i know first number i thought was 2000 and July was the 1st hit on google) that would have been Australia vs Georgia.

I understand comparing gaps of this sort across eras is complicated, but let's put a face to a name. How many development success cases can WR present? Since 1995.
Other than Argentina and maybe Japan if you push the envelope, i cant think of one. Not one.
US if you take sevens, maybe? And by the looks of it that was more of a one generation thing.

At one point, in a not so far away future, someone will have to ask: do we wanna grow or do we want to be an old boys club. Long run, you will have to make choices.

Yes and this is because tier 2 nations can't achieve more without interacting with tier 1 nations more and tier 1 nations don't seem to want that.

Agreed.

I don't like this example. Football rules allows minnows to win and every time a surprise result happens it is because of the same tactic: totally give up territory and possession, play with a 5-5-0 formation and hope for a goal from set piece / luck etc. It's not very healthy for the sport.
When tier 2 nations have a surprise result it usually happens in style and this is because in rugby you can't just give up territory and possession and hope for the best. You need to attack.

Sure, the games themselves are different, but the problem i have with that argument is that it poses no responsibility on those running the show. It's a bit like blaming nature for rain. Governments can do things to mitigate the impact of rain in a population. They cant stop rain, but they can help people to work around it.
Same happens here.

I am not asking for them to change the rules, but i am 100% sure they can drive a bit more the development of the sport in some places.
let me give you 2 examples:
- we are still arguing whether or not georgia, romania, etc should have a shot at playing the 6 nations. The arguments against are grally history, tradition, viewership, etc. End result, it doesnt happen and the old boys club remains the same.

- Fifa and Australia's FA talk about how their qualis to WC are getting ridiculous and, despite geography, history and tradition, Australia joins the Asian qualifiers.

In plain, blunt, **** poor and broken english: it's not that they can't or don't know how. They just dont want to change.


Let me tell you another thing i am afraid of. You have countries with a decent rugby trad, like romania and georgia, who, with all it's faults and errors have gone through rain and mud to where they are today.
What is stopping, dunno, germany, netherlands or belgium from poaching 3rd or 4th tier players from Tier 1 nations to compete?
At some degree it is already happening.

 

[Firo_]

Nice post. Welcome!

Thanks !

I don't like this example. Football rules allows minnows to win and every time a surprise result happens it is because of the same tactic: totally give up territory and possession, play with a 5-5-0 formation and hope for a goal from set piece / luck etc. It's not very healthy for the sport. When tier 2 nations have a surprise result it usually happens in style and this is because in rugby you can't just give up territory and possession and hope for the best. You need to attack.

Sure, the games themselves are different, but the problem i have with that argument is that it poses no responsibility on those running the show. It's a bit like blaming nature for rain. Governments can do things to mitigate the impact of rain in a population. They cant stop rain, but they can help people to work around it.
Same happens here.

The situation is different but I didn't mean to use it as an excuse and it shouldn't be used as one. I meant that World Rugby should tackle it different.

Costa Rica can win against Italy after playing in non-WC years only against lower ranked opponents + Mexico and USA here and there but never against team similar level with Italy.
Georgia needed consistent matches vs tier 1 nations (not enough matches but at least they were consistent recently) in order to win against Italy. Also, Georgia won in style unlike Costa Rica who probably had to play a boring match in order to win (I just Googled and a football stats website gave 3.7 score out of 10 for match excitement rating for this match ).

I am not asking for them to change the rules, but i am 100% sure they can drive a bit more the development of the sport in some places.
let me give you 2 examples:
- we are still arguing whether or not georgia, romania, etc should have a shot at playing the 6 nations. The arguments against are grally history, tradition, viewership, etc. End result, it doesnt happen and the old boys club remains the same.

- Fifa and Australia's FA talk about how their qualis to WC are getting ridiculous and, despite geography, history and tradition, Australia joins the Asian qualifiers.

In plain, blunt, **** poor and broken english: it's not that they can't or don't know how. They just dont want to change.

Again I think we shouldn't look at football.
For rugby it's best for 6 Nations to still exist as it is now (a "closed doors" tournament where you get only if you have good, consistent results for multiple years in the row + a big market) but have it once every two years and in years where there is no 6 Nations have a Euro Championship.
If you just throw Romania in 6 Nations you will have matches where you have max. 10k spectators. But if you throw Romania is a Euro Championship with a format similar to the World Cup (played in one country, during a relatively short period of time) you will have 89.267 fans (Ireland vs Romania RWC 2015).

The gap between tier 1 and tier 2 teams IMO is the smallest it ever was but there still is a gap. Throwing teams into the big tier 1 competitions isn't the solution. The solution is to allow tier 2 teams to play against tier 1 teams consistently without hindering tier 1 teams profits.

...and anyway, a 6 Nations playoff or a new team (with small market) in this competition will never happen and World Rugby can't do anything about that. Romanians and later Georgians advocated for this but if you listen to recent interviews this federations changed their desire because they understood what they were requesting was impossible.

Let me tell you another thing i am afraid of. You have countries with a decent rugby trad, like romania and georgia, who, with all it's faults and errors have gone through rain and mud to where they are today.
What is stopping, dunno, germany, netherlands or belgium from poaching 3rd or 4th tier players from Tier 1 nations to compete?
At some degree it is already happening.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. The residency rules are stricter now (5 years spent in that country).
Also, after 2 consecutive WC qualifiers where there were issues with naturalised players, most teams will be more reluctant to do it. Romania had less naturalised players this qualifiers than previous.
Overall I think the naturalisation rules in rugby are pretty fair. We won't have something like Qatar handball team ).

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I know a couple of English clubs have had a wobble but if TV revenue has being going up (as it has in France and URC) then that suggests mismanagement by individual clubs rather than anything else. If we didn't have Covid and recessions I'd be fairly optimistic about the sports future.

I agree the issue is having a world sporting body prioritising really 8 or 9 unions at most. With such a small number, if a couple have a wobble domestically (like Australia now) then it can start to undermine the appeal of the sport. Look how much money Japan has put into the wallets of SH players and coaches. There is no reason Germany, Spain, US and so forth couldn't be doing the same. As well as the world rugby politics the thing that threatens to make the sport unsustainable is how atrocious many unions are and the power they can have to hold back or effectively kill private ventures and undermine competitions via an obsession with the RWC. I don't know what the answer is to that.

 

[tirawleybaron]

A lot to cover there.
But essentially, the current system (s) ring fence the professional end of the game for a few.
A lot of those few are making a mess of it (Scotland, Wales, England) but regardless of how bad they run their own sport, they are determined to keep the ladder pulled up in case anyone new does a better job.
Professional rugby union will not develop as it could while (a) 10 countries are protected and (b) their professional Leagues take players from developing countries and deter them from playing for their native country

I put forward a system that gives the current tier 2 countries access to a professional league where tier 2 players can be based in their own country but still play and develop playing against the best players in the world.

Maybe unsustainable is the wrong word, maybe going nowhere is a better description