Evening, my friends, So, I'm sitting here in Boston, Massachusetts, in the USA, and I'm watching two back-to-back exciting games, with the Chiefs squeaking by at home, and what is currently a tight contest between Brumbies and Bulls (it's completely impossible to watch in real time here, sorry for my out-of-date comments). You look at the stands, and it feels like, 'Wow, there's NOBODY there.' But then when you see the whole venue, you realize, 'Oh, there may be a thousand or more people there, but the venue is just way too big.' Numbers like that don't seem so bad - if you can get a few thousand people to show up week after week, it seems like you have something good, right? So, you think, 'Why not use smaller venues, so it doesn't look so desolate?' But the answer is International Test Rugby, right? You need that stadium to be that big for the day when the Springboks visit, or the Wallabies come to town, or whatever incredible event might happen upon that spot. So you need the giant stadium. In the US, there's no equivalent, because our 'football' teams don't manage their rosters so they can peak against the other top nations every four years. There's no better or more important event coming to Gillette Stadium, where my beloved Patriots play, than when the team itself is playing... OK, long-winded, I know - long story short, and here's a classic American annoying "hot take" - is international test rugby the reason club rugby perpetually struggles? Is the top form of rugby hindering the growth of all other forms of rugby?