Why Private Clubs are Better for Global Rugby than a Union Run Model

[Canadian_Rugger]

Taken from: http://tier2rugby.blogspot.fr/2014/02/why-privately-owned-club-system-is.html

[h=3]Why the privately owned Club model is better for the global game than the Union run model[/h]


[h=3]There are two diverging philosophies in the European club battle, one from the privately backed domestic game in England, France and the Welsh regions, the other from the Union run domestic game backed by the IRFU, SRU and WRU (who want more control over the regions). Here we say, from the perspective of the global game, who it would be preferable to triumph.[/h]



Since professionalism, the founding 8 members of the IRB have established a clique known as "Tier 1" and safeguarded themselves significant financial and competitive advantages over the rest of the world in doing so. Only 2 nations in Italy and Argentina have managed to gain acceptance into this clique and gained access to the safeguarded privileges.


The gap between this Tier 1 clique and the rest of the rugby world widened as professionalism really kicked in and the benefits came into force around the early 2000's. The gap was probably at its largest around the 2003-2006 period, a nadir for the Tier 2 nations that saw their chances to compete with the Tier 1 clique cut back.

[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]After Argentina's RWC upset over
Ireland. 11 of their squad won
their first professional contracts
over the next 12 months, starting
a trend that would shape the
history making 2007 side.[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
The exception though was Argentina. They were the lone team outside the 6 Nations and Tri Nations who managed to achieve genuine success. And there is a clear and obvious reason as to why they did.

Back in the amateur era Argentina had virtually no players abroad, which had less of an impact back then as they were only competing against other amateurs. At the time of the 1999 World Cup, the Pumas had 6 of their 30 man squad with professional experience abroad, these being their leading players Lisandro Arbizu (Brive), Agustín Pichot and Rolando Martín (Richmond) and the props Grau, Reggiardo and Hasan. Those players helped the Pumas record a landmark upset win over Ireland to reach the quarter final, perhaps the most important win in Argentine rugby history as it went onto to shape the next generation of players.

Following that win, waves of Argentines joined the ranks of clubs in France or England. 11 more of the squad went pro over the next 12 months, and in the end 22 of the squad played professionally in Europe at some point in their careers.

This trend continued and by the time of the 2007 World Cup, 26 of the 30 man squad had professional experience abroad (3 others signed straight after the tournament). That squad created history finishing 3rd at the tournament, an achievement so substantial it couldn't be ignored and led to them eventually got added to the Tri Nations in 2012.

[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]Canada adapted poorly to the
professionalising of rugby and a
decade on from beating England,
Wales and France in 1993/94 they
were losing heavily.[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
A contrast to how Argentina fared is Canada. They too were reasonably competitive in the 1990's and early 2000's. They notably reached a World Cup quarter final in 1991, and recorded wins over England and Wales in 1993, France in 1994, drew to Ireland in 2000 and beat Scotland in 2002. However after that, their results fell away from 2003 onwards as the Tier 1 sides pulled away and started larruping them. Just 6 years after beating Scotland, in 2008 they lost 41-0 to them, they have not been asked back after that tour. That period cost them and others the chance to play Tier 1 teams.

The key difference between Canada and Argentina is that one adapted and sent players en masse to play professionally in France and to a lesser extent England, whilst one didn't. In the Canada 2007 World Cup squad, their only ever one where they've left not winning a game, there was far less depth of players with solid professional careers in Europe, and they were left relying on aged players like Mike James, Morgan Williams, Rod Snow and Jon Thiel, all of whom retired after the tournament and sent Canada into a deep rebuilding phase (they have now got back on track under Kieran Crowley).

A nation that has followed a similar path to Argentina is Georgia. When they made their World Cup debut in 2003 most of the players were based at home, but after that World Cup demand for Georgians in France exploded and by 2007 most of the team were based there, and now they could now field two entire packs from the Top 14 or Pro D2.

It's no coincidence that since exporting such quantity of players to France (there are now 39 Georgians in Top 14 or Pro D2 squads) they have become the dominant European force outside the 6 Nations, winning 6 of the last 7 ENC ***les, and they are now far closer in performance Tier 1 than they are to Uruguay, who they lost to in the 2003 World Cup.
[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]Georgia have been perhaps the
fastest rising nation in world
rugby. After their World Cup
debut in 2003, they exported
players heavily to France and now
have won 6 ENC ***les in 7 years.[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

The Georgians have improved following a model similar to Argentina's, but unlike them are held back as they don't get the same regular bunch of Tier 1 fixtures outside the World Cup (just 1 in over 10 years) as they emerged as those matches were being cut back. Those Tier 1 fixtures are important so as to help a competitive side improve, but as proved before they would have been of little use like they were in the 2003-2006 period if they weren't competitive.

So there is clear evidence to suggest that sides not yet in the position of not being economic powerhouses or without yet a sufficiently high standard domestic league can still become competitive through following something similar Argentina model of exporting players.

The Argentina model does come with downsides, most notably with loss of power in terms of preparation time and player release. Argentina played the British & Irish Lions without a host of French based players in 2005, and played matches with far less time together than Tier 1 nations.

Georgia have had similar issues, in particular in the June window and player release for Top 14 players, they toured North America in 2012 with a near third choice pack and for their game against Argentina last June they had less than ideal preparation. This is annoying for Georgian fans, but the alternative of players stuck in the Georgian league the full team would mean they would never be good enough to compete in the big World Cup matches. They need their players to have the training and exposure to the intensity of playing Top 14 rugby, just compare World Cup results 2003 and 2011.
[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]The French professional domestic
system gives opportunities to 231
players from outside the Tier 1
clique, with an average of 7.7 per
squad. The Irish pro domestic
system is the only one that doesn't
employ a single international
from outside the Tier 1 clique.[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Now excluding the Pacific Islanders, there are in total as of writing 173 players from outside the Tier 1 clique playing in the major professional leagues in Europe the Top 14, Pro D2 (France), Premiership, Championship (England) or Rabo Pro12 (Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales). There are a further 164 from the three Pacific Islands.

Of those 173 players, 124 of them are based in France (average 4.1 per side) and 37 in England (average 1.5 per side). Throw the Pacific Islanders into that and the average French Top 14/Pro D2 squad has 7.7 players from outside the Tier 1 clique, and the English 3.3. Compare that to the amount of players in the Union run Pro12 sides, the Irish professional domestic system is the only one in world rugby that doesn't have any Tier 2 internationals.

The French and English model, with private investment sustains more teams geared more towards themselves as opposed others, this leads to more opportunities for the rest of the world and is what gave Argentina the chance to break the Tier 1 barrier.

The Union run teams are heavily reliant on international rugby for their income. As a result, the domestic side of the game is geared towards the needs of the international one. With the amount of teams lessened to increase the standard and with restrictions on foreign players. This model offers much more preparation time and control over the players for their national teams, and has worked very well especially in the cases of Ireland and New Zealand.

However if every nation applied that model there would be no world game, Argentina and Georgia would simply not have emerged into the forces they are now, and they are just two of several others who would have not got nearly as competitive. They have fewer teams that mean fewer spots for foreign players, and with less there, there is less willingness to give a chance to a player outside a less established nation.
[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]Colombia 4th in the FIFA World
rankings. Would they have stood a
chance of getting so high without
the training and game time at
elite clubs around the world?[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

There is a comparison to be made with football, the widest spread sport in the world and one where a nation like Colombia can be ranked 4th, Uruguay 6th, Croatia 16th, Ivory Coast 17th and Bosnia & Herzegovina 19th. All of those nations have most of their players abroad; the current 24 man Colombia squad has just 4 players based in Colombia. Now would they be as competitive if it was reversed and instead there were just 4 players playing abroad? How good would Ivory Coast be if nearly all their players were playing in the Côte d'Ivoire Premier Division instead of the elite European leagues such as France or England? The likelihood is they wouldn't be as strong without most of the squad having chances to train and play at the highest level.

The success of the club game in football has led to more nations able to compete in the international one. Football might risk being dominated by the major nations like Spain, England, France, Brazil and others if they all used their domestic system as a method more towards the goals of their national teams (which they can't do as they would have no chance of running a Union model against the wealth of the owners in that sport, and if the French and English win the Union model may not be of use in rugby much longer as well).
[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]If a system like the IRFU or NZRU
was in place everywhere.
Argentina would have never
emerged. Rugby would be more
like Test Match cricket in terms
of a global game.[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

A sport at the other end of the spectrum is cricket. Similar to rugby there is a clique of leading nations, and minnows that rarely play them outside the World Cup. The international game is extremely dominant, and provides a far larger amount of revenue which results in a domestic game geared more towards national teams (only exception being some recent Twenty20 tournaments).

The global game in rugby is a bit of a mix between cricket and football, the efforts to grow the game are not bad as cricket, but if it wasn't for the more football like domestic model of the French then it might be just 8/9 dominant competitive teams set in stone for good. That’s not saying the French clubs are generous philanthropists with a heartfelt desire to spread the game, just that the system they operate aids a meaningful way of doing so in a way that Ireland's for example doesn't. Again in Ireland and other Union dominated models, they aren't doing anything wrong, just that their system is good for them, but cricket-esque for the global game.

​

With the French and English club system bringing in ever larger TV deals in comparison to the Pro12 (the Top 14 TV deal is just under £60m, the Premiership £27m whilst the Pro12 deal with Union run sides is worth less than £10m). And there is still potential for the Top 14 to grow further, the new French TV deal is a similar amount (without considering inflation) to the initial Sky deal for the Premier League deal from 1992, which has grown colossally ever since.
[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]Could the model IRFU has been
so successful with over the past 15
years become uncompetitive and
outdated with the sharp increase
in money in the French league?[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

The Unions like the IRFU and WRU who have or want Union run sides are as a result very worried about losing their control to the clubs, they claim France "is in danger of killing European rugby", in reality it is in danger of killing their Union model as opposed to rugby. As the French get richer and if they win the war over European revenue streams, the chance that the Irish model for example can compete without private investment and relying on mostly the international game (85% of Irish revenues) lessens.

And as we have seen, the privately run model is the better one for the competitiveness of the global game. It’s been evident in other sports and without it, we could have a cricket scenario of 8/9 top teams with Argentina never having made it and the current Tier 2 nations fighting a lost cause. The fact is that system has done a lot more for the global game than the Union model has.

Along with the fact that the privately owned system in Europe gives opportunities around 323 players at an average of 5.5 per team from outside the Tier 1 nations to become elite pro rugby players, and the Union model in Europe gives opportunities to around 10 players at an average of 1.4 per team, there is still yet more evidence to suggest which system is better for the global game.


For a start the Union led ERC organisation has dealt incompetently towards the nations outside the 6 Nations, the Rabo Pro12 CEO has been bluntly uncomplimentary comments towards Georgia, the IRFU CEO subtly rebuked the idea of a more global game and the WRU CEO recently went on a UKIP style "stealing our jobs" rant on behalf of France, denouncing Georgians making a career there. All may have valid points, but only from the point of view of their system and this an article about what is best for game beyond Tier 1, more power to characters like John Feehan and Roger Lewis is not it. The personnel in charge of the Union argument simply do not promote good policies for the rest of Europe.

The only body throughout this battle to give much of a mention to Europe outside the 6 Nations is the LNR and FFR. They put forward a UEFA style European governing body, which would be a hugely positive development for the rest of Europe as it would mean that the 6 Nations would have to care about them as part of their job.





For the reasons noted above, from the point of view of the worldwide game, on the whole it would be for the best for the club argument backed by PRL, LNR and RRW to win the blazer war against the Unions argument.

Well researched and well argued. I agree with everything the author in the article says as well.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Good article.

I can see all sides of the argument. There are 26 pro clubs in the English and French top divisions. Clearly there aren't enough English and French players of sufficient quality to fill that many squads and players from tier 2 nations are beneficiaries. That is good for the game as a whole in the short term since there are more players from tier 2 nations exposed to top level rugby.

I'd argue that private clubs aren't picking players from tier 2 nations out of a desire to grow the sport. Self interest and earning fast money is their primary concern - before I'm accused of bias I'll also say the Union model is about self preservation first and foremost. As evidence of club self interest, LNR and PRL seem to have gotten what they wanted from the European rugby negotiations. Under their plan which is now being adopted, the 2nd tier (Amlin Cup at present) is seeing the number of clubs from outside the Premiership, Top 14 and Pro 12 drop from 6 to 2. They've no interest in the 3rd tier competition they proposed with FIRA-AER seemingly left to control it.

The Union fear is that French and English clubs getting more financial clout will see players desert the Pro 12 en masse for more money. If it is the case that Top 14 and Premiership clubs can bring in the cream of NZ, Australian, South African, Welsh, Irish and Scottish talent, will they be interested in picking up players from tier 2 nations to fill out squads any more?

I think there's a solution if all sides work together which can help Union runs teams, private clubs and tier 2 nations thrive. That's a 32-40 team pan-European league with clubs/regions/provinces from the existing Pro 12/Top 14/Premiership represented along with teams from places like Georgia, Romania and Russia. The Union model exists in the Russian, Romanian, Georgian (these are pseudo-national teams) and Pro 12 teams whereas the private club model still exists in French and English representatives. The latter are happy that the size of their market increases so they can bleed commercial revenue for all it's worth. The former are protected from obscurity be joining forces with the commercial clout of LNR/PRL.

Just for the sake of balance on my part, here's a link to a Telegraph article from Saturday:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...acens-ready-to-take-rugby-world-by-storm.html

In it Saracens CEO Edward Griffiths talks about taking the game global. It's backed up with lots of impressive facts about what his club has done and his ambitions for the game. It could be argued that Unions aren't as enlightened in their approach although their pushing of Sevens to Olympic status and awarding of RWC2019 to a tier 2 nation is a sign that they're slowly becoming more open.

 

[ratsapprentice]

What this ignores is the fact that preservation of the international game as a truly elite competition is a perfectly valid cause.
A club controlled game is one in which the international game is necessarily marginalised.

One of the key draws for Rugby as a field sport is it's elite international competition. A comparison of RL and RU demonstrates this very clearly.

The football (read: Premier league) system essentially sacrifices one or two countries' national team's quality as it fills their domestic league with foreign players.

The issue here is that Tier 1 nations aren't playing Tier 2 nations often enough.

 

[Jaguares]

The problem here is the world rugby calendar, northern and southern hemisphere should end their differences and make a single calendar. That would give more opportunity to games between teams from Tier 1 and 2. This is something that has been discussed for years and never reach an agreement. The rest is nonsense that the writer of the article said, these comparisons with football are stupid. Colombia has never won a world cup and never will.

Cheers

 

[Aristodemus]

I disagree Rats, I think bringing in the best players from around the world only showcases what is needed to become a top player in terms of ability and work rate in training to the younger players. Just because England are **** in football doesn't mean the Premiership ideology is the cause, look at Spain, Italy and Germany, they are all just as successful and perhaps even more successful than in the more segregated era.
There is a threat to the international game though and that point I very much agree with. Some sort of agreement is needed to protect the international game and for the good of the game I am sure it could be made. One which will keep the elite competitions currently ongoing and the summer tours and AI, which insists that all players of all nations are released with plenty of preparation time. I think that would be sufficient to keep the international game what it currently is, and with a growing global market, even increase what it is.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Meh. If you offered any of the developing nations (Argentina, Canada, Georgia, etc.) setups like the IRFU have managed to get in place they'd bite your hand off. In 1999 Ireland and Argentina were in fairly similar places. We professionalised out game far better than the Argentinians, I don't see why that would make us the villains.

I agree with ratsapprentice and snoop, let's not delude ourselves and say that the French and English clubs are trying to look after the global game, they're self serving as be dammed (not that I hold that against them at all, perfectly understandable.) As they get more money, they're not going to be going after more Canadians, they're going to be trying to snap up more All Blacks, Springboks, Wallabies, Irish and Welsh players. If you want real global growth you've either got to look at a serious overhaul of pan-european rugby to include more developmental side (although the chance was probably missed for that in the last year or so) or get the tier one nations playing more tier two sides. It'd also help if the tier two competitions had any sort of continuity about them and the IRB imposed stricter rules regarding player release.

 

[Shaggy]

What this ignores is the fact that preservation of the international game as a truly elite competition is a perfectly valid cause.
A club controlled game is one in which the international game is necessarily marginalised.

One of the key draws for Rugby as a field sport is it's elite international competition. A comparison of RL and RU demonstrates this very clearly.

The football (read: Premier league) system essentially sacrifices one or two countries' national team's quality as it fills their domestic league with foreign players.

The issue here is that Tier 1 nations aren't playing Tier 2 nations often enough.

True, and if the privately owned club model was adopted globally, what would happen to the international window ... I would suggest that it would all but close, meaning that players wouldn't be released for test matches.

... also, while players benefit financial from , and in some cases, their quality of play gets better from playing each other more regularly in the private model, what benefits are their home unions getting in term of support from these clubs, to develop the next generation of players.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I feel we should try to get more cross-tier games first then see if that works. As an example have games between the bottom teams of the 6N and the top nations of the tier 2 European championship. I'd also like to see more fixtures between "A teams" such as the Saxons and tier 2 teams. This should please them both as tier 2 sides get to face teams they have a more realistic chance of beating and the A teams get more game time.

 

[Big Ewis]

oh man, thank God....seeing half the ***le on the recent thread column "Why Private Clubs are Better for..." I thought it would end with "picking up chicks" and this was going to be one of these cheeeeeesy threads XD
..

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

What this ignores is the fact that preservation of the international game as a truly elite competition is a perfectly valid cause.
A club controlled game is one in which the international game is necessarily marginalised.

I don't agree with this statement, saying a sport has a truly elite international competition when only five countries realistically have a shot at winning its highest trophy (the world cup) is a fallacious statement. Rugby isn't really a true international sport and the parity between national teams is actually quite low. You could make an argument that sports such as baseball, basketball, handball and ice hockey all have far more parity internationally then rugby. Ice hockey is a sport that shouldn't even come close to rugby in terms of parity due to the climatic conditions, facilities, money and resources required for the sport but it surpasses rugby as demonstrated during the Ice Hockey World Championships held annually and the Winter Olympics which were just held. This is due to a strong privately run club game. I'll post a map for comparison purposes of European Countries with professional ice hockey programs in their country. Of note, not one of these leagues is run by the national federation.

This proliferation of professional ice hockey leagues throughout Europe and the success the sport has had as a spectator sport has allowed European countries to punch well above their weight in terms of the skill level of players they are able to produce. It's also interesting to note that due to this proliferation of privately funded professional ice hockey organized around the club game countries like Slovakia (12,000 registered players), Slovenia (2,000 registered players), Latvia (10,000 registered players) etc... are able to compete with the likes of Canada (600,000 players), USA (500,000 registered players), Russia (60,000 registered players), Czech Republic (110,000 registered players), Sweden (100,000 registered players)... etc.

Rugby in comparison should dwarf ice hockey as a spectator sport and as a money making venture due to it's participation rate and # of players but it doesn't because of the tight grip the union's have and it's unfriendly attitude towards private ownership. I have buddies that play ice hockey in 3rd rate minor leagues in Canada and the US and make more money then professional rugby players do whom play for our national team, this demonstrates the sad state of finances in professional rugby and just how bush league the sport really is.

One of the key draws for Rugby as a field sport is it's elite international competition. A comparison of RL and RU demonstrates this very clearly.

Says who? RL is played in the same regions of the world as RU and is only less popular due to the earlier proliferation of RU. In fact RL only exists due to the elitism of RU and the lack of professional game... i.e. I seriously doubt RU would even have been a sport had it not been for the narrow minded nature of the suit brigade which existed and still exists in RU.

The football (read: Premier league) system essentially sacrifices one or two countries' national team's quality as it fills their domestic league with foreign players.

This is an argument often used by proponents of pro rugby being controlled by unions but it is one of the most fallacious arguments there is. How many players take the field in a football match? (this is a rhetorical question btw)... 11 players

Let's look at numbers for the EPL shall we? Here is an article from 2011:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...gue-which-countries-are-the-players-from.html

Players in Premier League: 1,465 players
Percentage of Players who are English: 42% or 641

If you can't find your 11 best players out of that 641 then I reckon you have a scouting problem ... also maybe your players just suck and it doesn't matter how many you have in the league

Spain have a similar amount of foreign players in their league and they seem to have no trouble winning world cups and euro's so why doesn't England? Hmmmm maybe closing off your league really doesn't matter much because the best players will rise to the top regardless

Right now rugby practices unfair labour practices because they discriminate by nationality due to players quota's and restrictions which means many teams remain uncompetitive. The Welsh regions are a prime example of this, they aren't allowed to play anymore then a couple of non Welsh players in their lineups therefore they have to accept playing ****ty Welsh players who are no better and probably worse then some of the non-Welsh foreign imports they could get for cheaper who would make more impact on the field. Just think how much better Ospreys would be if they could go out and sign a few more imports on the cheap and put on them on the field all at the same time. Jeff Hassler is Second in try-scoring this year in the Rabo and was signed on an entry level contract for a measly 30,000 pounds... yet you would probably pay a Welsh player double and he would produce half the amount.

Rugby sort of reminds me of the North American auto industry aka General Motors paying 10 union scabs a 100,000 dollars each to screw one bolt into a car when you could pay One foreign worker half the amount and he would probably do a better job. It makes people feel like they are doing a good thing but at the end of the day it's just holding back progress.

The issue here is that Tier 1 nations aren't playing Tier 2 nations often enough.

No, the issue is that rugby is a closed shop and teams outside the six nations and tri-nations have not been able to get their players into high performance setups due to player quota's and caps which have probably held up the progress of international rugby by at least 10 years. Luckily the sheer weight of number of players in developing rugby countries is forcing the issue. Here is the latest from the IRB in terms of playing numbers by country.

Thought I would highlight something for you all. With the exception of Ireland, France and England; Canada now has more players then 3 of the 6 Six Nations countries and the game is continuing to grow. The US only trails England in number of players worldwide. Many of the new players in each of these countries are actually at the Junior level as the respective national unions have made targeted pushes in that area. Argentina also outnumbers 3 of the 6 Nations countries and the game is spreading rapidly around South America.

To me this indicates one thing, the future growth of the sport lies in the Western Hemisphere and the traditional rugby powers would be wise to "not ignore us" or "pay us lip service" as 20 years from now Canada, USA and Argentina will all be major rugby powers.

True, and if the privately owned club model was adopted globally, what would happen to the international window ... I would suggest that it would all but close, meaning that players wouldn't be released for test matches.

... also, while players benefit financial from , and in some cases, their quality of play gets better from playing each other more regularly in the private model, what benefits are their home unions getting in term of support from these clubs, to develop the next generation of players.

Not true, what is needed is for the IRB to give clear direction on club seasons and international's as well as a single window for international tournaments. The global rugby calendar is a mess and what needs to happen is a balance needs to be struck between club rugby and international rugby because right now none exists.

 

[Shaggy]

Not true, what is needed is for the IRB to give clear direction on club seasons and international's as well as a single window for international tournaments. The global rugby calendar is a mess and what needs to happen is a balance needs to be struck between club rugby and international rugby because right now none exists.

Which part isn't true? ... How can the IRB give direction if the clubs hold all of the power? ... I agree that there needs to be balance, but balance isn't going to be achieved if one side has all of the power.

Great stats by the way ... curious to know how much money from the existing privately owned clubs have gone into player development, at the grass roots level, to develop the player numbers in those countries you mentioned.

The flip side of your wales argument is that most countries that follow the IRB model (such as Wales), is that they are economically self sustaining, despite having to support the player development and amateur competitions (and by that I mean, they don't require government hand outs to do all of that)

Much is made about how these clubs help out the tier two and three nations, and for players good enough at the professional level, they can certainly reap the financial benefits, but it is the IRB that helped out the Tonga's of this world, with financial grants and professional assistance, not the clubs. It's the IRB that promotes the game on a global scale, and got Sevens into the Olympics, that has seen the player numbers increase, not the clubs.

I feel we should try to get more cross-tier games first then see if that works. As an example have games between the bottom teams of the 6N and the top nations of the tier 2 European championship. I'd also like to see more fixtures between "A teams" such as the Saxons and tier 2 teams. This should please them both as tier 2 sides get to face teams they have a more realistic chance of beating and the A teams get more game time.

I think most of the tier two sides are over playing "A" sides, to be honest, maybe the Saxons can play Canada invitational XV or something ... what I think they want is regular home test matches, against a different tier one opponent each year, and a regular competition amongst themselves, that isn't tampered with, or cancelled every couple of years.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Which part isn't true? ... How can the IRB give direction if the clubs hold all of the power? ... I agree that there needs to be balance, but balance isn't going to be achieved if one side has all of the power.

This is on the IRB... I never said that the clubs need to hold all the power btw... regulation of the sport needs to be controlled by the world governing body but the IRB needs to begin working with the club game and not see it as the enemy like it has for so long. How do you do that btw, well you need a revenue sharing arrangement with clubs and you need to include them in the decision making process. My personal opinion is clubs should receive a portion of the revenues from the RWC and other international rugby tournaments.

Great stats by the way ... curious to know how much money from the existing privately owned clubs have gone into player development, at the grass roots level, to develop the player numbers in those countries you mentioned.

I would reckon a fair amount and this is the way it should be. It's not the job of professional outfits to develop players, player development happens at the amateur level.

The flip side of your wales argument is that most countries that follow the IRB model (such as Wales), is that they are economically self sustaining, despite having to support the player development and amateur competitions (and by that I mean, they don't require government hand outs to do all of that)

I would hardly call pro rugby economically self sustaining. Fact is pro rugby bleeds money in most countries (Wales and Ireland have both talked about folding up a region and Scotland already has twice) and the game is unstable, the recent turmoil over the Heineken Cup made that evidently clear. The only two countries that have true financial stability in their pro leagues are the French and English.

Much is made about how these clubs help out the tier two and three nations, and for players good enough at the professional level, they can certainly reap the financial benefits, but it is the IRB that helped out the Tonga's of this world, with financial grants and professional assistance, not the clubs. It's the IRB that promotes the game on a global scale, and got Sevens into the Olympics, that has seen the player numbers increase, not the clubs.

You are partially right but the only reason countries like Tonga are competitive is because their players have a place to play. I will go back to the original article: 164 pacific islanders play in the pro leagues of Europe so the clubs actually have a huge hand in developing these teams into winning sides. Do you think Samoa would be nearly as competitive if their players didn't play in the pro leagues of Europe? What clubs offer is outlets for a higher standard of competition.

I believe North America will eventually see a professional league develop but it won't be run by unions. National sports unions are great at fostering youth participation, running leagues, all the bureaucratic stuff but they are kind of like government-run corporations in that they aren't very good with the economic aspects or dealing with growth. Rugby is fairly unique in the world of professional team sport in that the national bodies control the professional side of the game; however, I believe as the sport evolves this will change once real money starts to get tossed around.

I think most of the tier two sides are over playing "A" sides, to be honest, maybe the Saxons can play Canada invitational XV or something ... what I think they want is regular home test matches, against a different tier one opponent each year, and a regular competition amongst themselves, that isn't tampered with, or cancelled every couple of years.

I absolutely agree with this, Tier 2 sides are done with playing "A" teams... we desire real tests and the market is there for them. Georgia gets 30,000 fans a game and the USA and Canada have both demonstrated that they will fill stadiums for marquee matchups. The Scotland games against Canada and USA will no doubt both be sellouts.

 

[nickdnz]

What this ignores is the fact that preservation of the international game as a truly elite competition is a perfectly valid cause.
A club controlled game is one in which the international game is necessarily marginalised.

One of the key draws for Rugby as a field sport is it's elite international competition. A comparison of RL and RU demonstrates this very clearly.

The football (read: Premier league) system essentially sacrifices one or two countries' national team's quality as it fills their domestic league with foreign players.

The issue here is that Tier 1 nations aren't playing Tier 2 nations often enough.

BINGO

The reality is that a private club model is in many ways beneficial for getting athletes from tier 2 nations playing top class rugby. I don't think anyone can dispute that - you only have to look at the Top 14 to see how so many countries see their players playing in that league.

However it comes at the expense of internaitonal rugby. You only have to see how Fiji was in the last Rugby World Cup - lacking so many of their best players due to financial incentives and threats from the Top 14. The clubs aren't altruistic and certainly privately owned clubs tend to hold little or no value in the international game. The benefit of unions in this instance that while they tend not to recruite the same volume of teir two players - they are usually more willing to release them both in and outside the international windows. Part of this is because unions make decisions which rule in favour of the best outcome of the league - rather than what best suits the individual teams. So teams don't contract foreign players that they can't afford to release, and most leagues tend to state a responsibility to grow the game internationally.

Case in point Uraguay is playing USA for a RWC qualifier match. Now admitedly some clubs are released USA players for the match, however maybe it wouldn't have been a 27-27 all draw had USA had some of their better players. Why didn't they? Takudzwa Ngwenya wasn't released by Biarritz for a start. One may argue that it didn't fall outside of an international window (however the RWC qualifying match is probably more significant for USA rugby's development than playing another tier 2 country during that time) - but in the past unions like the ARU, SARU and NZRU have all released foreign players to participate as not every team is entirely self-interested.

 

[McTallshort]

So.....those greedy power hungry club owners are doing more for the development of the world game than those great and noble unions whos sole interest is keeping the status quo.

Well as the article states this isnt done our of the goodness of their hearts but from the system they employ. Kind of rubbishes all the tripe written since the HC fiasco when lots of people on here could not see past the ERC, Union elitist model and thought of the private clubs as a sinister cartel set on ruining the game.

On a foot note a decent semi pro league with the aim to export the best players to full pro teams in England and France is a model that could work in Scotland and Italy.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

If the question is 'what are the two different models doing for developing the game in emerging markets?' what point is there in leagues with privately owned teams developing more tier 2 players if 1) they aren't released to play in the test arena (I am of course grossly overstating here but there are definite cases here where that is fact even if swept under the rug) and 2) there will be little point in test rugby in any case if the club game becomes the be-all and end-all which is the end result of a complete exclusion of union involvement?

If those same tier 2 players didn't mind earning less then I see union owned teams dipping into the tier 2 pool more and more and developing the game more while being more likely to release those players for test duty.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Exactly, stormer!

What you aren't accepting Canadian_Rugger, is that the model you are espousing makes the international game more competitive - not more elite.
It dilutes the quality of the league's host country's playing squad.

The EPL has significantly higher percentages of foreign players than the Bundesliga and Spanish system.

Your suggestion that player development should happen in an amateur environment is another indication of your North-American viewpoint.
That's not how things work in other countries - Collegiate sport is practically non-existant as a development pathway outside of North-America.
We use the Academy system - most countries sign players straight from school.

The International game is the Elite competition - it's not there by rote as a sidesho... it's the main event - unlike in a lot of other sports (particularly American ones).

Thought I would highlight something for you all. With the exception of Ireland, France and England; Canada now has more players then 3 of the 6 Six Nations countries and the game is continuing to grow. The US only trails England in number of players worldwide. Many of the new players in each of these countries are actually at the Junior level as the respective national unions have made targeted pushes in that area. Argentina also outnumbers 3 of the 6 Nations countries and the game is spreading rapidly around South America.

That's genuinely fantastic news!

I hope to see the strength of your national team represent your own professional league's strength in an annual Pacific/Pan-American rugby competition!

 

[Peat]

BINGO

The reality is that a private club model is in many ways beneficial for getting athletes from tier 2 nations playing top class rugby. I don't think anyone can dispute that - you only have to look at the Top 14 to see how so many countries see their players playing in that league.

However it comes at the expense of internaitonal rugby. You only have to see how Fiji was in the last Rugby World Cup - lacking so many of their best players due to financial incentives and threats from the Top 14. The clubs aren't altruistic and certainly privately owned clubs tend to hold little or no value in the international game. The benefit of unions in this instance that while they tend not to recruite the same volume of teir two players - they are usually more willing to release them both in and outside the international windows. Part of this is because unions make decisions which rule in favour of the best outcome of the league - rather than what best suits the individual teams. So teams don't contract foreign players that they can't afford to release, and most leagues tend to state a responsibility to grow the game internationally.

Case in point Uraguay is playing USA for a RWC qualifier match. Now admitedly some clubs are released USA players for the match, however maybe it wouldn't have been a 27-27 all draw had USA had some of their better players. Why didn't they? Takudzwa Ngwenya wasn't released by Biarritz for a start. One may argue that it didn't fall outside of an international window (however the RWC qualifying match is probably more significant for USA rugby's development than playing another tier 2 country during that time) - but in the past unions like the ARU, SARU and NZRU have all released foreign players to participate as not every team is entirely self-interested.

Uruguay were missing some of their players as well.

That minor nitpick apart, you're right. The clubs developing players is necessary but not perfect, nor the only model. The smaller, Union-run models don't have many Tier 2 internationals because they don't have the space. Not enough pro clubs. Currie Cup seems to get along plenty of non-Saffas though. Dunno how things are with the ITM.

Right now, the mix of models work. The reality is that Irish rugby, NZ rugby, a lot of the smaller countries wouldn't be contributing to the game if they didn't have protectionist models. Yeah, it blows that it's not very inclusive, but I'm not sure how many countries would be rushing to join and clamouring about the unfairness of it if it wasn't for the strong, vibrant international game. Whatever about the comparisons against Ice Hockey, Rugby is doing a good job for a nascent professional sport. Not perfect, but eh. The private clubs can't provide global rugby.

We're lucky to have a mix. We're lucky to have the huge global centrepiece of international rugby where everyone can root for their country - see Conrad Smith's post about Argentine rugby and the position the national team plays there - and we're lucky to have some big fairly private leagues who are free to pursue foreign talent. Take the current trial of failed NFL players looking to become rugby players, lots of English and French clubs taking an active interest. For one side to totally dominate would probably destroy a lot.

But whatever. People have probably made their minds up on this sort of debate judging from post threads, cbf.

 

[McTallshort]

Just out of interest why do people think that the club model threatens the international one when as this article states it only expands it. At what point have any private clubs made demands that infringe on the current agreements?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Basically a conflict of interests - Leicester rightly looks out for Leicester - not England.

Bankers are fantastic for our economy - you wouldn't want them deciding how much tax they pay though, would you?

 

[McTallshort]

Obviously dont agree with that! Leicester for many years have provided the back bone of Englands team and to my mind have never stopped any player attending a training camp or international match within the agreed window. Also having the best Leicester players playing in a successful England team makes the club more attractive to investors and season ticket holders. Before the Johnson era crowds at Welford rd were in the 100's now they are in the 1000's ok the club was very successful but it was on the back of international and Lions success.