Rugby is due a radical shake-up – but Agustin Pichot’s plan won’t work

There is never a perfect structure for a professional sport. Vested interests clash. Compromises become necessary. This is natural. We are accustomed, for instance, to club v country issues. Thanks to the World Cup international football – that is, matches played between teams representing nations – just holds its own. Yet it’s the leading European clubs who are the big earners, and many fans are far more concerned with the fortunes of their club than those of their country – except, perhaps, during the World Cup. That their club’s first-choice XI may be composed almost entirely of foreigners matters not a damn to them.

Rugby is different. International rugby is bigger than club rugby and something like 75 per cent of the game’s income comes from international matches and the sponsorship they attract. The national Unions have retained a grip on the sport. It is only in England and France that there is rivalry, even a conflict, between the leading clubs and the national union. Even so, most of the sport’s income in England still comes from the international game. The RFU makes huge profits; only one Premiership club, Exeter, didn’t run at a loss last season.

This week World Rugby is meeting in Australia to try to shape the future of the international game between World Cups. The argument is that the Autumn internationals, when Southern Hemisphere teams come north, and the Summer tours, have lost some of their attractiveness. Visiting teams come at the end of a long and tiring season, and are often under strength. New Zealand remain a huge draw, but Australia and South Africa have lost some of their prestige and glamour. One reason may be that we have become too familiar with them. They are over in Europe every autumn and we have also watched their home matches on television. Glamour has faded along with novelty value. The time was when the arrival of the All Blacks, Springboks and Wallabies was an event, eagerly looked forward to; now they are here just to play yet another international.

It is also argued that these “friendly” internationals don’t excite public interest because there’s not enough at stake. (Actually, there’s usually a Cup or some trophy to be won, but, since few know much about this, few care). But the truth really is that there are too many internationals for them all to excite us. They have proliferated since the game went professional more than twenty years ago. When I was a boy the record for most Scotland caps was held by John Bannerman who played 37 times for Scotland in the 1920s and early 30s. His record stood till 1962 when it was surpassed by the great Hawick prop Hugh McLeod. McLeod didn’t miss a match between 1954 and 1962, and retired with 40 caps to his name. A player can now win that many in three or four years – and doesn’t have to play a full 80 minutes in any match.

Way back in the 1960s when university education was being rapidly expanded, Kingsley Amis made himself a touch unpopular by saying “More will mean Worse”. But he had a point; and the same may be said of rugby internationals. “More”, if not necessarily worse, are almost certainly “too many”.

World Rugby’s Agustin Pichot, in his playing days a great scrum-half for Argentina, is promoting the idea of some form of international league table to replace the friendly internationals. Clearly, they might be more attractive if League points were at stake. But it’s doubtful if the innovation would really solve anything. Because the world has two hemispheres, seasons will never coincide. So, whether in November or June, the visiting countries will still be arriving knackered and under-strength at the end of a long season.

One should also say that the game’s problems are more acute in the southern hemisphere than in the north. One reason is that the Six Nations is a much more successful tournament than the South’s Rugby Championship. For one thing it has history on its side. More important however is the geographical fact, that it is easy and agreeable for large numbers of fans to travel to away matches in the Six Nations, more difficult and expensive for fans to do this in the Rugby Championship. London or Edinburgh to Paris or Rome is one thing, Sydney to Buenos Aires just a touch more demanding. The Six Nations has an identity the Rugby Championship lacks. For many fans it’s the high point of the sporting year.

Historically the Southern Hemisphere Big Three have played better rugby and been stronger and more successful. To some extent this is still the case. There have now been eight Rugby World Cups. New Zealand have won three, Australia and South Africa two each, England one. Three years ago, no northern hemisphere team reached the semi-final – even though the tournament was staged in England. It’s quite likely that this pattern will not be disturbed in Japan next year. Yet in other respects the game is in much ruder health in the north than in the south. In particular the financial resources – “wealth” is perhaps the wrong word – of English and French clubs – Japanese ones too – means that there is a player drift from south to north. There is little reason to suppose that introducing some sort of international leagues will do anything to reverse this.

World Rugby will be addressing another perennial problem – the disparity between Tier 1 and Tier 2 nations. There will be warm and doubtless well-meant words about the desirability, even need, of promoting the latter. Yet things will almost certainly stop at that. There is one measure that should be taken, though this is unlikely to be done. At present the ten Tier I nations (those belonging to the Six Nations and the Rugby Championship) are usually willing to play an occasional Home match against a Tier 2 one (a match incidentally from which the home union takes all the money from ticket sales and sponsorship).

But they don’t reciprocate. England, for example, have never played an international in Fiji, Samoa or Tonga. Nor have South Africa. Nor, I think, have New Zealand. This is really a bit shameful. We all know that the three South Sea Island Unions produce wonderful players. We know too that, for economic reasons, most of them play their club rugby away from their home island. We know too that when these three countries play here in the autumn they almost always lose. But we also know that every country has a better Home than Away record. So, it seems only right that Fiji, Samoa and Tonga should get the occasional (at least) visit from the likes of England – Scotland have gone to all three, had some devilish close matches and lost a couple. So: over to Twickenham. By the same token, what about Georgia? Back in the Spring Eddie Jones persuaded the RFU to pay to transport the Georgian pack to England to give his team some hard scrum-practice. But when will England play in Tbilisi? Silly question, really.