The Rugby World Cup – can we afford it?

[Getofmeland]

The Rugby World Cup now only a matter of weeks away and I am very much looking forward to some great contests on the field, with the world's best players on display.

The players and the coaches are now very close to completing their latest four year cycle, and will soon know if all of their planning will pay dividends. New on field exploits and controversies will replace or beaded to Rugby folk law, with those that have occurred in previous cups.

I guess modern rugby's fixation with this event that occurs every four years, and the importance in terms of preparation for the event, is the main catalyst for this blog.

It's interesting reading from the comments I've read in newspapers and on various rugby forums, that, in the grand rugby scheme of things, nothing else is as important as the William Webb Ellis cup, but, having watched the game as an adult since before the first rugby world cup, I find myself questioning whether rugby as a whole can afford it.

I'm definitely not anti-rugby world cup, as I said, I'm very much looking forward to it- the event itself has provided a number of benefits, such as global expansion of the game through some of the proceeds being used to promote the game outside of the tier one rugby countries, and the widening of the global rugby audience by broadcasting the event into non-traditional rugby markets.

My concern really lies with the economic impact during rugby world cup years on countries that already have full rugby calendars, and the devaluing of other rugby events, with a longer rugby tradition.

Ever since rugby went professional in the mid 1990's, the pressure for countries to play more games during a calendar year has increased. This is the trade-off that was made as a result of having full time players – while the standard of play has improved, the need to generate revenue to pay the players, and develop the game, has also increased.

The pressure only increases on the individual rugby unions in world cup years, because, in some cases, there are fewer test matches to generate the revenue, than in non-world cup years.

In addition, just about all of the tier one nations now treat some of these fixtures as either trial matches, or as an opportunity to rest top players. This could lead to a long term loss of income through loss of fans attending games, and weaker television right and sponsorship deals as a result of an inferior product being provided.

If you look at this stance from purely a "winning of a world cup at all costs" point of view, I totally understand coaches doing this, as players are not machines, and even if they were, even machines have to be maintained to provide peak performance when it's needed – it just makes sense doesn't it?

In the real world however, finances have to be taken into account, and long term financial thinking is just as important to a union's long term viability, as the match results and the on field planning.

While finance is something tangible, and is therefore, relatively easy to track, the dilution of the more traditional fixtures, and the effect on the rugby public, is not.
A test match (to me at least), used to represent one nations best team playing another nations best team, and thus, the result had some importance, but, with all of the trialling and managing of players, these matches are rapidly descending towards what are counterparts in the round ball code call "friendly's".

The match result is of little or no importance to either the team management or the fans, and the giving of player's game time being the primary reason and benefit of the match.
I personally don't see this as a good thing, and while these are issues that mainly occur in world cup year, there is an underlying acceptance by some, that it really doesn't matter how teams performs in non-world cup years, as long as they perform well at the world cup.

For me, this is a cost too high.

Blog by Shaggy