The difficulty is that games are becoming so focused on capacity, on sheer numbers, because that pays the salaries of these super-elite teams.
THE concept of professionalism and money for rugby has reached a new height with the idea that international games may not be played in Canterbury.
It took significant public pressure - and ridicule - of the NZRU to get the All Blacks to play in Samoa, and I always believe
it is right and proper that they should. But - apart from the South African test in Christchurch next year - Canterbury is being considered an unprofitable exercise for the big games. In 2017, the British Lions will undertake a tour, and that will not involve the South Island. That hopefully is not a reflection on Forsyth Barr stadium in Dunedin, which can handle 30,000. But Christchurch can only take 11,000.
The last Lions tour was a fabulous exercise, with an exuberant Barmy Army flooding the cities and towns with good humour and rugby fervour, almost a common language between our countries. It is hard to think those massed ranks of campervans won't be heading to the South Island.
It's certainly a bit of smack in the teeth for Mainlanders, who could argue the best of the best in rugby is South Island-owned. Not only do they have Ritchie McCaw and Dan Carter, but the South Island hold the Super 15 title, with the Highlanders.
The difficulty is that games are becoming so focused on capacity, on sheer numbers, because that pays the salaries of these super-elite teams. Niceties like "goodwill", as All Blacks coach Steve Hansen puts it, struggle against the realities of what players could make if they decided that France or Japan was a better financial option.
