Financial focus left NZ on bench

By WYNNE GRAY

You just have to wonder. Was hosting the 2003 World Cup the prime target for the New Zealand Rugby Union?

Did it become so involved in other areas highlighted last year by the Accenture Report - revenue equalisation, tour schedules, player welfare - that it was left behind in the planning for the cup?

Or was it so concerned about attacking the International Rugby Board over the financial iniquities of the cup that it decided to risk its tournament hosting rights on a matter of principle?

Last September, NZRFU chief executive David Rutherford detailed his objections to the financial management of World Cup tournaments. In his column in NZ Rugby World, he called the approach "unsatisfactory".

"It has the effect of further enriching the 'rich' big economy unions at the expense of smaller rugby economy unions like Canada, the United States, Argentina, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand," he wrote.

"Only the host receives a financial benefit from participation in RWC anywhere near equal to the opportunity cost of that participation."

Rutherford also said that the development of global rugby was flawed.

"It is premised on a 'welfare approach' whereby the IRB appropriates funds through the RWC and other tournaments for redistribution through grants to all nations," he said.

That sounds a bit like the formula the NZRFU uses each year.

Rutherford insisted there had to be a revision of RWC, especially the economic arrangements.

It was about that time that the NZRFU's negotiations with RWC Ltd and Australia became more cluttered, that arguments became more terse and attitudes more entrenched.

There are officials in world rugby who believe the NZRFU chose to continue down its path of economic righteousness rather than hitch its wagon to the IRB's economic trail.

It wanted a scrap, it felt a better share of match revenues and the NPC were worthier targets than being sub-host for next year's tournament. Conditions like clean stadiums, advertising and signage, and corporate hospitality were convenient obstacles which subverted the NZRFU's aims.

The NZRFU pursued its philosophy to the end. It claimed it was forced into delivering arguments about hosting the cup on the basis of rugby tradition and the good of the game.

Conversely, Australia, despite the IRB requirements, decided it wanted to host the tournament. It was determined to defend its appointment.

On the basis of Rutherford's strong opinion last year, the NZRFU never changed course. .

It became very exasperated at its lack of impact, though - a feeling which erupted on March 8, when chairman Murray McCaw and Rutherford lashed out at the IRB and chairman Vernon Pugh.

They were on a collision course with the IRB, Rugby World Cup Ltd and Pugh, and even though they later apologised, they did not change their stance for the crucial vote in Dublin.

They were soundly beaten.

Pugh, in an interview for the Player magazine suggested that the world body tried to persuade the NZRFU to come into line but it refused.

"I wanted the tournament to be staged there because New Zealand is a country where rugby union is a passion, but there comes a time in any major negotiation when you have to stick to principles," he said.

"The Rugby World Cup is the third biggest sporting event in the world and it has to be run properly, which means being commercially hard-nosed and not sentimental."

The NPC had been signalled as a problem but Pugh thought that was a decoy to buy time. Eventually the RWC could not wait any more.

"The NZRFU was given every chance to fall into line," said Pugh, "and they should not blame anyone else for what happened."