Winne Gray: Time for the IRB to rethink its archaic quadrennial fundraiser

COMMENT

Many diehard rugby fans from Britain have waived visits to this World Cup in favour of the Lions tour to New Zealand in 2005.

Those from Ireland, Scotland and Wales say their countrymen have diddly squat chance of doing well in this tournament and they would rather salt a few more quid away for a roisterous tour in two years.

The Barmy Army is backing England all the way in Australia and reckon the exchange rates will allow them to manage a return to New Zealand as well.

That may give rugby authorities enough time to sort out grounds and the infrastructure to manage such a high interest visit.

Watching the World Cup unfold reinforces my belief that New Zealand would have struggled to co-host the event. The country has all the passion and enthusiasm to deal with the event, it would have boosted the nation's economy but facilities from stadiums to transport and hotels are inadequate.

The world's gaze on New Zealand would have drawn coruscating criticism.

The NZRFU's failure to back itself as co-host ironically saved the nation from some embarrassing comparisons with Australia.

The wide brown land may not have the same rugby soul as New Zealand but it has the infrastructure to deal with the large crowds drawn to this series.

Before this tournament IRB boss Syd Millar suggested New Zealand could host the tournament by itself in the future.

That makes as much sense as Ireland being the third-ranked side in the world.

The IRB maintain it must use the cup as the cash cow to run rugby as it is its only chance to raise enough money to support its growing family. This tournament is expected to reap about A$120 million ($138 million).

Much of it is in television rights and worldwide endorsements but if the IRB wants to extract maximum revenue once every four years to underpin global development, then New Zealand can never be sole host of the World Cup.

Under that IRB philosophy, the cup can act like a handbrake on the sport. In the season after a cup there is scope for interesting competition but then it seems nations begin eyeing the next tournament.

Minor nations try to use their limited time and resources to make it through qualifying while the big guns experiment in the name of progress while the spectators suffer. They pay big money for seats but do not always see the best teams in competition.

The IRB has to try to move closer to the 21st century as a professional business organisation. It needs to rethink the cup format, even its continued existence and whether it is the best method for promoting and financing rugby.

The event began life in 1987 in the amateur era as a festival of rugby. That ethos still exists and there is much to admire in the collection of nations at this event. But the social brotherhood has ebbed away, the World Cup is a cut-throat sporting business.

In these times of professionalism, there is too much disparity between teams and you feel for the dozen sides when they are shuffled off before the quarter-finals after they have created most of the colour and put up with dubious schedules and unfashionable venues.

Why not keep them at the World Cup to play their own plate event as the top sides go through their sudden-death matches? It would continue the sort of competition they are all seeking.

Either that or replace the cup concept with more tours.

The major hurdles are finance and player availability.

If the IRB controls the sport it must make sure there is no repeat of this season when a number of players did not turn up at the tournament because of club contracts.

The IRB now rates sides and could arrange schedules for the top eight nations to play each other every year or every second season, with revenue from those internationals supporting series at the next tier down.

They cannot rely on a quadrennial fundraiser, it is as antiquated a system as those who govern the sport from Dublin.


Full World Cup coverage