KEY POINTS:
LONDON - When plans for the first World Cup were being mooted more than 20 years ago, some northern hemisphere administrators expressed worries about its impact on the sport's traditional fixtures.
At the time their concerns were dismissed as reactionary. But two decades on the 'blazers' have been proved correct.
Such has been its impact that everything else in union's major outposts has become secondary to winning the World Cup.
For example, Wales coach Gareth Jenkins was able to defend putting out a third-choice team against arch-rivals England at Twickenham last month on the grounds he was planning for an event which, realistically, his side are unlikely to win.
The upshot was a hopelessly lopsided encounter with world champions England winning by a record 62-5 in a match billed as a mere World Cup 'warm-up'.
Afterwards former Wales outside-half Phil Bennett, a pivotal figure in his country's celebrated teams of the 1970s, told the Daily Mail: "If the cost of doing well at the World Cup is to destroy 126 years of history and tradition by turning the fixture into a joke then I'd rather we fail in France."
No-one disputes that the World Cup has become a financial bonanza, with the opening fixture of this year's tournament, between France and Argentina in Paris, set to generate 9.9 million pounds in ticket revenue alone.
The International Rugby Board (IRB) has repeatedly stated that World Cup profits fund the growth of the game as a global sport and points to its recent development programmes in the Pacific Island nations as proof of the need for the vast sums of money its showpiece competition generates.
However, the World Cup has so far been dominated by established rugby countries. Given that the tournament is only now approaching its sixth edition this is no surprise.
But what should concern officials is the treatment of teams such as Argentina. The Pumas, yet to be included in an annual international competition, are currently sixth in the world rankings having recently been as high as fifth place.
Yet because the draw for this World Cup was made in May 2004 and based on the finishing order at the last one in Australia, the Pumas find themselves in the same pool as France and Ireland.
With only two sides qualifying for the quarter-finals, this means one of the world's top six will fall at the first hurdle.
Meanwhile, New Zealand, the yardstick by which all other rugby union nations are judged, have also found themselves in thrall to the power of the World Cup.
Since losing to Australia in the semi-finals four years ago, the All Blacks have won three of the subequent four Tri-Nations competitions and in 2005 they thrashed the British and Irish Lions 3-0.
Yet for all their breathtaking play, the All Blacks - who haven't won the World Cup since hosting the inaugural tournament in 1987 - again risk being branded "chokers" if they come up short in France.
"Never failed to get to a World Cup semi-final. Is that choking?", asked Sean Fitzpatrick, the former All Black captain and member of the 1987 side.
Indeed New Zealand coach Graham Henry has been criticised for devaluing the All Black jersey by picking second-string sides in order to develop the strength of his World Cup squad.
That his team, for the most part, has won these game has made little difference to the flak that has come his way.
In rugby-mad New Zealand, saying you can accept losing today in pursuit of World Cup glory is not an option but all the All Black wins since 2003 risk being written off if they do not triumph in France.
But one constant in a changing game is the New Zealand rugby public's obsession with winning.
"The New Zealand prime minister once said to me that when the All Blacks win, she'd want to be All Blacks captain, but that when they lose she'd much rather be prime minister," Fitzpatrick explained.
"It is all consuming and it can be a bit over the top. But would we prefer less interest? No way."
- AFP
