What a difference a week makes.
Last Monday, the World Cup was expecting the semifinals to include all three SANZAR teams, but no Six Nations representatives. Then England upset Australia and tournament favorite New Zealand once more stumbled against the French.
The surprising turn of events undoubtedly delighted the tournament's business managers.
The final four not only features the rejuvenated hosts against their biggest rival -- happily located just across the Channel -- but also boasts three 'big market' teams. England, France, and South Africa are far more sizable countries than Australia, New Zealand, and Fiji, and conveniently the Africans are in the same time zone as western Europe.
The main reason world rugby would like the United States to succeed also is commercial. Their game is more valuable if it can gain a foothold in our sports market.
Hopes for Japan are much the same, but the IRB's motivation for helping the other 'Tier 2' countries is rather different. Canada, Fiji, Romania, Samoa, and Tonga are seen as having more of a rugby legacy.
Argentina once would have been classified in this group, and indeed considered joining the old Pacific Rim. Now the question is whether the Six Nations or the Tri Series is a better fit.
So far as playing rugby goes, it is interesting to note that the Eagles turned in credible performances against three of the semifinalists over the past four years.
In 2004, the Eagles led the Tricolors at half in Hartford, and pressured the Six Nations champs all the way in a 39-31 loss. The following year, Glasgow (now Saracens) wing Francisco Leonelli slipped by fullback Francois Viljoen to score an injury-time try, giving the Pumas a 34-30 Churchill Cup win. Of course, the 2007 World Cup has seen a close match with England and a lopsided result against South Africa.
Such results will now be watched more closely by the IRB and, thankfully, our own management too.

