Sharp IRB criticism misreads US landscape

The International Rugby Board has been sharply criticized for oligopolistic governance and ineffective commercial management, in tones that will resonate in America, but the report's authors sometimes appear little more familiar with the local landscape than the governing body it would reform.

Putting Rugby First, prepared by a sports consultancy and a law firm in Britain, has censored the Dublin-based governing body for failing to expand beyond its strongholds in the so-called Foundation unions, awarding World Cups to these same 'big eight' unions, and missing out on admittance to the Olympics. The nearly 100-page document (and shorter executive summary) implicitly connects the IRB's sway over key competitions with self-interested business decisions.

America figures several times in its critique, but the paper's understanding of efforts to connect with our mainstream sports environment, the recasting of the board of directors, or USA Rugby's business trajectory appears superficial. Moreover, while IRB influence here has been heavy-handed, it has not been altogether lamentable.

In a promising passage, PRF observes:

The IRB’s approach of trying to replicate the conditions that are successful in Tier 1 [i.e., Foundation] rugby nations in Tier 2 nations may be too simplistic and lack flexibility. Starting from the standpoint of building copies of the rugby infrastructures in Tier 1 nations means that some valuable existing sports structures are neglected.

It's also encouraging to read that 'In the USA ... there are high-quality, elite athlete development structures already in place, mainly through the colleges, many of which have facilities that would be the envy of any rugby club in the world.'

But PRF, which lodges the complaint that the IRB's three-year-old investment program is focused on elite rugby at the expense of broader participation in high-population or high-growth countries, does not understand that adopting the varsity model is a strategy for both participation and 'high performance.'

It also makes the ill-informed observation that 'Many of the reforms in US rugby, which is now showing so much promise, were originally proposed in a report funded by the IRB.' In fact, the submission which won the IRB's HP grants was later rewritten -- at the IRB's instruction -- as a much-touted strategic plan that prescribed the Tier 1 high-performance academy model as well as the revamping of USA Rugby's constitution and board of directors. Foreign consultants from Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and the IRB itself were brought in to oversee the dispensation.

The academy model's key elements (e.g., high performance managers) have taken three years to bring online, while the benefits of the board's transition to 9 members from 26 are not yet manifest. Over the past two years, the new 'professionalized' group has not proven adept at rainmaking (i.e., fundraising) or engineering strategic deals (e.g., television packages); in sidelining the old 'volunteer' leadership (now formally known as the congress), which has met just once in two years, the board has shifted policy initiatives and execution to its burgeoning staff in Boulder.

PRF also estimates that 'Revenue has doubled since [the] new, action-oriented structure [was] put in place.' Such accounting likely includes the IRB grant itself and also the recent innovation of running the Super League's books through USA Rugby's accounts. (The National Guard deal was executed by staff, after being contacted by a parent in the military whose daughter plays rugby.) USA Rugby, a member-supported organization, no longer publishes its budget.

PRF is on the money in raising the question of IRB representation: None of its leaders have substantive operating experience in the American sports market, at the Division 1 college or professional level. It is also fair in pointing out that 97 percent of the 33 million who watched the World Cup final were from the big 8 countries. By contrast, the Super Bowl has topped 90 million viewers 8 times; now consider the contrast between the IRB's refusing to license footage of Jonny Wilkinson's championship-winning drop goal at the 2003 World Cup, versus the ready availability to Eli Manning's Super Bowl-clinching pass to Plaxico Burress. Thus PRF dramatizes divergent scale and business views.

But having argued for more commercial and more democratic management, Putting Rugby First too harbors ambitious plans. The authors include the chairman of the Sale Sharks. Premiership (i.e., top level professional) clubs have chronically been at odds with England's governing body as well as the IRB.

7s, most analogous to PRF's example of a successful cricket growth plan, may best encapsulate international rugby's potential, the frustrations of outsiders like PRF, and tangled perceptions of America stemming from the lack of authentic domestic voices and experience in the proverbial corridors of power. Intended as an Olympic sport, the 'abbreviated code' and specifically the IRB's 7s World Series have been the most effective vehicle for projecting high-caliber rugby to a broad American audience.

PRF faults the IRB for bungling its IOC application but does not fairly credit the IRB for the tour; the IRB, by aiding the San Diego tour stop, could do more in America; and the event itself, which was too much for USARFU and needed to be sold to a more experienced and better-financed private party, is only in the second inning.

Not 15 years years ago, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation was roundly criticized for injecting so much cash into a post 1995-World Cup agreement with the Southern hemisphere powers that the game had to go 'open,' or professional. But Murdoch never took those unions out of the IRB fold, and when approached by a sports-savvy, business-minded USARFU representative, put money into the American game too. That package remains the finest example of a coherent vision of American rugby.

Comments

[old beaver]

Great post. Very interesting.

Also interesting James Paterson, of Colorado Springs is starting for Canterbury their in Air New Zealand Cup opener.

[Flynn Hagerty]

Does anybody know if ESPN paid for coverage of the Eagles matches vs. Clermont and Munster?

One criticism that resonated was the group's complaint of the IRB selling the TV rights for the RWC to Setanta. I'm now convinced the IRB should take the financial hit (which is hardly substantial - Setanta paid around $1.5 million to an org that had a $240 million RWC surplus) and offer the next World Cup's games to ESPN. They probably won't be shown on ESPN or ESPN2, but ESPN Classic would be better than nothing. The game needs to be on a wider television platform and at this point I think ESPN would be interested. They may not be willing to pay money for it, but I'm not sure $1.5 million is anything to worry about, as long as Setanta isn't a real TV network.

[rags]

ESPN may have jumped into the fray on their own to test out the viability of Rugby. Rumor has it that they are considering changing ESPN Classic to ESPN 3 and have English Premier League Soccer as one of its Marquee draws. I would guess they see rugby as potential programming to pair up with it, which would give that channel a larger international appeal

[lnr]

ESPN is supposedly showing the ASM match on their Classic Channel
http://www.lnr.fr/Client/Menus.asp?CR=16353&CSR=16361&CSSR=16411&Cle=103109

[John Holmes]

Why are we stuck in this ESPN rut? There are other stations that could just as well broadcast rugby. VS (formerly Outdoor Life Network) has completely changed their platform showing MMA and Hockey, Rugby would seem to be a perfect fit for a station looking to compete with ESPN 8.

Break loose of the one track thinking you all complain about day in and day out!!!

[Da Truth]

One question I have, related to the recent report, is "how did hosting the soccer world cups in the US affect the overall playing numbers here?" Did it contribute to any demonstrable increase? Anyone?

[Patrick Kavanaugh]

The 1994 World Cup in the US didn't really have a major impact on the pariticpation numbers for soccer. The overall rate of growth was 8%/year throughout the 1990s with only a minor increase after 94 that settled back down afterward. Since then, the growth numbers have slowed down to little to no growth, even dropping in 2001-2002. Most folks understand that as numbers get very large it is tough to continue to grow by large percentages. Soccer has reached its stable growth point for participation. It's still growing by significant absolute numbers, but the % is much smaller due to the larger base.

Where the 94 WC made a huge difference was the retention of youth players into the higher levels of competition and the over quality of competition. The funds raised and structures put into the place as a result have paid huge dividends for the professional game and the acceptance and visibility of the game in the broader sporting landscape.

From a Rugby standpoint, I don't think that the RWC will be a good comparison at all. The two sports are totally different beasts. Rugby has nowhere near the participation numbers that soccer had even in the 1980s when US Soccer bid for the FIFA WC. On the other hand rugby doesn't seem to have the negative preconceptions surrounding it that soccer had. Sure, it's viewed as a foreign game, but very few people will show the visceral dislike that soccer still gets from many quarters. So the potential payoff from increased visibility may be much higher for a RWC.

[AA]

What the 1994 Soccer World Cup did was to force the US to get a real league in place. That was part of the deal for hosting the cup. So in 1996 the league started and it is still here. I know people hate to compare soccer to rugby, but soccer has a product and a system in place (academy programs, stadiums, etc.). We are still playing on some crappy field in front of 10 people. In England - rugby teams have partnerships with soccer clubs and share facilities. I can't imagine too many local rugby clubs being able to build a partnership with a MLS team.

[doug lyons]

One of the significant benefits of the WC being played in the US was that the sport gained tremendous credibility within the sporting press.

Prior to the WC being played here soccer was viewed with derision.

Now, soccer is viewed as a legit sport with live coverage of major matches on major networks.

FIFA took a risk with that move but US Soccer is now on the map and it is only going to improve.

The IRB could have dipped it's toes into US waters by awarding the 2009 7's WC to the US (a bid was submitted with Denver as the host city I believe).

Instead, the IRB awarded the tournament to the United Arab Emirates. Now, I am no marketing genius, but explain to me the long term value of presenting a WC tournament in the UAE.

Hosting the WC 7's in the US would have made a lot more sense. The tournament, competed over a weekend, would sell out in no time between locals and tourists. The US team, already competitive in 7's, seems headed in an interesting and exciting direction and would at a minimum be very competitive and entertaining.

The sporting press would see the game for what it is rather than what they perceive.

A foundation would be laid for bringing the WC to the US in 2015 or 2019.

Sidebar question ... what happened to goffonrugby?

[Da Truth]

Great info, guys. Thanks! I know it's not an apples-apples comparison, but it helps fill out the picture a bit.

It looks like the bottom line is that the FIFA WC jump-started professionalism here in the US.

Now, if the IRB were really serious about expanding the game beyond their little fiefdoms...

[Patience]

The IRB will come to the USA eventually. One of the main reasons why FIFA gave USA the '94 WC, which was a huge gamble as critics predicted poor attendance and lackluster atmosphere, was because the market is huge and they were getting max dollars from the rest of the developed world. Rugby is finding themselves in a similar situation. Japan is mad about rugby, has a professional league, a union with cash - they spent approximately $1M on a failed '11 RWC bid - and infrastructure. Spain is on the way with a club in the European Challenge Cup and recently one of the clubs in their top league was purchased by Real Madrid or Barcelona (I forgot which one). The Spanish football clubs have the infrastructure and they see the huge dollars pouring into French professional rugby right across the border. The Spanish and Portuguese clubs are collaborating openly to form an Iberian Peninsula professional competition, so these countries are on their way from the IRB's perspective. Germany and the USA are the two biggest pots of gold for the IRB, and they will be focusing on them with earnest at some point because like everything in life they will eventually chase the money. Right now they only are putting their toe in the USA waters.

[Patrick Kavanaugh]

I took an hour to read the document from PRF and I think that they have some excellent points about the structure of the IRB getting on the way of the growth of the game. Certainly their points about Argentina have special reason to feel aggrieved are spot on. Their recommendations for addressing these problems seem to be well thought out and should be looked at strongly.

However, I think they are mis-guided on a couple of aspects. I'll just take on their last point about the Olympics here. I think that they are barking up the wrong tree putting so much emphasis on being part of the Olympic program. The main reason is that the last thing that IRB wants to do is do something that will devalue their main property, the RWC. FIFA has the same concern and address this by having the men's competition, be a U23 tournamemt. The Women's side is still senior sides, but the WWC is not viewed as a premier tournament by anyone outside the USA and there is great deal less value because of this. Secondly I think rugby needs to look forward and I think that the Olympics are not the incredible vehicle they think. This year's even in Beijing is shaping up to be a PR disaster. Maybe London in 2012 will help, but the IOC gives me no confidence in the long-term health of the games as a vehicle for sporting exposure. Shoot, the inner workings of the IOC make the IRB look transparent.

Now the proponents of this, argiue that 7s will alleviate this concern, but i just don't see that 7s has the umph to cut it. The report quotes and IOC delegate saying that 7 is "perceived as a joke within the Rugby community." No offense to fans of 7s, but he's right. Maybe "joke" is too strong a word, but certainly 7s is perceived as a lesser form of the game. A stretched analogy would be to have gridiron propose to use Arena football for an Olympic sport. They are both fine games, fun to watch and allow a form of the game to be exposed in a time/place that it would otherwise not, but it isn't the "big event," and everyone knows it. One thing I've learned over the years is that it is usually best to wait and make sure that what you do, you do well, rather than push it through and do it half-way.

For this reason I also disagree with AA's comment about the 2007 RW7C. I am sure that Denver could have hosted a fine tournament, but it would have made no difference to US Rugby. The US is not ready yet and like it or not, if it is not "The Big Show", the US public will give a great big yawn. The 15 RWC, that's a different matter. Maybe 2023?

My final reason for letting the Olympic dream go, is that until there is a true international game, it just isn't going to happen. The IOC is dominated by non-anglosphere nations, and most of them have no real love for the anglosphere, especially when you factor in the limited basis for rugby play and the elitist history of the game. In my opinion, the IRB and the rest of the rugby world just needs to concentrate on growing rugby.

[Marty Bradley]

goffonrugby let that domain expire apparently since he is now erugbynews. Delete that old bookmark and go to http://www.erugbynews.com/.

[Da Truth]

Patrick, you make some good points, but I'd counter with this -- for the US, having rugby become an Olympic sport would add "legitimacy" to rugby in this country, which it currently lacks.

On the IOC side of things, they don't see rugby 7's as a truly international sport? A game where Fiji and Samoa are perennial contenders, and teams like Kenya are making their way into the top spots?

When, other than maybe Kenya in distance running, are these countries well-represented in the Olympics?

I would say that 7's makes it MORE of a global sport, and offers lesser funded countries a way to compete in the Olympic games.

[Patrick Kavanaugh]

Marty, I agree with you that more countries are competitive in 7s than 15s. And if you are going to put it in the Olympics, 7s is the only viable form. But does the IOC see it as a global sport? Well, judging by the results of the voting and the responses of the delegates, I'd say No, they don't. My big reservations come from me asking if it is worth the effort, does it really advance the growth of the game if you succeed and do you really have a chance in Hades of succeeding.

We'll just have to disagree about whether being on the Olympic program adds anything to the ability of a sport to grow in the US. There are dozens of sports in the Olympics that in terms of US visibility and support are gnats on an elephant. Team Handball anyone? Even things that most Americans are familiar with like Badminton, Table Tennis, or Field Hockey. Players and fans of each think their sport the one and they are all fine sports. But they are not relatively popular here and the Olympics doesn't really change that. They are going to grow (or not) based on people getting out, teaching them to kids, reffing the games and giving the grassroots that long, slow, and sometimes thankless effort.

[Da Truth]

No doubt that the overall growth comes from grassroots efforts - -you've hit it on the head. FIFA didn't grow soccer in the US, thousands of parents putting their time in at the park did.

But, it's a chicken and egg thing - does the exposure to the top product (pro/international competition) provide the impetus for youngsters to take the game up?

Being a marketing person, that's the scenario I tend to support.

We'll just have to see how this unravels. Regardless of what you think of the report, I think it will be a good kick in the butt for the IRB to start adding some professionalism in their own ranks, and get out of the good 'ol boy/stuffed blazer/old farts mindset.

That is, if they really DO want to grow the game globally.

[Flynn Hagerty]

It is imperative that 7s gets into the Olympics for several reasons.

1) It opens up NOC (nat'l olympic committee) funding for rugby unions across the world. Including ours. I think our budget would increase by millions, and effectively no strings attached! So while Al could get a professionalized 7s team, and he would deserve it, some of that surplus could be used to fill other gaps in the national union.

2) It gets rugby on TV. For god's sake, people in America watch water polo, handball, gymnastics in the Olympics, sports they don't care about the other 4 years. BUT it gets people playing the game. Who do you know who watches water polo? But the USA doesn't have a completely embarrassing water polo team, likely largely due to the carrot of being an Olympian.

3) It is considered as a joke because it's not applicable to the 15s game (which is true) and because a lot of NH unions (except England) don't take it seriously. But if the carrot of the Olympics is extended, the game will be much healthier, and it could well have more applicability to the 15s with the rise in standards.

4) Obviously it sucks that England, Wales, and Scotland along with some Northern Ireland players have to combine into one team. That hurts.

5) The IRB fudged up the application. They've hired consultants now to craft a better presentation for the IOC.

[Flynn Hagerty]

"Why are we stuck in this ESPN rut? There are other stations that could just as well broadcast rugby. VS (formerly Outdoor Life Network) has completely changed their platform showing MMA and Hockey, Rugby would seem to be a perfect fit for a station looking to compete with ESPN 8."

More people watch ESPN Classic and ESPN360 than Vs. Lots more. Probably treble. Next?

[Flynn Hagerty]

Oh, I'd also speculate making 7s rugby an Olympic sport might make it easier for colleges to attain varsity status.

[me]

thats a good point. or at least look upon their current rugby programs with less disdain.

[SD Hitman]

7s as a collegiately sanctioned sport works wonderfully into the model of parsing out the archetypical, keg-drinking, low-achieving college clubs. Have the most talented in such clubs proudly represent their schools in a meaningful best-of-3 match against a single school or a 4-team wknd round robin. The dregs and drill-destroyers can play in their LAU's equivalent of div4 and be hungover as much as they want. Maybe the better players engaged in 7s would aspire them to drop the party-hearty M.O.

Sidenote: In response to Flynn's comment about water polo, OMBAC now sponsors women's water polo which is among the nation's elite clubs. I believe many of the players were on or have ties to the 2000 gold-medal winning team.

[Patrick Kavanaugh]

Da Truth, I agree there is aspect of chicken/egg. You do need that exposure to top level. I just don't think that the Olympics 7s is it. The 15s RWC, that's a different matter altogether, because of the scale of the event worldwide. Even having S14 games in select cities, or full-up test matches is a good thing.

I just don't think that having 7s in the Olympics is going to result in a huge spread of the game. Yes, there will be countries that will enter a 7s competition that won't be able to compete in the 15s. You may get some developement money from western European and the wealthier Asian countries. The question is how much and will that then translate into growth at 15s. I just think the answer is: not much more than if the IRB just focused on growing the game themselves without spending the time and money to bribe the IOC to get 7s in.

Yes, I said bribe. Because that is the way that the Olympics works. The money comes from the wealthy sporting federations that need the less developed nations to pay for people to compete and form local federations. The money goes to the IOC which is "reinvested" back to national Olympic Committees, which then give "grants" to the local sporting federations. At each step there are "expenses" taken out and by the time you get to the developing nations you've also fund various Olympic officials from all over the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the IRB has its own share of overhead that has to pass through multiple hands before the local unions see anything, but at least rugby is only supporting their own crooks when they fund development themselves.

Also, again I have ask people to be realistic concerning Olympic exposure and growth in the US. For most sports the Olympics are an event where people are competing and there is no other venue for worldwide attention. The USOC's budget is limited, very limited. They won't have any extra money to give out just because 7s are an Olympic sport. Just look at the Olympic calendar and see how many team sports that the USOC funds and at what levels. Contrary to common perception most people don't watch the sports like handball or men's field hockey. Water Polo actually has a strong following, especially out west. It's even an NCAA sport. Don't assume that the US is going to jump up and become a rugby playing nation just because it is on the Olympic program. If that were so, you'd see people playing team handball and we'd actually have a team not run on a shoestring budget. Don't think for a minute the NCAA (or most colleges) cares a bit for what the IOC does or does not.

The bottom line is: it's not going to happen. The IOC is trying to drop sports not add them. They are especially not thrilled with team sports. They are even less thrilled with team sports played in small numbers in limited locales.

Again, I think the PRF group has solid suggestions for improvements in governing the game and fostering the growth of the game worldwide (including the US). I'm with Kurt that I'm not sure they really understand the US sporting market. I also also think that they have some serious misunderstanding or glossed over some difficulties in other parts of the report. I think I'll write a reply on that separately. But this fascination with the Olympics is something that I think is a real distraction to their previously stated goal of growing the game worldwide, when it is going to have to be the other way around. You grow the game big enough and the Olympics will want you.

[me]

I dont think the olympics is the be all end all to the growth of american rugby. But I think everyone would agree that more americans identify with the olympics than the rwc. So if rugby is an olympic sport it will at the very least help in the effort to persuade americans that rugby is a legitimate sport and not a blood lust game. that said it shouldnt be the main focus of all of the rugby community's efforts. And I dont think it is. I think it is part of the overall strategy. And if it can be done then it is a good thing. There are many facets of the overall strategy people. Dont just latch onto one and discuss it like it is the make or break story.

[Big Money in 7s]

Olympic bids are tied to government support, and the government is looking at economic impact vis a vis dollars into the economy and infrastructure used after the games. If an Olympic 7s event, 15s is impossible to do in the short window of time, is an event on par with the HK 7s three weekends in a row, organizing committees will be drooling for 7s to be included. One stadium, packed with fans 6 days straight. That is a money spinner for the host nation, organizing committee and the IOC. Only basketball, athletics and gymnastics would generate that kind of revenue.

[Big Money in 7s]

Sorry...one stadium, packed with fans all day, 6 days total over 3 weekends.

[Really?]

I know you guys hate me, but the All-Americans were on the best podcast in the world. Details below.

Episode 65: DOWNLOAD Everybody's All American

In the worlds finest Rugby podcast this week Staf and Jedi have guests galore, first on the show is are members of the touring All American Rugby team. The boys ask them the pertinent about Rugby in the USA and their observations of 'Rugby Country', then Staf blows his cover as a desperate old man - if you like Apple pie, then do not listen to this episode. We absorb the All Blacks loss and celebrate the return of Dr Floss, by asking him how on earth we can hope to beat that Dean's plan, MG3.0 slips in for a little light hearted chat - please excuse Stafford. Meghan Mutrie is a Canadian Rugby player living in New Zealand and playing footy for Johnsonville, we called her into the show for two reasons, firstly she's smoking hot - secondly she will be representing Canada in a few weeks time in Rugby and we thought it was time delve into the world of women's Rugby. Juice reveals all the rubbish going in Aussie and the mighty vigilante Scott 'Scooter Creep Cecil' Waldrom - another Maori champion on the show, returns to help out with the first week of the NPC odds thanks to the TAB. Thanks also goes to the TAB for dishing out $19,000.00 in cold, hard, cash to punters smart enough to get on the Secret Bet of The Week, respect to the tab.co.nz.

This one is chock full of it... and you know it!

http://multimedia.stuff.co.nz/rugby/rugbyroundtable/media/RRT_107_280708.mp3

[Really?]

I know you guys hate me, but the All-Americans were on the best rugby podcast in the world. Details below:

Episode 65: DOWNLOAD Everybody's All American

In the worlds finest Rugby podcast this week Staf and Jedi have guests galore, first on the show is are members of the touring All American Rugby team. The boys ask them the pertinent about Rugby in the USA and their observations of 'Rugby Country', then Staf blows his cover as a desperate old man - if you like Apple pie, then do not listen to this episode. We absorb the All Blacks loss and celebrate the return of Dr Floss, by asking him how on earth we can hope to beat that Dean's plan, MG3.0 slips in for a little light hearted chat - please excuse Stafford. Meghan Mutrie is a Canadian Rugby player living in New Zealand and playing footy for Johnsonville, we called her into the show for two reasons, firstly she's smoking hot - secondly she will be representing Canada in a few weeks time in Rugby and we thought it was time delve into the world of women's Rugby. Juice reveals all the rubbish going in Aussie and the mighty vigilante Scott 'Scooter Creep Cecil' Waldrom - another Maori champion on the show, returns to help out with the first week of the NPC odds thanks to the TAB. Thanks also goes to the TAB for dishing out $19,000.00 in cold, hard, cash to punters smart enough to get on the Secret Bet of The Week, respect to the tab.co.nz.

This one is chock full of it... and you know it!

http://multimedia.stuff.co.nz/rugby/rugbyroundtable/media/RRT_107_280708.mp3

[Really?]

sorry my PC wigged out when I posted it the first time.

[Skinner]

Fine young men!

At least they swore less than the Kiwi hosts.

[Mike]

The US needs a Pro team that can compete globally. We need to create an American style of rugby and prove to the world we are the best athletes at every sport. We need a game changing, unorthodox style of play that will make the world take notice.

Pads off, taking on the world. 22 players @100k contract each.
Exiles of the NFL. featuring PacMan jones, Tank Johnson, etc.
A dose of rugby culture may be a great rehab story for the NFL as well.

So a 3 million Euro investment in a team with a global TV audience, Tv revenue, branding sponsorship, etc. I'd think some hedge fund that is currently sponsoring a bike racing team in Europe, a professional sailing team etc. could fund this and make it profitable.

[Really?]

You get the hardest hitting mofos that can't make it in the NFL and go out there and play thug rugby and you will have some success, but I don't think you will ingratiate yourself to the powers that be. I don't think the ancillary perks of being successful (fall international at Twicks to line the union's coffers) will be on offer if you are the Oakland/LA Raiders of world rugby. One spear tackle that puts a guy in a coma will get you out of the club entirely.

[Patrick Kavanaugh]

Me, Your point is valid and well taken, I'm not really against the Olympics at all, I just think that the report by PRF overempahsized both the importance and realistic possibility of getting 7s in. The point of 7s being a money maker is real. I think it would, just as it was a huge event at the Commonwealth Games, just as soccer is by far the largest money maker in the Olympics, something that often gets overlooked here in the USA. I've had my say about the Olympics. However, there is a second problem I see in the analysis/emphasis of the report.

The report attempts to describe and compare Rugby's strength and potential for growth simply on size of various countries and markets. The report, for obvious reasons, uses soccer and cricket to draw comparisons, but I think their conclusions are drawn from too simplistic an analysis. I think the report’s conclusion that the sport is parochial in its base is accurate. It is primarily an anglospheric phenomenon. So the report then goes to identify the largest nations in world that are not strong rugby powers (China, India,
USA, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, Nigeria, and Japan). So far so good. However, here is where the report goes almost completely anglo-centric to there detriment, primarily because they focus comparisons almost exclusively to soccer and cricket. They do attempt a cursory summary of NFL marketing efforts in China, without the recognition that the NFL’s efforts are not really designed to spread the growth of participation in the full version of gridiron. What’s missing in their focus is the unique feature of each country. Comparing rugby to soccer is a fools game. The game has been international for decades, it is relatively easy and amenable to many body types all over the world. Even so FIFA has serious issues of competiveness and professional success in many regions of the world. Even in places like South America where the talent is abundant and fans unparalled, the professional game is in bad shape. Africa is in even worse shape. Asia is a ManUnited marketers dream, but the competiveness is poor. So if FIFA who has been at this for decades still has issues, trying to compare rugby’s growth in these regions is just too disparate to be of any use.

In a totally inverse manner, the report pushes the premise cricket is outgaining rugby because of its success in marketing the Twenty20 version of the game on the Indian Subcontinent. India and its surroundings are so unique in their fanaticism for cricket that any kind of comparison really has to discount them. Even FIFA can’t figure out how to make inroads there. If they had used cricket as an example of a sport taking a region or country that had participation and interest in the sport, that was able to convert that into commercial success, then there would be validity to the comparison. Cricket is seeing huge success, but I have to think that this is a special case jump that is not going to be generally applicable to regions outside the subcontinent.

What I wish the report had done is to be a little more circumspect in the comparisons and look at the world and the regions in the world where rugby has the potential for growth, both participatory and commercially and apply their suggestions for reforms at the IRB level to that targeted growth. You have to admit that not every has the ability or the inclination to be a strong rugby nation. Some places scream for focused efforts. Places like China, which has no devotion to any single sport and has huge commercial potential. Japan and Korea together with China would seem to make good cluster of nations that provide means to spread the game. Chile, Uruguay and Brazil would seem like naturals both from populations, exposure and the ability to build on Argentina’s success. Even Western Europe seems to have been glossed over, despite the success of Romania and Georgia with very limited resources and the potential for growth in places like Iberia. Eastern Europe/Russia would seem fit there too. And of course there is North America.

The report strongly implies that the RWC should send the RWC 2015 to Japan before England. I agree and I also agree with the conclusion that the RWC should be used as an event that can be used to lead the growth of the game globally, much as FIFA has used their WC. All in all, I find much to agree with in the report, and only a few things that I think need to be tempered with a little caution.