Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 16:23

I think people are reading too much into the pools and draws. We just need a 24 team xvs RWC period. The rest of the details we will figure them out later. But in - order for rugby to keep up the competition from other sports, this must happen in the near future, and it is not negotiable.

Posts: 269
Joined: Tue, 12 Apr 2016, 14:19
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sammo » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 16:44

Neptune wrote:I think people are reading too much into the pools and draws. We just need a 24 team xvs RWC period. The rest of the details we will figure them out later. But in - order for rugby to keep up the competition from other sports, this must happen in the near future, and it is not negotiable.


I agree. I don’t think the question should be ‘is this system perfect?’, it should be ‘is this system better than what we have now?’, which I believe a 24 team WC with 6 groups of 4 is.

Posts: 37
Joined: Mon, 21 May 2018, 12:45
National Flag:
NambiaNambia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby JLJordaan » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 20:26

RugbyLiebe wrote: Your idea is to create an overcomplicated system which creates even more injustice. So not only some 4/6 thirds might be lucky or 2/6 unlucky, but now everyone else is in the pot as well AND, that's the biggest problems with 8 groups of 3 is, you again create different turnarounds. One team will have their break between there first and their second game and this team is heavily favoured.
Sorry, I seriously hate that format.


You are understanding me completely wrong. It is still 6 groups of 4 teams. But the 6 groups will be split into two bigger groups. Read carefully what I've written down, never did I ever suggest 8 groups of 3.

Group North: Pools A, B & C (top 8 advances to R16)
Group South: Pools D, E & F (top 8 advances to R16)

Group North R16 matches: Paris and Lille
Group South R16 matches: Marseille and Lyon

Do you understand it now RugbyLiebe?

Posts: 302
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Blurandski » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 20:31

What about going to 4*6? Lengthen the group stage by a few days. It keeps the current blockbuster matchups in the group stages, allows for an even schedule, and makes the knockouts qualification simple.

Or we could borrow the League super group idea. 6 groups of four.

3 go through from ABCD, 2 from EF. (16 total).

1-4 are seeded in ABCD, 5-6 in EF.
7-8 are garunteed to be ABCD.
Last edited by Blurandski on Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 21:02, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 37
Joined: Mon, 21 May 2018, 12:45
National Flag:
NambiaNambia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby JLJordaan » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 20:38

Blurandski wrote:What about going to 4*6? Lengthen the group stage by a few days. It keeps the current blockbuster matchups in the group stages, allows for an even schedule, and makes the knockouts qualification simple.


I also thought about that, but people want knockout games as there is a live or die element to it. The four group model is not complicated to understand, which makes it better than the 6 group model. Obviously you could just add in a Round of 16 in anyway, but then we'll have a longer group phase as well as a knockout phase (money and player welfare)

But I do however think that the 6 group model may have more upsets.

Posts: 302
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Blurandski » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 21:04

JLJordaan wrote:
Blurandski wrote:What about going to 4*6? Lengthen the group stage by a few days. It keeps the current blockbuster matchups in the group stages, allows for an even schedule, and makes the knockouts qualification simple.


I also thought about that, but people want knockout games as there is a live or die element to it. The four group model is not complicated to understand, which makes it better than the 6 group model. Obviously you could just add in a Round of 16 in anyway, but then we'll have a longer group phase as well as a knockout phase (money and player welfare)

But I do however think that the 6 group model may have more upsets.

Yeah, I’ve now amended my post, 6x4, with the four groups sending 3 teams being slightly stronger is the way to go imo.

Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 21:37

JLJordaan wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote: Your idea is to create an overcomplicated system which creates even more injustice. So not only some 4/6 thirds might be lucky or 2/6 unlucky, but now everyone else is in the pot as well AND, that's the biggest problems with 8 groups of 3 is, you again create different turnarounds. One team will have their break between there first and their second game and this team is heavily favoured.
Sorry, I seriously hate that format.


You are understanding me completely wrong. It is still 6 groups of 4 teams. But the 6 groups will be split into two bigger groups. Read carefully what I've written down, never did I ever suggest 8 groups of 3.

Group North: Pools A, B & C (top 8 advances to R16)
Group South: Pools D, E & F (top 8 advances to R16)

Group North R16 matches: Paris and Lille
Group South R16 matches: Marseille and Lyon

Do you understand it now RugbyLiebe?


Apparently I did totally misunderstand you. Sorry. So you are saying that the system is basically the same, but instead 6 3rds fighting for 4 spots, it is 2*3 thirds will fight for 2 places?
If I got that right now, the travelling issue will appear in the quarters as that's the stage were the probablity of two teams from the same group meet again is quite high. Also how do you avoid this in the round of last 16? Not in the mood to dust up my stochastics skills though atm.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 4337
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 22:09

I don't see the need of nothing of this. If you Rank everybody from 1st to 16th the Round of 16 will have 3 possible venues for each team (but rugby is predictable and almost all teams will be in reality between 2 venues if the draw is organized properly). FIFA's model offers 2 possibilities. So it is fine.

Round of 16
Match 1 - Friday - 3rd vs 14th, in Paris
Match 2 - Saturday - 6th vs 11th, in Bordeaux
Match 3 - Saturday - 2nd vs 15th, in Paris
Match 4 - Saturday - 7th vs 10th, in Lille
Match 5 - Sunday - 8th vs 9th, in Lille
Match 6 - Sunday - 1st vs 16th, in Paris
Match 7 - Sunday - 5th vs 12th, in Bordeaux
Match 8 - Monday - 4th vs 13th, in Bordeaux

(Note: teams closely ranked are in the same cities, which could alow you to predict the venue... ex, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd I put playing in Paris / 4th, 5th and 6th in Bordeaux / 7th and 8th in Lille)
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 302
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Blurandski » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 22:40

If we did 6x4, with the top four groups sending three teams through based on current rankings:

Seed 1A: NZ, Ireland, England, Wales
Seed 1B: Australia, Scotland
Seed 2A: South Africa, France, Argentina, Fiji
Seed 2B: Japan, Tonga
Seed 3A: Georgia, Italy, USA, Samoa
Seed 3B: Romania, Uruguay
Seed 4: Russia, Spain, Hong Kong, Namibia, Canada, Brazil/Kenya.

This would give us groups like:

A (3): NZ, Fiji, Samoa, Russia
B (3): Ireland, France, Georgia, Hong Kong
C (3): Wales, Argentina, Italy, Brazil/Kenya
D (3): England, South Africa, USA, Canada
E (2): Australia, Tonga, Romania, Spain
F (2): Scotland, Japan, Uruguay, Namibia

A1 v D3: NZ v USA
B2 v F2: France v Japan
B1 v C3: Ireland v Italy
F1 v D2: Scotland v South Africa

C1 v B3: Wales v Georgia
A2 v E2: Fiji v Tonga
D1 v A3: England v Samoa
E1 v C2: Australia v Argentina

QFs: NZ v France, Ireland v SA, Wales v Fiji, England v Australia.

It'd be a fair system in that the top four & ten teams get an easier draw, plus there shouldn't be a sense of unfairness over which group gets three slots.

Posts: 4360
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Sat, 15 Sep 2018, 00:56

I think you're on the right path there but I think you're coming about it the wrong way. What if the pools are seeded like this:

A, B, C, D - Seeds 1-4
E, F - Seeds 5-8

As Group E and F have lower ranked seeded teams it would make sense that they have to work a little harder through the tournament. The Runners Up in groups A-D would be unseeded so it makes sense you assign those teams to the teams in E and F. That would leave the Winners in A-D, Seeds 1-4, being given the Third Place teams as opponent in the second round, again in theory the 'easier' matches. So essentially, the higher your seed is the 'easier' the path in the knockout stage is. So in theory your draw, if it all went to plan, would look like this:

Winner A (1) v Third Place 1/2
Runner Up F (8) v Runner Up B
Winner D (4) v Third Place 2/1
Winner E (5) v Runner Up C

Winner B (2) v Third Place 3/4
Runner Up E (7) v Runner Up A
Winner C (3) v Third Place 4/3
Winner F (6) v Runner Up D

When you look at it this way it's is actually a pretty fair draw for the Round of 16. It would also make rankings prior to the draw all the more important. You finish top 4 you're given an easier path in the knockout phase in the World Cup, finish 5-8 and it's a bit tricker. All of this is of course dependant on the draw going to plan, but no matter the sport sometimes being seeded doesn't mean a hell of a lot. But in principle this would be a good foundation. Based on current rankings this is what it would look like:

Pool A - New Zealand, Argentina, Georgia, Russia
Pool B - Ireland, Fiji, Italy, Spain
Pool C - Wales, Japan, USA, Hong Kong
Pool D - England, Tonga, Samoa, Namibia
Pool E - Australia, France, Romania, Canada
Pool F - Scotland, South Africa, Uruguay, Portugal

Round of 16
New Zealand v Italy
South Africa v Fiji
England v Georgia
Australia v Japan
Ireland v USA
France v Argentina
Wales v Samoa
Scotland v Tonga

Posts: 770
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Tobar » Sun, 16 Sep 2018, 16:32

As we’re discussing all of these points it should also beg the question - how big can a RWC get before it’s unsustainable? FIFA has 32 teams but will move up to 48 teams by 2026. Soccer takes a lot less of a toll on a player’s body than rugby so playing a game every 3-4 days over a long period is possible. I don’t see how it would be that feasible with the same amount of teams for rugby, even if everyone was fully professional and able to dedicate the same amount of time.

This isn’t a serious discussion point required at this stage, right now we just have to worry about adding 4 teams. I am curious to know other people’s thoughts on it.

Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Sun, 16 Sep 2018, 18:45

Tobar wrote:This isn’t a serious discussion point required at this stage, right now we just have to worry about adding 4 teams. I am curious to know other people’s thoughts on it.


A lot depends on how you plan the groups. A 32 team world cup can mean exactly the same number of games for each team as a 24 team tournament (Actually a 24 team RWC under the 1990 soccer WC schedule has the same number of games for the last 16 and one game less for the teams 17-20 (obviously 3 more for world cup games for the new teams). In a 32 team tournament also only 16 teams have the same number of games. A 48 team tournament is a joke imho. That's too much no matter how big a sport is globally. Devalues the thrill of qualifing for such a tournament.

So in my opinion there is no reason to think that a bigger world cup could be a problem for the players at all.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 7
Joined: Sun, 04 Sep 2016, 07:57
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Earl of Currie » Sun, 16 Sep 2018, 21:37

Personally , I do not think there is sufficient strength in depth of the international game to have a larger World Cup.
Would keep it at 20 teams , but would insist on every country (except the host nation) playing in qualifying tournaments in the two years leading up to each tournament. Would not increase it beyond 20 until there was sufficient evidence that tier 2 and 3 countries would be able to complete at that stage.
Unfortunately , the gap between the top 12-15 countries in the world and the rest is getting bigger year on year at the 15 a side game to see where it would be a benefit of allowing lower ranked countries a place at the world cup.

Countries can use tournaments such as the 6N , ARC , Championship as qualifiers , but there has to be an insistence from WR that there is promotion / relegation into other regional competitions to allow pathways for countries to improve. Was considering suggesting qualifying groups encompassing all levels , but considering player safety , there are just too few number of countries playing professional rugby to a suitable standard to allow lower tier countries to compete against the top nations in the world. I actually see rugby going the same way as Cricket , where there is a Test standard and Development Standard as the gap between professional and semi-pro/amateur becomes too big to bridge

What I would recommend for World Rugby to improve the professional standards across the world is to use a high proportion of the World Cup profits to develop Tier 2 / 3 nations at club rugby level and use their influence to insist clubs from Tier 2 / 3 nations are playing higher level cross border rugby with the aspiration of playing against pro club teams. For example , in Europe , it is quite feasible to insist that more countries have representation within the European club competitions and for WR to underwrite the costs of professional coaching and travel for these games. Also allowing T2/3 countries to put in either club champions or national teams to test themselves against other clubs at that level. It can also be a gauge for countries to determine if there is appetite for a professional team to enter competitions such as Pro14. This can be mirrored in other parts of the world in similar competitions.

Posts: 593
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Figaro » Mon, 17 Sep 2018, 08:32

Earl of Currie wrote:Personally , I do not think there is sufficient strength in depth of the international game to have a larger World Cup.
Would keep it at 20 teams , but would insist on every country (except the host nation) playing in qualifying tournaments in the two years leading up to each tournament. Would not increase it beyond 20 until there was sufficient evidence that tier 2 and 3 countries would be able to complete at that stage.
Unfortunately , the gap between the top 12-15 countries in the world and the rest is getting bigger year on year at the 15 a side game to see where it would be a benefit of allowing lower ranked countries a place at the world cup.


There are several teams that will definitely not make the 2019 WC (Spain, Romania) that are on a similar or better level to the weakest teams that will definitely qualify (Russia, Namibia), and a half dozen others who are not far behind (Kenya, Hong Kong, Zimbabwe, Germany, Brazil). Expand to 24 and the overall quality will go down, yes (that's inherent in any expansion), but the weakest team in a 24 team WC will not be substantially weaker than at present. I'd say it's already the case that there is "sufficient evidence".

Unfortunately , the gap between the top 12-15 countries in the world and the rest is getting bigger year on year at the 15 a side game to see where it would be a benefit of allowing lower ranked countries a place at the world cup.


What makes you say that?

Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Mon, 17 Sep 2018, 09:02

Earl of Currie wrote:Would keep it at 20 teams


How do you solve the scheduling issue, which basically eliminated Japan single-handled because they had to face South Africa on September 19th and Scotland on September 23rd?

Also I am also really looking forward to your claim that the gap between teams wide every year.

That's what World Rugby says:
- "The average scoring margin in tier one v tier two matches has become closer in each of the last four Rugby World Cups"
- "Thirty per cent more tries were scored by tier two teams against tier one teams than in RWC 2011"
- "For more than half the tier two teams, their average losing margin against tier one teams in 2015 was lower than in any of the previous four Rugby World Cups"

"Certain other tier two teams did not perform as well as was expected but others enhanced RWC
2015 with their improved performances.
- Fiji had a difficult draw and competed well in a pool that contained three tier one teams with
world rankings of second, fourth and fifth, making it the most challenging pool in RWC history.
- Georgia were a competitive team and were in a pool that contained two of the semi-finalists
and were successful against both tier two opponents, including a team ranked five places
higher.
- Romania’s pool contained three tier one teams for the third consecutive time, and although
all three matches were lost, more tries were scored and fewer were conceded with margins
moving down from 42 to 36 to 24.
- Uruguay’s performance at RWC 2015 was noteworthy. From conceding an average of 92
points at RWC 2003 (their last tournament), they managed to almost halve their margin in
defeat despite their squad being 90 per cent amateur and being in the most demanding pool
ever.
- Namibia’s results at RWC 2015 also improved. Margins were closer, more tries were scored
and fewer conceded with their matches against tier two opponents being far more
competitive."

"Tier two teams were also increasingly competitive in several areas of the game. Tonga had more possession than their opponents in all four matches, Japan and USA were the only teams that had a 100 per cent success on their own scrums, Fiji were the most successful team in winning opponents’ scrums, Namibia’s four tries from turnovers were exceeded by only two other teams, while they also had the second most successful kick at goal rate."


But have a look yourself (official stats RWC 2015)
http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws. ... Report.pdf
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 1839
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sk 88 » Mon, 17 Sep 2018, 13:15

Earl of Currie wrote:Unfortunately , the gap between the top 12-15 countries in the world and the rest is getting bigger year on year at the 15 a side game to see where it would be a benefit of allowing lower ranked countries a place at the world cup.


Genuinely have seen no evidence of this? Where do you get it from?

User avatar
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby NaBUru38 » Mon, 17 Sep 2018, 17:07

With six groups, many matches wouldn't be competitive. Having four groups is much better in that sense.

To avoid the tournament to get too long, the playoffs could have just semifinals and final. Therefore, the maximum number of matches per team would remain in seven.

Posts: 302
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Blurandski » Mon, 17 Sep 2018, 17:27

NaBUru38 wrote:With six groups, many matches wouldn't be competitive. Having four groups is much better in that sense.

To avoid the tournament to get too long, the playoffs could have just semifinals and final. Therefore, the maximum number of matches per team would remain in seven.



Looking at T1 matchups, the current system has 8 T1vT1 matchups before the QFs, whereas in the (thatrugbyguy's) 6 group system there would be six, which feels close enough to be negligible. If we add in T1.5 (Fiji, Japan, Georgia, US) the gap widens to 18 v 11.

That being said those group stages would be too long, a month of group stages would kill, plus only one team from each group going through would be a bit rubbish imo.

Posts: 302
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Blurandski » Mon, 17 Sep 2018, 17:30

Tobar wrote:As we’re discussing all of these points it should also beg the question - how big can a RWC get before it’s unsustainable? FIFA has 32 teams but will move up to 48 teams by 2026. Soccer takes a lot less of a toll on a player’s body than rugby so playing a game every 3-4 days over a long period is possible. I don’t see how it would be that feasible with the same amount of teams for rugby, even if everyone was fully professional and able to dedicate the same amount of time.

This isn’t a serious discussion point required at this stage, right now we just have to worry about adding 4 teams. I am curious to know other people’s thoughts on it.


32, with eight groups of four is the perfect format imo, same amount of games and time as the current format (one fewer group stage game, one more knockout). 40, with eight groups of five, and only the top team going through to QFs would also be doable, because they both conform to the 7 games to win principle.

Posts: 4360
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Mon, 17 Sep 2018, 22:56

Tobar wrote:As we’re discussing all of these points it should also beg the question - how big can a RWC get before it’s unsustainable? FIFA has 32 teams but will move up to 48 teams by 2026. Soccer takes a lot less of a toll on a player’s body than rugby so playing a game every 3-4 days over a long period is possible. I don’t see how it would be that feasible with the same amount of teams for rugby, even if everyone was fully professional and able to dedicate the same amount of time.

This isn’t a serious discussion point required at this stage, right now we just have to worry about adding 4 teams. I am curious to know other people’s thoughts on it.


I worked out the logistics a while ago. A 32 team RWC can fit into the current 6 week calendar, it would essentially mean there’s at least 3 games every day during the pool phase, the only difference is the final pool games would finish on a Monday instead of Sunday. We’re a long way off from that happening though.

Posts: 4360
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 12:36

Players Association is against expansion:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-unio ... 504sk.html

Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 13:27

thatrugbyguy wrote:Players Association is against expansion:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-unio ... 504sk.html


Does Hassanein like to take are drink or two too much?
""Some might argue that the more teams getting exposure at World Cup time will address the [disparity] but what tier two nations need and part of our overall position is that not only do they need more guaranteed conditions on pay and welfare, they also need more guaranteed fixtures so they can begin to bridge the gap," Hassanein."


So he is for more fixtures, but against them in a RWC, which would naturally create the money to pay the players more. Sorry, but that's the biggest bullshit I've read this year. And there's was a lot. Is the IRPA kind of a clown federation or is it taken seriously normally?
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 1839
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sk 88 » Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 13:42

It's just another part of the Tier 1 cartel.

Its not a proper union that really thinks about its members needs, its a mouthpiece for select ex-players to feel important and give WR a fig leaf when people say they don't talk to the players.

Any proper workers-union should see this expansion as reducing the inequitable work loads that falls disproportionately on their financially weaker members. Now I'm not a union man but I thought that kind of thing was what unions generally approved of?

Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 13:42

Ah okay, it is a Rugby championship + 6 Nations minus Italy lobby organization
"National Rugby Player Associations worldwide are members of International Rugby Players. International Rugby Players’s membership is currently made up of the national Professional Rugby Players’ Associations from each of South Africa, England, Australia, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Argentina and New Zealand."

Fair enough. Let them play all the games with just 4 days turnaround the next world cups. Lets wait and see who wants expansion then. I mean seriously a player's association wants that? Because some Pacific Nations and Kenya (?) have suprisingly some corruption going on. And then cites the sponsor-union-civil-war in Germany (which by the way would have never even broken out, if we already had a 24-team RWC in 2019).

How naive do you need to be, to think no expansion would even have a thing to do with stopping nations with corrupt (union) presidents like Samoa being corrupt.
A good player's association would want to create new market to give more players the opportunity to get contracts. Shame, shame, shame.
/rant over
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

User avatar
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby NaBUru38 » Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 14:24

I don't think that Omar Hassanein is wrong.

The tendency for us is to look to expand. It's growing the global game, getting interest from fans and commercial interest in new markets to grow the sport. We're definitely in an expansive mindset

That's the point of the Americas Rugby Championship, Major League Rugby and Liga Americana de Rugby. That's the point of the Nations Cup and the Pacific Nations Cup. Those tournaments generate experience and public awareness.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 23 guests