"Not our problem": Looking after rugby’s struggling nations is everyone’s problem
The saga revolving the perilous finances of Samoa (and indeed other Pacific Island unions) rumbled on this week, as the RFU issued a strongly worded statement denying that they should be responsible for clearing up what they see as very much a World Rugby mess.
The English union were particularly vocal about feeling pressured to contribute £75,000 as a “goodwill gesture” to the bankrupt Samoan organisation and called on World Rugby to take active steps to fix the situation. World Rugby for their part have disputed Chief Executive (and Prime Minister) Tuila’epa Sailele Malielegaoi’s claims that the union is bankrupt, citing record investment by the governing body.
So far, so understandable. Samoa are of course responsible for managing their own financial situation, and the precise purpose of national unions is to work for the betterment of that nation. The RFU are technically correct when they say that they are not responsible for solving other people’s problems.
However, being technically correct isn’t quite good enough.
Contrary to the RFU’s assertions, it’s simply not the case that tier one nations have no responsibility for the financial stability of poorer unions. Whilst they may have no legal obligation to do so, the RFU’s adamant claims that they will not foot the bill for other nations leaves something of a bitter taste in the mouth. As one of the richest sporting organisations in the world, the RFU absolutely can afford to share the wealth for the long-term benefit of rugby as a whole. £75,000 ahead of the Twickenham clash was a nice gesture, but it pales in comparison to the £10 million they made on the day. When you consider that less than 1% of match day takings went to the opposition, supposedly one of the most beloved traditional rugby nations, suddenly long-standing issues of elitism and class divides raise their ugly heads.
I’m well aware that I’m biased here by my lefty luvvie leanings, but when established unions are struggling to get by, it is baffling that the RFU can invest £120million in a world cup campaign. Of course, the RFU’s onus is to look after themselves, and given that the number one prize in world rugby is the Webb Ellis cup, it makes complete sense that England will throw all their resources at it. However, the clear gap between the haves and have-nots is not good for the long-term health of rugby and needs to be addressed before it gets any worse.
I’ve written several times before about the problems with chucking large sums of money around in a sport that hasn’t got the infrastructure to support it. I’ll admit that too much time living in Sweden has made me develop a pretty negative view on the laissez-faire capitalist approach to rugby (as well as a newfound penchant for kanelbullar and glögg), but too many clubs and unions are focused on short-term success to the point where the sport is becoming dangerously unstable.
It’s all a matter of priorities. The RFU withdrew full-time XVs contracts for the Women’s side as they wished to focus their financial efforts on the sevens game. They then announced the aforementioned £120million for the men’s world cup campaign, and the simple reason for this is because the RFU does not see women’s rugby as a priority, or at least not one on anywhere near the same level as the men’s game. Could a million or two have been divested from that world cup fund to go towards full-time contracts for women players? Probably. Should it be? That all depends on how you prioritize things. It works the same way in this instance. The RFU could afford to sacrifice some of their vast riches if it meant making rugby a more sustainable enterprise across the world.
The RFU absolutely has a point when it says that World Rugby should be doing more to address the root cause of the situation. Financial handouts are a short-term fix and one that won’t benefit Samoa in any meaningful sense until holes are plugged and the reasons behind the collapse are sorted out. I’m certainly not denying that the ultimate responsibility for issues affecting the sport lie with World Rugby and that it would set a dangerous precedent if the onus for fixing the problems was shifted onto the unions. England’s players quite understandably opted not to share their £22,000 match fees with their Samoan counterparts because they saw this as a political issue, and the Samoan players for their part did not want to be recipients of reluctant charity and instead wanted the crisis resolved at the higher level.
So if England are not responsible for supporting poorer unions financially, how is any of this their problem? Well, the simple fact is that richer unions, directly and indirectly, contribute to the ongoing wealth gap by prioritising their own bank balance over the global health of the sport. The fact that England hasn’t played a single test in the Pacific Islands in the professional era is, to quote Clive Woodward, “embarrassing and wrong”. In a system where home sides pocket effectively every penny of match day takings, by refusing to travel to developing nations they are reinforcing the financial status quo. Not only that, but no end of tier one nations have poached players from around the world, lured by the monetary clout to the detriment of their own national sides. It’s simply not enough for wealthy unions to wash their hands of responsibility when they have benefited from the structural inequalities in the sport for so long.
The RFU are not the only ones in this position of course. New Zealand, France and plenty of other unions have enjoyed the luxury of practices which, whilst it may be unfair to say exploit, certainly disadvantage pacific nations. Rugby as a whole needs to take a step back and examine what it wants its future to look like. Throwing some cash at struggling nations isn’t the answer. But if rugby union truly wants to be a globally competitive (and sustainable) sport, it needs to start addressing the structural issues that have allowed this crisis to evolve. For rugby to have a future, all nations need to come together and work for the greater good. It’s not one organisation’s responsibility, it’s everyone’s.
Comments on RugbyPass
Close games are what we want to see…. What a match it was…. I am sure that everyone was drained by the end of it. The reality of it all there has to be a winner and a loser. The fact that we still talking about it is almost 6 months to the day Rugby is the winner.. Asante sana… Here is to 2027 and what it will bring out.
179 Go to commentsIt’s going to be a good game. COYQ
1 Go to comments“Shock”, the guy was casually saying he was just slightly surprised. Nowadays if you say anything it gets taken completely out of context. Calm down everyone.
154 Go to commentsAll I can say after reading this bitter, sour, sad piece is… Thank you very much! This will be read in the change room just before kick off on 31 August…
179 Go to commentsLook, we know contradicting opinions and wacky comments bring readers and clicks, so well done to RP for allowing always-wrong-Ben to say something here. However RP needs to put a disclaimer next to his comments for their own credibility. NZ was and is incapable of acknowledging their opp beating them. They refused so with Ire and with Arg in 2022 and also the Boks in 2023 x 2. Nothing Ben says here holds water, NZ attacked backwards, except when Kolisi and Kolbe was off And cyncialy took out Bongi, we played without lineouts for 75mins. Kolisi and Kurt-Lee almost scored twice. Thats 3 vs 2 for Boks, but the Boks opportunities was legal. Boks should have been 16-3 up by half time. Tacticaly the Boks attacked better defended better scrummed better (without a hooker) kicked better and crossed the whitewash more times. Boks beat Fr Eng Nz to win in 23, comeon give some credit at least. Even Federer Verstappen NY Mets, Mamoa, was able to see a great human sport achievement by the Boks and their DNA Boks #RWC27 !🏉
179 Go to commentsForget the 85kg bit, that can become something else. However I do like the one off test on ANZAC day idea. SR plays Fri/ Sat, test players travel Sunday and the squads have the full week together before playing Saturday. Rest of SR has a week off. Either involve women's teams in same location or in the other country and rotate annually. Herbert is right in that change is needed.
3 Go to commentsI’ve read loads of nonsense before but this article takes the cake. Or perhaps someone changed the date for April Fool's Day.
3 Go to commentsReally Rugbypass? Ben Smith I think you forgot what the Springboks did to the All Blacks at Twickenham 8 weeks earlier? Springboks 35 All Blacks 7. There is alot of ifs and buts in your article. The All Blacks threw the sink at the Springboks and unfortunately they were not good enough regardless if they played with 14 men or not. It was the Springboks who forced the All Blacks to make mistakes! Sorry but not Sorry the Springboks is the best ever Rugby World Cup Nation in the world. 4 Cups baby!
179 Go to commentsYou just backed the Boks with that fantastic review! Well done! Have some cake!
179 Go to commentsBen Smith please write up something better than this. The Springboks would have won the world cup if you were 15 men on the field. They would have found a way, they always find a way to beat the All Blacks.
179 Go to commentsWow, there is a lot of “could have” and “ should have” in this waist of time dribble. I love the desperation in this story to search for a glimpse at a silver lining. Here are the facts, NZ was a badly coached and undisciplined shadow of their former glory. They never took the lead in a game they were never going to win.
179 Go to commentsGOTTA MAKE ‘THE GEORGE’ HAPPEN!!!! That’s a great idea! A trans Tasman midget battle on ANZAC Day. I don’t think the ABs Wallabies game should be a one off winner takes all though, just the first match with the other two later in the year with the RC. Reason being, no one will ever shut up about how aussies couldn’t win it when it was a 3 match series.
3 Go to comments@Ben smith. Thats knock out rugby. So honeslty who cares?
179 Go to commentsIt will interesting to know which Irish players said that…
2 Go to commentsNaaaww boys will be boys! Now run along ya wee scamp! Don’t let us catch you at again😏
1 Go to commentsGreat to have Ethan Blackadder back in the Crusaders in the last few weeks. One of the best all round loose forwards around. He played so well last week against the Rebels. Fantastic attitude Ethan has and his comments are spot on.
2 Go to commentsThe author is 100% right. The Springboks know that they don't have near the natural attraction, mana, skill and mystic the All Blacks have. So, Chasing the sun 1 & 2 was concocted to overblow the Boks image on the back of a corruptly obtained “win". It's marketing ploy to force the Boks delusion as the World's Best. I guess World Rugby is also not to be believed when it came out with an apology about how the final was officiated. And if the 2023 final such a superb game by the Boks, then the Boks crying about Referee Bryce Lawrence for decades is also deserves a laugh. Chase the sun and get burned like a moth. A very well written literary piece that tore the Boks and Chasing the sun farce to shreds. 🖤All Blacks🏉
179 Go to commentsI’d say France was far more hard done by in the 2011 final than the All Blacks in this game. Joubert simply refused to call a penalty against the All Blacks in the last quarter even directing an All Black to drop a ball he picked up in an offside position rather than penalizing him. This article also totally discounts the efforts of PSTD. Ask Jordie how well he played. Or the backup flank who played hooker for the entire game. Siya was also a brilliant tackle by Richie from scoring a blinder. Pollard was also fantastic. Look I don’t like the boks style but the only thing more questionable than the content of this article is the timing of it. Get over it already
179 Go to commentsDad Marty was also a handy rugby player for Linwood back in the day. Great bloke. Sensational softball career.
2 Go to commentsWhat ifs are always dangerous. If you look at the game before Sam cane got sent of SA was dominating. You could make the argument the going down to 14 men rallied the troops and made them have to play to win which is always dangerous.
179 Go to comments