Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

The impact of potential Pacific RWC 2019 boycott as tension mounts over World League

By Alex Shaw
Fiji, here performing the Cibi, are among the nations invited to an emergency meeting in Dublin in late March to discuss the proposed World League (Photo by Scott Barbour/Getty Images)

With the rugby world still reeling from the reports that emerged yesterday of a 12-team ringfenced ‘World League’, the Pacific Rugby Players Welfare (PRPW) organisation have released a strong statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

The PRPW is a London-based group headed by former Manu Samoa international and captain Dan Leo, set up with the intent of looking after the welfare of Pacific Island players in European rugby, and with the reports yesterday suggesting that Fiji, Samoa and Tonga would all be on the outside of this new 12-team competition, the organisation has been quick to act.

The release states that the PRPW are discussing and debating a motion made by senior Test-playing representatives that all members make themselves unavailable for the 2019 Rugby World Cup.

Here is what Leo had to say.

“This is 1995 and the creation of SANZAR all over again.

“This is exactly what happened when they created Super Rugby and all of the subsequent years of expansion. Their watchword was – let’s take their players but whatever happens, keep the islands out.

“This will be Pacific Rugby Disaster 2.0.

Leo also states that is now “abundantly clear that World Rugby has failed the genuine rugby fan” and that has called upon the three Pacific national unions to break out of their position of silence and submission and to support their players.

After discussions with Pacific Rugby Players (PRP) Chairman Hale T-Pole , Leo says the world’s two major Pacific Players Associations have joined voices to fend off this would-be threat to the survival of Pacific Island rugby.

“PRPW strongly support the position of IRP and PRP in condemning this proposal made by World Rugby, and any other format that restricts the Pacific Island’s ability to advance as rugby nations.

ADVERTISEMENT

“So now is the time for the voice of Pacific rugby to be heard through our players, God’s gift to our islands, and in a way that might head off this calamity.

“We invite our National unions to join this collective effort to repel this proposal, before it is too late.”

All three of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga have qualified for the RWC in Japan later this year, with Fiji, currently sitting ninth in the world rankings, a particularly potent threat to qualify from the pool stage and make it to the knockout rounds. To see that group of players denied that opportunity would be one that rugby fans of all allegiances would mourn.

It is certainly a strong reaction from the PRPW and PRP and one which should be heavily debated in the coming weeks before anything is even considered being put into action.

ADVERTISEMENT

Whilst the players are only likely to miss out on relatively insignificant international payments, in contrast to their regular earnings in professional club rugby, by boycotting the RWC, the consequences could be much more impactful for the staff working with those teams and at those unions. From the coaches and physios to the people working in administration and support roles, a boycott of rugby’s premier international competition could prove a threat to their jobs.

It also denies Pacific Island players an opportunity to showcase their talents on the largest stage of all, something which has previously won many a player from Fiji, Samoa and Tonga a lucrative club contract in the northern hemisphere.

The reaction is, of course, understandable, as the Islands had been looking at a rosier future after the upcoming tournament in Japan.

Both England and France had committed to post-RWC tours of the Islands. Then news began to emanate of an annual global competition which, when first reported, was set to include promotion and relegation, something which would allow the Islands to regularly compete against the best teams in the world if they could get themselves into that top tier. To have had both of those prospects snatched away is understandably going to provoke a reaction.

It is worth stressing at this point that there has been nothing official from World Rugby yet. The organisation did release a statement following the report that emerged in New Zealand on Thursday, but it did not confirm or deny any of the specific details put forward in the report, whilst World Rugby vice chairman Agustin Pichot has taken to Twitter to stress he is keen for two 12-tier competitions, with promotion and relegation in place between the two.

That should be taken into account when the PRPW and PRP meet to discuss a potential boycott and although there is very rarely smoke without fire, the exact details of what World Rugby is proposing are not yet known. It should be a time for cool heads and reasoned thought, despite the fact that the thought of excluding the Pacific Islands has tugged at the heartstrings in every rugby fan across the globe, with plenty of collateral damage also likely with any action as significant as a boycott.

Until all the facts are known, discretion may be the better part of valour. If something solid emerges to indicate this report is true, then Fiji, Samoa and Tonga would likely have the entire rugby community behind them, should they opt to take more drastic action at the RWC later this year.

Watch: International rugby set for a radical shake up if plans for a World League go ahead.

Video Spacer

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

Japan Rugby League One | Verblitz v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Fresh Starts | Episode 2 | Sam Whitelock

Royal Navy Men v Royal Air Force Men | Full Match Replay

Royal Navy Women v Royal Air Force Women | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 31 minutes ago
The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific

I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.

11 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE What assistant coaches actually do, and why Parling and Bleyendaal will succeed What assistant coaches actually do, and why Parling and Bleyendaal will succeed
Search