Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

World League controversy: 'Nothing has been decided yet, and I doubt it will' - Pichot

Sam Underhill is tackled by Beauden Barrett and Brodie Retallick. (Photo by Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images)

Augustin Pichot has been tweeting about the unfolding World League controversy this afternoon – suggesting that it is anything but a done deal.

ADVERTISEMENT

News broke last night of further details of the World League and how it will be run, and the plans have been met with widespread condemnation.

The New Zealand Herald reported that a 12-team World League – where teams from the Rugby Championship and Six Nations will be joined by the United States and Japan – is set to go ahead after leading nations came to an agreement. An unknown broadcaster has also offered to back the concept in a deal that will provide up to NZ$14m for each nation every season.

Rumours of the proposal have been floating around for several months and there is thought to be some urgency to sign off on the concept with plans to launch by 2020.

Continue reading below…

Video Spacer

The new format will reportedly see all 12 participating nations meet once a year, with a finals series contested at the end of the year.

Senior players from around the globe – including Jonny Sexton, Owen Farrell and Kieran Read – were united in voicing their concern about the proposed format, largely to do with player welfare.

Pichot has been reacting to the controversy via his Twitter account and has apparently broken from the World Rugby partyline.

ADVERTISEMENT

The World Rugby Vice-President has positioned himself as a champion of Tier 2 nations since taking up the role, and has become something of a voice of descent within an organisation that has traditionally been dominated by the rugby world’s richest unions.

https://twitter.com/AP9_/status/1101093816826818564
https://twitter.com/AP9_/status/1101095142742724608
https://twitter.com/AP9_/status/1101096753120579584
https://twitter.com/AP9_/status/1101097047086809089
https://twitter.com/AP9_/status/1101103673193705472
https://twitter.com/AP9_/status/1101103733109411842
https://twitter.com/AP9_/status/1101106883677556736

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 9 hours 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.

24 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE Makazole Mapimpi: 'My life is somewhere I never thought it would be.' Makazole Mapimpi: 'My life is somewhere I never thought it would be.'
Search