Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

World League up in smoke? Six Nations receive mouth-watering offer

Rory Best of Ireland celebrates with the 2018 Six Nations trophy, a success Italy can only dream of (Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

World Rugby’s Nations Championship faces its first acid test with reports from the BBC suggesting that the Six Nations is considering a staggering offer for a minority stake.

ADVERTISEMENT

CVC Capital Partners, who bought a 27 percent stake in Gallagher Premiership for £200m in December, has put £600m on the table for a 30 percent stake in Six Nations competition. Should they accept the offer, it could cause the Six Nations to break ranks and source their next rights deal putting a World League in doubt. It is thought that CVC would push for a pay-TV broadcaster on the next deal, taking away many of the current free-to-air broadcasts.

It could also make it more difficult to make cosmetic changes to the competition such as promotion and relegation as suggested by the World League proposal, depending on how CVC views the change.

World Rugby executives are due to meet in Dublin this week to discuss the World League proposal that is due to start in 2022, which has received an overwhelming amount of public backlash. It is thought that Ireland and Scotland oppose the global league due to concerns around promotion-relegation.

If the unions were to accept the proposal they would receive healthy cash injections of up to £100m but the long-term effects of the international game could be compromised with the game in private hands.

Any move away from the World League would be a blow for the Southern Hemisphere nations, who would be set to get a bump in revenues from the pooled commercial interests. If the Southern Hemisphere unions are left at the alter it could be seriously damaging for unions under financial pressure like Rugby Australia.

The longer it takes to get buy-in for the World League, it becomes more unlikely to go ahead. It will be a case of ‘who blinks first’ with unions keen to renew rights deals for their existing competitions. SANZAAR, in particular, has to finalise what their Super Rugby competition looks like with increasing pressure on Sunwolves and the potential for a South African exodus to the Northern Hemisphere.

ADVERTISEMENT

In other news:

Video Spacer
ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

LIVE NOW - Singapore SVNS Day 1

Fresh Starts | Episode 3 | Cobus Reinach

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

The Breakfast Show | Episode 7

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

Japan Rugby League One | Verblitz v Eagles | 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 10 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
TRENDING
TRENDING 'Chaos': Lawes sheds light on the social that ended 2 England careers 'Chaos': Lawes sheds light on the social that ended 2 England careers
Search