FUTURE SHOCK?
New Zealand's mounting injury problems have forced them to turn to Stephen Donald, who has become their fourth fly-half this World Cup. Will it mark the start of a trend?
Donald is on his way to Bath after the end of the tournament. The All Blacks coach, Graham Henry, would probably have preferred to call up Nick Evans, who has spent the past three seasons with Harlequins, but was not allowed to. The New Zealand Rugby Union has a policy that only domiciled players are available to the All Blacks. As Donald is under contract until the end of the World Cup and played in this year's Super 15 series, he is eligible. Evans, as an exile, is not.
How long will the NZRU be able to ignore players who are based overseas? A US-based New Zealand academic believes the union will be forced to abandon the policy sooner rather than later because of financial constraints. "The danger with rugby is that if New Zealand has a rule that you have to play in New Zealand to be in the All Blacks, they will lose some talented players," said Professor George Foster. "My surmise is that economic pressures are going to put a lot more tension on that rule than is the case now. It is not a case of whether it will happen but when. The field [in international rugby] is tilting towards the best endowed versus the worst endowed." North v south, in other words.
It is that fear that is driving the debate over World Cup finances at International Rugby Board meetings. When the NZRU chief executive Steve Tew said that it was unlikely his organisation would be able to afford to send the All Blacks to the 2015 World Cup because of the income it would lose that year, it was interpreted as a threat to boycott the World Cup.
It was not that simple. While there was concern, and not just among the southern hemisphere nations, at the loss of income in a World Cup year, what New Zealand, Australia and South Africa have been long campaigning for is an equitable distribution of Test match income generated by the leading nations.
The north pulls in more than the south, both in terms of gate receipts and broadcast income, one of the reasons why the World Cup final will kick off at 9pm local time. It best suits the European television audience.
Monday's meeting of tier one chairmen and chief executives here was arranged to discuss the timing of the 2015 World Cup, in particular whether it should be put back a month, to start in October rather than September, so that the Four Nations tournament, which is starting next year after the decision to include Argentina, would be able to adopt its home and away format.
It turned into a discussion about finance once the three Sanzar unions had said they would not debate in isolation the timing of the tournament on the grounds that there was no point in starting planning for it until South Africa, New Zealand and Australia had agreed they could afford to take part.
All the major unions lose income in a World Cup year: the top eight suffer a drop of £48m between them, but England and France are able to absorb the shortfall without having to adjust their belts, while Wales's financial position has become stronger in recent years. Scotland and Ireland, who have a debt to service after rebuilding Lansdowne Road, are in a different position.
If the Sanzar unions are to get their way over distribution, which would mean all the major countries pooling their income from Test matches and tours, including the Lions, and then working out a formula to divide it up, Ireland and Scotland could end up better off, not just the major southern hemisphere three.
The biggest opponents to any change are Wales, who have developed a taste for aggrandisement since reaching the semi-finals. They have arranged an extra international this December with Australia visiting the Millennium Stadium, a match that could turn out to be a repeat of the World Cup final.
The Australian Rugby Union has agreed a fee of £850,000 for coming to Cardiff; if Wales, or the Wallabies, win the World Cup, the match could be worth upwards of £4m to the Welsh Rugby Union, although they will not be able to select a number of players in the current squad, including Mike Phillips and James Hook, because they earn their livings outside Wales and their clubs will not be obliged to release them.
The fear of the Sanzar unions is that, with player costs escalating, they will soon reach a position when they cannot afford to hold on to all their best players, which is why Foster predicts the All Blacks will soon be choosing players based outside New Zealand.
Being able to tap into Europe's finances would increase their turnovers. New Zealand have already told England and Wales, who arrange an extra international in November, that they will not accept invitations in future unless they get a near 50-50 split of the profits.
Ireland are also looking to play a fourth autumn Test, but when they said they would only be able to pay around £300,000, they found no takers. There is no demand in Scotland for more than three internationals in November.
When the posturing stops and negotiations start in earnest, those running the sport need to take a close look at the finances of the global game and ask whether professional rugby, in its current model, is sustainable. It is all very well for Wales to puff out their chests now, but they, more than England and France, are reliant on New Zealand especially filling the Millennium Stadium every November.
If the All Blacks lost their lustre because they could not hold on to their top players and became just another team, the global rugby economy would suffer. Wales entertained all three Sanzar unions last November: 53,127 watched Australia, 54,027 turned up for South Africa, and there were 73,709 in the ground for the All Blacks. Wales have to be careful what they wish for. North and south should be in it together.
