What (not tier1) developing rugby cOuntries should World Rugby put the most money in

RockBoysarewii · 10-06-2018 06:27PM #1

?

The Lost Sheep · 10-06-2018 10:09PM

What countries do you think they should put more/most money into?
And why? And what should they be investing in?

CIARAN_BOYLE · 11-06-2018 12:30AM

Its considered polite to give uour own opinion when aaking a question.

Personally i feel Georgia and Japan should be focused on for development. Georgia because of the promise they show and Japan because of how i feel that ruby isbon the edge of a breakthrouh there.

RockBoysarewii · 11-06-2018 07:25AM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

What countries do you think they should put more/most money into?
And why? And what should they be investing in?

All you do is ask me to answer my own question and then criticise my views.

Dog Botherer · 11-06-2018 08:48AM

RockBoysarewii wrote: »

All you do is ask me to answer my own question and then criticise my views.

Well how are we supposed to criticize them if we don’t know them?

CIARAN_BOYLE · 11-06-2018 09:14AM

RockBoysarewii wrote: »

All you do is ask me to answer my own question and then criticise my views.

dI'd you read my answer. it explains the lost sheep's response perfectly.

errlloyd · 11-06-2018 11:06AM

Rugby is in a difficult position strategically, and I'm sure a sports economist in Loughborogh University could write a PHD on the best options for rugby investment. There are three key objectives for the sport, and WR has to rank the importance of each of them

1: Growing the global audience in order to increase revenue.
2: Increasing the number of teams competitive in the 15s Rugby World Cup.
3: Increasing the number of players playing rugby at all levels.

Those three goals are all complimentary in the long term, but in the short term I believe they involve investment in different areas.

For example, if you truly wanted to grow the global audience for rugby, you would probably focus your development capital on the large first world countries that are currently ranked between 20 and 40 in the world. The likes of Germany, Korea, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Hong Kong etc. This might come at the expense of countries that are slightly more developed, but are unlikely to deliver the revenue long term, the likes of Georgia, Romania, the Pacific Island nations.

In contrast, if we wanted the Rugby World cup in 2027 to be as competitive as possible we would invest in those countries ranked around 10-25. The ones that already have a bit of rugby pedigree, but have little to offer the rugby economy. They're your Pacfic Islands, Romania, Georgia. Naturally there are a few teams that straddle both sides of this Venn Diagram. The USA and Japan are both high potential markets, and teams with reasonable rugby pedigree. But I don't believe that WR will get a decent return on investment in those markets. Japan already has lots of money in rugby, and they get regular tier one test matches, the likes of which Fiji could only dream of. USA has all of that, plus the chance to host tier one tests they aren't involved in (that experiment may now be over, but it was worth a shot). With the Sunwolves in Japan and a potential US pro14 franchise constantly mooted, I think WR can achieve more elsewhere.

If they want player numbers the quickest way is to focus on the women's game in existing tier 1 countries or Sevens in developing countries. The advantage with sevens is that the Olympic element means their investment might be matched by other bodies, local Olympic councils etc. Uganda, PNG, Uruguay, Chile all have decent Sevens programs. Kenya is a core team (and if I was Leinster it's where I'd be setting up an overseas academy). Converting these 7s teams to 15s is tricky. Brazil might have some answers, they're one of the quickest rising teams in World Rugby RN as far as I can tell. Notable wins over the USA and Canada at home, and Portugal and Germany away have raised them to 26th in the World Rankings. They have a major bank sponsoring them, but also had a bit of a push for Rugby when 7s was included in the Olympics. A lot of credit has to go to Argentina and SARC for pushing rugby in that region, hopefully we can start to see some developments.

In summary, before deciding where to put the money, you have to decide on your desired strategic outcome and then you have to apply the test.

Will investment = performance, will performance = outcome.

slingerz · 11-06-2018 11:23AM

it would be USA, Russia & Japan for me. Opens the game up to exponentially large markets. After that Germany/Georgia/Spain.

Scope is there to grow the game but it will be a slow process in all honesty for most nations with the exception of USA/Russia should they choose to put money into developing the game.

The Lost Sheep · 11-06-2018 12:34PM

RockBoysarewii wrote: »

All you do is ask me to answer my own question and then criticise my views.

its annoying when you post up these big questions and offer none of your own thoughts on the questions..
Have a few meetings for work but will give my thoughts on your first question after that...

Neil3030 · 11-06-2018 01:36PM

It should be Georgia because the game is so popular there, but it will be USA / Russia for financial reasons.

11-06-2018 01:40PM

Politics aside (wherein they are a significant threat to Europe), but Russia has continuously demonstrated very bad faith towards integrity in sports. Honestly I'd not be in any rush to embrace them at all.

RockBoysarewii · 11-06-2018 04:36PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

its annoying when you post up these big questions and offer none of your own thoughts on the questions..
Have a few meetings for work but will give my thoughts on your first question after that...

I don’t really ask questions that I know the answer too. I just discovered that Zimbabwe have are reasonable amount of players at 20,000 and have players playing for other countries such as Pocock, Curtis , Mtawarira and Ngwenya. I wondered why the country doesn’t perform and get money from World Rugby.

Burkie1203 · 11-06-2018 04:41PM

RockBoysarewii wrote: »

I don’t really ask questions that I know the answer too. I just discovered that Zimbabwe have are reasonable amount of players at 20,000 and have players playing for other countries such as Pocock, Curtis , Mtawarira and Ngwenya. I wondered why the country doesn’t perform and get money from World Rugby.

Eh Zimbabwe. Have a look at why Pococks family left for example. There is an excellent documentary about his story. Think it's called True Grit

The Lost Sheep · 11-06-2018 05:14PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Rugby is in a difficult position strategically, and I'm sure a sports economist in Loughborogh University could write a PHD on the best options for rugby investment. There are three key objectives for the sport, and WR has to rank the importance of each of them

1: Growing the global audience in order to increase revenue.
2: Increasing the number of teams competitive in the 15s Rugby World Cup.
3: Increasing the number of players playing rugby at all levels.

Those three goals are all complimentary in the long term, but in the short term I believe they involve investment in different areas.

For example, if you truly wanted to grow the global audience for rugby, you would probably focus your development capital on the large first world countries that are currently ranked between 20 and 40 in the world. The likes of Germany, Korea, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Hong Kong etc. This might come at the expense of countries that are slightly more developed, but are unlikely to deliver the revenue long term, the likes of Georgia, Romania, the Pacific Island nations.

In contrast, if we wanted the Rugby World cup in 2027 to be as competitive as possible we would invest in those countries ranked around 10-25. The ones that already have a bit of rugby pedigree, but have little to offer the rugby economy. They're your Pacfic Islands, Romania, Georgia. Naturally there are a few teams that straddle both sides of this Venn Diagram. The USA and Japan are both high potential markets, and teams with reasonable rugby pedigree. But I don't believe that WR will get a decent return on investment in those markets. Japan already has lots of money in rugby, and they get regular tier one test matches, the likes of which Fiji could only dream of. USA has all of that, plus the chance to host tier one tests they aren't involved in (that experiment may now be over, but it was worth a shot). With the Sunwolves in Japan and a potential US pro14 franchise constantly mooted, I think WR can achieve more elsewhere.

If they want player numbers the quickest way is to focus on the women's game in existing tier 1 countries or Sevens in developing countries. The advantage with sevens is that the Olympic element means their investment might be matched by other bodies, local Olympic councils etc. Uganda, PNG, Uruguay, Chile all have decent Sevens programs. Kenya is a core team (and if I was Leinster it's where I'd be setting up an overseas academy). Converting these 7s teams to 15s is tricky. Brazil might have some answers, they're one of the quickest rising teams in World Rugby RN as far as I can tell. Notable wins over the USA and Canada at home, and Portugal and Germany away have raised them to 26th in the World Rankings. They have a major bank sponsoring them, but also had a bit of a push for Rugby when 7s was included in the Olympics. A lot of credit has to go to Argentina and SARC for pushing rugby in that region, hopefully we can start to see some developments.

In summary, before deciding where to put the money, you have to decide on your desired strategic outcome and then you have to apply the test.

Will investment = performance, will performance = outcome.

Certainly all 3 are interlinked. Totally agree with most of your post.I agree with you on focusing on likes of Germany etc over Fijis but we need to do more with the Pacific Islands and provide more for them through unions and World Rugby like academies, a better set up for pro rugby than simply french top 14 etc setting up academies down there.

Neil3030 wrote: »

It should be Georgia because the game is so popular there, but it will be USA / Russia for financial reasons.

It should be and needs to be all of them for the betterment of the sport.

RockBoysarewii wrote: »

I don’t really ask questions that I know the answer too. I just discovered that Zimbabwe have are reasonable amount of players at 20,000 and have players playing for other countries such as Pocock, Curtis , Mtawarira and Ngwenya. I wondered why the country doesn’t perform and get money from World Rugby.

I never said you had the answer to the questions but its polite to give some sort of opinion on the question rather than looking like someone getting others to do your homework for them...
Zimbabwe doesnt have these guys playing for them or others play for them or stay in the country because of the political situation that exists in Zimbabwe

RockBoysarewii · 12-06-2018 08:37PM

If provinces in Spain such as Basque Country and Catalonia were to set up a pro provincial rugby team consisting mostly of native players would they be in anyway competitive against pro D2 clubs, English championship or Weak pro 14 clubs (zebre). I would like something like this in Spain to happen to create a player pathway besides 7s.

The Lost Sheep · 12-06-2018 11:39PM

RockBoysarewii wrote: »

If provinces in Spain such as Basque Country and Catalonia were to set up a pro provincial rugby team consisting mostly of native players would they be in anyway competitive against pro D2 clubs, English championship or Weak pro 14 clubs (zebre). I would like something like this in Spain to happen to create a player pathway besides 7s.

No they wouldnt. You would like to see more spanish involved in federale 1 level,.
There is a player pathway beyond 7s in Spain though....

thomond2006 · 12-06-2018 11:43PM

Spain in the ProD2 would make geographical sense. Most ProD2 clubs are in the south west of France.

RockBoysarewii · 13-06-2018 09:09AM

Well I think they way forward are provinces rather than clubs. It seems to give countries with smaller playing populations a great advantage.

wp_rathead · 13-06-2018 09:24AM

RockBoysarewii wrote: »

If provinces in Spain such as Basque Country and Catalonia were to set up a pro provincial rugby team consisting mostly of native players would they be in anyway competitive against pro D2 clubs, English championship or Weak pro 14 clubs (zebre). I would like something like this in Spain to happen to create a player pathway besides 7s.

I do like the idea of Spain using their Autonomous Community as potential professional rugby teams
At the moment there's 5 regions that seem best equipped:
Basque Country (4 in Div1, 5 in Div2)
Catalonia (2 in Div1, 5 in Div2)
Madrid (2 in Div1, 4 in Div2)
Castile Leon (2 in Div1, 2 in Div2)
Valencia (1 in Div1, 3 in Div2)
These two regions potentially:
Cantrabia (1 in Div1)
Andulasia (4 in Div2)
Not sure about these regions:
Navarre (1 in Div2)
Asturias (1 in Div2)
Galicia (1 in Div 2)
Extremadura (1 in Div2)
Aragon (1 in Div2)

stephen_n · 13-06-2018 05:46PM

RockBoysarewii wrote: »

If provinces in Spain such as Basque Country and Catalonia were to set up a pro provincial rugby team consisting mostly of native players would they be in anyway competitive against pro D2 clubs, English championship or Weak pro 14 clubs (zebre). I would like something like this in Spain to happen to create a player pathway besides 7s.

How would it be funded, the B&I cup ran into difficulty due to the clubs costs for participating in it.

RockBoysarewii · 14-06-2018 11:25AM

stephen_n wrote: »

How would it be funded, the B&I cup ran into difficulty due to the clubs costs for participating in it.

1.private financial backing [sugar daddy]
2. Spain rugby union
3.world rugby
4. the local governments [ I know that Basque country and catalonia are quite rich]

The Lost Sheep · 16-06-2018 11:55PM

RockBoysarewii wrote: »

1.private financial backing [sugar daddy]
2. Spain rugby union
3.world rugby
4. the local governments [ I know that Basque country and catalonia are quite rich]

Thats not going to happen. Quite difficult to find these sugar daddys to do it. Where are you expecting the spanish union to find the money?
World Rugby do assist the unions but what more do you want them to do?

OldRio · 17-06-2018 07:37AM

Interesting result last night. Perhaps the USA is the answer to the OP.

Poor_old_gill · 17-06-2018 01:33PM

1) Spain- game has a bit of a foothold there and using existing knowledge/facilities in the South of France would help to speed up this process.

2) Russia and Georgia in tandem- help to build a rivalry within in the game and would thus help to expand the game in the region as a whole- Japan could be brought into this aswell.

3)Romania & Italy need money put into them as both are really lacking in resources and playing numbers at the moment.

4) Uruguay- they were on the up at one stage and a rivalry for Argentina would start to build the game on the continent.

I'd be loath to put a whole pile of money into USA or Canada- these are phenomenally wealthy countries already and if there was any buy in from the population/businesses then no money would be required from external sources. Money should be given to countries who are willing but cant get access to the cash

May Contain Small Parts · 17-06-2018 04:07PM

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

2) Russia and Georgia in tandem- help to build a rivalry within in the game and would thus help to expand the game in the region as a whole-

That's a can of worms that World Rugby would be absolutely insane to get involved in.

The Lost Sheep · 17-06-2018 04:13PM

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

1) Spain- game has a bit of a foothold there and using existing knowledge/facilities in the South of France would help to speed up this process.

2) Russia and Georgia in tandem- help to build a rivalry within in the game and would thus help to expand the game in the region as a whole- Japan could be brought into this aswell.

3)Romania & Italy need money put into them as both are really lacking in resources and playing numbers at the moment.

4) Uruguay- they were on the up at one stage and a rivalry for Argentina would start to build the game on the continent.

I'd be loath to put a whole pile of money into USA or Canada- these are phenomenally wealthy countries already and if there was any buy in from the population/businesses then no money would be required from external sources. Money should be given to countries who are willing but cant get access to the cash

Spanish sides need more games against french sides but its more than that to really help them.
What resources do you want put in Romania/Italy?

May Contain Small Parts wrote: »

That's a can of worms that World Rugby would be absolutely insane to get involved in.

They already have major rivalry whenever they play in Georgia you get huge crowds and 000s more than attend any other games and doing something to assist each should happen

May Contain Small Parts · 17-06-2018 04:14PM

I think it's worth looking at the kinds of support that places need.

In the Pacific Island and Georgia the main thing they need is money and access to competitions.

In Germany, USA and Spain you have big, rich countries who have the potential to develop healthy, self-sustaining finances by growing domestic rugby. What they need is technical support, both in terms of coaching and administration.
Japan I think is ticking over ok, but could be added to this list.

Russia...hmmm...

May Contain Small Parts · 17-06-2018 04:17PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

They already have major rivalry whenever they play in Georgia you get huge crowds and 000s more than attend any other games and doing something to assist each should happen

Sure, it'll get crowds but pushing a rivalry two countries that are constantly on the brink of war is pretty irresponsible.

Edit: that aside, Georgia need to play against much better teams than russia (Russia have beaten Georgia once, in their first game, 25 years ago)

Poor_old_gill · 17-06-2018 05:10PM

May Contain Small Parts wrote: »

That's a can of worms that World Rugby would be absolutely insane to get involved in.

Hostility sells.

On a more serious note- I dont see why World Rugby should not foster rivalries in the game

The Lost Sheep · 17-06-2018 08:00PM

May Contain Small Parts wrote: »

I think it's worth looking at the kinds of support that places need.

In the Pacific Island and Georgia the main thing they need is money and access to competitions.

In Germany, USA and Spain you have big, rich countries who have the potential to develop healthy, self-sustaining finances by growing domestic rugby. What they need is technical support, both in terms of coaching and administration.
Japan I think is ticking over ok, but could be added to this list.

Russia...hmmm...

Georgia need a bit more than money and access to competitions.
What technical support would you want the germans, americans etc to get?

May Contain Small Parts wrote: »

Sure, it'll get crowds but pushing a rivalry two countries that are constantly on the brink of war is pretty irresponsible.

Edit: that aside, Georgia need to play against much better teams than russia (Russia have beaten Georgia once, in their first game, 25 years ago)

I dont think pushing that rivalry is irresponsible and Georgia are doing their best trying to get tests against better sides but Ireland, New Zealand, England need to do more to play the likes of Georgia. England have played Georgia in senior full tests twice and both were at world cups.

17-06-2018 10:00PM

England?

What (not tier1) developing rugby cOuntries should World Rugby put the most money in

Comments