Michael Brown: Anzac cheque too vital to cancel tests

There have been plenty of punch-drunk fighters who have stood in the ring, been knocked out and eagerly pocketed a handsome cheque for their troubles.

The Kiwis rugby league side have been doing that when climbing into the ring for the annual Anzac test.

Last weekend they were beaten 38-10, their ninth defeat in 10 Anzac tests, and the usual pontificating about the validity and usefulness of the exercise began.

There were even suggestions the NZRL should dispense with the match because it was tarnishing their reputation, especially as world champions.

If truth be told, the Kiwis, and the NZRL in particular, can't afford not to play the match.

They make about $500,000 each year from the game and the Kiwis are the only thing, aside from some TAB funding, that makes the national body any money.

The NZRL also pocket around $1million from the Tri Nations, and a similar amount is forecast from this year's revamped Four Nations. This money is used to fund the NZRL's domestic programmes.

It's not a particularly sound financial policy and part of the reason the national body have been in such serious strife, but needs must and the NZRL needed money. Still do.

The Anzac test will continue as long as the Australians want it.

It serves as a taster for State of Origin and Brisbanites have shown, so far at least, they have an appetite for the match, considering close to 40,000 usually pack into Suncorp Stadium.

It will never be played on this side of the Tasman because it doesn't pay.

Barely 6500 turned up for last year's World Cup warmup at Mt Smart Stadium against Tonga, just 14,000 fronted for Australia's visit in 2007 - a game played to celebrate New Zealand's centenary - less than 20,000 showed at Mt Smart in 2006 when the Kiwis were defending Tri Nations champions and only 14,500 turned up the previous year a week after the Kiwis had upset the Kangaroos in Sydney for the first time in 46 years.

These crowds barely cover costs.

If the game is ever to become truly competitive, an international window is needed.

It's done in other sports. Fifa, for example, have a number of windows when top-level club football is postponed and clubs must release players for international duty or face strict sanctions.

It would lengthen the NRL season but we're talking about professional athletes. The NRL is, ostensibly, a business and players their commodities.

The byes could be dropped - each team gets two based on representative commitments - and the Anzac test and three State of Origin fixtures moved to a weekend. The NZRL could organise their own Origin game in there as well.

That would still allow most players to get mid-season breaks and prolong the season by two weeks.

Sadly, it's hard to see this option adopted because the NRL run the game and they can't find, or don't want to find, another solution to the status quo. It aint all that broke, in their eyes.

The status quo also means multiple games are played around Origin time to satisfy fans, broadcasters and sponsors even though the integrity of many of these are questionable when, for instance, Melbourne are without up to 10 players because of Origin duty.

Others have tried to find a solution, like former Kangaroos prop Gorden Tallis.

He wrote in his Courier Mail column that the NRL should be reduced from 26 to to 15 rounds, meaning each team played each other once, followed by a finals series. That would allow a comprehensive representative season to be played.

This would never fly with the clubs, let alone the NRL, broadcasters and sponsors because of reduced revenue from a reduced number of games.

The debate might go on for a couple more weeks before it dies down again and the Kiwis climb back into the ring again next year.

Surely, though, even punch-drunk fighters can go on for only so long.

MAYBE IT'S just me but I find it odd that racial issues are called into question when it's about the colour white but not black.

This came to light recently with news that New Zealand Football were considering an all black strip as their first choice ahead of their more common all white that has been worn since 1981.

One of the reasons they gave was that the term All Whites would carry racist connotations when they lined up in South Africa for next month's Confederations Cup.

True.

But surely the term All Blacks carries those same racist connotations and have done for the past 104 years since the Originals first toured the UK.

If the argument is used that it's because of the colour of their shirts, what's the difference when it comes to the New Zealand footballers?

Race is about equality, treating everyone the same. Either the All Blacks and All Whites keep their name, or neither.