Editorial: Rugby chief out of line on Rugby World Cup cost

New Zealand Rugby Union chief executive Steve Tew. Photo / Paul Estcourt

Steve Tew, the New Zealand rugby union chief executive, should be the last person throwing a shroud of negativity over the World Cup. Yet he has been telling the Guardian newspaper that the cost of the tournament is such that the All Blacks might not be able to afford to take part in the 2015 World Cup. That proposition is absurd and so, too, is the timing and much of the tenor of Mr Tew's remarks.

Ever since this country was awarded the 2011 World Cup, the rugby union has, understandably enough, urged the country to get behind it. If there was to be a $40 million cost to the taxpayer, this had to be seen in relation to a slew of benefits, such as global exposure and increased short and long-term tourism. New Zealanders have, by and large, accepted this proposition and embraced the tournament.

Yet just as locals and overseas tourists alike are saying how good it is both on and off the field, Mr Tew has chosen to be a wet blanket.

He told the Guardian that the future of the World Cup would come under threat unless fundamental changes ensured leading nations did not lose millions in revenue at the next tournament. Competing at this World Cup would cost the New Zealand Rugby Union $13.2 million, said Mr Tew, a figure apparently predicated on lost opportunities. Incoming tours are halted in a World Cup year, and the International Rugby Board does not allow competing nations to have any association with their sponsors during the event.

Mr Tew said the commercial rules were far too tough. If this were the soccer World Cup, the All Blacks' hotel would be decked out with the rugby union's sponsors until Thursday (before a Saturday match). That may be so, but there is reason enough behind the IRB's policy. It excludes individual unions' sponsors because it wants to maximise profits and generate income to develop the game in countries outside rugby's top 10. That is a reasonable ambition if the game is to become truly global, and if the embarrassing hidings handed out to tier two and three nations at World Cups are to become a thing of the past.

Mr Tew appeared to acknowledge this in saying that he was not advocating the allocation of more IRB money to the top nations through dipping into the pot reserved for the smaller countries.

But if the rules governing individual unions' sponsors were relaxed, those sponsors aligned to the IRB would surely not be prepared to pay as much for their exposure. Inevitably, profits from the World Cup would drop, and there would be less money to spend on expanding the game's horizons.

The IRB is already in the throes of examining the concerns raised by Mr Tew. It will complete a review by next May. Clearly, it is not deaf to an issue that he says has required him "to bang the table pretty hard at times". Indeed, it put an extra £1 million on the table for the major unions six months ago.

Given this, it seems extraordinary that Mr Tew has elected to throw a damper on the World Cup. Whether his argument has merit or not, this is the wrong time to be advancing it. Equally, the World Cup is providing rugby in this country with the sort of prestige, publicity and marketing opportunities that other sports can only dream of. Some would say it is $13.2 million extremely well spent.

It may, as Mr Tew suggests, be possible to reduce that burden by relaxing the sponsorship rules at future tournaments. But surely nobody is about to buy the New Zealand Rugby Union's argument that "all we want is the best for world rugby". The best financial outcome for the world's leading nations can come only at a cost to the establishment and promotion of the game elsewhere.