Dialogue: Time to cut the strings of union that hold us back

The World Cup debacle should be the catalyst for a New Zealand-led breakaway by the Southern Hemisphere's rugby nations, writes TERRY DUNLEAVY*.

The apparent stand-off between the New Zealand Rugby Football Union and its Australian counterpart and Rugby World Cup Ltd provides an opportunity to review the place of rugby within our country and the wider international arena.

The rugby union is to be commended for standing up to the RWC moguls who expect to march into our country and run roughshod over our rights, privileges and traditions for the periods that some of the World Cup matches are played here in "clean" stadiums.

And to digress for a moment: not deserving of the same commendation was the apparent attitude of the rugby union over the proposal for a Super 14. My reading was that the rugby union would agree to the extension of the competition if it could receive a share of the takings for overseas test matches featuring the All Blacks.

So it was about money, not about what was best for the game or its patrons. I doubt that patrons in any of the three countries would have welcomed the dilution of playing standards as South Africa and Australia struggled to fill out an extra franchise each, and they would not have welcomed the loss of diverse competition resulting from the inevitable division of the series into two pools of seven.

In the interchange of statements between the New Zealand and Australian rugby unions, I could not discern any consideration for the feelings of the rugby public.

But in the longer term, and on the wider front, the question must be asked. What has the professional model done for grassroots rugby here? Demonstrably very little, when one surveys the decline in playing numbers at all age levels, and the decline of the influence of rugby clubs.

Has the time arrived when, as well as refusing to buckle under to impossible terms for sub-hosting the 2003 World Cup, we should abandon our membership of the British Isles-dominated International Rugby Board and lead a breakaway Southern Hemisphere group?

What is more important to the rugby community in New Zealand, including the long-suffering patrons: a highly paid elite few playing international matches in the Northern Hemisphere on terms dictated from Britain or a revival of the game at grassroots here, culminating in club championships up and down the country, restoration of the National Provincial Championship, a fined-down Super 10 series (three teams each from South Africa and Australia, and four from New Zealand) and the season topped off with a Southern Hemisphere Four Nations Championship, involving New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and a composite Pacific Islands team (five nations, if participation by Argentina is feasible)?

Setting aside for a moment whether Australia and South Africa would agree, is it such a preposterous idea that we contain our rugby activities within a region where, in general, people think as we do, and play the game in a style more like ours?

If the result is fast, open, creative rugby contests (provided something can be done to curb the excesses of pedantic referees such as Paul Honiss and Tappe Henning), isn't that what New Zealanders want to see and experience?

Other countries have proved that widespread international competition is not vital for games such as Australian Rules, Gaelic football in Ireland, and baseball and gridiron in the United States.

In all cases (most, admittedly, with much larger populations than ours), the rules and style of the game have been fashioned to appeal to local sporting preferences.

Why not so with rugby in Southern Hemisphere countries that prefer more open, adventurous styles of play, with rules not directed from London, but fashioned locally to more readily cater to our yearning for open, free-flowing creativity, continuity and flair?

Such an option would compel the rugby union to mend its fences with the Australian union, which might well be persuaded to accept that its mission to propagate the game in Australia would be helped by closer co-operation, certainly with New Zealand and possibly with South Africa.

South Africa might find the decision difficult, so soon after being brought in from the international rugby wilderness and because its time zone places it closer to Europe than the South Pacific.

If South Africa chose to stick with Europe, that loss would strengthen the Pacific Islands' gain. A composite islands team chosen from Fiji, Tonga and Samoa would be no more difficult to achieve than the unity that has long prevailed in West Indies cricket, chosen from even more small independent states. Such a team would attract its own following in Australia and New Zealand, where many island expatriates have settled.

Money? Of course, adequate revenue is necessary. The passion that has developed for the game at the levels of NPC in New Zealand and Currie Cup in South Africa, as well as Super 12 within the three tri-series countries, has attracted significant sponsorship, and there is unlikely to be any abatement of interest from television viewers worldwide for free-flowing demonstrations of rugby skill.

It's likely that the more exciting and entertaining a Southern Hemisphere rugby style could be made to be, the more television interest (and sponsorship dollars) would be attracted.

Far-fetched? Maybe. But worth a closer look, especially at a time when republicanism has resurfaced on the political agenda in New Zealand, promoted by those who want us to become more independent, and to think and act in ways that suit our attitudes and geography.

* Terry Dunleavy, of Takapuna, is a past chairman, president and now life member of the Auckland Rugby Union Supporters Club.