KEY POINTS:
Hopefully, the IRB are moving faster than it seems on the concerns over the state of rugby caused by the effect of the constant focus on the World Cup.
I got enough feedback from my thoughts on the matter last week to make it clear that this is
a real problem. And not just because of the quality of the game in between World Cups.
It is a threat to the game as we know it - and I don't think many people in New Zealand realise the extent of the problem, because the All Blacks are doing so well.
I met Graham Henry's team last week. Not only are they playing fantastic rugby, they are also a pleasure to be around. They ooze professionalism, they are gentlemen, good company and it shows that all the things they are doing within the team are coming together well.
But this is a bigger problem than the All Blacks. We are talking about world rugby - and the threat that comes from having the game diluted in between World Cups. The Cup itself? Great, no problems there. But it is what happens in between, with all this rotation and all the shifting of players so that fans do not get to see the best players and the highest quality of rugby in between.
It is endangering the game and I just hope the IRB is aware of this and, more importantly, moving faster than it seems at present.
Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at England. The world's leading side in 2003 have now slipped to seventh. They had seven straight defeats. You might think that's just an on-the-field issue.
It's not. England's RFU has seen its revenue falling drastically with this loss of form as sponsors and other revenue-gathering activities associated with being the best in the world drop off. Yet, the way the game is structured in England (and France), the RFU still has to pay almost $9 million per club per year to the clubs who are the ones who "own" the English players.
The clubs don't mind what is happening in international rugby because they are getting fatter and fatter from what the RFU is paying them. I am not criticising the clubs - they are doing what they have been set up to do - but it's a classic case of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. How long the RFU can go on making a total payment to clubs of over $100 million a year?
International rugby sparks that kind of income. Damage it - and the clubs will one day lose their gravy train.
Rugby cannot continue to fork out that amount of money while the product is being diluted. Fans will go, ratings will go, money will go.
In fact, rugby may be getting closer to a situation where there could be a "takeover". I don't just mean that the clubs will 'take over' international rugby but the more remote possibility that such weakening of the international game could see a challenge to rugby's controlling establishment.
Unlikely, maybe, but more likely if an outfit like the RFU - the biggest union in the world financially and the one with the most players - can't afford to pay the players. The game is already being held over a barrel by TV interests demanding so many international matches are played. All it takes is for a prominent financial interest to stitch together a deal which lines up a new system, new finances, includes a broadcaster and attracts players.
The game stayed in the hands of the establishment when professional rugby was introduced because they were able to offer a product which made sense. But it is coming under increasing pressure and I am worried that not enough is being done.
The IRB are talking about a new global season to allow more meaningful test matches to be played. Fair enough, but it's a long way away. I would like to see tours return or punishing sides who do not perform well in between World Cups, by having competition points accrue for seeding for the World Cup.
If they were threatened with a tough group, that would certainly make a difference.
