Pasifika - how do we fix this?
-
yeah as i said it wont always be fair but feel that we are getting a unfair advantage from this at the moment. take this all black team we have reese, Taukei'aho and would have had fakatava if not for injury , there are more and more of these players coming through.
-
The scholarship thing is starting to get a bit ridiculous now.
The irony is NZ earned the poaching reputation 25 to 30 years ago when there was no poaching going on.
Now, there are more poaches that have played for NZ in the last 5 years than in the entire previous 30 years put together. It's just a bit sad, really.
-
As for 'fixing' PI rugby.
Club level.
• NH have too many games. Playing through the windows and long seasons.
• SH (NZ and Aus) have too few teams resulting in central contracting hoarding)The NH part will never be solved, never, ever, NEVER.
The have 12 or 14 teams comps committed to home and away (22 games or 26 games) pus Euro comps (6 to 9 games). Instead of having fewer teams and home and away they’d be ‘better’ off having e.g. a 17 team comp playing the other 16 in 1 game each (8 home and 8 away). Then fit in Euros.
The SH part has more glimmer of hope, but that is only due to SH weakness and possible eventual implosion of current model.
If Australia give up on week to week SR, then the only 5 teams each model dies, if each nation have more teams then the central contracting hoarding probably also dies.
The other future possibility is that NZ and Aus implode so completely that any attempt at high level local pro rugby finishes, with that is the end of central contracting hoarding.
International level.
• The problem is Tier 1s play 11 to 14 test per year. That is around 1 third or 1 half of a season.
• Tier 2's play 6 to 8 tests per year.
• 50% of the Tier 1 tests are part of competitions with good broadcasting and sponsorship revenue that is shared amongst the 'owners'.
• 100% of the Tier 2 test are 'friendlies', or part of 'second rate' continental ‘tier-2-only’ comps.The only way to ‘fix’ PI rugby at international level is to make it financially attractive at an international level. That is the only way. They need to be part of competitions that centralise some money so they can pay good match fees to make it worth the while of the pros to want to play.
There is a possibility here, even with current structures not imploding. But it is picking winners and losers. Japan likely to be included in the THC in some format. It is possible that Fiji may be picked to come along with them. No change for Tonga and Samoa.
A tinkering at the edges possibility is if anyone ever bothered to try for a Pan-Pacifics.
Another tinkering, is if world cup qualifying became for everyone. Fiji or Samoa hosting games with DHL, Emirates, Heineken etc as sideline advertisers etc, NZ or Aus actually having to visit and ability to sell those TV rights.
A big bang zombie apocalypse possibility is if as mentioned above SR totally goes the way of the Dodo and all pro domestic rugby is in the NH. There is less test rugby altogether, NZ also only play about 8 tests per year as well as T2s. Even in this apocalyptic vision, I reckon there’d be enough lobbying power from the affected former T1s to have a better cleaner window to fit those fewer tests in.
SO, IMO, Excecutive Summary - the only way it will get 'fixed' would be part of an unintended consequence of an implosion of current structures. OR, we pick a winner in Fiji to ride on Japan’s coat tails to save us all (down here).
-
"fixing pasifika rugby" is romantic rubbish that will never happen.
Rugby is a professional sport. You know who don't win professional sports? Tiny places with no money. NZ is way bigger, with way more money, and we are still getting hammered in the player retention stakes. We make juuuuust enough to keep ourselves at or near the top. There is no way that happens to Fiji, let alone Samoa or Tonga (who combined have less than half the people that live in Hamilton).
They will always be reliant on other places to develop their players. And taht comes at a cost, as it should.
The one concession i am willing to make is something i have said on here for ages. The World Cup Qualifying should be far broader than it is now. The previous winner and the host should qualify automatically, the rest should play qualifying tests in small places. It is the only way self serving unions will take the game on tour.
-
@mariner4life said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
The one concession i am willing to make is something i have said on here for ages. The World Cup Qualifying should be far broader than it is now. The previous winner and the host should qualify automatically, the rest should play qualifying tests in small places. It is the only way self serving unions will take the game on tour.
I like the old 2nd and 3rd qualifying, gave the 3-4 playoff some stakes. That aside, Australia had to qualify after losing in the quarterfinals in 1995 at the dawn of pro rugby, and all that happened was they destroyed the rest of the Pacific.
4 of the 6 nations had to qualify as well, and they handed out similar hidings. Maybe that added something, but it's hard to make a case to have that much qualifying when the result is the foregone conclusion of the 6 nations waltzing in, and the main PI sides are as good or better than the rest of Europe below that level.
-
@godder said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
@mariner4life said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
The one concession i am willing to make is something i have said on here for ages. The World Cup Qualifying should be far broader than it is now. The previous winner and the host should qualify automatically, the rest should play qualifying tests in small places. It is the only way self serving unions will take the game on tour.
I like the old 2nd and 3rd qualifying, gave the 3-4 playoff some stakes. That aside, Australia had to qualify after losing in the quarterfinals in 1995 at the dawn of pro rugby, and all that happened was they destroyed the rest of the Pacific.
4 of the 6 nations had to qualify as well, and they handed out similar hidings. Maybe that added something, but it's hard to make a case to have that much qualifying when the result is the foregone conclusion of the 6 nations waltzing in, and the main PI sides are as good or better than the rest of Europe below that level.
And they still never even visited the islands. All played in fucking Sydney or Canberra.
The gap between tiers 1 and 2 really opened up from professionalism in 1996 untill about 2003.
Before closing again.1999 qualifying, by time those big t1 nations were involved, was half arsed farce. All mini tournaments hosted by the big boys.
-
-
@machpants said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
Visiting the isalnd is fucking pointless, a loss making exercise - utter waste of time.
Rubbish. That's what they want you to think.
Currently, RWC qualifying costs are picked up by WR anyway.
Yet, Chiefs, play games in Suva for their own commercial interests.
-
In terms of World Rugby - they do a pretty good job IMO from an operational POV. Their values, IMO, are admirable of the people at WR running & funding RWC qualifying, funding continental tournaments, funding youth tournaments etc.
The lack of 'values' is in the voting etc and its structure.
But how can they play a bigger role in distributing more money (beyond their current distributions) to Tier 2s, including PIs, or any of the nations outside the current 12 rugby countries that have a domestic rugby economy large enough to have a professional domestic structure of some sort.
Those 12 - are
- the traditional IRB 8,
- Argentina (sort of, but Jaguares are gone)
- Japan
- USA (with MLR)
Basically. How do you shift some more of this money down?
-
Look at WR funding. Their sponsors.
They have 6 global partners
- DHL
- Societe General
- Emirates
- Land Rover
- Mastercard
- Heineken
Then they supplement this with another 6 , more local to host, RWC sponsors. E.g. in 2019 Japanese corporations; NEC, Cannon, Mitsubishi - plus some others I'd not hear of; Taisei, Hito-Communications, Lipovitan D, Secom, Toto
What is the value of the sponsorship rights for their 6 global partners?
- RWC every 4 years,
- Womens RWC every 4 years
- 7's world Cup every 4 years
- Annual World JWC
- Annual 7's series.
(90% of the value is in that first bullet point)
How much more valuable would that be, if they had a more extensive RWC qualifying series that included the markets of France, England + rest of UK, Japan.
Some of this is just revenue shifting. Not increasing revenue for the game as a whole. If even just 2 games in a 4 year cycle are at Twickenham or Stade de France, Lansdowne Road etc - with Emirates, DHL etc on the hoardings. Let alone the rights and exposure for England or France away in Tiblisi or Madrid.
The bigger money (for the PIs) isn't in having NZ visit Apia and Suva once in a 4 year cycle. Although there is still money to be made there for the hosts, despite the propaganda.
The money is in having:
- The big boys have some of their normal current revenue shifted into a central WR pot
- the Tier 2's have 4 years notice to sell their TV Rights, not approx 2 or 3 months notice like hastily arranged Apia 2015.
So. If RWC increase WR's sponsorship value by X% by having more exposure outside the 6 weeks of RWC, and it gives Tier 2s advanced notice that they have some valuable TV Rights to sell. Then their is a shift of some of the money from the big markets to the small.
The target is low. All it needs is to be enough money to pay appearance fees for their overseas pros, and attractive enough to attract some diaspora talent. We are not talking here about funding a full time operation like the Drua or Jaguares.
-
I also think we , as rugby fans, and NZRU as the organisers - need to get away from the fallacy that there is demand in South Auckland to watch lop-sided rugby of teams not representing what the fans think is their true strength/worth.
The pictures tell the story. All from Mount Smart.
Tonga Rugby League at Mt Smart, with some of the best players in the world in their team (even if said players aren't Tongan born or produced):
Tonga Rugby Union at Mt Smart, where the best 6 Tongan born and produced players play for someone else (possibly even the opposition sometimes) let alone lack of access to attract top quality diaspora talent.
I could have chose Eden Park 2017 double-header pictures for the same effect ...
This is where I stray into Moana Pasifika doom and gloom territory. I believe there is no market in South Auckland amongst the diaspora community to watch their not-best players play with hands tied behind their back against opponents with financial advantages tipping the scales even more.
-
Personally, I think players should be able to play for a tier 2 country if eligible after a 2-3 year stand down, where they make it clear they intend to play for said team 2 years before they do. ie; if a player has not been selected for Aus, NZ etc etc for 2 year after playing tests, they still can't play unless they made themselves unavailable for selction for 2 years at tier 1 team. I would also completely drop grandparent rule too (and I reckon parent rule) as I think you should play for where you live or where you born.
-
@dan54 you take away grandparents and Samoa and Tonga are done. Tthey might even have to add a great grand parent rule for the islands soon.
-
@muddyriver said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
@dan54 you take away grandparents and Samoa and Tonga are done. They might even have to add a great grand parent rule for the islands soon.
I was going to raise that very point. The diaspora that benefits from greater economic investment will eventually diminish so there isn't sufficient depth in that pipeline. Which would then mean the only other avenue is relying on professionalism elsewhere. The obvious problem there is not gaining sufficient time in camp outside of major tournaments and lack of established combinations.
-
@muddyriver said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
@dan54 you take away grandparents and Samoa and Tonga are done. Tthey might even have to add a great grand parent rule for the islands soon.
The great grandparent rule might seem outlandish, but someone moving to a country to play professional sport can qualify on residence which I don't think is less outlandish.
I'd add if your parent played for a team then you could too - say if Paul and Gavin Williams kids decided they wanted to play for Samoa, as I understand it they are currently ineligible (although they would be if a great grandparent rule came in).
-
@muddyriver said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
@dan54 you take away grandparents and Samoa and Tonga are done. Tthey might even have to add a great grand parent rule for the islands soon.
Tonga actually produce an amazing number of players, and their diaspora is a generation more recent than Samoa's. They'd be OK. Samoa would be a bit farked, though.
It gets a bit lost in the PI argument, but the lack of talent that the Samoan island produces is amazing. Samoan genetics aren't the problem. But what the hell is the problem on the actual island? It's almost a scandal. They'd lose to a Hawkes Bay-born or Southland-born team etc. Get thrashed by Manawatu-born. Provinces with smaller populations than Samoa. Parity with Namibia, maybe.
-
@muddyriver said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
@dan54 you take away grandparents and Samoa and Tonga are done. Tthey might even have to add a great grand parent rule for the islands soon.
Geez a great grandparent rule could give someone up to 16 teams they could play for. And I think most players in NZ would be able to play for Englnd, Scotland, Tonga,etc etc etc etc
-
@mariner4life someone had to say it I guess.
-
@rapido said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
But what the hell is the problem on the actual island?
Probably a combination of a lack of coaching talent to identify and develop players to any decent level + the large shadow cast by the more-talented diaspora leads to a bit of a "why bother" attitude.
That 7s side that won the World Series a few years back was a real black swan in the history of Samoan rugby developed locally reaching the very top table, but generally, for any local talent to succeed requires more self-determination than anything to get a ticket off-island.
You are right about the slim pickings for locally produced players though (up to college level). Some names that come to mind for me:
Tuilagi brothers
Logovii Mulipola
Sosene Anesi
Afato Sooalo
Lucky Mulipola
Brian Lima
David Lemi
Alafoti Faosiliva
Ofisa Treviranus
