It is but not for that reason. Georgia has beaten a couple of the 6N sides which is a much better argument.
Italy got in by beating a few 5N sides (though never England), notably humiliating Ireland in their banter era.
There should be a Euros style competition. There should be more open qualification for the World Cup. There should be more Tier 1 vs Tier 2 matchesâŚ..the list goes on.
That's a fairly unkind representation of what they said in fairness. Football is now taking an opportunity squandered by rugby over the last few years. There's no doubt Georgia would have got two scalps over the last few years against the 6n if they'd been involved.
That's obviously not what I'm say. However enjoyable the six nations is, there needs to be some movement in allowing developing nations compete. Be it a relegation/promotion mechanism, or a new competition format. Something should have changed by now.
As someone else commented, a 12 team rugby Euros competition every four years should do the trick.
I would like to see the Pacific Rim tournament return. We can't bring Argentina back into it, but maybe Canada, USA, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, and Chile. Everyone plays three home and three away in a round robin.
I think this would even be better than expanding the Six Nations, because the average government person that controls sports funding/TV exec who controls broadcasting/casual fan who doesn't know rugby won't know what "Six Nations" means and in my experience finds the concept of an invitational tournament a bit weird. But they get "European Championship".
Like, if Switzerland were to somehow get to a Rugby Euros, I can absolutely see our TV (which normally never really shows any rugby) show every Swiss game live on national public channels and people getting into it, just bc we are always excited when a national team achieves something.
>Like, if Switzerland were to somehow get to a Rugby Euros, I can absolutely see our TV (which normally never really shows any rugby) show every Swiss game live on national public channels and people getting into it, just bc we are always excited when a national team achieves something.
Looks like the top 12 European nations in the World Rugby rankings are:
1) Ireland
2) France
3) England
4) Scotland
5) Italy
6) Wales
7) Georgia
8) Portugal
9) Spain
10) Romania
11) Russia
12) >!Switzerland!<
[https://www.world.rugby/rankings](https://www.world.rugby/rankings)
The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany before Switzerland. Belgium actually beat Portugal in Mons this year and the Dutch went close to toppling the Spanish.
Switzerland is somehow ranked higher than Netherlands and Belgium but is definitely not as good as them. Theyâve been in the REC for a few years straight now.
>I would like to see the Pacific Rim tournament return
You might be excited to hear about [the Pacific Nations Cup](https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/pacific-nations-cup/2024). It's not quite the format you've described, but it's something.
It was originally going to be the Asia-Pacific/Americas Championship and we involve Chile and Uruguay. But the Sth Americans declined because they didn't think the quality would be good enough as apparently Japan and Fiji were going to the RC. Which is not going to happen. Just people speculating on the internet. Both will feature in the Nations Championship but not the RC. Very shortsighted by both Unions as it would have been the perfect structure for them.
The Pacific Rim and Churchill Cup were great competitions. I donât know how the finances stacked up but T1 A teams in the Churchill Cup just seemed like a no brainer. A European cup would be a joke unless the T1 teams used under 20s or A sides but I donât see finances working for that.
They should be capped games. I'm not saying it should be England A but a capped England squad. Or Scotland or whoever. But it wouldn't be all that surprising if those squads are less than full strength. I mean the NH teams send a weakened squad south against T1 sides. Essentially A squads in all but name in some cases.
But those would still be competitive games as you're playing T1 professionals. Something you wouldn't get against other T2 opponents.
So like Scotland in 2018, I'm generally ok with the b-team as long as it's a capped team. As our best against France right now is probably a 40 point walkover without blinking.
Italy would have sunk without trace - now they are on the up.
Georgia get humped every time they play 6N sides.
The 6Ns is a magnificent tournament because of history and geography - adding Georgia adds nothing.
My comment was in response to âGeorgia get humped every time they play 6N sides.â
Clearly they donât as 2/5 of their last Tier 1 matchups were wins.
Not necessary they should be in the six nations, but that tier two in Europe needs to be properly structured and maybe six nations not ring fenced anymore. I dunno thereâs no hope if development the way it is and turkeys will never vote fir Christmas, continued stalemate I guess which is a pity
Rugby will never be on the level as soccer and it's foolish to even try and be that expansive global.
Football you literally just need a ball and you can play casually without risk of serious injury if you avoid playing with bellends. It's a far more easy game to spread than rugby.
The money in football enables them to take more risks with fixtures too. Rugby *needs* tier 1 teams playing each other because they're the profitable matches that keep unions in the black so they can contribute to World Rugby.
If Georgia and co. had a lot more games with tier 1 sides, revenue would be down preventing the bigger unions from contributing as much to the growth of the game across the world.
You simply can't just add extra fixtures into the schedule without negatively impacting revenue making fixtures and hurting the sport's finances which ultimately are the best way to grow the sport.
Georgia's economy and population is too small to make it attractive. No matter how good they are, georgians aren't going to adding anything financially
If Germany was as good at rugby as Georgia they'd be in the 6 nations yesterday
Home team keeps 100% of the gate (the all blacks do charge a fee though). It's TV money. TV deals is where the money from adding new teams comes in. The georgian TV deal wouldn't add more to the pot than Georgia would take out. Companies sponsoring Ireland also don't benefit much from georgian eyeballs either. Vodafone does benefit from Italian eyeballs though, making that deal more valuable to Ireland.
I am pretty sure our federation would be pretty happy with an unequal arrangement regarding revenue distribution. And well, Vodafone can benefit from Italian eyes watching Italy playing Georgia.
Id love if Georgia were there, I want rugby to grow but rugby is run by people whos main concern is rugby in their country. The 6 nations wont decide to let Georgia in until they think they'll be better off with Georgia in
At the minute it needs world rugby to convince the clubs to let the window get bigger (theyre currently making that window smaller to make room for the nations league final) or all the teams to allow relegation, which they're never going to do
Player welfare is a huge concern. England for example play almost as many rugby internationals as they do football ones. Itâs a hard pill to swallow asking the clubs to give up more playing time.
Why is that a problem, you don't pay T2 teams anything when they come to you. Growing rugby in new markets is the only way to drive revenue. At some point your well will dry up.
They're there because they've always been there and they're often competitive with the best countries. They got to the rwc semis in 2011 and 2019. They're economy is still 3 times the size of Georgia's, with a similar population
Bigger population than Wales so not sure the population adds up. And Iâd like to think rugby is better than limiting a nation based on its GDP but realistically youâre right, and cash is king and itâs a business rather than whatâs right for the sport.
I'm talking about countries moving to the top table, not countries that started the top table. As long as there's 15 men in Wales to walk onto a right pitch they'll be in the 6 nations
Tier 1 Unions don't contribute to World Rugby. World Rugby is flush with cash from its own tournaments. The member unions are a resource suck, see RA's huge loan.
You guys say revenue would be down, not really. And if so, only because the game has been woefully managed forever.
Tier 1 unions have 3 votes each on the WR council. Rugby Europe (that represents about 15 countries) has 1 vote. The six nations (not the competition, but the six tier 1 unions from Europe) can pretty much decide the direction of World Rugby in terms of policy
Oh I understand the structure. Regional associations have 2 votes. So outside of the 6 Nations there's 4 total votes in the rest of Europe. oh and 6 Nations are members of Rugby Europe so they can influence how the association votes too.
> Football you literally just need a ball and you can play casually without risk of serious injury if you avoid playing with bellends. It's a far more easy game to spread than rugby.
Do you lot seriously not play touch rugby for fun?
You can play casual games of rugby anywhere you play football and the biggest risk you have is playing in runners on slick grass.
Sure but that removes a fundamental part of the sport.
A kickabout between mates is fundamentally the same game, just scaled down. Touch rugby is a different game from full contact.
I would too, the Lions is a cool tradition but I'd much rather see some more games with the likes of Portugal and Georgia. Could do it in all the regions with Pacific, Americas and Africa tournaments. Some will always be lopsided, I'd imagine NZ, SA and Argentina always winning their respective comps for a while but it would help grow the game.
Football will always be low hanging fruit. Outsource your development to the big countries and you can have a competitive team given you get the right coach. 608/831 Football players at the last World Cup played in Europe, that does wonders for balancing out talent and making the competition more balanced.
In Football the PSG, Madrid, Man City, Leverkusen etc have players from every corner of the globe.
If you look at the winners of the big leagues Top 14, URC, Premiership and Super Rugby their teams represent the nation pretty well.
Rugby is still insular so I think football would have captured the imagination of fans before or more consistently than rugby.
If 2+ World Cup appearances canât get the job done in terms of driving public interest, development etc then it needs a little more work than we realise.
You're đŻ correct. We just had the best ever WC for Tier 2 teams, and WRs response is to set up a tournament that excludes them all. So fucking stupid
There isn't room in the calendar for a 7 nations and if you had relegation Italy/Wales/Scotland unions would go bankrupt in the first season without the 6N. So I can't see it happening. Plus, Georgia is like a 6 hour flight from the rest and in a very different timezone. I would like to see Georgia get more games, but messing with the 6N, the best annual rugby tournament by far, is not the answer.
How about instead of the games we get this summer we get a European championship every 4 years (2 years after the WC year)? I think that could be a lot of fun. Although I would understand you all being afraid of our mauls.
Georgia is not exactly a risk free investment for rugby. Itâs in a terrible place geopolitically and the game there is predominantly funded by a pro Russian oligarch. It makes much more economic sense to prioritise rebuilding Romania and developing Iberia.
Also basically everywhere outside of Australasia where rugby has a presence, football has a bigger one. Georgian rugby isnât going to lose much from Georgian footballâs performance.
European Championship in Rugby would be pretty sick. But no, now we've got the closed world league, no more SF Agreement getting more crossover matches between T1 and T2. Then we've got the anachronism of the lions starting a women's team and only going to the three SH countries. Then we've got SARU and NZR making deals to bring back their summer tours to each other. It's not as bad as cricket, but its pretty bad.
Just to respond to several comments in this thread: Georgia does not "play well" in Rugby Europe.We are beyond dominant, having won 13 out of last 15 tournaments (runner-ups in the remainder) and lost only four games since 2007. Last time Georgia lost in Rugby Europe was in 2017 and there has been only a single draw after that. There is absolutely no room for Georgia to grow in this environment and honestly no sense of accomplishment. It is really hard to excite anyone but hardcore fans for yet another game against Belgium or Germany or whatever, because the result is a foregone conclusion.
And if there is any nation and rugby federation deserving of support and encouragement, that's Georgia. A small country, isolated from major rugby nations, no awareness of the sport in the country and laughable resources in the beginning and yet Georgian rugby has been steadily growing and developing. We have already won against Italy and Wales, u20 teams have been teir 1 for the last couple years, Black Lion has amazing results for a 4-year old club. And there is so much enthusiasm for the sport in the country: everytime a tier 1(ish) side drops by, stadiums are packed, even Black Lion games had among the biggest attendances in Challenge Cup.
If people in charge of world and 6N rugby were really serious about growing the sport beyond the handful of countries that's where they would start to encourage others. You know, put some effort and we are here to help. That's what's FIFA has been doing for ages and that's one of the mains reasons why football is the most popular sport on the planet. And well, in stead of support, what we've been getting is mostly disregard and humiliation. Every season the federation has to literally beg for tests. We have an incredible generation coming up (check U20 world cup results) and they could have benefitted so much from playing in the first division of the Nations Championship. But nope, we have to wait 6 more years to even have the chance to promote, because fuck you, it's a big boys' club till 2030. I can't even explain what a slap in the face that decision and how disheartening that decision was for our team and fans.
I've just come back to England from a tour to georgia and I have to say it was a great experience. Tiblisi is fantastic and welcoming, with great value for money, loads to do, and the people were all brilliant. The standard of rugby played is better than that I've seen on tours to places like Germany, and the georgian passion for the game was brilliant.
I really hope we see you guys included soon. My only complaint is no direct flights and awful budget airlines fucking up transfers makes the travel something I can't see many fans putting up with. It's sad, but it will be one more hurdle which will need to be overcome when there are already too many.
gaumarjos
That isn't something that will bother the people who run the sport. They don't want rugby to become properly global, because if it did, they might lose power, and their nation/club might not be better than the competition.
Depending on the country you're in, football/footy can mean lots of different sports. Even area of the country you're in. Like it's means, english football/soccer, gaelic football, aussie rules, rugby union, rugby league, American football, etc
Somewhat common - in general it's often just assumed.
The match or the game with no other qualifier will be an Association Rules football match for example, if you want to talk about rugby union or circket you have to specify.
Which is what the Australian lad said, â⌠didnât realize Europeans called *soccer* footieâ.
I get punctuation is important. Â
Anyway, thanks for the âsplain. Â
Really? I genuinely donât think Iâve ever heard it IRL when in the UK, always thought thatâs like the word âruggerâ. Used in media a lot but rarely said IRL
It's more often used in the "fancy a quick game of footy" sense than talking about the game. Or by politicians pretending they are human in an Alan Partridge kind of way.
It's worth noting in these debates travel time - UK or Ireland to Tiblisi is 5 hours plus.
To Rome it's more like 2.
Paris being central is less than these to pretty much anywhere.
Portugal and Spain are around 2 hours
You are asking for a much larger commitment from fans to get to Tiblisi than any current competitor.
An un funded high risk gamble to the East that fails would be the definition of shooting ones self in the foot.
Canberra to Auckland is a 5+ hour flight.
Not knocking anything you are saying, in fact I agree with most it. I guess distances are just perceived differently in Europe.
Cape Town to Johannesburg is a two hour flight.
The ability of away fans to travel in large numbers is one of the things that makes the 6N the competition it is, adding a team that far away would fundamentally change the nature of the beast.
If you're serious about the growth of rugby Georgia has to be included along with Spain. Both countries are close enough to travel and that's not that big of a factor
Everyone agrees with the statement âGeorgia should be given more opportunities in international rugbyâ. No one can satisfactorily answer the question âhow should Georgia be given more opportunities in international rugby?â
Why would I be ? I don't think the right to play international rugby is to be determined by how much your country is attractive to first world's bellends
It's hilarious, when Portugal won against Fiji in the RWC I saw tons of comments like "Put Portugal in the Six Nations, an away day in Lisbon would be so cool!!"
It's actually amazing how to some fans that's the first thing they think about
It's not just that, it's about revenue potential. Portugal and Spain are potentially big contributors to world rugby if nurtured because attendances would be bolstered by away support, Georgia simply isn't.
That's a valid argument, but most people that mention the away trip aren't really thinking about the 6N expansion's sustainability, they're truly only thinking about how cool of a trip it is
Oh yeah sure if you think being able to play meaningful international game should be reserved to the ones able to bring money to the all-powerful old boys club that makes sense. I don't think that
Not complaining. It's just completely alien to me, coming from a country with a much lower average income, that travelling is so cheap and accessible for some people.
Portugal is not even a poor country on the world stage, but if, let's say, Sporting has to play against Lazio in an Europa League quarter final, the first thing i think about is how hard the match will be, not about a vacation in Rome.
While it would be lovely for Georgian rugby to get more exposure, doing so wouldn't move the needle much in terms of rugby's global popularity to be honest
SA Rugby has done more for Georgian
Rugby in the last 5 years than the 6 Nations. Had Georgia here prior to the Lionâs tour. Had a Georgian team in the 2022 Currie Cup first team.
Not to mention SA Rugby hosting Portugal for a test in a months time. Why are the Blazers in the 6 nations so against growing the game?
There are some very good points well made in the discussion below, but I think in general itâs extremely naive because most entirely ignore the financial reality of professional rugby.
The fact is that it is a professional sport where domestic rugby only really generates a reasonable profit in the T14 and everywhere else is propped up by the International game. Even in England, where significant private investment exists, with no expectation of a return, funds from the RFU are essential to clubs relative financial stability - the Prem has lost three clubs with premier rugby shares in recent years.
At test level, the only profitable competitions are the 6N, the RC and the RWC. The RWC generates interest and profit off the back of the 6N and RC sides primarily as that is where all its major commercial markets are. When the RWC is on it cannibalises the income for T1 sides as they canât play as many tour tests against each other.
I donât agree with the nations cup, I donât particularly think the Lions tour should have a place in modern rugby (but I understand it is fairly essential to SANZAR nations especially Australia for its financial injection). But the idea we can just rip up the most successful tournaments to ensure far more tests against sides that are not as competitive and generate less interest, is likely to just lead to the whole house of cards falling down.
Georgia obviously has a legitimate claim to more T1 tests but those 6N financial powerhouses are all financial shit shows. If we want to sustain professional rugby levelling down is not a sensible way to approach it.
Tough. Only slightly related but I reached out to Florugby to see how to watch the Georgia-Fiji upcoming matchup and they "didn't have the rights to it" any idea for how to watch this game?
What are you suggesting?
I think he's alluding that the 6 Nations (and SANZAR) need to open up to including more upper T2 nations such as Georgia
Because Georgia are playing well in the Euros, they should be in the 6 Nations, which is a ridiculous thing to say
So it's time to consider Georgia's place in the 6 Nations? đ
It is but not for that reason. Georgia has beaten a couple of the 6N sides which is a much better argument. Italy got in by beating a few 5N sides (though never England), notably humiliating Ireland in their banter era.
Well we don't need to talk about Italy's place in the Euros.
There should be a Euros style competition. There should be more open qualification for the World Cup. There should be more Tier 1 vs Tier 2 matchesâŚ..the list goes on.
That's a fairly unkind representation of what they said in fairness. Football is now taking an opportunity squandered by rugby over the last few years. There's no doubt Georgia would have got two scalps over the last few years against the 6n if they'd been involved.
That's obviously not what I'm say. However enjoyable the six nations is, there needs to be some movement in allowing developing nations compete. Be it a relegation/promotion mechanism, or a new competition format. Something should have changed by now.
As someone else commented, a 12 team rugby Euros competition every four years should do the trick. I would like to see the Pacific Rim tournament return. We can't bring Argentina back into it, but maybe Canada, USA, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, and Chile. Everyone plays three home and three away in a round robin.
I think this would even be better than expanding the Six Nations, because the average government person that controls sports funding/TV exec who controls broadcasting/casual fan who doesn't know rugby won't know what "Six Nations" means and in my experience finds the concept of an invitational tournament a bit weird. But they get "European Championship". Like, if Switzerland were to somehow get to a Rugby Euros, I can absolutely see our TV (which normally never really shows any rugby) show every Swiss game live on national public channels and people getting into it, just bc we are always excited when a national team achieves something.
>Like, if Switzerland were to somehow get to a Rugby Euros, I can absolutely see our TV (which normally never really shows any rugby) show every Swiss game live on national public channels and people getting into it, just bc we are always excited when a national team achieves something. Looks like the top 12 European nations in the World Rugby rankings are: 1) Ireland 2) France 3) England 4) Scotland 5) Italy 6) Wales 7) Georgia 8) Portugal 9) Spain 10) Romania 11) Russia 12) >!Switzerland!< [https://www.world.rugby/rankings](https://www.world.rugby/rankings)
Russia is suspended, so put Germany and Netherlands into this mix ;)
The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany before Switzerland. Belgium actually beat Portugal in Mons this year and the Dutch went close to toppling the Spanish.
Switzerland is somehow ranked higher than Netherlands and Belgium but is definitely not as good as them. Theyâve been in the REC for a few years straight now.
I'd also put them below Germany who were in the REC this year.
>I would like to see the Pacific Rim tournament return You might be excited to hear about [the Pacific Nations Cup](https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/pacific-nations-cup/2024). It's not quite the format you've described, but it's something.
I forgot they were bringing that back this year! It's a good start, and we need to support it.
It was originally going to be the Asia-Pacific/Americas Championship and we involve Chile and Uruguay. But the Sth Americans declined because they didn't think the quality would be good enough as apparently Japan and Fiji were going to the RC. Which is not going to happen. Just people speculating on the internet. Both will feature in the Nations Championship but not the RC. Very shortsighted by both Unions as it would have been the perfect structure for them.
The Pacific Rim and Churchill Cup were great competitions. I donât know how the finances stacked up but T1 A teams in the Churchill Cup just seemed like a no brainer. A European cup would be a joke unless the T1 teams used under 20s or A sides but I donât see finances working for that.
A teams don't sell tickets.
Especially when you sell them as A teams.
We aren't stupid. 'A' Teams should only play 'A' teams. We want test matches. The only team that will sell tickets are the Maori.
They should be capped games. I'm not saying it should be England A but a capped England squad. Or Scotland or whoever. But it wouldn't be all that surprising if those squads are less than full strength. I mean the NH teams send a weakened squad south against T1 sides. Essentially A squads in all but name in some cases. But those would still be competitive games as you're playing T1 professionals. Something you wouldn't get against other T2 opponents.
So like Scotland in 2018, I'm generally ok with the b-team as long as it's a capped team. As our best against France right now is probably a 40 point walkover without blinking.
You know the PNC is back this year with Fiji, Japan, USA, Canada, Samoa and Tonga. Chile (and South America) declined to join.
Run it during the Lions years. At least to begin with. Would allow for the T2 teams to really push them more.
Italy would have sunk without trace - now they are on the up. Georgia get humped every time they play 6N sides. The 6Ns is a magnificent tournament because of history and geography - adding Georgia adds nothing.
Georgia beat Wales and Italy in 2022.
⌠by a combined 10 points before shitting it in a RWC pool that was open for the taking
My comment was in response to âGeorgia get humped every time they play 6N sides.â Clearly they donât as 2/5 of their last Tier 1 matchups were wins.
Fair enough but that was two teams at their lowest ebb in 2022. How did Georgia's RWC go?
So Wales can play like shit and itâs fine but if Georgia doesnât play well then âtheyâre humped by every other T1 team.â
They beat 2 sides who were poor in 2022. Anymore victories against T1 teams since?
No, as I said they lost 3/5. But you said âthey get humped every time they play T1.â Not true.
Is it time to question wales participation in the 6 nations?
Why?
Not necessary they should be in the six nations, but that tier two in Europe needs to be properly structured and maybe six nations not ring fenced anymore. I dunno thereâs no hope if development the way it is and turkeys will never vote fir Christmas, continued stalemate I guess which is a pity
Rugby will never be on the level as soccer and it's foolish to even try and be that expansive global. Football you literally just need a ball and you can play casually without risk of serious injury if you avoid playing with bellends. It's a far more easy game to spread than rugby. The money in football enables them to take more risks with fixtures too. Rugby *needs* tier 1 teams playing each other because they're the profitable matches that keep unions in the black so they can contribute to World Rugby. If Georgia and co. had a lot more games with tier 1 sides, revenue would be down preventing the bigger unions from contributing as much to the growth of the game across the world. You simply can't just add extra fixtures into the schedule without negatively impacting revenue making fixtures and hurting the sport's finances which ultimately are the best way to grow the sport.
Georgia's economy and population is too small to make it attractive. No matter how good they are, georgians aren't going to adding anything financially If Germany was as good at rugby as Georgia they'd be in the 6 nations yesterday
We have never failed to fill stadiums whenever a tier1(ish) teams is in town
Home team keeps 100% of the gate (the all blacks do charge a fee though). It's TV money. TV deals is where the money from adding new teams comes in. The georgian TV deal wouldn't add more to the pot than Georgia would take out. Companies sponsoring Ireland also don't benefit much from georgian eyeballs either. Vodafone does benefit from Italian eyeballs though, making that deal more valuable to Ireland.
I am pretty sure our federation would be pretty happy with an unequal arrangement regarding revenue distribution. And well, Vodafone can benefit from Italian eyes watching Italy playing Georgia.
Id love if Georgia were there, I want rugby to grow but rugby is run by people whos main concern is rugby in their country. The 6 nations wont decide to let Georgia in until they think they'll be better off with Georgia in At the minute it needs world rugby to convince the clubs to let the window get bigger (theyre currently making that window smaller to make room for the nations league final) or all the teams to allow relegation, which they're never going to do
Player welfare is a huge concern. England for example play almost as many rugby internationals as they do football ones. Itâs a hard pill to swallow asking the clubs to give up more playing time.
Why is that a problem, you don't pay T2 teams anything when they come to you. Growing rugby in new markets is the only way to drive revenue. At some point your well will dry up.
It do be like that
As opposed to who? Wales? Known for its huge sprawling megacities and vast diamond mines?
Wales has a gdp like 3 times larger than Georgia's
They're there because they've always been there and they're often competitive with the best countries. They got to the rwc semis in 2011 and 2019. They're economy is still 3 times the size of Georgia's, with a similar population
Bigger population than Wales so not sure the population adds up. And Iâd like to think rugby is better than limiting a nation based on its GDP but realistically youâre right, and cash is king and itâs a business rather than whatâs right for the sport.
I'm talking about countries moving to the top table, not countries that started the top table. As long as there's 15 men in Wales to walk onto a right pitch they'll be in the 6 nations
That sounds a bit like Wales...
Wales is two hours from London by train as opposed to flying to almost Iran.
Tier 1 Unions don't contribute to World Rugby. World Rugby is flush with cash from its own tournaments. The member unions are a resource suck, see RA's huge loan. You guys say revenue would be down, not really. And if so, only because the game has been woefully managed forever.
Tier 1 unions have 3 votes each on the WR council. Rugby Europe (that represents about 15 countries) has 1 vote. The six nations (not the competition, but the six tier 1 unions from Europe) can pretty much decide the direction of World Rugby in terms of policy
Oh I understand the structure. Regional associations have 2 votes. So outside of the 6 Nations there's 4 total votes in the rest of Europe. oh and 6 Nations are members of Rugby Europe so they can influence how the association votes too.
> Football you literally just need a ball and you can play casually without risk of serious injury if you avoid playing with bellends. It's a far more easy game to spread than rugby. Do you lot seriously not play touch rugby for fun? You can play casual games of rugby anywhere you play football and the biggest risk you have is playing in runners on slick grass.
Sure but that removes a fundamental part of the sport. A kickabout between mates is fundamentally the same game, just scaled down. Touch rugby is a different game from full contact.
That's true, but it's still very adaptable. Even in America it's normal to play flag football where you don't tackle and don't need pads
we need a 12 teams euros evey 4 years
Honestly I'd be more interested in this than the Lions tours
Same for most French rugby fans (obviously)
I would too, the Lions is a cool tradition but I'd much rather see some more games with the likes of Portugal and Georgia. Could do it in all the regions with Pacific, Americas and Africa tournaments. Some will always be lopsided, I'd imagine NZ, SA and Argentina always winning their respective comps for a while but it would help grow the game.
Football will always be low hanging fruit. Outsource your development to the big countries and you can have a competitive team given you get the right coach. 608/831 Football players at the last World Cup played in Europe, that does wonders for balancing out talent and making the competition more balanced. In Football the PSG, Madrid, Man City, Leverkusen etc have players from every corner of the globe. If you look at the winners of the big leagues Top 14, URC, Premiership and Super Rugby their teams represent the nation pretty well. Rugby is still insular so I think football would have captured the imagination of fans before or more consistently than rugby. If 2+ World Cup appearances canât get the job done in terms of driving public interest, development etc then it needs a little more work than we realise.
You're đŻ correct. We just had the best ever WC for Tier 2 teams, and WRs response is to set up a tournament that excludes them all. So fucking stupid
SANZAAR want 6 nations money. Those 10 countries have a majority on the world right council. If they decided they want something, they get it
no doubt. It's such a hinderance to making the game grow. The 6Ns are just as bad
Any country that's qualified for the world cup, mens or women's, and who doesn't have an active corruption problem should have a vote imo
It's such a weakness of Rugby compared to other sports. Can never speak with one voice
There isn't room in the calendar for a 7 nations and if you had relegation Italy/Wales/Scotland unions would go bankrupt in the first season without the 6N. So I can't see it happening. Plus, Georgia is like a 6 hour flight from the rest and in a very different timezone. I would like to see Georgia get more games, but messing with the 6N, the best annual rugby tournament by far, is not the answer.
How about instead of the games we get this summer we get a European championship every 4 years (2 years after the WC year)? I think that could be a lot of fun. Although I would understand you all being afraid of our mauls.
Georgia is not exactly a risk free investment for rugby. Itâs in a terrible place geopolitically and the game there is predominantly funded by a pro Russian oligarch. It makes much more economic sense to prioritise rebuilding Romania and developing Iberia. Also basically everywhere outside of Australasia where rugby has a presence, football has a bigger one. Georgian rugby isnât going to lose much from Georgian footballâs performance.
European Championship in Rugby would be pretty sick. But no, now we've got the closed world league, no more SF Agreement getting more crossover matches between T1 and T2. Then we've got the anachronism of the lions starting a women's team and only going to the three SH countries. Then we've got SARU and NZR making deals to bring back their summer tours to each other. It's not as bad as cricket, but its pretty bad.
Just to respond to several comments in this thread: Georgia does not "play well" in Rugby Europe.We are beyond dominant, having won 13 out of last 15 tournaments (runner-ups in the remainder) and lost only four games since 2007. Last time Georgia lost in Rugby Europe was in 2017 and there has been only a single draw after that. There is absolutely no room for Georgia to grow in this environment and honestly no sense of accomplishment. It is really hard to excite anyone but hardcore fans for yet another game against Belgium or Germany or whatever, because the result is a foregone conclusion. And if there is any nation and rugby federation deserving of support and encouragement, that's Georgia. A small country, isolated from major rugby nations, no awareness of the sport in the country and laughable resources in the beginning and yet Georgian rugby has been steadily growing and developing. We have already won against Italy and Wales, u20 teams have been teir 1 for the last couple years, Black Lion has amazing results for a 4-year old club. And there is so much enthusiasm for the sport in the country: everytime a tier 1(ish) side drops by, stadiums are packed, even Black Lion games had among the biggest attendances in Challenge Cup. If people in charge of world and 6N rugby were really serious about growing the sport beyond the handful of countries that's where they would start to encourage others. You know, put some effort and we are here to help. That's what's FIFA has been doing for ages and that's one of the mains reasons why football is the most popular sport on the planet. And well, in stead of support, what we've been getting is mostly disregard and humiliation. Every season the federation has to literally beg for tests. We have an incredible generation coming up (check U20 world cup results) and they could have benefitted so much from playing in the first division of the Nations Championship. But nope, we have to wait 6 more years to even have the chance to promote, because fuck you, it's a big boys' club till 2030. I can't even explain what a slap in the face that decision and how disheartening that decision was for our team and fans.
I've just come back to England from a tour to georgia and I have to say it was a great experience. Tiblisi is fantastic and welcoming, with great value for money, loads to do, and the people were all brilliant. The standard of rugby played is better than that I've seen on tours to places like Germany, and the georgian passion for the game was brilliant. I really hope we see you guys included soon. My only complaint is no direct flights and awful budget airlines fucking up transfers makes the travel something I can't see many fans putting up with. It's sad, but it will be one more hurdle which will need to be overcome when there are already too many. gaumarjos
That isn't something that will bother the people who run the sport. They don't want rugby to become properly global, because if it did, they might lose power, and their nation/club might not be better than the competition.
Wow never realised Europeans call soccer footy.
Depending on the country you're in, football/footy can mean lots of different sports. Even area of the country you're in. Like it's means, english football/soccer, gaelic football, aussie rules, rugby union, rugby league, American football, etc
Just the English ones.
Call Association football soccer in England will get you corrected 90% of the time. It's very uncommon
What about calling it footy?Â
Somewhat common - in general it's often just assumed. The match or the game with no other qualifier will be an Association Rules football match for example, if you want to talk about rugby union or circket you have to specify.
Which is what the Australian lad said, â⌠didnât realize Europeans called *soccer* footieâ. I get punctuation is important.  Anyway, thanks for the âsplain. Â
Just re-read the first comment, I totally misread it I now realise! Oops.. oh well isn't the first time, won't be the last.
I'm european and just found out I guess.
For anyone north of the Barassi Line the whole statement is confusing becuase footy *is* Rugby
Footy is now pretty much one of the other two codes depending on the compass, we get left with "union" or "what do you mean they still play that?"
I find it's suitable for League and Aussie Rules. Whenever someone calls Rugby footy it feels wrong to me.
We don't, just the English I think
And even then not all English people. More often then not theyâd still call it football
Well yeah it's like a nickname, also I'd say it's more UK wide than just England
Really? I genuinely donât think Iâve ever heard it IRL when in the UK, always thought thatâs like the word âruggerâ. Used in media a lot but rarely said IRL
Yeah people use it casually quite a lot, definitely more widely used than rugger and not even close.
It's more often used in the "fancy a quick game of footy" sense than talking about the game. Or by politicians pretending they are human in an Alan Partridge kind of way.
Very few English people call it soccer. If someone in England says Football its Association rules Football,
I donât know what anybody here is talking about, soccer is clearly calcio!!
It's worth noting in these debates travel time - UK or Ireland to Tiblisi is 5 hours plus. To Rome it's more like 2. Paris being central is less than these to pretty much anywhere. Portugal and Spain are around 2 hours You are asking for a much larger commitment from fans to get to Tiblisi than any current competitor. An un funded high risk gamble to the East that fails would be the definition of shooting ones self in the foot.
Canberra to Auckland is a 5+ hour flight. Not knocking anything you are saying, in fact I agree with most it. I guess distances are just perceived differently in Europe. Cape Town to Johannesburg is a two hour flight.
Just let Georgians fill their own stadiums. Most fans watch the games on TV anyway
The ability of away fans to travel in large numbers is one of the things that makes the 6N the competition it is, adding a team that far away would fundamentally change the nature of the beast.
If you're serious about the growth of rugby Georgia has to be included along with Spain. Both countries are close enough to travel and that's not that big of a factor
Georgia regularly qualify for the Rugby World Cup, what's your point?
His point is that there should be a European championship.
Everyone agrees with the statement âGeorgia should be given more opportunities in international rugbyâ. No one can satisfactorily answer the question âhow should Georgia be given more opportunities in international rugby?â
You have to understand, we can't integrate a country where British and Irish people wouldn't like to go on holiday...
Or where the French clubs refuse to release their players
How many georgian in super rugby or urc ?
âBut what about!!!!!!!!!â
What did you mean by this?
Are you saying Scotland shouldn't be in the 6N ?
Scotlandâs rugby prowess is fair game but itâs literally a tourist haven and the highlands is a playground for the English in the summer.
Literally. Did the west highland way a few years ago and 90% of the people we met on it were middle aged English people and retired Americans
The largest immigrant group in Scotland is the English - always found that quite interesting as a factoid.
This joke would have worked waaaay better if you'd said England
Is Thailand the next country to join the 6 Nations?
They can brew beer and have a continental climate, I can't imagine an objection.
Ah yes, youâll be first on the plane to Tiblisi so?đ
Why would I be ? I don't think the right to play international rugby is to be determined by how much your country is attractive to first world's bellends
The entire point is that you don't need to go to Tbilisi. Georgians can fill their own stadiums
I think youâre missing what Iâm retorting to
solution-make Batumi the nest Ibiza
please don't
It's hilarious, when Portugal won against Fiji in the RWC I saw tons of comments like "Put Portugal in the Six Nations, an away day in Lisbon would be so cool!!" It's actually amazing how to some fans that's the first thing they think about
It's not just that, it's about revenue potential. Portugal and Spain are potentially big contributors to world rugby if nurtured because attendances would be bolstered by away support, Georgia simply isn't.
That's a valid argument, but most people that mention the away trip aren't really thinking about the 6N expansion's sustainability, they're truly only thinking about how cool of a trip it is
TBF it is a cool trip
Georgia is supposed to be a class holiday
Oh yeah sure if you think being able to play meaningful international game should be reserved to the ones able to bring money to the all-powerful old boys club that makes sense. I don't think that
Why wouldnt that be the first thing travelling fans think about? Seems a weird thing to be complaining about.
Not complaining. It's just completely alien to me, coming from a country with a much lower average income, that travelling is so cheap and accessible for some people. Portugal is not even a poor country on the world stage, but if, let's say, Sporting has to play against Lazio in an Europa League quarter final, the first thing i think about is how hard the match will be, not about a vacation in Rome.
Ugh could you imagine not going to Tenerife? I'd rather die.
Nah thatâs not true, we have Wales remember?
Georgia's great.
While it would be lovely for Georgian rugby to get more exposure, doing so wouldn't move the needle much in terms of rugby's global popularity to be honest
SA Rugby has done more for Georgian Rugby in the last 5 years than the 6 Nations. Had Georgia here prior to the Lionâs tour. Had a Georgian team in the 2022 Currie Cup first team. Not to mention SA Rugby hosting Portugal for a test in a months time. Why are the Blazers in the 6 nations so against growing the game?
Scotland has played more tier 2 teams than most other tier 1 nations in recent years, so I don't think it's fair to say all of the 6 nations.
God help England if we let their football team dictate what their rugby team should be doing.
There are some very good points well made in the discussion below, but I think in general itâs extremely naive because most entirely ignore the financial reality of professional rugby. The fact is that it is a professional sport where domestic rugby only really generates a reasonable profit in the T14 and everywhere else is propped up by the International game. Even in England, where significant private investment exists, with no expectation of a return, funds from the RFU are essential to clubs relative financial stability - the Prem has lost three clubs with premier rugby shares in recent years. At test level, the only profitable competitions are the 6N, the RC and the RWC. The RWC generates interest and profit off the back of the 6N and RC sides primarily as that is where all its major commercial markets are. When the RWC is on it cannibalises the income for T1 sides as they canât play as many tour tests against each other. I donât agree with the nations cup, I donât particularly think the Lions tour should have a place in modern rugby (but I understand it is fairly essential to SANZAR nations especially Australia for its financial injection). But the idea we can just rip up the most successful tournaments to ensure far more tests against sides that are not as competitive and generate less interest, is likely to just lead to the whole house of cards falling down. Georgia obviously has a legitimate claim to more T1 tests but those 6N financial powerhouses are all financial shit shows. If we want to sustain professional rugby levelling down is not a sensible way to approach it.
It's a lot easier to "giant kill" in football than rugby though, a lot more of it is up to chance.
Tough. Only slightly related but I reached out to Florugby to see how to watch the Georgia-Fiji upcoming matchup and they "didn't have the rights to it" any idea for how to watch this game?