Peter Bills: IRB foolish to keep playing loyalty card
Thursday September 02 2010
The international game is booming; the style produced by New Zealand in particular in recent months, the finest advertisement possible for the old game.
In Europe, a new season begins this weekend and hopes are high. With a World Cup now just 12 months away, immense challenges face both players and coaches. Even in these financially stressed times, sponsors continue to beat a path to rugby's door. It is a wonder to behold.
And yet trouble looms in the field of player availability. The International Rugby Board's desire to sanction more and more international matches, sometimes regardless of hitherto agreed 'windows' in the year's playing calendar, threatens to cause huge trouble.
Back in June, for example, there was the lunacy of Wales fitting in another home Test, this time against South Africa.
The trouble is, clubs are finding themselves the big victims of this nonsense. Racing Metro '92 of Paris signed the South African Frans Steyn on an enormous €750,000-a-season contract and then found South Africa wanted him for the Tri Nations. So, Steyn was lost to his club without the South African Rugby Union having to pay any compensation.
But why would you sign up anyone on an exclusive contract if suddenly another employer said: "Oh sorry, I want him or her for the next few weeks." Such a scenario is the policy of the business madhouse and professional rugby cheerfully sanctions it. Yet the French clubs are sick of it.
Stade Toulouse president Rene Bouscatel says: "This situation is unacceptable since the board (IRB) fixes the international windows and the dates without consulting either the leagues or the federations. It is an archaic system, worthy of 19th century amateurism."
In 2012, Argentina will join the Tri Nations. But what decision will the Puma players, who earn a very handsome living in French club rugby, make regarding that tournament? And the French clubs are now starting to talk tough.
There are at present 29 leading Argentina players contracted in France and in July, August and September 2012, many of them will be called to play in the new Four Nations. That will mean their French clubs are not likely to see them for a great chunk of pre-season and that they would miss, maybe, the first eight rounds of the Top 14, not to mention the November club games when Argentina tours Europe. Several clubs could decide it's not worth having players who would miss so many games. A leading European club would hardly see such a player before December.
The problem is that, because the IRB has continued to load more and more games on to the calendar, the periods of non-international rugby are getting smaller and smaller. Why? Because all the constituent members of the IRB, the individual unions, need more money to fund their businesses. In reality, they are competing for the same market -- the players. Something has to give. As things stand, I suspect it is the IRB's belief that it is bomb-proof because they think players will always put country before club. Many might, but looking to the future, I wouldn't be so sure.
Look at soccer -- Paul Scholes, Jamie Carragher and Ryan Giggs all gave up international sport to focus on the riches available at club level. In rugby's case, players like New Zealander Carl Hayman, plus South Africans Ruan Pienaar and Joe van Niekerk have already put big-money European club contracts above next year's World Cup.
Why wouldn't many more top players of the southern hemisphere opt for the riches of Europe above their country? Perhaps the buying club would say: "Here is the contract. But we will only sign it if you give up international rugby."
But if many of the best players did that, the (mostly) impoverished Southern hemisphere nations would be seriously weakened. The IRB and these greedy unions might do well to bear that in mind when pushing for more matches.
- Peter Bills
Irish Independent
