Nations Championship to Qatar

[Puja]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... ght-years/

I don't like the whole concept of the Nations Championship and I don't see how it fits into the calendar. I'm also not thrilled about the concept of taking oil money, given, you know, all the blood all over it.

However, £800m for 4 tournaments over 8 years is a hell of a thing. Considering World Rugby gets £120m from the RWC, and that's the amount which most of the global game runs on, it's a hell of an offer. Is that kind of money turn-downable?

Puja

[fivepointer]

I'd like to tell them to get lost but money like that is very hard to turn down.

[Mikey Brown]

I'd like to tell them to get lost but money like that is very hard to turn down.

Lol. That's the thing with principles isn't it.

[Puja]

I'd like to tell them to get lost but money like that is very hard to turn down.

Lol. That's the thing with principles isn't it.

Indeed. It's one thing knowing, hypothetically, that you have a price; it's another to be outright rudely called out on it.

Already the cognitive dissonance is going in my brain, telling me that at least Qatar aren't as bad as Saudi Arabia and maybe it's not completely unethical...

Puja

[twitchy]

I'd like to tell them to get lost but money like that is very hard to turn down.

Rugby Values.

[Banquo]

I'd like to tell them to get lost but money like that is very hard to turn down.

Rugby Values. cash

fixed

[morepork]

More Sportwashing. Build a couple of fancy stadiums with slave labour, by a competition, and fling spotless oil money around until everyone loves you. Such a noble strategy. I assume they will be offering a parallel women's tournament?

[Oakboy]

If that sort of money is going to be available long-term, rugby must take it BUT a fully justifiable global season with All first class rugby bound into it must happen. Player welfare and the fanbase interests should get universal consideration.

[Banquo]

If that sort of money is going to be available long-term, rugby must take it BUT a fully justifiable global season with All first class rugby bound into it must happen. Player welfare and the fanbase interests should get universal consideration.

you think 'Rugby' is a-capable of, and b- will be able to call the shots in the face of big money?

[Oakboy]

If that sort of money is going to be available long-term, rugby must take it BUT a fully justifiable global season with All first class rugby bound into it must happen. Player welfare and the fanbase interests should get universal consideration.

you think 'Rugby' is a-capable of, and b- will be able to call the shots in the face of big money?

I don't rate any of the institutions as even approaching competent but it may be the catalyst to imposing order if the game has the guts to appoint a negotiator with a binding brief - as against the committee approach. It could be done if all playing countries accept that 'money rules' and foresake amateur traditions in favour of simple practicality. Thrash out the principles, give the negotiator the power and swallow individual niggles in favour of sharing the hand-out in a sensibly compromised balance.

Oh, I've just spotted the pigs flying by . . . . Back to rugby quangoism - divide and rule, kill the players so that the game will follow. Maybe, I'll just drift off back to my idealistic dream, sick that our wonderful product is not marketed/sold with any skill on the global scene.

[Puja]

Looks like it is turndownable: https://www.planetrugby.com/news/six-na ... bid-report

Puja

[FKAS]

Looks like it is turndownable: https://www.planetrugby.com/news/six-na ... bid-report

Puja

Clearly rugby values aren't that easy to buy.

[Which Tyler]

Good news

[Mikey Brown]

I didn't realise this competition had even been confirmed as going ahead.

I guess it makes more sense to split it across summer/autumn as home/away legs, but I still don't see why this needs to be a new trophy/tournament at all. All I really see it doing is devaluing the world cup and further icing out the lower tiered countries. There was so much positivity for big sides playing teams like Portugal and Uruguay after the world cup and I hope that continues, though we've seen with Scotland's South Americas tour that it does need a bigger fixture or two to build excitement (and revenue) from.

[Mikey Brown]

Oof. Sounds like Sanzar wanted their cut of that money.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... 643049.amp

Sorry for the WOL link.

[Which Tyler]

Tough shit isn't it?

We couldn't agreea a deal =/= well actually as if you had a deal, but we decided to break contract.

[Puja]

Apparently, we are going to Qatar, but not until 2028: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... then-qatar

Because hosting one instance in London first makes the reputational damage all go away.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

What is the reputational damage? I’m struggling to think of one sport that’s taken authoritarian regime money and really suffered for it.

[Puja]

What is the reputational damage? I’m struggling to think of one sport that’s taken authoritarian regime money and really suffered for it.

Huh. I thought I'd edited immediately after writing to make a longer, more thought through post, but clearly I didn't hit submit and it's vanished. Let's see if I can remember what I wrote.

I was planning on changing the post to say that it seemed like a really weird "compromise". If the sport desperately needs the money and is willing to sell its services for sportswashing, then why not do it in 2026? If the sport is worried enough about the ethics that 2026 is not palatable, then why lock into future Qatar? Are things going to be really changed by going London first? Feels like we're making a hash of selling out.

On your point of reputational damage, I believe it's the French who were most worried about that and I can't speak to what the culture is on these issues there. From a UK perspective, I think you're right - people might complain and moan, but I don't think people really think badly of golf or boxing or football for taking the sportswashing money; it's just been normalised now (and also reputation-washing does work, so people aren't thinking as badly of the likes of Qatar/Saudi because their first thought is now sport/business/tourism rather than slave labour and curtailing of rights). Doesn't mean I'm thrilled about the idea of rugby following suit, but you're almost certainly right that there wouldn't be much in the way of repurcussions for them doing so..

Puja

[Stom]

What is the reputational damage? I’m struggling to think of one sport that’s taken authoritarian regime money and really suffered for it.

Huh. I thought I'd edited immediately after writing to make a longer, more thought through post, but clearly I didn't hit submit and it's vanished. Let's see if I can remember what I wrote.

I was planning on changing the post to say that it seemed like a really weird "compromise". If the sport desperately needs the money and is willing to sell its services for sportswashing, then why not do it in 2026? If the sport is worried enough about the ethics that 2026 is not palatable, then why lock into future Qatar? Are things going to be really changed by going London first? Feels like we're making a hash of selling out.

On your point of reputational damage, I believe it's the French who were most worried about that and I can't speak to what the culture is on these issues there. From a UK perspective, I think you're right - people might complain and moan, but I don't think people really think badly of golf or boxing or football for taking the sportswashing money; it's just been normalised now (and also reputation-washing does work, so people aren't thinking as badly of the likes of Qatar/Saudi because their first thought is now sport/business/tourism rather than slave labour and curtailing of rights). Doesn't mean I'm thrilled about the idea of rugby following suit, but you're almost certainly right that there wouldn't be much in the way of repurcussions for them doing so..

Puja

For myself, I nowadays have zero interest in golf, snooker, or football outside of Brentford and tactical innovation. Boxing, too, but I wasn’t really into that in the first place.

I may be an outlier, and my disinterest has more to do with the state of the sport as a whole and the lack of “Characters”, but still… it doesn’t help.

[Which Tyler]

For myself, I nowadays have zero interest in golf, snooker, or football outside of Brentford and tactical innovation. Boxing, too, but I wasn’t really into that in the first place.

I may be an outlier, and my disinterest has more to do with the state of the sport as a whole and the lack of “Characters”, but still… it doesn’t help.

Similar for me - I didn't even know that golf, snooker or boxing had gone in for sportwashing.
I personally stopped watching Formula 1 when they accelerated the sportwashing; but then F1 one never even pretended to have a moral high ground to start with. Nor has football or boxing to the best of my (minimal) knowledge.

Rugby's always had this thing about "we're better than that" - it's never been particularly true, but it's always kinda hung around anyway.

I can't say for sure this far out, but currently, I'd be in the mood for boycotting the competition hosted there - TBH, I don't like the idea of the competition, wherever it's held.
I doubt that anyone will notice my boycotting though; and with 4 years to get used to the idea before it happens, I may well have had time to acclimatise and forget to be outraged - which I guess is the point of delaying it.

[Cameo]

Hard to really measure the effect, bur I do think there is a risk in focusing on the money that people gradually lose connection with it. I love football but find myself mainly drawn to international matches now (I know they are not whiter than white) due to a mixture of time and that nagging feeling when watching club football that it is so bound up in ill gotten wealth.

[Mr Mwenda]

I was never really interested in foopball, but the shit in Qatar definitely pushed me away further. But I guess they were getting no money from me anyway.