Why Oceania/Pacifica gets snubbed.

It's an unrivaled area in the world.  Spread across thousands of square miles of ocean and clustered in small groups of islands or just a plain individual islands, Oceania (if referring to Football) or The Pacific Islands have historically been hard to get to, have small populations, and have very little in the way of vibrant rich economies.  They are small in every aspect of the world.  But in the larger scale of the world as a place, they are tiny, and economically very very poor.  The largest country in this group is New Zealand with a population of just 4.5 million.

So what of these countries in the global village?  Let's first look at Football.  In many of these small countries, football is the main sport and played regularly between countries in this group.  They're not the best teams in the world, and often could be said, globally, probably the worst.  That's not the fault of those countries, when you have a very small population base to draw from, you'll have indicative results.  But like all sports, there is a passion, and passion in world football is a given.  So with that in mind, their efforts should be rewarded in some way  to improve their lot and make them have a goal to attain sporting notoriety.  But FIFA continually neglect this area of Oceania in not allowing automatic entry to World Cup, the only global federation with this honour.

But then you see that that makes sound sense.  There is no money coming from those islands to curry favour in FIFA's boardroom, except New Zealand, and then that amount of cash from that nation is a pittance in world football circles.  So it is fair then that FIFA take their stance?  FIFA's role in it's sport is to foster competitive football across the globe, through competitions, through regional development, and through financial support.  That it doesn't do this well in the Pacific is well recorded.

And yes, you have heard this somewhere else.  Another world sporting body has been doing this for years, but probably less publicly.  The International Rugby Board (IRB) have been making a lot of noises in the past about growing the game in the region, even hinting at pouring money into those countries that have a good rugby base (and a sport more popular in their country than football).  But with the IRB making ruminations and then not following through a lot of rugby players (and future players) have left their homelands (weakening their national teams) for the bigger dollars of rugby elsewhere, or switching codes to Rugby League.  Sure this avenue gives up and coming players a new right of passage for individual endeavour, but at the expense of national representation and kudos.

FIFA and IRB both see the Pacific Islands as nuisance factor it is fair to say and both continue to ignore the reason sport exists, the need to bring excellence to the paddock.  Sure they won't be world beaters, but small nation teams in the past have surprised and created lasting sporting memories.  If both organisations don't give hope then why should teams be formed and play under that code?

Rugby Union in the 21st Century - all about the money.

Back in the early nineties, soon after Manu Samoa's good showing in the RWC, the IRB promised to invest money into the Pacific Island teams to help them become more competitive on the world stage.  It's fair to say very little was done, and with the advent of professional rugby, even less is being put into the Island game by the governing body.

It's all about the money these days.  Prove me wrong? In the second decade of this century, the flagship team of World rugby, The All Blacks, have not played any games in those islands.  To date only a handful of top 20 teams have played in the islands, and even worse, the top six haven't played an Island team for ages, home or away (barring NH tours).

Yet two minnows of world rugby have, in the case of the All Blacks, have had games (or will).  Both Japan and the USA have had the honour to host the best team in the world.  Is this to grow the game in those countries, or is it about chasing the money that could be associated with those teams in the global game in the future?  Interesting question with a simple answer.

The reality is that by playing Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and Papua New Guinea, the top teams won't grow the game financially.  It seems better for the island teams to be feeder clubs to the likes of Australia, New Zealand and Japan and USA in a lesser capacity.  Yes the game of rugby is now about the money, not the kudos.  Professionalism has a large part to play in this summation and a change of focus in the IRB.

Is it wrong or right for this to happen?  Well yes and no.  Rugby has to fight for all the money it can get, not being a true global game, and to survive it has to offer good money to keep it viable, especially to the teams that make up the top tier.  But in so doing it also hurts the game at the lower level as can be seen by how the Pacific Island nations, and second tier European and Asian teams are treated.  By having the All Blacks playing Japan and USA the game is being exposed to bigger dollars.  By not playing versus the island nations et al the security of the game financially is secured much to the frustration of those lower tiered nations.

So what of the impact on those lower tier nations?  Well, the best move countries looking for better opportunities, be it at club level, professional franchise level, and eventually international level, is to stand firm and demand internationals at their place, and against top 6 teams..  Just look at the make up of the All Blacks, Wallabies and to a lesser extent Japan, abounding with PI players seeking better opportunities.  The boundaries for eligibility are changing and the top tier teams are getting even stronger whilst the minnows suffer.  The reflection is evident especially in RWC competitions.

The USA and Japan are seen by the IRB as the future of the second tier based on the need for them to play the All Blacks at home.  These games are not about getting a full stadium, but exposure to a larger financial future.  And Fiji, Manu Samoa et al suffer further.  Personally I'd like to see the All Blacks, Wallabies and South Africa include one test match per southern season at home to an Island Nation.  Sure it may be a financial loss on the books, but with a lot of island players switching to League the future of the game would be secured globally.  And if the three main island nations can't field a team at a RWC then rugby is the loser.