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.

So what is America afraid of?

Well, what is America afraid of?  Truly this cartoon is symptomatic of the Anti Control  lobby (aka and further referred to as the NRA).  Somehow I think I am like millions, nay, billions, of people living outside of America and wondering how less than 1% of the population there can control what the other 99% can do or can't do.

Gun control should not be about stopping a criminal in his/her tracks through equal or greater force (kill or be killed) but limiting the opportunity for a criminal to bear arms in the production of a crime, or similar.  Gun control should not be about self protection thereby undermining personal freedoms but be about stopping the need to protect those freedoms.

I live in a country that has had "gun control" for 150+ years and has a very low murder rate through gun deaths.  And poeple can walk the street without fear of being held up or shot over small items of interest.  That doesn't happen here and to be fair only happens in two countries in the world, the USA and SA (for varying reasons).

The mentality of the NRA is something to be admired.  How many unlicensed psychopaths do they have on their books?  Oh yeah, sorry, active and responsible gun owners and members!  They use American constitutional law to base their support and rights on.  Fair enough.  But is that law stopping 5 year old children from being killed??  Is it stopping teenagers acting out their revenge on society and wasting MANY lives in the process.  And the social cost is huge, let's not forget that.  So why do the NRA get away with their ludicrous assertions and lies?

Because the USA is afraid to change their long lasting laws.  The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that it is "the right of the people to keep or bear arms"  (since 1791) which was reiterated by the Supreme Court in recent rulings, probably much to the chagrin of the gun control lobby.

But let's get real here.  How many more innocent people will be killed due to the availability of firearms?  How many will slip by and alter the course of many lives that should not be so affected?  Bringing this issue into not only every Americans home, but also the homes of all folks that live in the peace-seeking world will surely bring change.  The assertion that the most recent killings have been done by mentally unstable people is clever, diverting attention away from the fact that weapons were readily available for that person to access.  Had those weapons been locked away in gun safes then less would have been killed, right?  But that's where the Second Amendment and the NRA step in too.  They don't want regulation as this means weapons have to be accounted for and locked away thereby not able to stop a "crime" in progress, and also means that background checks have to be done on all gun owners, not to mention the banning of certain types of weapons.  Watch the Discovery Channel or any channel on television showing American cop shows and guns rule their lives. I have yet to see a gun on a NZ made programme??

I'm firmly in the camp that says 99% of the population has more say what happens with the Second Amendment than 1%.  Come on America, get tough and show the world you're all not an uneducated and uncaring nation.  Keep your guns locked away for hunting and shooting competitions.  Feel safe being in your house or car knowing a criminal doesn't have a weapon.  And run a Gun Amnesty (was done here to great success).  Claim back the middle ground and look at the news and see that there are no more of your children being killed in the Name Of The NRA and Second Amendment!!