As the Football World Cup winds its way through our screens and disturbs our sleep patterns, the reaction to some of FIFA’s handling of this tournament has been very interesting to watch, and has raised some real concerns around World Rugby hosting the tournament in the same nation in 2031.
While much can change between now and then, and the caveat is that FIFA’s World Cup is a much, much bigger tournament than the Rugby World Cup, there are still several red flags that have come up and which rugby must take heed, so as to not repeat the same mistakes and anger fans across the globe.
We can debate whether the obsession of trying to break into America is good or not for rugby, but the reality is that the World Cup will be there in 2031, and it is unlikely to change.
But FIFA’s own goals should serve as a warning to rugby trying to break into a market that hasn’t enjoyed rugby in the past, and while many may point to the college rugby numbers growing, it doesn’t necessarily translate into the same success both commercially and as a tournament.
World Rugby has also been fixated on the revenue from a World Cup - it has tied itself to 80 per cent of its overall revenue coming from that and it funds the global game. More revenue means more money distributed, but at what stage does it become a game watched by the elite, and as FIFA have shown us, it can be taken to ridiculous levels.
THE TICKETING PRICING MODEL
By now we’ve all read about FIFA’s “dynamic pricing model” - where the original bid promised a final ticket would “cost no more than US$1550. But the tickets had climbed above $30k a ticket by the time the tournament arrived. This, of course, suits FIFA as they get 30 per cent of the resale value and it brings in massive profits, but at what cost. There were reports of 180 000 tickets being unsold just two days before kickoff as well.
Already World Rugby has said the ticket for the World Cup final next year in Sydney would cost R23 000 - for a bucket seat in a stadium for 80 minutes of rugby. We can expect that to be significantly more by the time 2031 comes around.
But if World Rugby are planning a “dynamic pricing model” it may backfire spectacularly, hurt the sport’s reputation and do the opposite of what it intends. These are genuine warning signs for the World Cup’s future in an unknown market.
HYDRATION BREAKS
Hey, we’re all used to water breaks in rugby, so they’re nothing new, but FIFA’s extra long hydration breaks have been a massive talking point and are a very big point of contention in how they break momentum in a game, and are certainly not enjoyed by fans.
While the advertising models around sports broadcasting are always contentious and necessary to provide the income needed to bring top class sport to our screens, the way it has been handled has been the problem.
FIFA’s insistence of hydration breaks, even in air conditioned stadiums, hasn’t gone down well. While it has brought in somewhere like $250-million in ad revenue, players haven’t liked it.
Rugby introduced split screen ads in the UK during the Six Nations when scrums were being reset, moving the sport closer to the American model, and there are fears it could get worse.
Rugby has more breaks than football, and for good reason, and there is a real danger of World Rugby adopting this very aggressively in a country that is the spiritual home of a TV timeout.
Ads fuel the game, but as FIFA have shown, there is also a point where it becomes counter productive.
SCHEDULING CLASHES
While this hasn’t really been discussed yet, it is likely to be top of the agenda for World Rugby as there is already talk that while the Rugby World Cup normally is in September/October, this will bring it straight in line with the NFL season, and nobody wants to see a clash like that.
Shifting it to June/July makes sense but makes it a summer World Cup, and it also then clashes with the 2031 Women’s World Cup in football, and with Women’s football a big drawcard in the US, it leaves some uncomfortable maneuvering for World Rugby.
World Rugby can probably be a lot more flexible in terms of their demands, as they are a smaller brand than FIFA, especially with the losses cities in the US have been grumbling about in having to cover all transport costs.
One Football even reported that multiple US cities are reportedly weighing withdrawing from Women's World Cup hosting while staying in for the Rugby World Cup. One source close to a host city described World Rugby's terms as more favourable than FIFA's.
Venues will be wary and being flexible will help with selling the tournament.
GRASSROOTS VISIBILITY
There has been a lot of talk around FIFA about the lack of marketing in the US but fans themselves have been doing the talking, given all the viral fan clips doing the rounds.
Consider where Major League Rugby is in the US. Five of the 11 MRL teams didn’t make it to the start line this season, shutting up shop as they struggled to survive. If World Rugby is to truly succeed in the US, it can’t be a standalone, money-grabbing tournament. It needs to leave a legacy at the grassroots.
FIFA had decades to do this, Rugby hasn’t even come close to scratching the surface. There are some healthy numbers at College level, but like Rugby in Japan, unless there is a legacy, the enduring thought will be that rugby went to the US to make money. FIFA is doing that right now, and at times it is doing more harm than good.
Lets hope World Rugby are looking at this with a balanced viewpoint, and not just salivating at the money they can make. The game deserves a healthy World Cup that fills World Rugby’s coffers, and leaves fans remembering the good of the game, not the negative aspects of it.
Sport increasingly worldwide is under pressure not to adopt practices that make professional sport a place for the elite with lots of money. Rugby skirts that all the time, if they do go that route they could do some real damage to the game. We can only sit and hope.