RLIF Nations League

[RayCee]

I have been watching the UEFA Nations League and am impressed. It pits teams of similar strength against each other in small groups, playing each other twice. 

I was thinking why doesn't RL do something similar globally. I've put together an idea of how it would look and it can be viewed by clicking on the link:

https://rugbyl.blogspot.com/2018/11/global-rl-international-groupings.html

I think it has merit. 

[deluded pom?]

There's already a similar suggestion on another thread Ray. Basically the lack of money would stymie any groups below the first one unless it was localised which might mean teams of differing strength playing each other. To achieve groups of similar strength may mean asking a team full of amateurs to play a team on the other side of the world. It isn't going to happen.

[RayCee]

3 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

There's already a similar suggestion on another thread Ray. Basically the lack of money would stymie any groups below the first one unless it was localised which might mean teams of differing strength playing each other. To achieve groups of similar strength may mean asking a team full of amateurs to play a team on the other side of the world. It isn't going to happen.

I must have missed the other thread.  

Nations in Europe and elsewhere organise a few friendly internationals each season as it is. So to participate in this wouldn’t add cost for them. 

It could add some media interest in countries where the game gets nothing presently. Playing in a system where something is riding on the outcome - p/r - and within a grouping structure has to have more appeal than a freindly or two,

The way to fund it would be sell the media rights to the bigger games and use that money to assist all nations involved. 

Of course it’s a pipe dream and like everything in RL, not affordable. However, can RL afford not to do it? Smaller nations rely on the work of volunteers and players who all do it for nothing. The game could wither in some of those nations like seems to have happened recently in Denmark. At least a proposal like this could provide incentive to keep involved. 

[RayCee]

Oh, did you notice DP how I made the brave decision to put it where it belongs, in the International section? It ensures exclusivity.

[CanaBull]

It's going to be interesting to see how the additional funding for the Americas for 2019 pans out.  No details as yet but a very vague commitment.  Even being involved I wouldn't want a chunk of cash just forked over, I'd like to see criteria for how it was to be spent just to make sure whatever it is gets used in the appropriate areas.

[deluded pom?]

2 hours ago, RayCee said:

I must have missed the other thread.  

Nations in Europe and elsewhere organise a few friendly internationals each season as it is. So to participate in this wouldn’t add cost for them. 

It could add some media interest in countries where the game gets nothing presently. Playing in a system where something is riding on the outcome - p/r - and within a grouping structure has to have more appeal than a freindly or two,

The way to fund it would be sell the media rights to the bigger games and use that money to assist all nations involved. 

Of course it’s a pipe dream and like everything in RL, not affordable. However, can RL afford not to do it? Smaller nations rely on the work of volunteers and players who all do it for nothing. The game could wither in some of those nations like seems to have happened recently in Denmark. At least a proposal like this could provide incentive to keep involved. 

As I said though Ray, France would be head and shoulders above the vast majority, if not all, of the rest of the European teams except England if they got their act together. Assuming England are in a group with the other tier 1 nations who would you put in France’s group? Wales? Who France beat easily last month? Scotland without their NRL players are a totally different kettle of fish to the one that drew with NZ. Ireland who are looking to involve more domestic players. After that the quality tails off markedly. I proposed something similar to your idea about ten years ago (honest) but then the practicalities and probable finances required kick in and you realise it’s not currently feasible?

[CanaBull]

Don't mean to butt in on this DP, but the media challenges of even ten years ago have changed so much, markets and reach truly becoming globally instant.  The opportunities for revenue generation at a smaller scale are much greater now, though admittedly more crowded, so it does have at least more potential for success than in the past.

The stream of the Americas Championship had people from all over the world watching, if some of the additional funding could be directed toward social media promotion then it could work if the right sponsors are on board.  Certainly worth serious consideration, it would be down to us in those countries to do our best to provide stability and growth to support that.

[RayCee]

1 hour ago, deluded pom? said:

As I said though Ray, France would be head and shoulders above the vast majority, if not all, of the rest of the European teams except England if they got their act together. Assuming England are in a group with the other tier 1 nations who would you put in France’s group? Wales? Who France beat easily last month? Scotland without their NRL players are a totally different kettle of fish to the one that drew with NZ. Ireland who are looking to involve more domestic players. After that the quality tails off markedly. I proposed something similar to your idea about ten years ago (honest) but then the practicalities and probable finances required kick in and you realise it’s not currently feasible?

The link on my opening comment showed the structure. It is based on rankings from six months ago. The way it is set out, there shouldn’t be blow out results. 

If RL never has money to do anything, so does nothing, it will retreat gradually to nothing.

[RayCee]

1 hour ago, CanaBull said:

Don't mean to butt in on this DP, but the media challenges of even ten years ago have changed so much, markets and reach truly becoming globally instant.  The opportunities for revenue generation at a smaller scale are much greater now, though admittedly more crowded, so it does have at least more potential for success than in the past.

The stream of the Americas Championship had people from all over the world watching, if some of the additional funding could be directed toward social media promotion then it could work if the right sponsors are on board.  Certainly worth serious consideration, it would be down to us in those countries to do our best to provide stability and growth to support that.

RL has to show enterprise and courage, something lacking in both instances. The sport simply cannot afford to be passive and defeatist, which seems to sum up leadership at the present. The world will pass RL by unless it starts saying “look at us, we have a great product “. 

[deluded pom?]

5 minutes ago, RayCee said:

The link on my opening comment showed the structure. It is based on rankings from six months ago. The way it is set out, there shouldn’t be blow out results. 

If RL never has money to do anything, so does nothing, it will retreat gradually to nothing.

This is where the RLIF need to be getting a cut of TV money instead of allowing Australia and England to negotiate their own deals.

[RayCee]

14 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

This is where the RLIF need to be getting a cut of TV money instead of allowing Australia and England to negotiate their own deals.

True.

[CanaBull]

43 minutes ago, RayCee said:

RL has to show enterprise and courage, something lacking in both instances. The sport simply cannot afford to be passive and defeatist, which seems to sum up leadership at the present. The world will pass RL by unless it starts saying “look at us, we have a great product “. 

I’m not sure whether that’s the case or if, like many people administrating RL worldwide, just somewhat out of their depth with the changing circumstances and unsure how to exploit them best.  RLIF has just gotten full time staff and the RFL have had the same incumbents for years.  To be fair they have acted on new or different ideas; TWP, Super 8’s for instance to try and take things forward but they need to work more closely and effectively with newer areas.

Quite honestly I think there are many ‘amateur’ organisers who could do far more for the game with far less if given a seat at the top table and with the latest momentum of, as far as I’m concerned a successful Americas Championship as it was nearly 300 at one point watching Canada v Chile and over 1000 watching Jamaica v USA online, there is definitely a base to build on for international Rugby League in this part of the world.

Unless RLIF staff are willing to put boots on the ground in these new countries, I think it should be left to the administrators in those new countries to work together on a cooperative strategy and just make it happen.  The RLIF can step in with broadcasting support or ensuring it fits in with an overall global framework for instance, as it seems most of these administrators know each other better that the RLEF/RLIF anyway.  The tools are there for us not to need to be in one place to have conferences now, so let’s use them.

[RayCee]

The Nordic Cup is a classic case of what happens in RL. Three nations got together to play two matches each to decide the winner. Denmark was the strongest nation initially but no longer participates and this year it was just the other two in a one match, lop sided affair.

Norway has progressed and outgrown the opposition. In a tiered structure as suggested at the outset, Norway would move up a division and challenge itself with tougher opponents. Likewise Sweden would play teams at its level of performance.

RL can not afford it but can it afford not to? These lesser nations need some form of nutrturing or they may wither in due course. At best they remain as minnows. 

[deluded pom?]

11 hours ago, RayCee said:

The Nordic Cup is a classic case of what happens in RL. Three nations got together to play two matches each to decide the winner. Denmark was the strongest nation initially but no longer participates and this year it was just the other two in a one match, lop sided affair.

Norway has progressed and outgrown the opposition. In a tiered structure as suggested at the outset, Norway would move up a division and challenge itself with tougher opponents. Likewise Sweden would play teams at its level of performance.

RL can not afford it but can it afford not to? These lesser nations need some form of nutrturing or they may wither in due course. At best they remain as minnows. 

But the team coming up or the team dropping down could be asked to end up travelling to a destination that they can't afford to travel to.

[RayCee]

7 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

But the team coming up or the team dropping down could be asked to end up travelling to a destination that they can't afford to travel to.

That's why it is regionally based. I did put RSA into Europe but that may not be financially practical. However, if for example Norway is prepared to play two internationals a season, one at home and one away to say the Czech Rep, then job done. 

[deluded pom?]

On 11/20/2018 at 5:34 PM, CanaBull said:

Don't mean to butt in on this DP, 

Not butting in at all Cana. Feel free to join in.

[RayCee]

1 hour ago, deluded pom? said:

Not butting in at all Cana. Feel free to join in.

I second that.

[yanto]

Norway v Sweden was a one off game.

As you say Norway have outgrown the other two Scandinavian nations thats why they are now in European Group C  North along with Germany and Czech .

Group C South is Greece ,Ukraine and Malta,

Group B 

Serbia Spain and Russia

Group A 

Wales Ireland Scotland and France

 

Go back to 2015 Group C was 

Greece Spain and Malta

Group B

Ukraine Serbia Russia and Italy

So below the "semi pro" European Championship the lower /lesser nations have grown from two groups and seven nations to three groups and nine nations.

Due to the WC Qualifiers this may have a different edge ( by the way what happened to Italy ??) but there is already the making of a type of Nations League in Europe and it just needs tweaked,more groups added ..Netherlands and Sweden now seem to be regular opponents...Hungry and Poland are playing ....is anything still happening in Latvia, ? the Balkan states are playing their own Nations League type competitions with Turkey,Bonsia,Albania all coming through at different levels of development

So to get this up and running it needs to start on a "Regional" format as far as possible  to cut down the costs.

But as most nations play at least one away game they are half way there.

As in the soccer three teams in each group but only play one home one away game .

G1 

England ,France,Wales

G2 

Ireland ,Scotland,Russia,

G3

Serbia,Spain,Greece,

G4

Norway,GermanyUkraine,

G5

Czech,Sweden,Holland,

G6

Poland ,Hungry,Turkey,

G7

Albania,Bulgaria,Bosnia,

All nations have some thing happening at different levels,all the groups are "About " of similar standard,

As you drop down the standards then they become more regionalised cutting costs and bringing in local rivalry.

Group winners go up second stay put third go down.

Every year the groups will change giving nations the chance to sample different cultures and levels of the game and like the soccer version could breath new life into the European scene instead of a lot of nations playing friendlies against the same teams year in year out.

21 in seven groups ...how easy to organise and as I said all the named countries have played in 2018  so its not pie in the sky fantasy just needs brought together and structured.

Not knocking the open posters groupings BUT some of the levels he has together is too wide..Netherlands in with Ukraine and Greece,Hungry with Russia and Norway ,Lebanon in Europe is apparently in termoil according to my sources after a fall out with their Aussie counterparts....I would think we would see some blow out scores and South Africa would be way out of the reach of most european teams cost wise.

 

 

 

 

[RayCee]

18 hours ago, yanto said:

All nations have some thing happening at different levels,all the groups are "About " of similar standard,

As you drop down the standards then they become more regionalised cutting costs and bringing in local rivalry.

Group winners go up second stay put third go down.

Every year the groups will change giving nations the chance to sample different cultures and levels of the game and like the soccer version could breath new life into the European scene instead of a lot of nations playing friendlies against the same teams year in year out.

21 in seven groups ...how easy to organise and as I said all the named countries have played in 2018  so its not pie in the sky fantasy just needs brought together and structured.

Not knocking the open posters groupings BUT some of the levels he has together is too wide..Netherlands in with Ukraine and Greece,Hungry with Russia and Norway ,Lebanon in Europe is apparently in termoil according to my sources after a fall out with their Aussie counterparts....I would think we would see some blow out scores and South Africa would be way out of the reach of most european teams cost wise.

I enjoyed your input yanto. However, make it too regionalised and the benefit of playing teams of close to equal standard would be compromised, as would promotion/relegation. Teams would only have to travel once a year and hopefully some compensation for that. 

The list I put up wasn't a starting point but what it could become, when its full potential was realised. The grouping were arbitrarily set on RLIF ranking of June 2018. That wasn't an important point to me, but names had to go somewhere. It shows what could be done. Denmark was there but seem to be inactive at the moment. Inclusions such as South Africa were long term objective. It certainly wouldn't be part of the system in its early days. 

If the RLEF put out requests for sides to join, I wouldn't expect all nations listed to accept. Those that would could then be seeded into groupings. If it succeeded and TV deals were creating some return, some of that could go back to the nations participating. Other nations would then want to be part of it, because as of now any nations currently playing each other do so at personal cost. 

So the benefits are all international games have a structure to work within. All games have something riding on them. Participants reimbursed if it generates any profit. Nations that have ambition to improve themselves can use the yearly promotion to climb the ladder upward. Those that are relegated find teams of similar ability so discouraging lopsided losses are minimised. 

[CanaBull]

10 hours ago, RayCee said:

...

If the RLEF put out requests for sides to join, I wouldn't expect all nations listed to accept. Those that would could then be seeded into groupings. If it succeeded and TV deals were creating some return, some of that could go back to the nations participating. Other nations would then want to be part of it, because as of now any nations currently playing each other do so at personal cost. 

 

This is when the RFL and NRL need to assign some resources to up and coming areas.  Whether it is playing exhibition games or just holding coaching, skills or fitness clinics for new players just to get some interaction and recognition from the heavyweights.  A current player or coach as 'sponsor' for a particular club or country to promote support in the UK or Australia and get them seen and heard.

It doesn't have to be a heavy spend, more just time and attention.  

[17 stone giant]

I like the idea in principle. I think having a structure to things is far better than just randomly arranged matches. I'm a big fan of the Nations League in football - I think it's been a fantastic addition to the international game. I'm now taking much more interest in the matches than I did when it was friendlies only.

I suppose money will always be a problem in rugby league, but it's certainly an idea that I'd ideally like to see happen.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

I suggested this idea somewhere on the General forum section. However, there’s almost no money in the International game so I cannot foresee Scotland or Wales travelling to Papua New Guinea, the USA or Fiji every couple of years. 

In principle, it’s a great idea but I just think financially it’s a nonstarter, unfortunately, as it could be just what the International game needs. 

[fighting irish]

Do you think it could be set up without the obligation to fulfill the fixtures? That way, teams that are able to finance the travel, will play those above and below and those that can't can look locally for opposition. Then the movement up and down the league will still take place but with some stagnant teams. A team below a stagnant team could leapfrog them if they defeat a team above them. 

I know this idea is not fully thought out, but it might provide some of the benefits of the structure without the onerous burden of costly travel if fulfillment of the fixtures was a cast iron obligation.