Confederations Cup - what should it look like

[JoneslessBishop]

I recently read the RLIF strategy paper, and noted with interest the new Confederations Cup tournament that would now seemed to be scheduled for 2019, to provide an 8 team competition 2 years after the World Cup, and allowing national federations to organise tours in the intervening years. A broadening of international competition, but still allowing for intense test series between the big nations. A nice mix, even for the most international RL-sceptics amongst us.

So it got me wondering what the Confed Cup would look like.

For me, the basis should be:

1) The big 3 qualify automatically to ensure commercial viability.

2) A good geographical spread of other competitors to ensure the broadening of international RL benefits all current growth/ potential areas.

3) Each tournament hosted to an extent across multiple geographies so big games are in big markets (UK, Oz, NZ), whilst smaller games hosted in growth areas so we can build on our potential (i.e. France, Canada, US, Pacific Islands). Just like RLWC 2013 had games in France and Wales, and RLWC 2017 will have games in PNG and hopefully Fiji.

I'd anticipate 2 groups of 4, top 2 in each playing SFs, and then obviously a final.

Big 3 would be joined by 2 from Europe, 2 from Pacific, and 1 from North America. This is where things are maybe most vague, as there has traditionally been two regional governing bodies, the RLEF in the northern hemispheres (including Africa, the Middle east and the Americas) and a similar body in Oceania. However, Europe, North America, the Pacific and Middle-East/ Africa had qualification competitions for RLWC 2017. However, as Middle-East/ Africa would qualifier would usually be Lebanon, I am going from 2 each from Pacific (team strength)/ Europe and 1 North America (commercial potential) for stated reasons, with MEA teams in Euro qualifiers. If Middle-East/ Africa always had a qualifier, Europe could only have 1 qualifier when the competition was in southern hemisphere, and Pacific one vice-versa.

So a suggestion for the competition in each hemisphere. I think I like the name Intercontinental Cup. Obviously qualifying teams are arguable but most likely:

Northern Hemisphere – ‘Intercontinental Cup - Trans-Atlantic 2019’

Group A

England

Australia

Fiji

Wales

All games in UK. Maybe a double header in Cardiff a la 2013 to raise profile in Wales. Wales play Oz in Wrexham and England in Lancashire to be close to north Wales fanbase. England play Fiji in Hull, Oz play Fiji at Headingley (touring teams received well)

Group B

New Zealand

Samoa

France

Canada

NZ and Samoa make their way to UK via a 1st 2 rounds in Canada where potential shown by a 7k crowd last year for Canada versus US in Toronto where the mooted UK Championship team should be encouraged. RU popular enough to make All Blacks notable, so NZ always a draw.

Round 1: Canada v France in Montreal to capitalise on the Quebecois rivalry in Canada. Samoa v NZ play at a smaller west coast stadium, as no direct flights from Oz/ NZ to Toronto, and Vancouver a cosmopolitan destination with a rugby scene (union and fledgling league)

Round 2: Canada v NZ/ France v Samoa double header in Toronto. Biggest games for biggest current audience/ potential market.

Round 2: Canada v Samoa at smaller Toronto stadium (Canada now potentially eliminated). NZ v France played in Paris, as profile high due to Quebec game, with teams having flown back from Montreal.

Semi-finals played at Olympic stadium for London presence. 3 big teams playing to encourage travel.

Final played at City of Manchester, as fans unlikely to travel if England don’t qualify.

Southern Hemisphere – ‘Intercontinental Cup- Pan-Pacific 2021’

Smaller venues for games in Auz and NZ for group games to reflect appetite for opposition, semis and final at bigger stadiums.

Group A

Australia

England

USA

Fiji

England fly to Oz via Hawaii and play US there, Fiji play Oz (round 1) and England (round 3) in smaller Sydney stadium (Wests/ Parramatta) for Fijian ex-pat audience. Oz play England in capital Canberra round 2, and Fiji play USA on way back from Hawaii in round 2 for big game there.

Group B

New Zealand

Samoa

France

Wales

Samoa host NZ as their RU team did against the All Blacks last year, and another home game against Wales to really get boots on the ground in the country. Wales also play France in New Caledonia, which should get a better crowd than anywhere else in Oceania and emphasise international RL back in France. New Zealand to play France and Wales at Mt Smart and Christchurch's 'Rugby League Stadium'.

Semi Final double header in Brisbane similar to the last 4 Nations opener.

Final in Auckland or Sydney.

So all in all combines a 4 nations approach in group A with a more World Cup approach in Group B, which seems appropriate as Confed Cup is something in between.

Opens up big-time international RL to developing countries, thus attracting media attention, whilst provision big games in the 'home markets' to ensure a commercial success.

Many will want more games in France in a northern hemisphere Confed Cup, which is entirely feasible. I just thought Canada a bit more high profile for a 1st one, and now is an opportune time to develop there. France has had plenty of games in world cups and 4 Nations, and no doubt will in future comps.

[brooza]

Big 3 would be joined by 2 from Europe, 2 from Pacific, and 1 from North America. This is where things are maybe most vague, as there has traditionally been two regional governing bodies, the RLEF in the northern hemispheres (including Africa, the Middle east and the Americas) and a similar body in Oceania. However, Europe, North America, the Pacific and Middle-East/ Africa had qualification competitions for RLWC 2017. However, as Middle-East/ Africa would qualifier would usually be Lebanon, I am going from 2 each from Pacific (team strength)/ Europe and 1 North America (commercial potential) for stated reasons, with MEA teams in Euro qualifiers. If Middle-East/ Africa always had a qualifier, Europe could only have 1 qualifier when the competition was in southern hemisphere, and Pacific one vice-versa.

I would go along a similar line, but expand North America to "Americas" (not a big distinction right now but opens the door for South American teams in the future), and have MEA qualifiers, with the winner playing off against a European/Pacific team when the tournament is in the Southern/Northern Hemisphere respectively.

[JoneslessBishop]

That's works Brooza. Gives the MEA team leas chance than World Cup qualifying but that's only fair as 8 teams as opposed to 14

[bowes]

I'd probably go for big 3 plus 2 each from Europe and Pacific and then the winner of a playoff between the Americas winner and the Middle East/Africa winner

[Futtocks]

Confederations Cup - what should it look like? A big silver thing with two handles.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Kris]

I think we often miss the point with these competitions, its not a financial gain to have the big teams in a pool that has to qualify but what it does do is create a buzz and expose the top level to local markets, which in turn crates a greater exposure to the possibilities of what a small team can become over time

Japan in the RU world is a good example as is Italy - we don't encourage teams with their own leagues enough i.e. the Czechs\Serbia, we keep going down the heritage routes with the home nations and the pacific islands.

I know you cant please everyone and there will be smaller tournaments going all the time (hopefully) beneath everything else but without seeing what you need to achieve and experiencing it how can you ever sell it and progress?

The USA and Canada are a great shot as are Russia as they all have populations that understand sports, they are 1st world countries with similar heritage to ours. But there are loads more just under that level that with a push could take the sport a lot further through a larger population spread in Europe and specifically Asia - Russia and China have huge influence there.

I think we need to think bigger and use some of the contacts the games leaders across the world will have outside sports to push the agenda a bit more - we are a tribal game and that's a very definite selling point politically although it migt not be a politically correct way to discuss it, its the controlled confrontational aspect that should be encoraged

[JoneslessBishop]

I think that sort of initiative that happens at the same time as the RLIF organizing bigger tournaments isn't it Kris? Let's remember there is also a World Cup every for years, and for the next one up and coming nations like Spain, Russia and Serbia are in the mix to qualify. We'll look a lot better promoting our sport to new geographies with a bigger, regular interntional calendar and the Confed/ Inter-Continetal cup is an important part of that

[Kris]

Yes but  business is attracted by spectacle and what better spectacle than the best in your chosen sport on your doorstep to sell to your market - works for every other sport, just look at the NFL at Wembley as a very obvious example or the cash flow from having the very best RU international teams in South Africa that keeps that sport alive

The same events with small teams developing international rivalries will stay small events until there is a big enough reason to make it a big event and that's where the big 3 should be now, not continually battering each other except for once every 4 years, and the odd tour, but actually getting out there and causing that stir in small undeveloped markets to attract the investment and progress the international game - we all know we spend far to small an amount on publicising events in our own back yard its now imperative to develop a wider strategy, use the clout some of the bigger teams have and kick start those smaller markets which struggle simply because they are start ups in a saturated market

The game will always sell to a significant number if there is exposure - RL missed the boat in the 80's and now its paying the price of catch up and will be left behind as a sport not because its not a great spectacle but because it simply doesn't expose itself even competently never mind well anywhere except in its own back yard

If it attracts it has the potential to make money which is sadly how you get money in. Its a process, not an 80 minute match and as an aside I think the Aussies going on about having a new CEO who loves the game might be double speak for an ARL backward step that entrenches out of date views of the market they are in

[JoneslessBishop]

Kris Confed Cup will mean 5 smaller teams will get to play big 3 nations as opposed to 1 in 4 Nations. I'm suggesting NZ play in Canada and Samoa, and England play in US. 2 years after Comfed Cup, 9 smaller teams will be in the World Cup. That's significant progress. RU tier 2 teams only get to play in formal tournaments every 4 years despite the gap between them and tier 1 teams being smaller than in league. Expecting anymore from international RL would be counter-productive due to blow-out score undermining credibility (most importantly with Aussies who are only now re-engaging, never mind with new markets), and infeasible given club schedules

[paulmac]

I would call it the Champions Trophy as it would feature all past World Champions (Aus,NZ,Eng) plus the Euro Cup Champion (Wales),the Pacific Cup Champion (Samoa)& the winner of an intercontinental Cup for all nations outside of Europe & Oceania.So that makes it a six team competition.All 2nd tier nations would play against each other plus one of the big guns.So for instance a possible draw would look like this

Week 1

Aus v NZ

Eng v Samoa

Wales v USA

Week 2

Aus v Eng

NZ v USA

Samoa v Wales

week 3

Aus v Wales

NZ v Eng

Samoa v USA

FINAL 1 v 2

[JoneslessBishop]

Cheers Paul. Like the look of it, but it has been announced as 8 teams, and I think we should welcome as many teams being involved as possible

[paulmac]

I reckon an 8 team comp detracts from the actual RLWC.6 teams would also cost less to run and see far less blowouts which makes it a better TV product.In my comp I'd say 7-8 out of the 10 games would be competitive.

[Exiled Wiganer]

One approach would be to take the nations which will have established pro teams playing in the top 2 tiers in Europe and the Pacific - that gives us England, Wales, France, Oz, NZ, PNG and Fiji. That seems to me to be a good barometer of potential, stability etc.

The 8th team would be the next strongest southern/northern hemisphere team (who may be stronger than some of the automatic qualifiers)... so, perhaps Scotland or Samoa.

[JoneslessBishop]

Not a bad idea Exiled, as would minimize the impact heritage players can have (they can have their fun at the World Cup) and playing international games in countries where there are pro teams would give such development a massive boost. If you add Canada (via potential Tornto team in League 1 - note to Fiji don't have a team in the NSW Cup yet) that potential list that is the full 8 teams.

However, my concerns would be that outside England and Oz, these are only semi-pro teams, with the exception of 1 team in France and NZ obviously (and we certainly wouldn't want to exclude the latter), and is having 1 (or 2 in the case of Wales) semi pro teams really that substantive? I think the answer is 'to an extent'.

Some hope has to be retained for more than 1 of the others, and due to the Samoan playing strength we saw at the last 4 Nations, you would want them there, but not necessarily at the expense of huge potential markets like the US or Canada.

Therefore, due to that compromise answer, I would suggest a compromise to your qualifying. NZ qualify automatically alongside England and Oz.

In the Northern Hemisphere, pro nations Wales and France play each other with winner qualifying. The loser then has to place the best other Euro nation for a place.

Similarly in Southern Hemisphere, PNG play Fiji, with loser playing best other Pacific nation.

Final place is taken by top North American team versus top MEA qualifier.

That way pro-infrastructure is always rewarded, whilst not closing off hope to other countries where it could be developed in the short-to-medium term, especially if Inter-Continetal Cup qualification could significantly aid that.

[Exiled Wiganer]

I could live with that, though any structure that could exclude France bothers me a bit (and I include this year's 4Ns in that).

[JoneslessBishop]

I share your frustrations to an extent, although they are more with the team than with the 4 Nations qualifying. France have semi-pro advantages that all non Top 3 Nations dream of, except heritage players, but Catalan should off-set that. They'd have 2 bites at the cherry for the above and would surely get a full strength team out, and thus win if not in the first game, then in the second

[JoneslessBishop]

Paul Mac, didn't your suggestion have the other 3 playing all the top 3? Mine had top 3 split across 2 groups against 5 others. I think your suggestion thus has more potential for blow outs? Oz would have 3 games against tier 2 teams in your structure, only 2 in mine

[Scubby]

My fear is that this will get kicked into the long grass by our friends from down under or the players union from our friends down under.

[deluded pom?]

My fear is that this will get kicked into the long grass by our friends from down under or the players union from our friends down under.

Then play it without them.

[Scubby]

Then play it without them.

 

Exactly, The RLIF should have the 8-team format set in stone with years and bidding for hosting etc. The make-up should not depend on one country not wanting to play ball.

[JoneslessBishop]

Don't think there is a risk of that Scubby. NRL players union want 1 off-seasons rest every 4 years. Outside of the World Cup and Confed Cup, national associations are free to organise comps (i.e. tours) in the other 2 years. Therefore we could have a series against NZ one year and a series against Oz the other, meaning players from NZ and Oz get a rest 1 year as required. Confed Cup would only add 1 more game than a 4 Nations

[JoneslessBishop]

I agree the show should go on without the Aussies if necessary, but the RLIF strategy doc emphasized broadcaster appeal so obviously they should be accommodated wherever they can be.

However the ARL have been very pro interntional recently, with the next World Cup looking very promising.

In terms of the players union, the new 4 year cycle can easily meet their requirements. Outside of the two RLIF tournaments, the World Cup and the Confed Cup, national federations are free to organise competition in the other 2 years (read tours). So England can have a series re Oz in one of those years and against NZ 2 years later, meaning players from those countries get 1 year off every 4 years, which is what the union are after

[paulmac]

Jones less Bishop - No under my system the minnows all play each other (2games) plus one of the big guns(1game).The big 3 play each other and just 1 minnow for their 3 games.