New World Cup format confirmed for 2026

[eal]

A 16-team World Cup is not evidence of growth in the game. It is evidence that the game is able to put together a number of nominal heritage teams for countries with minimal to no domestic RL scene. Scotland and Ireland not participating in a 10-team RLWC will be neither here nor there for the domestic scene in those countries as the international sides mostly exist in a bubble that has no relevancy.

[Black Country Wire]

10 team competition still makes us look 2nd rate though.

[Damien]

On 12/08/2023 at 20:21, eal said:

A 16-team World Cup is not evidence of growth in the game. It is evidence that the game is able to put together a number of nominal heritage teams for countries with minimal to no domestic RL scene. Scotland and Ireland not participating in a 10-team RLWC will be neither here nor there for the domestic scene in those countries as the international sides mostly exist in a bubble that has no relevancy.

That is where there should be more stringent conditions on what makes a nation eligible. I can cope with a nation getting a little leeway on having little/no domestic activity for their first World Cup but they shouldn't be getting away with that for 20+ years like Ireland.

Nations competing in a World Cup should have a minimum number of domestic teams with those newer nations getting leeway for a World Cup or two, as long as they have clear growth plans in place and show real improvement between the first and second.

[eal]

3 hours ago, Black Country Wire said:

10 team competition still makes us look 2nd rate though.

Flying in a bunch of Australians to fill out fictitious national teams makes us look much worse than second rate.

Edited August 13, 2023 by eal

[eal]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

That is where there should be more stringent conditions on what makes a nation eligible. I can cope with a nation getting a little leeway on having little/no domestic activity for their first World Cup but they shouldn't be getting away with that for 20+ years like Ireland.

Nations competing in a World Cup should have a minimum number of domestic teams with those newer nations getting leeway for a World Cup or two, as long as they have clear growth plans in place and show real improvement between the first and second.

In many sports you can't even be a participating member without significant domestic organization. 

[Mathius Hellwege]

8 minutes ago, eal said:

Flying in a bunch of Australians to fill out fictitious national teams makes us look much worse than second rate.

Serbia instead of Ireland 

[Pulga]

5 hours ago, Damien said:

That is where there should be more stringent conditions on what makes a nation eligible. I can cope with a nation getting a little leeway on having little/no domestic activity for their first World Cup but they shouldn't be getting away with that for 20+ years like Ireland.

Nations competing in a World Cup should have a minimum number of domestic teams with those newer nations getting leeway for a World Cup or two, as long as they have clear growth plans in place and show real improvement between the first and second.

There is a minimum. @eal is talking out his ######.

To gain affiliate membership you need at least a 4 - team competition and evidence of junior development. 

The hardest part though is the legal entity and finances.

[Damien]

3 hours ago, Pulga said:

There is a minimum. @eal is talking out his ######.

To gain affiliate membership you need at least a 4 - team competition and evidence of junior development. 

The hardest part though is the legal entity and finances.

That is pathetic though and isn't even followed anyway. It should also be far more rigorous than a few RU clubs/players playing when they feel like it in their off season, and even at that are there one year and gone the next.

[Pulga]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

That is pathetic though and isn't even followed anyway. It should also be far more rigorous than a few RU clubs/players playing when they feel like it in their off season, and even at that are there one year and gone the next.

Feel free to have a crack at it if you'd like. 

Qualifiers are almost always over multiple years so it's not really just the one year. 

The problem is because even doing something so small is prohibitively difficult and the IRL gives zero help it will never change.

 

[corkonian77]

From an Irish perspective all the recent developements just seem so bleak. 

I was so full of hope in 2000 World Cup. 

It seems Ireland is closer to having an NFL game played in Ireland than any form of professional Rugby League. The Pittsburg Steelers and Jackonsville Jaguagers have been assigned Ireland as of their zones.  The Steelers are even giving free access to pre season games in Ireland and having a dedicated podcast for Ireland. American Football sees Ireland as a lucrative market to sell to. A market of 7 million people.  

Meanwhile Ireland havent played a full international in Ireland since 2019 and are unlikely to play any in 2023. 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Pulga said:

Feel free to have a crack at it if you'd like. 

Qualifiers are almost always over multiple years so it's not really just the one year. 

The problem is because even doing something so small is prohibitively difficult and the IRL gives zero help it will never change.

 

Have a crack at what? That makes no sense. Neither does the rest of your reply.

[eal]

21 hours ago, Pulga said:

There is a minimum. @eal is talking out his ######.

To gain affiliate membership you need at least a 4 - team competition and evidence of junior development. 

The hardest part though is the legal entity and finances.

I know there is theoretically a minimum but is it being enforced? The minimum is also pathetically low.

[Pulga]

18 hours ago, Damien said:

Have a crack at what? That makes no sense. Neither does the rest of your reply.

Have a crack at developing rugby league in any nation. Have a crack at forming 4 teams and organising a domestic comp. Actually, have a crack at just trying to supply one team any kind of equipment to get them off the ground.

The rest of it makes perfect sense.

 

5 hours ago, eal said:

I know there is theoretically a minimum but is it being enforced? The minimum is also pathetically low.

It is being enforced as far as I can see. 

Pathetically low by who's standard? Someone from the outside looking in I'm assuming.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Pulga said:

Have a crack at developing rugby league in any nation. Have a crack at forming 4 teams and organising a domestic comp. Actually, have a crack at just trying to supply one team any kind of equipment to get them off the ground.

The rest of it makes perfect sense.

 

It is being enforced as far as I can see. 

Pathetically low by who's standard? Someone from the outside looking in I'm assuming.

I have, thanks. As usual you get all high and mighty in these discussions thinking you are the only person that has tried anything. 

Not that it has anything to do with the point that was being discussed and whether teams with next to no activity should be allowed to compete in World Cup after World Cup.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Damien

[Dave T]

Again, if we go back to root cause, it is lack of strategy, planning and real development that is the crux of the issue here. 

We just increased the number of teams without driving up standards. What real benefits have we had from spreading ourselves too thin too quickly? I'm not one who dismisses the lower ranked teams, I really enjoy watching these nations in World Cups, but in reality if we are really harsh, it is tough to make a strategic rationale for having them in. 

We are trying to replicate Football and Union too much, and I do think we should be forming our own strategy that meets our unique needs, accepting that there is plenty we can learn from those sports. 

I've supported Scotland RL for years now, but in reality they bring very little to the table. Next to no RL is played there, no player development pathway, no sponsors, no tv deals, no commercial value. It is difficult to argue with the point that we are increasing costs but not the benefits. 

A huge challe he we have in our sport is that we have very few nations who can be the lead host for a World Cup - probably three in England, Australia and NZ at a push. But even these three struggle to make a 14/16 team tournament work, so we have zero chance of another nation stepping in - as we've Seend with two collapsed WC's. 

I think 10 is a rubbish number, but we can't really argue that both times we have moved to 16 it has been a struggle - one almost bankrupted the RFL and the other underwhelming. 

There is a balance to be had here, I think they've gone too far, but building on sand foundations will always lead to stuff like this. 

[Jim from Oz]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Again, if we go back to root cause, it is lack of strategy, planning and real development that is the crux of the issue here. 

We just increased the number of teams without driving up standards. What real benefits have we had from spreading ourselves too thin too quickly? I'm not one who dismisses the lower ranked teams, I really enjoy watching these nations in World Cups, but in reality if we are really harsh, it is tough to make a strategic rationale for having them in. 

We are trying to replicate Football and Union too much, and I do think we should be forming our own strategy that meets our unique needs, accepting that there is plenty we can learn from those sports. 

I've supported Scotland RL for years now, but in reality they bring very little to the table. Next to no RL is played there, no player development pathway, no sponsors, no tv deals, no commercial value. It is difficult to argue with the point that we are increasing costs but not the benefits. 

A huge challe he we have in our sport is that we have very few nations who can be the lead host for a World Cup - probably three in England, Australia and NZ at a push. But even these three struggle to make a 14/16 team tournament work, so we have zero chance of another nation stepping in - as we've Seend with two collapsed WC's. 

I think 10 is a rubbish number, but we can't really argue that both times we have moved to 16 it has been a struggle - one almost bankrupted the RFL and the other underwhelming. 

There is a balance to be had here, I think they've gone too far, but building on sand foundations will always lead to stuff like this. 

Yep, excellent summation Dave T …

For what it's worth I reckon we should (since the 2008 RLWC) have moved to a 12-team RLWC from then on, featuring 3 groups of 4 (with the top two of each group plus 2 best third-placers going through to the Q/Fs).

Build that up and then, when/if other quality nations emerge (through, say, sustained and planned IRL funding/support/promotion etc), slowly increase to a 14-team RLWC … and eventually, maybe 20 years' hence, to a 16-team RLWC.

The lesson is always: don't run before you can walk!

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Jim from Oz said:

Yep, excellent summation Dave T …

For what it's worth I reckon we should (since the 2008 RLWC) have moved to a 12-team RLWC from then on, featuring 3 groups of 4 (with the top two of each group plus 2 best third-placers going through to the Q/Fs).

Build that up and then, when/if other quality nations emerge (through, say, sustained and planned IRL funding/support/promotion etc), slowly increase to a 14-team RLWC … and eventually, maybe 20 years' hence, to a 16-team RLWC.

The lesson is always: don't run before you can walk!

I think the missing element of this IRL 'plan' is what development is going to be done in which areas. 

France clearly needs help, but there is potential there, particularly as a lead host with the UK close enough to support. US keeps popping up, well let's either focus development funds and effort in it or not bother mucking about. The Pacific Nations clearly need to be a focus. Wales has potential. 

But in reality, I'm not sure where the focus of their efforts is. Where is player development coming from? What about sponsors? TV deals - these need to be key considerations. 

[Mathius Hellwege]

12 is the WC ideal RL size

 

and, indeed: have clear plans which countries to develop. I owuld go for Greece, but it does not matter who exactly...just stick to your plan

[Jim from Oz]

Another important part of the plan (haha) should be consistent years for the RL World Cup: for example 2013, 2017, 2021, 2025, 2029 and so on… But, of course, this being  rugby league, the years for the rugby league World Cup are changing yet again; we’re now in another four-year cycle yet again, this time in the same four-year cycle as the FIFA Men’s World Cup … Just so idiotically rugby league!!!

 

[Mathius Hellwege]

1 hour ago, Jim from Oz said:

Another important part of the plan (haha) should be consistent years for the RL World Cup: for example 2013, 2017, 2021, 2025, 2029 and so on… But, of course, this being  rugby league, the years for the rugby league World Cup are changing yet again; we’re now in another four-year cycle yet again, this time in the same four-year cycle as the FIFA Men’s World Cup … Just so idiotically rugby league!!!

 

November to July

[JohnM]

Borrowed from that there WWW...

How You Can Create A Plan And Stick To It

To create a plan and then stick to it can be very challenging. Create a plan that is clear, with outcomes that motivate you to achieve them, this will help you stick to it. When developing your plan, remember the following:

1. Clarity and motivation. Make a clear plan and list the benefits you’ll receive as a result of following through. These benefits will help motivate you and remind you why perseverance will be worth it.
2. Action builds confidence and momentum. Outline possible tangible actions to help you achieve your goal and create your plan. Ensure your success by making your plan quantifiable.

[Black Country Wire]

On 13/08/2023 at 22:32, eal said:

Flying in a bunch of Australians to fill out fictitious national teams makes us look much worse than second rate.

I don't agree. The general public will be largely unaware of the origins of the players

11000 turned out in Coventry for Australia v Scotland. Didn't hear any chat about this.

[eal]

10 hours ago, Black Country Wire said:

I don't agree. The general public will be largely unaware of the origins of the players

11000 turned out in Coventry for Australia v Scotland. Didn't hear any chat about this.

Well there was no chatter at all in Scotland about the origins of their team simply because only 100 people play the game up there.

[Gomersall]

On 15/08/2023 at 07:44, Dave T said:

I think 10 is a rubbish number, but we can't really argue that both times we have moved to 16 it has been a struggle - one almost bankrupted the RFL and the other underwhelming. 

Whilst I don’t disagree with the rest of your post Dave I don’t think it was a purely down to a 16 team tournament that caused severe financial problems for the RFL in 2000. The weather was absolutely abysmal for the duration of the tournament and weren’t there also problems with the railways? A strange selection of venues didn’t help much either. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Gomersall

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Gomersall said:

Whilst I don’t disagree with the rest of your post Dave I don’t think it was a purely down to a 16 team tournament that caused severe financial problems for the RFL in 2000. The weather was absolutely abysmal for the duration of the tournament and weren’t there also problems with the railways? A strange selection of venues didn’t help much either. 

Agreed and my post wasn't to suggest that 16 is a problematic number by any means. More that it demonstrates the lack of strategic thinking. 16 teams in 2000 though did see us have a Maori team in, which was absolutely bizarre, and then opening the tournament with games in Belfast and Scotland IIRC when these nations shouldn't have been anywhere near hosting WC games.