Brazil scathing of IRL’s calendar

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Could you give examples of this? Specifically with reference to some period where actual money was involved and where little countries with few players forced the hand of tier 1 countries to do things they didn't want to do?

The last World Cup 

I’d love Brazil to be in the World Cup, but if you think the international game needs to prioritise those interests when dealing with a host pulling out at the last minute, and so having to reschedule something at short notice with limited ability to use “selection” leverage to extract Government subsidy, then let’s just say we disagree. This is not a normal set of circumstances, let alone the sort of luxurious one that allows for that sort of thinking. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I can never recall a time when this has been the case. The international game has been dominated by Australia for decades, certainly since the SL split, England and to a lesser extent NZ.

Perhaps not, but thinking by expansionistas has been continually along these lines. A website and some interested participants doesn’t equate to viability for World Cup tournament participation. There are other ways to build, with the same end goal in mind.

Kevin Costner’s Field of Dreams strategy has been the default plan for international expansion arguments for decades. When we’re organising World Cup tournaments, we need to be more pragmatic. Personally I’d advocate for a parallel emerging nations comp, in the same location, but then we need to have an honest conversation about funding mechanisms rather than trying to hide the overhead in an overall elite tournament budget. 

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

The last World Cup 

That was entirely the decision of the RFL as hosts to include them.

[The Partisan]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That was entirely the decision of the RFL as hosts to include them.

Based on criteria including growth and infrastructure in place. 

Sure it was solely an RFL decision? Sets a dangerous precedent. 

 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That was entirely the decision of the RFL as hosts to include them.

Yes, the organisers. This time the organisers don’t want to spend the money, or risk the reduced credibility they might bring to an already-cynical host audience. Having lived there for years I can genuinely see why. 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, The Partisan said:

Based on criteria including growth and infrastructure in place. 

Sure it was solely an RFL decision? Sets a dangerous precedent. 

 

Given the decision to retract now seems to be an entirely NRL/ARLC decision then yeah I think so too. Englishman David Collier was chair of the IRL at this time and whilst there were other bids I don't think any were taken seriously than England.

They wanted 2021 to be the biggest and best world cup ever, hence why we saw the move to add 2 more teams and a "traditional" group stage rather than super groups. We also saw the Women's and Wheelchair tournaments brought into the "professional organisation" that goes with the mens tournament.

The precedent is there that if you are England or Australia you can basically dictate the terms of the tournament you wish to host. 

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Yes, the organisers. This time the organisers don’t want to spend the money, or risk the reduced credibility they might bring to an already-cynical host audience. Having lived there for years I can genuinely see why. 

Not the tail of development RL nations like Brazil then?

Good, glad we've established that!

[Damien]

1 hour ago, The Partisan said:

Based on criteria including growth and infrastructure in place. 

Sure it was solely an RFL decision? Sets a dangerous precedent. 

 

The RLIF/IRL long had to goal of increasing from 10 to a 16 World Cup. That was a clear strategy that was set out from 2008. Obviously though that can be blown to pieces with a lack of bids and you are at the mercy of who wants it and what they offer.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Damien

[JM2010]

I think a Nations League style tournament between WCs might work. Could have it over a 2 year cycle with the 3rd year being free for tours etc.

Top 2 groups could consist of 4/6 teams with p and r between then regionalised groups underneath. 

The 3rd year could also be used for a play off series for qualifiers from the regional groups to be promoted to the bottom group of the Top 2

[welshmagpie]

A new thread…

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by welshmagpie

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

7 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Not the tail of development RL nations like Brazil then?

Good, glad we've established that!

I think you're mixing up decision-makers with sources of advocacy and interest. Decision-makers don't decide in a vacuum.  

[GeordieSaint]

2 hours ago, welshmagpie said:

A new thread…

 

Again they make some very good points…

[Griff]

12 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

Again they make some very good points…

Indeed. Why are they not in charge of the IRL?

[Tommygilf]

13 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I think you're mixing up decision-makers with sources of advocacy and interest. Decision-makers don't decide in a vacuum.  

Its still not an example of tail wagging dog though, is it?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Its still not an example of tail wagging dog though, is it?

I’m happy to accept I may have been guilty of a little hyperbole… this is, after all, the world wide interwebs

The core of my point, however, stands however much you’d like to semantic a way around it: We can’t build a World Cup disproportionately around the needs of some very minor nations, and in the past we have done so. 

[MattSantos]

On 06/08/2023 at 14:23, JM2010 said:

I think a Nations League style tournament between WCs might work. Could have it over a 2 year cycle with the 3rd year being free for tours etc.

Top 2 groups could consist of 4/6 teams with p and r between then regionalised groups underneath. 

The 3rd year could also be used for a play off series for qualifiers from the regional groups to be promoted to the bottom group of the Top 2

A thousand times this.

[zylya]

12 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I’m happy to accept I may have been guilty of a little hyperbole… this is, after all, the world wide interwebs

The core of my point, however, stands however much you’d like to semantic a way around it: We can’t build a World Cup disproportionately around the needs of some very minor nations, and in the past we have done so. 

Ok, but that's not really what's happening here. Brazil Men played in an IRL initiated qualifier (at their own expense) and after winning, they've been told that now there's actually no chance for them to qualify.

Brazil Women earned a spot in the 2025 RLWC after participating in the 2021 RLWC. This has now been rescinded also.

And in return, they get... nothing! A tournament that has no structure announced, no dates, no hosts, no funding model.

It'd be interesting to hear how anyone could justify all the goalpost shifting here... especially with full membership of the IRL being such a joke in terms of teams with hardly any domestic activity holding on to their full membership status.

You say that you can't build a RLWC around the needs of minor nations and that we've done so before, but I can't see any example of a RLWC which has been built for anyone other than Australia, England and New Zealand. All of the previous 10/14 team tournaments were specifically designed to get those three into the semi finals (e.g. 3 qualifying from a group of 4). To suggest that somehow the IRL board, which is disproportionately represented by officials from Eng, Aus, NZ, has been creating World Cups that benefit tiny nations over the established ones is just completely incorrect. Please point to one World Cup where it's been built disproportionately around the needs of the smallest nations.

[overtheborder]

On 06/08/2023 at 10:56, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Perhaps not, but thinking by expansionistas has been continually along these lines. A website and some interested participants doesn’t equate to viability for World Cup tournament participation. There are other ways to build, with the same end goal in mind.

Kevin Costner’s Field of Dreams strategy has been the default plan for international expansion arguments for decades. When we’re organising World Cup tournaments, we need to be more pragmatic. Personally I’d advocate for a parallel emerging nations comp, in the same location, but then we need to have an honest conversation about funding mechanisms rather than trying to hide the overhead in an overall elite tournament budget. 

If I'm understanding your idea correctly, the cricket World Cup essentially operates like that, albeit having a qualifying tournament in a different centralised location that is essentially an opportunity for associate nations to compete (alongside one or two bigger nations, Sri Lanka and the West Indies in particular this time round). IMO we could learn a lot from cricket in terms of the international game - while more popular worldwide, there's also a limited number of test nations, with "associate nations" who are basically what in RL terms are usually referred to as emerging nations. We could do worse than look at what they get right to me.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

29 minutes ago, zylya said:

Ok, but that's not really what's happening here. Brazil Men played in an IRL initiated qualifier (at their own expense) and after winning, they've been told that now there's actually no chance for them to qualify.

Brazil Women earned a spot in the 2025 RLWC after participating in the 2021 RLWC. This has now been rescinded also.

And in return, they get... nothing! A tournament that has no structure announced, no dates, no hosts, no funding model.

It'd be interesting to hear how anyone could justify all the goalpost shifting here... especially with full membership of the IRL being such a joke in terms of teams with hardly any domestic activity holding on to their full membership status.

You say that you can't build a RLWC around the needs of minor nations and that we've done so before, but I can't see any example of a RLWC which has been built for anyone other than Australia, England and New Zealand. All of the previous 10/14 team tournaments were specifically designed to get those three into the semi finals (e.g. 3 qualifying from a group of 4). To suggest that somehow the IRL board, which is disproportionately represented by officials from Eng, Aus, NZ, has been creating World Cups that benefit tiny nations over the established ones is just completely incorrect. Please point to one World Cup where it's been built disproportionately around the needs of the smallest nations.

The World Cup was organised in France. Everything you describe was predicated on that. It fell apart. It’s not reasonable to hold people, who are scrambling to rescue something usable from the mess that has left us with, accountable for the non-delivery of that plan. It’s the French organisers fault.  

[zylya]

4 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

The World Cup was organised in France. Everything you describe was predicated on that. It fell apart. It’s not reasonable to hold people, who are scrambling to rescue something usable from the mess that has left us with, accountable for the non-delivery of that plan. It’s the French organisers fault.  

Take it that's a no on pointing to any World Cup that was designed for the tiny countries as you've claimed a few times?

As I mentioned earlier in this topic, I don't even have a problem with the IRL deciding that the World Cup should be smaller and acting accordingly. But why, as the global governing body, have they not created anything to help these developing nations as well as their top nations? Looking at the "international calendar" it's mostly about what's happening with England and Australia, aside from a brief mention of a potential World Series competition.

I don't see how you can legitimately try and claim that the IRL has shown any real interest in anything OTHER than the very top nations. And I don't see how anyone can justify a global governing body being so lackadaisical with a large segment of their membership.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

6 hours ago, zylya said:

Take it that's a no on pointing to any World Cup that was designed for the tiny countries as you've claimed a few times?

As I mentioned earlier in this topic, I don't even have a problem with the IRL deciding that the World Cup should be smaller and acting accordingly. But why, as the global governing body, have they not created anything to help these developing nations as well as their top nations? Looking at the "international calendar" it's mostly about what's happening with England and Australia, aside from a brief mention of a potential World Series competition.

I don't see how you can legitimately try and claim that the IRL has shown any real interest in anything OTHER than the very top nations. And I don't see how anyone can justify a global governing body being so lackadaisical with a large segment of their membership.

Already answered re: my earlier hyperbole, I’m not going to start beating myself with a birch branch for you mate get a grip this is a discussion forum on the internet flippancy is a stock in trade

Look if you think a short-notice reorganised World Cup is about making sure we do the right thing by… er… [checks notes]… 23 blokes and 42 women in Brazil, then we’ll have to agree to disagree. 

[zylya]

4 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Already answered re: my earlier hyperbole, I’m not going to start beating myself with a birch branch for you mate get a grip this is a discussion forum on the internet flippancy is a stock in trade

Look if you think a short-notice reorganised World Cup is about making sure we do the right thing by… er… [checks notes]… 23 blokes and 42 women in Brazil, then we’ll have to agree to disagree. 

Got it, you don't have any examples at all. Even in the post pointing out your own hyperbole you still suggested that World Cups have been built around the very minor nations, but it's good to know that you can't actually point to a single time this was the case and are therefore talking out of your ###### about it.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 minutes ago, zylya said:

Got it, you don't have any examples at all. Even in the post pointing out your own hyperbole you still suggested that World Cups have been built around the very minor nations, but it's good to know that you can't actually point to a single time this was the case and are therefore talking out of your ###### about it.

Please stop trying to be clever, patronising and snarky. I can outlast anyone at that game but it's really, really boring. The last World Cup was one example. I've already said that in the thread feel free to re-read it. Repetition is dull and hitting a nut with a sledgehammer is unbecoming, but hey-ho you've forced me into it... 

2022 - far too many meaningless group matches as a result of accommodating too many sides

2017 - format that damaged the competition's credibility

2013 - same daft format

2008 - even worse single 'supergroup' format, which got rinsed in the wider sports media

2000 - 16 team tournament with some made-up teams, a financial disaster that damaged the game in Britain for a decade, and almost killed internationals full stop

1995 - sensible World Cup with parrallel 'emerging nations' tournament, widely seen as a success... a version of which I've already advocated for in this thread

So in a nutshell each of the last 5 World Cups, looking back over 20 years, have had elements tailored to enabling 'lesser' nations to participate and compete. I wouldn't necessarily object to all of that, its a laudable objective, and in an ideal world we would use World Cups as a platform to give those nations a development goal to work towards. But this particular moment, when we're rescuing a last-minute cancelled tournament, in a buyers market with only one host bidder, may not be the time. I don't think espousing that point of view is particularly radical or objectionable, and I think the history backs up my assertion that we've gone out of our way in many ways in the past. It certainly isn't so far off base to earn the level of contemptuous tone you're bringing to this chat. 

So anyway, if you've a pipe nearby, you may want to stick this in there and smoke it