Jump to content

RLWC 2026 Confirmed


Recommended Posts


I’d comment on this news but after all the disappointments of the pathetic RLWC effort by the NRL/ARL in 2017, the RLWC cancellation of 2021, all the downgrading of internationals   over the years, the non-scheduling and/or non-promotion of games, half-arsed tournaments like the 2023 Pacific cup etc etc etc … I just find it hard to care any more.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be frank its the best of a bad situation.

Sounds like with most of the world cup teams needing there players from the NRL they have factored in costs as well as travel on NRL players.

Lets hope we don't have fake pools made up again - but with 10 teams its hard not to have uneven pools of teams. 2 pools X 5 in each ( 4 games each) - top 2 to semis but that would make logical & practical sense and rugby league has very rarely done that before.

I really hope France can qualify - i know the ball is in there court to do so - but with them being the previous host that obviously couldn't & them being the host of the first world cup we really need them in, for the tournaments credibility.

I only hope we can put the word "WORLD" back in Rugby League World Cup in future years & not being a Pacific Cup + England + a few qualified nations reliant on NRL players to compete. I hope I'm around one day to see Greece, Jamacia, the United States & even a few roughies like Serbia, South Africa or Canada qualify - then we can call it a genuine Rugby League World Cup.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need to stop this nonsense of the previous comp’s QFs automatically qualifying if it’s a 10 team competition, it’s embarrassing for the sport to run a World Cup that way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pulga said:

You'd hope whoever has overseen this at the IRL would fall on their sword.

Agreed, who would replace them though, I doubt there are many volunteers lining up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Damien said:

What a depressing read that is, it just reeks of taking the easy option and doing the bare minimum.

Again. Australia don’t want the WC and don’t really try to hide the fact. I think they host out of some kind of duty but as you say, just do the bare minimum required.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pulga said:

You'd hope whoever has overseen this at the IRL would fall on their sword.

Why would they? They have absolutely zero power so may as well go with what the Aussies tell them is happening. They couldn’t rock the boat if they wanted to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is with the lack of internationals. Correct me if I am wrong but last time England V Australia was in the final of 2017 world cup.

There is now almost a whole generation of players from both countries who have not played the other side.

At least with the 4 nations that happened at the end of each year whether in England or Aus/Nz

It is an absolute joke that this has been allowed to happen - regardless of Covid or Pacific Cups or players resting after NRL ends.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matterhorn said:

Let's be frank its the best of a bad situation.

Sounds like with most of the world cup teams needing there players from the NRL they have factored in costs as well as travel on NRL players.

Lets hope we don't have fake pools made up again - but with 10 teams its hard not to have uneven pools of teams. 2 pools X 5 in each ( 4 games each) - top 2 to semis but that would make logical & practical sense and rugby league has very rarely done that before.

I really hope France can qualify - i know the ball is in there court to do so - but with them being the previous host that obviously couldn't & them being the host of the first world cup we really need them in, for the tournaments credibility.

I only hope we can put the word "WORLD" back in Rugby League World Cup in future years & not being a Pacific Cup + England + a few qualified nations reliant on NRL players to compete. I hope I'm around one day to see Greece, Jamacia, the United States & even a few roughies like Serbia, South Africa or Canada qualify - then we can call it a genuine Rugby League World Cup.

It's really not the best of a bad situation though. It's the bare minimum and the easiest and cheapest option.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Why would they? They have absolutely zero power so may as well go with what the Aussies tell them is happening. They couldn’t rock the boat if they wanted to.

Most RL fans know and understand this, it is blatantly obvious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jparrish said:

Optimistic but I'm hoping NZ not been involved paves the way for them to host the Men's in 2030. Otherwise what a shame they arnt capitalising on the momentum there at the moment.

 PNG as shared host as a lead in to them having a team enter the NRL in 2028? Could we seem the same thing with NZ hosting in 2030 and NZ2 entering in 2032. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 PNG as shared host as a lead in to them having a team enter the NRL in 2028? Could we seem the same thing with NZ hosting in 2030 and NZ2 entering in 2032. 

I think PNG are hosts because it's good for them and the World Cup, as was the case in 2017. The games in PNG were unmissable with their atmosphere. 

I'm sure it would be happening anyway without any NRL bid.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on last year's Pacific Championships, I'm fully expecting the tournaments to be played to NRL rules, which means 70 minutes women's matches. What can the NRL implement before 2026 to make themselves favourite for the WC tournament too?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

Based on last year's Pacific Championships, I'm fully expecting the tournaments to be played to NRL rules.

England should stand their ground and insist on applying the international laws but we all know they won’t.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Damien said:

I think 2008 was good and revitalised the concept again after the 2000 disaster and it felt like a step in the right direction. I could certainly accept the view though that it was just what we should consider as par for the biggest RL nation. 2013 was an improvement again.

2017 though was very average with little effort and I was really expecting it to be better again to continue that upward trajectory. It was though just a real token effort that was only saved by the crowds and atmosphere in PNG and at Tonga games in NZ. I fear 2026 will be the same.

2008 was a funny one. It was just about a pass, but in reality that was because we were all so relieved that World Cups were back on the agenda and because of a historic final in Brisbane. 

But there was a lot to dislike:

- group of death - terrible, terrible format, even as an England fan, it was a rubbish format, with a rubbish setup that saw us play the Kiwis in Newcastle, knowing that we would play them again the week later in the semi finals. 

- Lacklustre events - the opening ceremony was an advert for a movie on the big screen, with no fanfare at any other event. As a travelling fan, I was really disappointed that this was what the biggest RL nation in the world was putting on.

- Average crowds - The Aussies are pretty lucky that they benefit from good followings from England and New Zealand. There were thousands of England fans, it was brilliant, and always loads of Kiwis - and it was a key reason that there were 26k at our Semi Final versus 15k for the Aussie's semi. Too many games though were below the 10k mark (8 of the 18). 

- Coverage in Oz - was poor - the games were shown on a delay rather than live and being in the country you did see first hand how the international game was treated poorly.

But, as you say, it was a kickstart, and ultimately led to 2013 which was great, and even 2017 and 2022 had plenty of positives versus this tournament. I really hope 2026 isn't a return to 2008 and they've convonced themselves it was a roaring success,

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This is designed to make it a cheap as possible to host the WC. 

I do have some sympathy with this approach, as much as it frustrates the life out of me. We can't ignore the fact that we have already had two cancelled hosts. 

I don't agree with how far the Aussies have gone though. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do have some sympathy with this approach, as much as it frustrates the life out of me. We can't ignore the fact that we have already had two cancelled hosts. 

I don't agree with how far the Aussies have gone though. 

There has been plenty of time since France cancelled and we have had World Cups held with less lead in time than that. We all knew this would be in Australia, or primarily in Australia. The infrastructure is there, the grounds are there. The players are largely there and we will probably have 8 out of 10 teams that are largely there. Its also the major sport in half of Australia. 

I just don't buy that this approach was needed, that it needed to be put back until 2026, or that time was an issue. As is we've already wasted well over a year since the France cancellation. Its all just the NRL doing as they please and paying lip service to the international game.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

There has been plenty of time since France cancelled and we have had World Cups held with less lead in time than that. We all knew this would be in Australia, or primarily in Australia. The infrastructure is there, the grounds are there. The players are largely there and we will probably have 8 out of 10 teams that are largely there. Its also the major sport in half of Australia. 

I just don't buy that this approach was needed, that it needed to be put back until 2026, or that time was an issue. As is we've already wasted well over a year since the France cancellation. Its all just the NRL doing as they please and paying lip service to the international game.

I do get that and largely agree, but I also have some frustrations with the overall strategy on World Cups, that we have to an extent tried to run before we could walk. 

That said, I don't think there was any justification for stripping back to 10 clubs, which is an awful number. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do get that and largely agree, but I also have some frustrations with the overall strategy on World Cups, that we have to an extent tried to run before we could walk. 

That said, I don't think there was any justification for stripping back to 10 clubs, which is an awful number. 

10 is just an awful number, I think everyone agrees on that. On the wider  approach then if this change was part of a strategy I'd buy it more but its plainly not. It is contradictory to every statement that has been since 2008 when it comes to the World Cup and building to 16 teams. The push has been to be bigger and better and to get to that number. The Aussies were happy with this approach as recently as when they were pushing France to be hosts. They soon changed their tune when they saw the chance to put everyone in their place and takeoever.  Then of course the toothless IRL and the NRL stooge in Troy Grant did a complete about-face overnight.

Sure I'm on board with countries like Scotland and Ireland no longer being eligible if we are going for a more stringent approach to drive domestic development. I've become more and more frustrated at what I've seen with this so am sympathetic to the run before we can walk view but I don't think going backwards is the answer either. However if we are doing this then let's kick out Lebanon too, not just have them because they have loads of Aussies so are nice and cheap. And this is the trouble there is zero strategy and its all literally just being done in the whim of the Aussies and what's easy and cheap.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

10 is just an awful number, I think everyone agrees on that. On the wider  approach then if this change was part of a strategy I'd buy it more but its plainly not. It is contradictory to every statement that has been since 2008 when it comes to the World Cup and building to 16 teams. The push has been to be bigger and better and to get to that number. The Aussies were happy with this approach as recently as when they were pushing France to be hosts. They soon changed their tune when they saw the chance to put everyone in their place and takeoever.  Then of course the toothless IRL and the NRL stooge in Troy Grant did a complete about-face overnight.

Sure I'm on board with countries like Scotland and Ireland no longer being eligible if we are going for a more stringent approach to drive domestic development. I've become more and more frustrated at what I've seen with this so am sympathetic to the run before we can walk view but I don't think going backwards is the answer either. However if we are doing this then let's kick out Lebanon too, not just have them because they have loads of Aussies so are nice and cheap. And this is the trouble there is zero strategy and its all literally just being done in the whim of the Aussies and what's easy and cheap.

I think this is one of those instances where the RFL deserve praise for the ambition, as they have always pushed the growth of this tournament (1995, then 2000, then 2013 and 2022 all saw increases in team numbers) - it should be noted that the Aussies have never pushed for growing the tournament - the best they did was maintain 14 in 2017.

That they have returned to the 2008 number is telling, I think they'll be delighted if they deliver that tournament again, when in reality we've moved on from then. 

Where the RFL deserve criticism is that whilst growing the number of teams is admirable, when you are doing it based on either shaky or non-existent foundations, it leaves us open to this kind of move. 

If we absolutely had to move the numbers down, surely 12 would have been far better and led to a more balanced comp?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.