Rugby League Nations League - an idea for the silly season

[gingerjon]

In soccer, for the first time in history, commentators have been able to say, "England are promoted" as they rise from the second level of the UEFA Nations League back to the first. Having been somewhat sceptical of the Nations League concept, I think it really has worked and seems to give a decent framework for teams of similar standards to play each other in meaningful games.

So, based entirely on the current men's international rankings, here's a musing for what a Rugby League Nations League could look like. Think of it as what was proposed about ten years ago but never happened ... I actually don't think it's too shocking an idea.

Rugby League Nations League

A
1: Australia, England, Tonga, PNG
2: New Zealand, Samoa, Fiji, France

B
1: Lebanon, Serbia, Italy, Malta
2: Cook Islands, Netherlands, Greece, Ireland

C
1: Wales, Scotland, Czech Republic, Chile
2: Jamaica, Ukraine, Germany, Poland

D
1: Norway, Philippines, Nigeria, USA
2: Kenya, South Africa, Ghana, Montenegro

Format
Each tier hosted in one country. (So, for example, A and B could be in Australia at the same time, C and D in the UK).
Every one plays each opponent once, after which:
Tier A: Group winners play off to determine Nations League Champion; bottom sides play off, loser relegated.
Tiers B-D: Group winners play off to determine Tier Winners and promotion; bottom sides play off, loser relegated.

You could also, like UEFA do with the women's version, run some tiers as the qualifier for the World Cup (Euros for them) to give extra motivation.

[JM2010]

I like the idea of a Nations League Format but would only have two World groups with more regionalised groups below

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, JM2010 said:

I like the idea of a Nations League Format but would only have two World groups with more regionalised groups below

My rationale is that, for better or worse, a chunk of the players will come from Australia or England so you may as well not group. It's not real though so happy to consider it.

[langpark]

If Cook Islands swap places with France, then it suddenly becomes 100 x more economically viable.

A top Euro group of:  France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland would be the best scenario.

Edited November 18, 2024 by langpark

[Wellsy4HullFC]

15 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

My rationale is that, for better or worse, a chunk of the players will come from Australia or England so you may as well not group. It's not real though so happy to consider it.

I agree with that rationale.

Like the idea. Consistent and gives qualification purpose to a WC.

The WC would need to be 16 teams though otherwise it would just be more of the same. 

Wouldn't get the backing though which is sad. Think it would be ideal.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, langpark said:

If Cook Islands swap places with France, then it suddenly becomes 100 x more economically viable.

A top Euro group of:  France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland would be the best scenario.

But then straightforward P&R between the tiers doesn't work. Suppose the winner of Tier B is NH but the relegated side from A is Australia.

[Damien]

This is kind of like the Confederations Cup that the game agreed to then the NRL changed their minds. Again.

[langpark]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

But then straightforward P&R between the tiers doesn't work. Suppose the winner of Tier B is NH but the relegated side from A is Australia.

Yes I would start it off in 'franchise' mode, especially for the groups that feature mostly part-timers / amateurs.

[Damien]

I like it by the way and it makes complete sense. It is a calendar for everyone with something to play for and clear progression.

[Just Browny]

I like it as a fun idea. I think a more realistic adaptation (given this is basically what the NRL think they've achieved with the PC) is to do it for RLEF countries.

[The Future is League]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

In soccer, for the first time in history, commentators have been able to say, "England are promoted" as they rise from the second level of the UEFA Nations League back to the first. Having been somewhat sceptical of the Nations League concept, I think it really has worked and seems to give a decent framework for teams of similar standards to play each other in meaningful games.

So, based entirely on the current men's international rankings, here's a musing for what a Rugby League Nations League could look like. Think of it as what was proposed about ten years ago but never happened ... I actually don't think it's too shocking an idea.

Rugby League Nations League

A
1: Australia, England, Tonga, PNG
2: New Zealand, Samoa, Fiji, France

B
1: Lebanon, Serbia, Italy, Malta
2: Cook Islands, Netherlands, Greece, Ireland

C
1: Wales, Scotland, Czech Republic, Chile
2: Jamaica, Ukraine, Germany, Poland

D
1: Norway, Philippines, Nigeria, USA
2: Kenya, South Africa, Ghana, Montenegro

Format
Each tier hosted in one country. (So, for example, A and B could be in Australia at the same time, C and D in the UK).
Every one plays each opponent once, after which:
Tier A: Group winners play off to determine Nations League Champion; bottom sides play off, loser relegated.
Tiers B-D: Group winners play off to determine Tier Winners and promotion; bottom sides play off, loser relegated.

You could also, like UEFA do with the women's version, run some tiers as the qualifier for the World Cup (Euros for them) to give extra motivation.

The NRL clubs would never agree to that with all them players at risk of injury they would say.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

The NRL clubs would never agree to that with all them players at risk of injury they would say.

It's a 3-4 match season so pretty much identical to what they are offering now.

[Mumby Magic]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

But then straightforward P&R between the tiers doesn't work. Suppose the winner of Tier B is NH but the relegated side from A is Australia.

So be it.

[JM2010]

22 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

The NRL clubs would never agree to that with all them players at risk of injury they would say.

They’d agree if it could become a money earner

[The Future is League]

9 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

They’d agree if it could become a money earner

How would there be money in this for the clubs? It would be an international tournament.

Some clubs would withdraw their players from internationals with a broken finger nail if they could

[sam4731]

I'd have the following: 

4 Nations: Australia, NZ, England, World League Winner (Takes place in Year 3 on a 4 Year Cycle, team that finishes bottom relegated to regional leagues)

World League: Pacific 1, Pacific 2, Europe 1, Americas 1 (Takes place in Year 2 on a 4 Year Cycle, Winner Qualifies for 4N, rest back to regional leagues.

Regional Leagues: Tier 1,2,3 etc as appropriate for Europe, Pacific, Americas with P&R between tiers. (Winner and RU of Pacific Tier 1, Winner of Europe Tier 1 and Winner of Americas Tier 1 Qualify for World League, Takes place in Year 1 of a 4 Year Cycle)

All 4N and World League Teams get automatic WC spots (7), the rest play in qualification to make up however many spots left in Years 2 and/or 3.

In years when teams aren't involved in organised tournament play, tours are arranged to plug gaps e.g. Ashes etc.

[JM2010]

2 hours ago, The Future is League said:

How would there be money in this for the clubs? It would be an international tournament.

Some clubs would withdraw their players from internationals with a broken finger nail if they could

I’m sure if sponsors and tv deals were secured then that would make its way to the NRL and SL

[The Future is League]

11 hours ago, JM2010 said:

I’m sure if sponsors and tv deals were secured then that would make its way to the NRL and SL

I don't recall that ever happening before, but perhaps you or other posters do.

[Tommygilf]

I'd go with something like this idea too. It gives certainty and with the limited number of games currently allowed by NRL HQ it's probably as good as we can get right now.

I can only say I looked on with envy as t'other code was able to host 17 mens international matches over ths last weekend. It's not just the very top level too: Scotland hosted Portugal, USA vs Tonga, Romania vs Canada, Spain vs Fiji, Japan vs Uruguay, the list goes on. Whilst they aren't all massive successes and all over the front pages, they are being played, consistently - Portugal playing Scotland I mean come on?!

I think the sort of framework in the OP would give our nations that platform to build on, and additionally allow some sort of coherent broadcast structure to be considered too. It also gives experience at hosting international events to smaller RL's, expanding that knowledge across the board. 

TLDR I'm a big fan.

[fighting irish]

I like this kind of idea.

I have proposed a kind of ''squash ladder'' structure here, between the N.H. with similar goals in mind.

Of course it makes sense to organise fixtures amongst the lower reaches of the ladder with nations geographically close by.

I've no doubt that these matches provide a stimulus to develop participation and over time, cultural links and historical rivalries amongst the competing nations. All good stuff.

My preference for the one versus the team above, one versus the team below, two game season is a recognition of the fledgling status of some of the newer nations in the competition and a desire not to overburden them.

I say, let them grow before imposing too much travel, expense and complexity.

One of the (hardly mentioned) benefits of creating this kind of global competition is that there aren't enough NRL players to go around, which would ensure the selection of more and more home grown players instead of the current anti-development preference for ''heritage'' players. 

[JM2010]

9 hours ago, The Future is League said:

I don't recall that ever happening before, but perhaps you or other posters do.

I’m sure if they’re organised by the NRL ie the Pacific Cup then they can add it to the tv deal