The Rugby World Cup in New Zealand produced some scintillating rugby, some fascinating upsets and memories that will forever be entrenched in any rugby lover’s mind. The only criticism throughout the tournament was not aimed at the hosts, or the fans, or any team participating in the tournament. All the anger and frustration was vented at the IRB. 

It seems strange that the governing body of a global sports code is constantly in the firing line of journalists and, as became evident through numerous incidents during the duration of the tournament, the players who participated in the RWC.

But I can’t blame them, and here’s why:

For the first time the RWC draw was not based on the results of the previous tournament, but rather on the IRB world rankings at the time when the draw needed to be made, which in this case was 2008. This seems like a positive step, as the draw should then be a better reflection of the state of world rugby at that stage right? Wrong.

What this does is leave the draw open to manipulation by the powers that be. In 2008 when the draw was made the top four teams in the world were:

1)      New Zealand

2)      South Africa

3)      Australia

4)      Argentina

That seems all good and well, but what the IRB did next underlines their corrupt, revenue driven nature.

In just about any sports tournament in the world, the draw is arranged so that the semi-finals should see the 1st seed play the 4th seed, while the 2nd seed plays the 3rd seed. If the results then play to the seedings, 1 beats 4 and 2 beats 3, setting up the final everyone wants to see – 1 v 2.

Think of the SupeRugby semi-final draw, same thing. How many times have we not seen Rafa and Roger slug it out in Grand Slam finals? The logic is there for everyone to see, except if you are the IRB.

The IRB manipulated the draw for the 2011 RWC to produce the following semi-finals based on the 2008 rankings:

                1 (New Zealand) versus 2 (South Africa)

                3 (Australia) versus 4 (Argentina)

This draw massively advantages the 4th seed, as rather than facing the world’s best team in the semi-finals, they face what was always going to be the 3rd best team in the Southern Hemisphere, Australia. No doubt that Australia have become a much tougher prospect in 2011 than they were back in 2008, but the point still remains.

Why would the IRB do this you might ask, what could they possibly have to gain?

It’s simple. The IRB knew, as we all did, that Argentina would not retain their form, and that a Northern Hemisphere team would probably take their place in the number 4 spot, perhaps England or France. This would mean that a Northern Hemisphere side were guaranteed a spot in the semi-final where they would play the weakest team in the semi-final draw other than themselves. Additionally, if Ireland could produce the upset that they eventually did, the IRB knew they would have a straight forward North v South draw – something that appealed to them immensely. 

The end result is that the IRB could market its biggest money spinner of them all, the RWC Final, as a North v South affair. Few in the North would give the final a look in if it were simply an All Black v Springbok final, but throw in a Northern Hemisphere side and they would all tune in. Such is the nature of the rugby supporter. And the IRB knew this.

While the IRB knew the chances of a NH side winning the RWC were miniscule, it doesn’t matter, its not about who wins, but who plays in the final, as that is what draws the TV audiences. 

So as The General of SuperBru so brilliant summed up the situation:

“a cynic might say that this draw, which is really quite stunningly weird if you think about it in detail, was engineered to try to give the northern hemisphere the best chance of fielding a team in the final as it could. And, thanks to the skill (they really raised their game) and luck (not having to face Pocock, Ioane and Moore must have helped) of the Irish, it worked out better than anyone could have imagined.

Just think about it: 1st v 2nd, 3rd v 4th. It’s just not right. It’s imbalanced, and should produce a poor, mismatched final.

However, maybe the All England Lawn Tennis Association could take a leaf out of the IRB’s book here: adopting this system would be the surest way of ensuring that 4th seed Andy Murray could get to his first Wimbledon final, playing the now-beatable 3rd seed Roger while the real candidates, Raf and Novak, smash each other out in the other semi.”

There were many other issues that came to the fore during the RWC, most notably the shameful exploitation of the minnows compared to the traditional world powerhouses. One can hardly argue that the RWC was ‘fair’ when Namibia have to cram their four games into 16 days while hosts New Zealand have 23 days to complete their pool matches.

The draw for the RWC provides for 12 automatic qualifiers (top 3 from each group of the previous RWC) and 8 teams that have to qualify through regional qualifying tournaments. While Fiji were ranked at 15 and Samoa at 10 before the start of RWC 2011, it was Samoa who had to qualify. To illustrate my point, I will use a list of the automatic qualifiers versus that of those who had to qualify below:

                                                                     Automatic Qualifiers: 

The numbers speak for themselves; the qualified teams enjoy a far more favorable match schedule compared to the nations who had to qualify. The 12 automatic qualifiers had an average rest period of 7.04 days between pool games, while this number dwindles to 5.65 when it comes too the 8 teams who had to endure qualifying campaigns to reach the RWC. Add to this the fact that no major nation (with the exception of South Africa v Namibia) was required to play mid-week matches, and the question becomes clear: why?

Once again the answer lies in the root of all evil – money. The IRB knew that making a major nation play while their countrymen were at work would lead to lower viewership figures, less advertising appeal and therefore less money. So they made the smaller nations, with less support and less television exposure, take the midweek fixtures and kept the big guns out of action till the money-spinner weekends came along in time for them to cash in.

No wonder the Samoan players felt obliged to vent their frustrations. Don’t get me wrong, comparing the schedule to slave labour and apartheid is taking it a tad far, but one can see why there was animosity towards the IRB by the minnows. 

Add to this the New Zealand Rugby Union’s threat that they would not be competing at the next RWC in 2015 if the IRB don’t change the commercial policies regarding the tournament and we start to get a clear idea that the IRB are a profit at all costs organisation. This was underlined by their stern response in stating that no team, not even the mighty All Blacks, was irreplaceable. 

The NZRU stated that it loses close to NZ$15mil to participate in the tournament due to the IRB rules relating to commercial sponsorship of teams at the RWC – of which there may be none as it would clash with the IRB's tournament sponsors – once again the IRB puts themselves ahead of the teams competing and proves that they are more concerned with their revenues than staging a fair and just tournament.

In recent times the IRB have made rule changes which were aimed at suiting the NH sides (especially after the 2007 RWC), and have implemented the “referee’s interpretation” as a way to bridge the gap between differences in the manner of NH and SH refereeing. Our dear friend Bryce Lawrence proved to us just what a farce that rule has turned into, as players are more concerned with adapting to the referees’ interpretation than playing their natural game. 

Surely this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, as Craig Joubert eloquently puts it: “a referee’s job is to facilitate the game, and hopefully should stay out of the spotlight.” Laws should be black and white, cast in stone, not to be interfered with by any referee, and the IRB needs to remedy the situation as soon as possible after a number of refereeing howlers at the RWC.

The IRB have proven time and again that they will put revenue ahead of anything else, going so far as to fine Samoan winger Alesana Tuilagi $10,000 for wearing a “branded” mouthguard against Fiji.

For the state of the game, and in the interests of all who love it, the IRB need to change tact soon, or our beloved game might be ruined beyond repair once they are done meddling with it.