Rugby soon to end it's Olympic exile
10 months ago
The start of the Olympic Games is a few days away, along with a promised beginning to the British summer. Such has been the incessant wind and rain that the elements have muted calls for rugby in Europe to be played in parallel with the southern hemisphere calendar.
The difference between winter and summer rugby, in Britain rather than France or Italy, is that the rain becomes warmer after April. Competitors in the Olympics have been promised some sun next week, even if experience would suggest that to be a triumph of hope over expectation.
Rugby union will not feature in the Olympic Games, but the sport will end its long exile in 2016 after a long battle by the International Rugby Board to gain admission, first by the late Vernon Pugh and then by one of his successors as chairman, Bernard Lapasset.
Pugh was the IRB chairman when rugby union went open in August 1995, on the eve of a new season in Europe. He knew it was a rush with the game in the northern hemisphere lacking the sort of deal agreed by the major southern hemisphere unions with Rupert Murdoch and so lacking the means to pay players any more than the average wage, but the advent of professionalism had pre-dated the official announcement.
Pugh, a Welsh barrister with a sharp intellect, immediately started campaigning for rugby union to become an Olympic sport. His reasoning was that unless the sport achieved that status, World Cups would serve up not just gross mismatches but would become dangerous for amateur countries to compete in.
Knowing it would be a long campaign, Pugh proposed imposing a gate-taking levy on the major unions. The IRB would receive five per cent of their ticket sales to distribute among developing unions, helping them develop facilities as well as players, coaches and referees.
The Board effectively receives its income every four years when a World Cup is staged, one of the reasons why commercial restrictions on competing unions during a tournament are so tight, and it can never been enough. Pugh’s levy proposal was rejected and he died before securing Olympic status.
Lapasset succeeded and rugby union’s entry into the Olympics means unions like Russia, the United States, China and Brazil, the hosts of the 2016 Games, have access to government money. The Russians found themselves training in what their coach Kingsley Jones described as world-class facilities in the build-up to last year’s World Cup, a consequence of admission into the Olympics.
Developing unions will receive money and assistance the IRB would never have been able to afford or provide. As the dispute last year over the distribution of income generated by a World Cup showed, the financial advantage enjoyed by the leading unions in the north over their Sanzar rivals had been threatening the viability of the game in the south: a recent report into rugby union’s finances showed how serious the position was for New Zealand and Australia in particular.
That argument illustrated how the funding of emerging nations was not a question that taxed the elite, one reason why rugby union cannot rightly call itself a global game. The IRB has more than 100 members, but it has for most of its history effectively been run by the four home unions.
Lapasset’s re-election as chairman started to change that dynamic, one reason why the appointment of a chief executive of the IRB has proved so contentious: the old gang favoured an Irish candidate but the influence of the home unions is waning: they no longer have a chairman of a major committee.
Lapasset, whose victory over Bill Beaumont for the chairmanship was as narrow as his constituent base was wide, has ensured that the smaller unions have a say in how the game is run. That, together with Olympic status, may tell in the coming years, not by the time of the next World Cup or 2019 but a few generations down the line.
It needs to. Only four countries have won the World Cup out of five who have contested the seven finals. The four semi-finalists in New Zealand last year were the same four who had made the last four in the inaugural tournament in 1987.
Samoa were among the nations last year who felt they were nothing more than wallpaper in the World Cup, there to add colour and know their place. They were not totally delusional, even if there was a failure to distinguish between those on the IRB who made policies and those who implemented them, and the way referees are appointed for Test matches has since been shaken up.
Meaningful change will take time. It may be that countries where rugby union is gaining a toehold, such as Brazil, only take to Sevens, a short form of the game that has not taken off like limited overs in cricket, but greater democracy will be needed as well as more funding before the landscape is altered.
Posted under News & Opinions
10 months ago
It is unfortunate how rugby writers still ignore those who were indispensable in rugby becoming an Olympic sport: women. Those daughters, sisters, girlfriends that for years have been shunned in a dark corner of the training pitch. The IRB finally recognized that participation in the olympics requires recognizing the core olympic principles: equality and respect. Therugbysite and its writers are far from it.
10 months ago
Spot on Rugbyfish! Paul, great article but one huge, glaring omission as Rugbyfish points out – the single, biggest, most momentous change that will be wrought from rugby becoming an Olympic sport again will be huge impetus this will give women’s rugby. There will be money, development, and above all attention paid – at last – to this vital equality element. We for one up here in Scotland are massively looking forward to this and see it as a brilliant opportunity to drive recruitment through sisters, mum’s and school friends alike, and we’d all hope you will be making more of this point, by acknowledging it and writing about it on this site!
10 months ago
And while we’re at it – do you have ANY women contributors to this site at all??!! Whether writing about women’s or men’s rugby? Time to look at that one, methinks…
10 months ago
Rugby was a Olympic sport where the USA won the 1922 Gold medal. Rugby 15s appeared for the first time at the Paris 1900 Games and was on the programme of the 1908, 1920 and 1924. 1924: The Olympic rugby tournament in Paris was held in May. In June, in the framework of the IOC Session, a list of sports for the Olympic programme was established, including two categories: obligatory and optional sports. “Rugby-football” was on the second list, which meant that it was up to the Organising Committee whether to include this sport. A rule forgotten? Ignored? Why is there basketball which has less leagues known and that are competitive than rugby yet it is included into the Olympics? Even beach volleyball is in the Olympics. Why was rugby really ignored. Men do not play netball. At school the men played rugby the woman netball, Netball was rugby womans part. Yet netball is at the Olympics with no men counter part event. Why?
What have that cost rugby? Charlie Doe points out, the Olympics were “not such a big deal” before the advent of television coverage, which today can propel an obscure sport like Olympic hockey into the public consciousness.
He said the following and I quote
“Our victory in ’24 made the hockey win against the Soviets look like an everyday occurrence,” says Doe. “If we had that kind of coverage rugby might be the great American pastime today.”
Why bring in the sevens game? Why not the sevens and 15 man versions of the game? Who is holding who hostage here? Again look at basketball. The USA NBA players against those amateurs. 1 Team dominate its fine why because its American? Rugby have more competitive nations.











4
Comments