3. The Tournament Playing Window
Putting The Unions First

The scheduling of any RWC event is a critical issue for the IRB. There is no perfect solution that eliminates all problems for both Hemispheres. We believe it is important that disruption to the global rugby calendar is minimised but also that both hemispheres either share the ‘pain’ in a fair manner over time or those countries that are financially affected by the choice of the Playing Window should receive compensation.

Because of the importance of the Playing Window, it is essential that all the issues are analysed and understood. We have carefully analysed the Northern and Southern Hemispheres’ seasons taking into account domestic competitions, regional club competitions, regional national competitions and incoming tours using published data and sources such as ‘The Accenture Report’.

Unlike soccer, which has a definite global season, the rugby calendar is polarised between the two hemispheres.
Accordingly, we have looked at the issue from the perspective of all the interested parties and taken into account the normal dates and duration of the following major competitions.

The revised Tender Document requires the Tournament to be played between June and November. There are, in practice, only three potential windows in this period:
June/July, September/October and October/November.

The month of August is not considered practicable because it is the peak holiday month in the Northern Hemisphere.

Our basic premise is that the RWC should be positioned so as to cause the least disruption to major competitions that are important shop windows and income streams for the Unions. We also need to take equity and fairness into account. To date, three of the five RWC tournaments have been played in the October/November window, requiring changes to the club and international programme in the Northern Hemisphere.

We have analysed the implications for all the competitions listed above in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in each of the three possible Playing Windows. It is important to look at the playing seasons of the Hemispheres both leading up to the RWC and following the RWC. We have set out the results of our analysis in the schedules in Appendix 1 - The Tournament/Possible Schedule for Competitions - 1f, 1g, 1h and 1i. It is important that these schedules are studied carefully.

As can be seen, they show that the major impact on international and domestic competitions played in each of the three available windows can be summarised as follows:

June/July

International

• No tours in June 2007 to Southern Hemisphere
• Tri-Nations played earlier in SANZAR season
• Six Nations is later in Northern Hemisphere season

• Reduced Northern Hemisphere competitions in 2006/2007
• Super 12 competition split pre and post World Cup
• Reduced window for Currie Cup and NPC

September/October

International

• No tours in June 2007 to Southern Hemisphere
• No tours in November 2007 to Northern Hemisphere
• No tours in June 2008 to Southern Hemisphere
  

• Late start to Northern Hemisphere season completing in late June 2008
• Currie Cup and NPC clash with RWC

October/November

International

• No tours in November 2007 to Northern Hemisphere
• No tours in June 2008 to Southern Hemisphere
  

Domestic

• Very late start to Northern Hemisphere season completing in July 2008
• Late start to Northern Hemisphere season in 2008/09
• Currie Cup and NPC clash with RWC

To understand the potential cost to the major Unions from playing the RWC in each of the three Playing Windows, we have set out in Appendix 1 - The Tournament/1j - Net Loss of Council Unions in each of the 3 Playing Windows, the effects on each Council Union in terms of lost tour matches and an approximate calculation of the net loss of profit (after adjusting for RWC warm-up matches) for each of the Council Unions from each of the Playing Windows.
In summary, the broad picture is as follows:

Net Loss £m

As can be seen, in terms of lost tour matches alone, the September/October and October/November windows are very costly.

These figures are necessarily very broad as we have not had access to any Union’s match accounts. However they do, we believe, show the order of magnitude of the net loss and the correct relativities between each of the
Playing Windows.

We believe that the analysis shows that the least costly Playing Window to the global game is June/July and the most costly is September/October.

Implicit in our analysis is an acceptance that there could also be a cost borne by Domestic and Regional competitions. This requires further study and analysis as it is far more complex than estimating the loss of tour match revenues.

However our analysis shows the following effects on the major Domestic and Regional competitions:

Effects on the Major Domestic/Regional Competitions

Conclusions

Given the fact that there is no ‘ideal’ window for either the Northern or Southern Hemisphere Unions, we believe the IRB has two choices: either rotate the RWC between the two Hemispheres every four years (with the Host Union choosing its most favourable window so that the ‘pain’ is shared in a fair manner over time between Hemispheres), or that a Compensation Scheme is put in place for those countries financially affected by the IRB’s choice of Playing Window.

We believe, on balance, that the most equitable approach would be to introduce a ‘Playing Windows Compensation Scheme’ enabling those Unions and competitions adversely affected by the choice of the Playing Window for RWC 2007, to be compensated accordingly. Our proposal as to how this scheme could be structured is covered in
Section 9 - Financial Analysis.

England is capable of hosting and is prepared to host RWC 2007 in any of the three identified windows and has confirmed the availability of the required stadia to meet this commitment. It is our belief that the decision in which window the Tournament should be played can only be taken by the IRB Council. It is only the IRB Council that can take into account the impact on international and domestic programmes in different countries.

As a practical suggestion, we believe that a good way to resolve this matter would be for the IRB to convene a Conference of affected Unions to see if agreement can be reached on a Playing Window taking into account the financial cost involved for Council Unions. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, the IRB Executive Committee would need to take the decision.