I agree that we need to have patience to grow the international game, to put into place a structure that gives non Big 3 nations a chance to develop so that they eventually compete with the Big 3. The Kiwis PNG game was fun to watch. The England vs Maori game was close and exciting. However, I don't think the current 3/4/# Nations model is the most effective way to develop and expand the international game. I think this current model (basically the 1999 3N model) represented a contraction from 2004-2006, a retrograde step. I voiced my concerns on PNG's involvement, most recently in March in
PNG Kumuls in 4N 2010 - competitive standard and legacy
RL is following a Cricket Australia model (the Tri Series) which CA abandoned. RU's model of three windows (regional series/tournament, inbound tests, outbound tests) could be modified to drive growth of international RL much more effectively than the cricket model.
Sports like RU expanded to Italy, though I'd suggest that the Five Nations committee, IRB and SANZAR plan their major tournaments more strategically and attain more growth because they schedule more close games and fewer games against minnows. The 5N chose to add Italy and not Romania, for example, because the former had more potential to grow both on the field and as a new broadcast market. Italy had a professional club competition (the Super 10) and a test team full of full-time professionals. SANZAR will expand the 3N to include Argentina in 2012 because the Pumas will potentially satisfy those two criteria (all the Pumas play in France's Top 14 and for British clubs). They passed over:
* Japan - potentially large broadcast market (though former Wallabies coach, Eddie Jones, who has a Japanese parent and wife, and is now coaching there, argued against the TV potential there) 14 Top League teams owned by large corporations, foreigners are FT pros, locals are semi-pro. However, grass roots and junior development is poor, JRFU administration is amateur, test team is at the bottom of Tier 2, doesn't challenge the elite Tier 1 nations.
* Pacific nations - Tier 2, none challenge the elite Tier 1 nations in non-World Cup games.
How is this relevant to RL? Well, RU retained the major competitions, and the inbound/outbound windows run roughly on a home and away basis. In particular, SANZAR's 3N is highly competitive, scheduled home and away, attracts large attendances, large audiences and basically generates the majority of value for the News Corp broadcast deal, thus attracting lion's share of revenue to fund the sport in those three Southern Hemisphere nations. SANZAR didn't contract their flagship competition. In contrast, RL has:
* programmed fewer competitive games, reducing the number of top quality matches from 2004-2006 3N (from 6 clashes involving the Big 3, down to 4)
* done the opposite to RU, the equivalent of promoting Romania or Japan RU, rather than building on a strong format. Here's a
table of total and average attendances for each RL 3/4 Nations.
Of the five Tri/Four Nations tournaments held since full time professionalism, the 2009 Four Nations yielded:
* the
second smallest aggregate attendance, second only to the 1999 tournament.
* the
smallest average attendance of any tournament.
* 4N 2009 featured a
decline of 62,000 spectators from Tri Nations 2006, on average
almost 10,000 fewer spectators per game than the 2006 tournament.
Even in cricket, the big four nations (India, Australia, England, South Africa) increasingly program more games that generate the most interest and revenue for them, and fewer games against Test minnows, let alone Associate nations. Hence why India still programs large ODI series, why the Ashes occurs every two years.