Steve Tew who is stepping down as the head of the New Zealand Rugby Union had a final pop at the "selfish" Six Nations last night. The aim of any sport is to grow it by welcoming new countries into competitions to try and improve standards.
There has been for some time a debate over how to improve other countries standards so that the sport can become more global. In cricket we have seen the emergence of Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Ireland and yes even Scotland. The only way they will improve is by growing the popularity and playing more recognized teams.
The stumbling block with the Six Nations is by increasing the numbers you would need relegation to happen at some point. I agree they need to keep it at 6 teams but then one team needs to drop down to another one to come up. Obviously they are all dead against it as what happens if Italy wins two games and sends an Ireland,Wales,England or Scotland out?
He revealed instead of having a two tier system for promotion and relegation they are on the verge of signing a deal selling 15 % of their stake in the Six Nations to an equity firm. The deal is worth 300 Million pounds for the teams in the Six Nations.The countries that need help and support wont see a penny of that money and it is a chance that has been lost. On top of that there was deal worth 6 Billion pounds over 12 years forming a league between the top sides in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres ,but was scrapped due to the Six Nations rejecting the relegation aspect.
source
Selected having never played in England before.
There is a big divide between North and South in rugby circles and it got a little bigger when he had a dig at England. It has always been a rule that if you weren't born in that country, but have a distant relative from that country you would have to spend three seasons to become eligible to play for them. He raised the issue of Brad Shields being selected even though he has never played a game in England. It seems rules are made to be broken and who it best suits at the time.
New Zealand can't really throw stones as the majority of their players were not originally from New Zealand and were from the Pacific Islands around them namely Tonga and Samoa. The difference is those players spent longer than 3 years playing in New Zealand becoming eligible for selection.
Personally I think if you have a distant relative and want to play for that country and a different country from your birth then you need to do the time as it is unfair on other players already in the system. If you don't have a distant relative and it is your adopted country then the same principles should also apply with no exceptions. England turned their back on a player who played club rugby in France and not in England and was rejected even though he was better than the other players. I find that more ludicrous and their policies out of touch with modern rugby.
