Fifa want to sell the family silver but should World Rugby do the same?
Selling stakes in commercial entities is like selling the family silver. So should World Rugby copy Fifa?
Selling stakes in commercial entities – much like Fifa announced it wanted to do with the World Cup – is like selling the family silver. Global tournaments are pillars of sports with revenues and reach that soar during their staging.
The Fifa World Cup across the United States, Canada and Mexico was largely a big success, with millions turning up – often paying thousands – to watch 48 teams in action.
The involvement of those additional teams pleased many, and it is those who will be most happy with Fifa’s proposition – which would have seen the current sum of $8m dished out to member associations per four-year cycle increased to $20m. Those who vote in favour stand to get an extra $20m sweetener too.
World Rugby private equity dilemma
What has this got to do with rugby? Well ovalball has a history in selling off stakes in its competitions to private equity, most notably CVC Capital Partners.
CVC has holdings in the Six Nations, Prem Rugby and the multi-national United Rugby Championship – with its involvement in England’s top flight coming prior to the league losing three of its clubs to financial difficulties.
It’s fair to say that it hasn’t gone entirely to plan. And that should be a warning to Fifa and football, a sport swimming in cash and yet grasping for even more.
But asked whether World Rugby should consider its own sell-off, that is a harder question to answer.
Rugby needs the cash, and a huge number of nations are skint. A sell-off in rugby would need to ensure that money reaches Suva and not Scotland, and that when it does it finds its way – ethically – into the right places.
But beyond that, rugby would need to ensure it sounds out potential investors in a way that football wouldn’t. The round-ball game is likely to receive interest from across the investment spectrum – every part of it – and football is big enough to embrace them all. That’s not the case for rugby.
Chinese investment would sway rugby towards helping the Asian nation exert control in the Pacific, while US investment would see the sport swing to the west. British and European investment, too, could have its own impact. The money in rugby is relatively small and therefore a sale would probably mean relinquishing some influence – much like CVC Capital Partners’ sway over rugby across this continent.
Future of the game
But the major similarity between the two sports in this case is that Europe seems to be able to hold the power. Football is nothing without its world champions, Spain, and other big hitters, not because the rest of the world is lesser but because you need both to thrive as a global sport.
Rugby is dominated by European finances, with the Investec Champions Cup at the top of the club game and the Six Nations fuelling the annual international calendar. Only this year have southern hemisphere sides South Africa and New Zealand looked to create their own version of the Lions Tour. Without Europe, global rugby crumbles.
Uefa is mad at Fifa, like a child fuming at its parents. But some would argue that the possible growth for non-European nations outweighs the strop that’ll inevitably be had on these shores.
This kind of investment should be on the table for World Rugby – they’d be silly to ignore it – but unlike their sporting siblings they must be a lot more vigilant as to who they’re letting into the sport. Because a smaller sport risks flogging off influence well beyond its value or stake to corporate strangers in the name of a short-term financial boost.
Rugby should watch intently to see how Fifa’s plan and its fallout plays out – it could shape how they and other sports do business for decades.
Ollie Phillips is the founder of Optimist Performance and part of a LooseHeadz world record attempt for the longest rugby sevens match. Follow Ollie @OlliePhillips11 and donate online