The death of Vernon Pugh could not have come at a worse time for the sport of rugby union. Pugh, who died of cancer last week at the age of 57, held two key positions in the game: chairman of the International Rugby Board (IRB) and chairman of Rugby World Cup Limited (RWC).
His successor on both boards has yet to be announced, leaving a vacuum in the game’s administration six months before the World Cup in Australia.
Since Pugh fell ill Syd Millar, the former Ireland prop who also helped coach the British Lions team that came to South Africa in 1974, has filled his job.
But Millar is not regarded as the long-term successor and the stage seems set for a battle of political wills. Bernard Lapasset of France and John O’Neill of Australia are the two names that have been linked with Pugh’s job to date, while an Australian newspaper this week threw Scotland’s Alan Hosie into the mix.
All three are likely to be present at a two-day World Cup managers meeting that began in Sydney on Thursday, but Millar will be absent as he is remaining in England to attend Pugh’s funeral.
This means that the meeting will be chaired by another stand-in, Malcolm Phillips, who is one of England’s representatives on the IRB. Phillips is also junior vice-president of the (English) Rugby Football Union (RFU) and as such finds himself in an invidious position.
The RFU is one of six unions that last week refused to sign the participation agreement for the World Cup. Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Italy and Argentina share England’s mistrust on several key issues. On Thursday New Zealand signed the agreement, but their union’s chief executive Chris Moller also admitted that he still had misgivings about it.
Moller said there remained concerns about some aspects of the agreement including the conditions that will be imposed upon the players’ intellectual property and some commercial areas.
But Moller refused to be drawn into the debate over prize money, saying: ‘We have not considered that. We already offer our players a series of bonuses for winning at the World Cup and several other countries are doing the same. Prize money is not provided for and I would not favour a situation where there was prize money and bonuses from national unions.â€
The International Rugby Players’ Association sparked the prize money debate, but the unions who have refused to sign are more concerned about other aspects. First and foremost among these concerns is the attempt to sideline the sponsors of national sides.
Long-term sponsors such as O2, which has in one guise or another been associated with England for seven years, have been told that they will not be allowed to advertise on any of the national team’s apparel during the course of the tournament. O2 is angry about the rule change since the 1999 World Cup and argues that it cheapens the value of its sponsorship.
Castle Lager, which is in the fourth year of a five-year deal with the Springboks, is in the same position. Rian Oberholzer, managing director of SA Rugby Pty Ltd, has said: ‘The World Cup is excluded from our sponsorship deal. It’s not ours to sell.â€
But SABMiller, which owns Castle Lager, is known to be scrutinising the fine print of the contract to check the validity of Oberholzer’s statement.
Sponsorship is not the only issue that is irking England, however. Their coach, Clive Woodward is concerned about too much media access at training sessions and the RFU has recently been told that the team’s accommodation in Australia is to be downgraded. The stated reason for this is that the smaller unions such as Tonga and Fiji cannot afford to stay in five-star hotels and that the larger unions, such as England and South Africa need to show solidarity.
The South African Rugby Football Union used a similar argument when England came to Cape Town for a Test match in 1998. Unhappy with the quality of the team hotel, Woodward moved them en masse to the Mount Nelson and paid for the upgrade with his own credit card.
Woodward will not be allowed to get away with such tactics at the World Cup, but he may not need to. The tournament is expected to make about $100-million profit. On that basis a little forward spending could surely be used to ensure that the participating teams stay in the best available accommodation.
Whether the participating teams will include Italy or Tonga remains to be seen. The Italian Federation wrote a letter of protest to RWC concerning the match schedule last May, complaining about the draw. Italy and Tonga have been given just 14 days to play their four pool games in a group that also includes New Zealand, Canada and Wales. By contrast the All Blacks have a leisurely 22 days, Wales 21 and Canada 17.
Italy’s coach, the former All Black wing John Kirwan, was scathing: ‘What really gets me is that we have had to bend over backwards for the IRB. The players aren’t allowed to wear sponsored kit because of the IRB’s commercial deals, and we’ve had to pay for this and that as well. It’s just totally the opposite of what a Rugby World Cup should be.â€
Canada also sent a letter of appeal about their own draw, which was rejected, while the Italians are still waiting for a reply. Tonga too have stated their intention to appeal.
RWC cannot afford this amount of simmering discontent just six months before the opening game, which means that this week’s managers’ meeting needs to decide on a few issues rather more important than which wine to serve with the main course.