Brumbies edge Rebels in pre-season blowout in Wagga Wagga

Altrad (Montpellier), Lorenzetti (Racing 92) & Wild (Stade Francais) have a combined NET worth of more than €10 billion! Altrad even gets to kit sponsor the national team despite the conflict of interest that would bring.

They are all cash cows as teams who go some length without winning major trophies still yield huge returns on the money their owners pump into them. The prize money is of little consequence even to serial winners. Any time they need a cash injection, they just hit up an investment partner.

Fiducial – the largest private shareholder in the league - has a 12% interest in Toulouse. They wouldn’t have to pay much in to get a cut of the €700 million broadcast deal, the bulk of which goes to the Top 14.  

Dupont – the league and indeed the games poster boy – is the product of rural dairy farmers rather fittingly as he is milked. His salary is a fraction of what he generates for his club, his country and for the sport.  Cash cow. And now recovering from his second major injury in as many years.

The clubs certainly don’t mess about when it comes to pumping money into the game but look at it in inflation terms.  It’s never at a higher rate year on year than the increase in their TV and broadcast deals. 

The club game has always been France’s priority. They got kicked out of the 5 Nations for almost 15 years because they paid players to play the game at club level despite its amateur status at the time. They were so very resistant to the eventual professionalism of the game. And openly so.

Their former Vichy government quite literally banned rugby league as a sport to clear the way for rugby union!

It’s a great league to watch and well supported but it’s a money league.  If you are going to mix metaphors and compare sports it’s not the French soccer league but the Saudi oil leagues that is a better comparison.  That’s what the Top 14 is in relative terms.

A lot of their current dealings around salary caps are shady. Proper shady. It was only a couple of seasons ago when Jaminet was ‘loaned’ 450K as a disguised payment to buy out his own contract to then move clubs. Interest free as well…

With 15 games of international rugby broadcasted on free to air tv, it’s the most important vitrine for French rugby, because it’s generating a lot of commercial revenues every single year (not like a WC). It’s also the main source of revenue for FFR budget, beside those LNR subsides to federal authorities.

There is two things almost 100% certain in European Rugby:

- Top 14 format won’t change*;

- Six Nations won’t change*.

We all know that WR is trying to push for change but, because it’s really working more than fine, it’s not going to happen.

(*) probably not this century, but maybe next millenium? All people saying otherwise are not realist.

Does that increase the threat of the Boks losing the #1 ranking, or does it increase the threat to NZ, Ireland and France of losing to the Boks (and seeing the Boks increase their rankings lead by EOY 2025)?

France sent a strong team in 1996 and won. They then won back-to-back slams in 1997 & 1998 and made the 1999 RWC final, having destroyed NZ in the semi.

France sent a strong team in 2009 and won. They went all the way to the 2011 RWC final only to lose by a single point. 8 players from that final played in the 2009 game.

When rugby turned into a fully professional sport, they founded the LNR and it was finaly agreed to get rid of those divisions after many decades of perpetual infighting between clubs and supporters over those divisions’ balance. Then the Top 14 and Pro D2* were born.

(*) Pro D2, same format but with 16 clubs in a single pool).

So no.

A bit more bulk in the lower ranked teams and then French teams would be winning the Champions Cup AND the challenge cup every season.

“The swing between England and Scotland was 6 points towards England. Scotland didn’t do much wrong bar get a ridiculous draw with Ireland and South Africa. They were #5th at the time but were literally eliminated by the draw.”

Again - that swing makes perfect sense when you consider England’s ranking before the tournament. England were rewarded for beating teams ranked ahead of them. Scotland had a horrible draw that led to them being unfairly forced out of the competition, but they weren’t really punished in the rankings - their ranking score went from 84.01 to 83.43; barely a change.

“Wales benefitted by the draw in 2023.”

They benefitted in the sense that they made a QF that they would not have made had they swapped places with Scotland, but they didn’t really benefit in the rankings. Their ranking rose from 78.26 to 80.64 because they won a pool containing Fiji and Australia - two teams ranked ahead of them at the start of the comp.

“In 2019 they made a semi after a French player was sent off early in that quarter final. So they benefitted from the double points in the RWC.”

You can only rise significantly in the rankings by beating teams considered better than you. Wales’ ranking only rose by 0.5 points after beating France, because France were considered at the time to be a worse side. The double points therefore only helped Wales by 0.25 points.

“if they stay 14th and 13 teams do better than them in the RWC then their defecit will widen and doubly so because the loss would be doubled.”

If Wales keep playing badly they will decline in the rankings, but they will hardly decline at all if they only lose to teams ranked above them. E.g. Using today’s ranking points, lets imagine Wales drew Ireland, Fiji, and Romania in their pool, losing against the first two but beating Romania, then lost to France in the R16. The worst case scenario (losing to Fiji, Ireland, and France by more than 15 points, and beating Romania by less than 15) would only lose Wales 0.66 points. The alternate scenario (coming within 15 points of Fiji and beating Romania by more than 15) would lose Wales just 0.29 points.