Rugby league cashing in on cut-price cup

The boss of the rugby league world cup, Colin Love, is fond of pointing out that rugby's first world cup, 21 years ago was so low-key they played a midweek semifinal in front of less than 18,000 at suburban Concord Oval. Look where they are now, follows the logic.

That rather ignores the fact league pioneered the world cup in 1954, but does concede the reality that it's eight years since their last one, and everyone's still arguing over how much money it actually lost. And so Love pragmatically calls this year's tournament a "benchmark".

Any criticism of the cup's lack of ambition - be it restricting the field to 10 teams, failing to clear up eligibility laws, a contrived format which means Australia, New Zealand and England need to win just once to make the semifinals - can be explained by the need for financial prudence. Nothing is more important here than profit, and having pulled in decent TV deals and headline sponsors, tournament director Love says that without a ball being passed, it's on "a financially sound footing".

The three big nations have agreed not to dip into profits beyond their prizemoney (the winners get $A650,000), leaving a potential pot of up to $3m to be split by their more deserving cousins. "It will enable the International Federation to seriously, appropriately, help those countries but not only that, lay the foundations for the success of future world cups," Love says.

The federation has no office, only one part-time employee, no website, and just a 10% test match levy to distribute to the needy.

The part-timer, an indefatigable missionary named Tas Baitieri, says 30 countries play league and 125 will receive broadcasts of the tournament. "It should give us a massive kickstart," he says, anticipating a paid administrator in every nation, even backwaters such as Jamaica, Serbia and Lebanon.

Not funding the minnows was a big issue in 2000. The previous tournament, in 1995, was a success, so 2000 brought big plans. Every nation got a [PndStlg]50,000 participation fee and was pledged profit shares, but it left nothing to share, thanks to mis- match scorelines, poor venue selection and too many teams.

"It put us back virtually 10 years on development," says Baitieri. "Australia and Great Britain are a little bit immune. . . but all the minor countries really suffered; they were counting on a strong return . . . the simple fact of buying shorts and jumpers . . . they couldn't afford to do that."

The 2000 tournament's media director, Stefan Hopewell, reflects now: "It rained, and it rained for six weeks and it rained bloody hard".

One game in Wrexham was 90 minutes from being cancelled until they realised the teams were due to play again three days later. It kept the fairweather fans away, as did taking matches to cities such as Reading (att: 3982). "It was a tournament torn between expansionism and being criticised for being parochial," Hopewell admits. "I can fairly say the last time, the fan base was taken for granted, and you should never do that with any customer."

But he's proud of work the 2000 team did in forging nationality rules, tournament protocol and drug-test regimens. "And all that was stuck in a box on November, 26, 2000 and forgotten about," Hopewell says. He's unconvinced this year will necessarily be a rip-roaring success. "It's been very convenient [to criticise the 2000 tournament for the game's ills]. Now let's just see what happens in the next six weeks."

So this year is a fresh prototype. Love wants close games, good TV - "quality not quantity" - and has sacrificed tough eligibility rules (which let Anthony Tupou to train with Tonga one morning yet declare for Australia in the afternoon) and a straightforward structure to achieve it.

There's already a commitment for another world cup in 2014, and four yearly after that. The hint from Love appears to be that if this is perhaps the puritan version of a world cup, the next will be a much more spectacular affair.

- © Fairfax NZ News