Why World Rugby’s attempt at gender equality just falls flat

World Rugby describes its rebranding of the men’s and women’s World Cups as “the ultimate statement in equality”.

World Rugby describes its rebranding of the men’s and women’s World Cups to the one-size-fits-all Rugby World Cups as “the ultimate statement in equality”. I call it the ultimate example of stupidity.

Unless World Rugby’s intent is for women to play with the men and the men to play with the women — and, hey, I reckon before Isi Naisarani came along, Grace Hamilton would have done an excellent job of coming off the back of the Wallabies scrum at No 8 — it is a brainless idea.

World Rugby’s stated intention is to elevate the profile of the women’s game while eliminating any perceived bias towards men’s-only competitions. Yet if that is the case, why is World Rugby not pouring many more millions into the (women’s) World Cup to match the level of funding for the (men’s) World Cup? Why hasn’t World Rugby mandated that the pay rates globally be the same, that the Wallaroos be paid the same amount as the Wallabies? (And please, don’t get me started on whether the Wallabies are grossly overpaid for some of their performances.)

Surely the world’s governing body of the sport must set about making substantial reforms before it can start tinkering with the language. The rise of women’s rugby has been dramatic and its growth is driving the game overall in many regions, but this is not the logical next step in its development. It is, indeed, not a logical step — period. At best, this is a cheap play for feminist support but what purpose is served by creating confusion where the men’s and women’s World Cups are concerned?

Stream the Rugby World Cup 2019 on KAYO SPORTS. Every match Live & On-Demand on your TV, computer, mobile or tablet. Get your 14 day free trial >

Perhaps in a more rugby conversant country, people would know precisely what was being inferred in any reference to the 2021 or 2023 RWCs, but start throwing the 2021 World Cup around and the general population in Australia could be forgiven for thinking that rugby has reordered its (men’s) global calendar. And when Rugby Australia announces it intention to bid for the 2027 World Cup, which one is it talking about?

Steve Tew, the boss of NZ Rugby, put out this statement in “support” for the World Rugby initiative. “We are delighted that New Zealand is hosting the Rugby World Cup 2021 and we look forward to the world’s best teams in women’s international rugby coming to our shores.” Question: what purpose does the word “women’s” serve in that statement if not to differentiate between the sexes?

I couldn’t hazard a guess how much money this public relations exercise has cost World Rugby but it would have been much more wisely spent had one extra development officer been put into the field to help the spread of the women’s game.

On reflection, what World Rugby should have done was not delete the differentiation between the sexes but made it more pronounced. So instead of subtracting the word “women’s” in front of “World Cup” the sensible step would have been to add the word “men’s”. That would have addressed the perceived bias towards the men’s competition while still allowing ordinary folk to distinguishing between the two.

And while on the subject of World Rugby glitzes, what is one to make of World Rugby deputy chairman Gus Pichot ridiculing his own organisation’s world rankings system after it elevated Wales to global No 1 ahead of the All Blacks?

On one hand, Pichot is speaking for the masses who find it incomprehensible that Wales could overtake New Zealand, which it has not beaten for 53 years. It does seem bewildering that the All Blacks could beat Australia by 36-0 at Eden Park and still fall backwards in the rankings.

On the other, he is the deputy chairman of World Rugby, which is the very organisation which set up the rankings system. If, as he says, he complained about the ranking on the first day he arrived at World Rugby, in 2015, then why has he done nothing about it? He was, after all, voted the most influential man in world rugby, topping even Eddie Jones in the Rugby World magazine poll, so it certainly wasn’t for lack of clout.

As ever, he sees the world through the prism of the Pumas, complaining that Argentina have to play “the first three” in The Rugby Championships, which presumably means NZ, Australia and South Africa. It has certainly been a while since those three southern hemisphere countries dominated the world rankings. And if Argentina are to be given special weighting in the rankings, then what about Australia, who play the All Blacks more than anyone?

It may be an anomaly, Wales coming out on top of the All Blacks, but if it was a mistake, it won’t remain a mistake for long.

But praise where it is due, and World Rugby is to be congratulated for allowing Australia to experiment with law changes in the National Rugby Championships.

Not sure about the rugby equivalent of the 40-20 rule but there is something to be said for breaking the cycle of teams camping inside the opposition’s 22 with one 5m scrum after another by instead allowing a quick dropout from behind the tryline if the attacking side is held up over the line.

A word of caution, though. These experiments with law changes or variations have been taking place since the days of the Australian Rugby Championship, the forerunner to the NRC. There have been some worthy law changes come of all this tinkering — the backlines being forced to stand 5m back from the scrum, and the ball not to be cleared on the full if it is passed back into the 22, for example — but Rugby Australia must be mindful of keeping the integrity of the NRC.

There is a growing sense that the NRC is headed the same way as the now extinct ARC — to be replaced by who knows what? Presumably some variation of the club competition which raises the old dilemma of creating “haves” and “have nots” clubs. Yet over a third of the Australia’s World Cup squad came through the NRC, which is also roughly the ratio of full-time rugby professionals to “amateurs” in the eight NRC sides named yesterday. So it very much proving its worth as Australia’s third-tier competition. Perhaps, then, Rugby Australia should give it a chance to be seen as something other than a “gimmick” competition.

Unless, of course, the intent really is to kill it off.