IT'S ALL ABOUT THE RUGBY. YEAH RIGHT

Background – Corporates Control the Rugby World Cup
Being a rugby-loving Scot here in New Zealand was particularly interesting in September-October, as we hosted the 2011 Rugby World Cup (RWC) tournament. I started writing an article about how ridiculous the bagpipe ban was, at RWC Scotland matches after I read this:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/fan-central/5651953/Scots-appeal-Rugby-World-Cup-bagpipe-ban

I felt irritated by the ban, because of how much apparent control the IRB exercised on what is supposed to be a people’s national event. Heck, the supporters wanted bagpipes!! As I researched and debated the issue, my friend AND my wife said, “Hang on! How would you feel about a piper sitting next to you blaring away while you’re trying to watch the match?” There’s a lot of truth in that, although I challenge anybody to show me a piper who can play for a full 80 minutes - plus half-time!

However, my research instead led me to something more serious; the hijacking of our national sports event, RWC 2011. Once the IRB allowed itself to be ruled by corporate sponsors, it led to a corporate hijacking of the RWC tournaments - including RWC 2011. This led to decisions being made contrary to the wishes of the average rugby supporter, voter and taxpayer. The NZ government was complacent in that hijacking, because they wanted to keep on-side the IRB. We’ll discuss how later, when we talk about the Major Events Management Act. Succinctly for now, The NZ government didn’t want a repeat of 2003, where New Zealand was to co-host RWC 2003 with Australia, then lost it.

For RWC 2003, Australia and New Zealand put in a joint bid to co-host the tournament. As preparations continued, the NZRFU resisted the amount of IRB control, including the absolute definition of “clean stadia.” This was the excuse the Australians and IRB needed, to move RWC 2003 solely to Australia, and away from those “gobby kiwis”. The sad thing was, that the NZRFU was pushing against the IRB control - unacceptable control of what the NZRFU saw as a New Zealand tournament. Unfortunately, the NZRFU simply did not understand that the IRB and its sponsors LITERALLY own the RWC. It was never "a New Zealand tournament.” The Australians understood this in 2003; it allowed Australia to steal-away the tournament from New Zealand. And today, that RWC ownership is even more controlled! Once the IRB became infected by greed and profit, they became whores to their corporate sponsors. Then, that level of control on the RWC went beyond reason.

Let’s look at how the corporates hijacked "our" RWC. Does anyone else think it’s outrageous that we couldn't drink anything but Heineken at RWC games or at Fazones around the country? The single-beer farce is merely one example of how supporters’ wishes are suppressed in our national event, but there are other examples. The IRB and its sponsors now own the RWC with unashamed control. The reality of that fact, for you and I, is this:

• Inflated rugby ticket pricing at stadiums, well outside the affordability of your average rugby-loving kiwi.
• Consumer choice crushed, when you go to buy a beer at a rugby game – and don’t even get me started on the beer price gouging!
• Virtually all live rugby games during the season only on Sky TV, aside from a couple during the World Cup
• World cup games delayed or non-existent on free-to-air channels
• Pubs couldn’t even say “Rugby World Cup matches here” on their pub chalkboards.
• Frustratingly petulant examples of brand infringement in the news, such as players fined for wearing unsanctioned mouthguards

Good God, I’ve just found out that “Heineken” is so insidious, that it’s even in my spellchecker! Heck, I’ll probably be in trouble for using the phrases like “RWC” and “Heineken” without permission from the IRB!


IRB Attempted Control Over the Media
As the most visible corporate hijack is that of TV coverage, I’ll elaborate on the issue. How many of us wanted to (or could afford to) pay for Sky TV, simply to watch all 48 RWC games live? Because I can tell you that, sadly, Sky was the ONLY channel where you could watch all the games live. Our free-to-air Maori Channel did well to secure all the games, but most of those were delayed coverage. Was I the only person who thought it was outrageous that our national state-owned broadcaster couldn’t even secure a fraction of those games – delayed or otherwise!? The New Zealand free-to-air channels tried to take some control back in the TV rights bidding-process, in 2010. However, the IRB didn’t like the free-to-air channels colluding in the bidding process. Remember, the IRB thrive on control. So, the IRB pulled the games from the TV1 and TV3 partnership. The IRB said it was trying to maximise profits from the RWC – Sky was prepared to pay more for live games exclusivity. In trying to maximise profits, the IRB believed that control and dictation, rather then partnership and communication, were the best ways to achieve that. There are many examples of the dictatorial IRB trying to crush resistance to the amount of RWC control. Here’s where the IRB tried to control the written media, not just the TV coverage:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/5500028/Aussie-media-groups-to-boycott-World-Cup

The essence of the story is that the Aussie newspapers said “No!” to a restrictive contract with the IRB on the use of video clips of the games on websites. Australia's Newspaper Publishers' Association (NPA) CEO, Mark Hollands, expressed that ''Publishers' rights to use video to report news is permitted under the fair dealing exemption of the Copyright Act. Publishers are not prepared to contractually sign away these rights [to the IRB].''

There were two interesting sub-issues here, with the Aussie media’s resistance to the IRB:
• The IRB having a corporate-like hold on what is supposed to be a national event. Because Sky paid for exclusivity, the IRB wanted to deny the hosting country the right to show all the games on the free-to-air channels – even down to little video clips.
• The hypocrisy of Rupert Murdoch (pictured right) over his relationship with the IRB. He’s happy to hijack the sole live rights to the RWC, but his media outlets bleat when the IRB reciprocate with controlled media reporting.


Consequences for Rugby Being in the Professional Age
Yes, I know rugby is in the professional age, and this is the price we pay for letting Sky and other corporations monopolise rugby around the world – particularly here in New Zealand. However, these things creep up on us, don’ t they? They creep up on us so insidiously, that by the time the full implications are realised, our voice has been diluted, and it’s too late to cry “FOUL!” How many of us truly realised that this is how it would be, when the IRB did a deal with rugby players in 1995, to make the game a professional sport? Slowly but surely, the corporate takeover of our national sport dug in its beachhead.

The problem with our society and our form of democracy is that this is exactly what happens and how it happens in all things, not just with RWC; when something is wrong, our voice is diluted when we try to protest. As with the Sky TV hi-jack of the games, the Major Events Management Act slipped in quietly, before we all realised its implications. “The what?!!!” I hear you shout. Well, this was a law that our government passed to grant the IRB the right to fine businesses who breached the advertising “clean zone” rules. That is, fines for displaying wares which are not those of the IRB sponsors, or are not sanctioned by the IRB. Let’s be quite clear here – there are wars, rapes, murders and world-wide starvation, and our government coludes with the IRB to criminalise conflicting advertisers?!! Sheesh. This is supposedly “Our Government.” How many men-in-the-street agreed to that stupid act? The beauty of the act for the IRB is that our Ministry of Economic Development (MED) did all the dirty work in policing and fining for the act. It was a clever way for the IRB to be seen to be keeping its hands clean, don’t you think? Thankfully, it didn’t work too well. With every ludicrous example of where our MED enforced the Act, the IRB looked sillier and greedier. Here are some ridiculous examples of that IRB control. This is what the country had to put up with, because rugby is dominated by sponsorship:

• Samoan winger Alesana Tuilagi was fined NZ$10,000 because he wore a "branded" mouthguard for a match (good grief!). [Click here to read]
• A helicopter company was challenged by RWC organisers for taking aerial photos – it didn’t have IRB-sanctioned branding on the side. [Click here to read]
• Ambulances were required to “cover-up” logos of sponsors, not sanctioned by the IRB. Did the IRB have no shame? [Click here to read]
• A strip club and its workers risked fines after scantily clad ladies in skimpy, pseudo All-Blacks gear handed out leaflets in the 'clean zone.' [Click here to read]


Is it Truly About the Rugby Any More?
Remember in early September 2011, when Mike Miller (IRB CEO) was on TV watching a kids’ game of rugby? Did anyone else cough and splutter where he said, “This is what the rugby world cup’s all about.” Yeah, right, Mike. It’s all about the money, isn’t it? Yes, yes, yes, I know the arguments; we need the money to pay the All-Blacks, so they won’t go overseas. We need the sponsors’ money so we won’t lose All-Blacks players to the high-paying European and Japanese rugby clubs. However, if we’d shouted loud enough as the game was descending into this professional melting pot, things might be very different. Perhaps a few of us did, but that voice was not the mighty roar needed for change. Cleverly, the fall into professionalism was a slow one, and we protested a few at a time, at differing stages of the fall. Our voice was diluted – again.

So, when you read this article, there’s an emotion in us that says “That’s disgraceful!”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5679217/European-clubs-another-barrier-for-Pacific-teams
However, as with soccer, our top rugby clubs have ceased to be “Our Clubs.” They are now franchises, to the degree that the large European clubs are now, effectively, rich corporations. They’re not “clubs” any more; they’re profit-making companies.

Therefore, the decision of some “clubs” NOT to release their key players for the RWC was, from their perspective, purely a financial one: the club has paid for that player, they own him. The clubs do not want to lose that player’s impact on the field, nor risk him being injured in the RWC. I guess the unanswered question here is, why were some players released from high-profile clubs (Jonny Wilkinson, Brian O’Driscoll), but not others? The logical conclusion is clear; how long is it before all clubs refuse to release their players for a RWC, and professionalism bites the IRB on the ass? I hope I live to see that day.

You know, there was something innocent, sincere and pure about the Rugby World Cup in 1987, and even in 1991. This was before the executives clasped their grubby hands on it - before the IRB became infected and corrupted with greed. Where is it going to end:

• You and I get fined if we go to a RWC game and wear a rival sponsors clothing or display any brand not sanctioned by the IRB?
• We can only use Mastercards, not our widespread VISA or EFTPOS cards, during RWC?
• Part of the Major Events Management Act lowers the drinking age so Heiniken can sell more beer during RWC?

Sadly, I don’t think the Rugby World Cup is about the rugby any more.