These three trends are all true at once about int'l rugby: - Tier 1 int'ls are as competitive as they have ever been. In the most recent 6N & TRC everybody beat each other. There are more RWC semi final contenders than before. - The gap between Tier 1 & Tier 2 has gotten worse and is as big a gulf as it has been in 20 years. Tier 2 collectively has not kept up on the field, and financial differences further increase off it as WR cuts Tier 2 funding. An era that is increasingly higher scoring and easier to pad out a score in blowouts only further exacerbates this trend. In a case of bad timing this trend happens to have coincided with the positive move of expansion to a 24 team RWC. - Tier 3 (non-RWC teams) have become highly inactive more so than ever before and are getting cut off from Tier 2. This is an equally big problem to the more talked of one of Tier 2 sides getting cut off from Tier 1. It is now near impossible for a side outside the RWC with no competition framework (outside Europe) to plan a development plan to improve and get there in future. The global game has been shrinking in the 2020s. There are some of course who only care about Tier 1, and don't give a damn about growth of the sport (sadly that probably includes those running it), so to them international rugby may seem like the greatest it has maybe ever been and that be a logical think to say. Yet that is an utterly tone deaf statement to make in broader context of the health of the rest of the international game which has gotten much worse over the 2020s. So whilst the first trend is indeed good and given among the most unpredictable recent editions of the 6N & TRC, the second and third trends are a genuine crises for the global game people need to be aware of and from the perspective of "Tier 2" rugby and those who really care about it is impossible to speak positively about. The WR blazers who have overseen the global game shrink the way it has and not even attempt to grow in new countries truly merit scathing criticism for it. The sport has great opportunities it is failing to grasp in certain markets to grow in the team contact sport niche and can even more exciting, colourful, diverse, and richer both on and off the field for more competitive teams and more fans. That is the pitch to try and get people to care. A great tournament like the 6N could grow even greater and richer. Rugby is imo a special sport for its combination of teamwork, combat, and variation of skill and strategy that can best fulfil the human desire for tribal war game like activity, and the dream is to share it with as much of the world as possible. But for that to happen the state of crisis of international rugby below Tier 1 needs to be seriously thought about and urgently addressed.

A correction to some ignorant nonsense re Nations Cup. Seen a few in recent days taking the World Rugby line that they have a) basically invented Tier 2 nations playing int'ls and b) given them "meaningful" games. Let's address the first point by comparing to the same point in the calendar 4 years ago in 2022. These were the fixtures of each "Tier 2" side in the Nations Cup who would qualify for RWC 2023: Georgia - Argentina XV, Italy, Portugal Romania - Italy, Uruguay x2 Portugal - Italy, Argentina XV, Georgia Uruguay - Japan x2, Romania x2 Chile - Scotland, USA (qualifiers) Samoa - Australia A, Tonga, Fiji (PNC) Tonga - Fiji, Samoa, Australia A (PNC), Hong Kong (qualifier) Namibia - Italy A, Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Kenya (qualifiers) So all the 8 sides were playing 3 games, and with exception of Namibia playing African qualifiers, were playing on average superior level of opposition which included the likes of Italy, Scotland, Japan, Fiji, or Argentina XV or Australia A, none of which is now possible with the inflexibility of the new schedule. Then for the other 4 sides there was: USA - French Barbarians, Chile x2 (qualifiers) Spain - Classic All Blacks, Barbarians, Canada Canada - Belgium, Spain Hong Kong - South Korea, Tonga (qualifier) So all but two of the 12 sides who would now be in Nations Cup played 3 games that summer. For about 8 or 9 of those sides the level of opponent has gotten WORSE (the African qualifier and Hong Kong the clear exceptions). Then if you consider Belgium and Netherlands were active in July 2022 the fixtures have gotten worse for them too as now they are inactive. Now onto the second point about so called "meaningful" games. Let's ask some questions about this "competition". Does it bring added prestige for the winner? No, because there isn't even an overall winner so it barely is even much of a competition, just two pools (they could have at least said the winner in the match between those two sides was the overall winner but they are instead pushing a lame tagline of "two pools - two winners"). But even if let's say it did, nobody is going to rate Georgia getting past sides like USA and a weak version of Samoa to win the tournament as an achievement any greater than if won a friendly against them. It isn't a big or prestigious enough competition to get most of the sides full strength. In fact Portugal or Georgia's friendly in 2022 vs Italy would have been more prestigious for them to win and have reason to full strength for than any game they will play this meaningless competition. Does it make Tier 2 nations more money? No, the games basically sell similarly as they would otherwise do as usual test fixtures. The "competition" element creates close to zero extra added commercial value to the games in terms of fans, sponsors, or TV. In fact they probably now make less money compared to 2022, because back then there were at least some Tier 1 opponents like Italy and Scotland, and even where there weren't at least the majority of games (besides the African qualifiers and a couple of PNC games) had a home team in them, so you were not getting as many Georgia vs Samoa type games at a neutral venue in front of about 10 people. Does it lead to any big prize? As we all know it doesn't because you can't go anywhere in Nations Cup. Don't be so foolishly gullible into thinking Tier 1 sides are ever going to risk relegation now or ever. That is a con. On no measure is Nations Cup more "meaningful" in any way beyond the standard test matches that existed before. In fact rather a lot about the Nations Cup has been a con. World Rugby has reduced Tier 2 sides fixtures vs top 12 opposition, giving lower level, less marketable games, more at no fan neutral venues, and been posting self-congratulatory press releases trying to con fans to think they have invented the never before seen idea of Tier 2 nations getting 3 fixtures each in the July & November window. Please do not fall for this. The most you can honestly say is the schedule is an improvement for the African qualifier and Hong Kong - the two lowest of the Tier 2 teams (and obviously a huge improvement for Fiji - the highest). But for the other 10 sides, and don't forget the now inactive non-RWC Tier 3 sides like Belgium or Netherlands, it is no better and in most cases clearly worse than it was before, and does not overall work to increase the competitiveness of the global game.