Rugby bosses warned against resolving the global calendar now or risk losing the sport’s future to private equity

“If it doesn’t work now, I’m sure it will take a completely different form and it could be a private equity group that comes along and does that. Ideally for rugby as a sport we do it ourselves and so retain the benefits that come from it. When private equity comes in, they take their cut.

“That’s something that could go to the unions, could go to emerging markets and could go to women’s football and expand that further. I’ve seen how private equity works and it can do things that traditional means can’t. I still hope we can pull this off, but it might just mean that a few parties put their own commercial interests aside in favor of the greater good.”

Under the plan, the Nations Championship would have a top division of 12 teams containing a pool of the Six Nations countries, each playing a match against a pool of New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, Fiji and Japan. In the July window, a European nation would play three games in two countries to minimize travel, which was a major concern for players last time out. In November, the Six Nations countries would play their remaining three games at home and the teams at the top of each pool would face off in a grand final.

“There are many players and they don’t always agree”

For example, England could play in Australia and then travel to New Zealand to face off against the All Blacks and Fiji, who would be the ‘host’ team. England would then host South Africa, Argentina and Japan in November.

The tournament would only take place outside of the World Cup and Lions years. Results from the Six Nations and Rugby Championships would not be counted and membership in those tournaments would not be affected.

There would also be a mirror tournament for emerging nations like Georgia, Tonga and Samoa, split between European and Pacific nations. Under the current plan, emerging countries would have the opportunity to advance to the top flight with a promotion-relegation play-off against the teams at the bottom of their group.

During the Lions years, Tier One nations would be encouraged to tour the emerging markets so England could visit the Pacific Island nations for the first time since 1991.

World Rugby insiders believe there is a general consensus on the need for promotion and relegation, but difficulties remain if a play-off were to take place in the fourth week of November that falls outside the mandatory player release set by Regulation 9.

Perhaps an even trickier debate revolves around the commercial model for the Nations Cup and how the revenue should be shared between the largest markets, France and England, and smaller shares of, for example, Australia and Fiji. Traditionally, the host associations keep all tickets for home games.

As Smith readily admits, the “model isn’t perfect,” but he says it’s better than the alternative of kicking the can on the road for another decade. “When you represent international rugby players, there are a lot of players who don’t always agree, but they are very positive about the global season,” said Smith. “They think it’s a step forward for the game that we need.

“There is potentially massive upside potential. It protects the well-being of players, there is clarity, structure and opportunity for emerging markets and every two years the best play the best, which will be commercially attractive.”

A World Rugby Council meeting on Thursday would approve any changes to the calendar. Will traditional powers be able to put aside self-interest to make it work? “As a betting man, I wouldn’t bet my life savings on a big, sweeping approval, but I suppose it could be a commitment to get that by 2026,” Smith said. “If it doesn’t happen, it’s a huge wasted opportunity.”