Italy shouldn’t be given the boot when the Springboks eventually join the Six Nations, writes SIMON BORCHARDT.
Six Nations Rugby recently said it’s “not entertaining any discussion nor developing any plans to add or replace any participating union” to the annual European championship, but the Springboks’ inclusion in the near future still seems inevitable.
That’s because money talks, and the driving force behind getting the Boks involved from 2025 is equity fund CVC Capital Partners, which last year bought a 14.3% stake in the tournament worth £365 million. It also has stakes in the English Premiership and the Vodacom United Rugby Championship, and is keen to acquire a share of SA Rugby.
CVC says its objective is “to enhance the sporting spectacle of all the tournaments, teams and brands; and to build broader commercial capabilities to support these ambitious plans”. Which is where the Boks come in. The three-time world champions would not only enhance the spectacle of the Six Nations from a playing perspective but bring tremendous commercial value, too.
The big question is whether South Africa should be added to an expanded seven-team tournament or replace perennial strugglers Italy.
The Azzurri entered the Six Nations in 2000 and marked the occasion with a historic victory over Scotland in Rome. However, since then they have recorded only 11 more wins, the last of which came in 2015. Italy’s 33-0 defeat by England in Rome in February extended their losing run in the tournament to 34 matches.
Based solely on results, Italy couldn’t complain if they were axed from the Six Nations to make way for the Boks. However, relegating the Azzurri to Europe’s second division – where they would compete against Georgia, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Russia and the Netherlands – would be a death knell for Italian rugby if there was no way for them to get back into the Six Nations.
Yes, Italy have struggled at Test level for years, but their U20 team claimed a first-ever U20 Six Nations win over England in Treviso in February, so there is clearly good work being done at junior levels that could pay off for the senior team in a few years’ time.
Rome is also a very attractive destination for travelling fans, who don’t seem to mind the fact that their team is almost guaranteed to win.
Instead of giving Italy the boot, the Six Nations should expand to seven teams to accommodate the Boks, resulting in another round of matches. More ‘product’ means more broadcast revenue and while teams would play six matches instead of five, raising concerns about player welfare, each team would have a bye week (when the other six teams played). Scrapping the compulsory rest week (in the current format) would also keep the tournament to seven weeks, and prevent clubs from losing their Test players for another week.
The issue of promotion-relegation for the tournament is a tricky one. While you would always expect Italy to finish with the wooden spoon, an upset or two and one of the tier-one teams could find themselves in the rugby wilderness for a year, costing their national union millions.
A closed Six Nations therefore makes sense, even if it’s tough on a team like Georgia, who have won the second-tier Rugby Europe Championship 12 times in the past 14 seasons and have would have backed themselves to beat Italy in promotion-relegation matches during that period.
Georgia, though, have even less commercial appeal than Italy and, in the end, it will all come down to money.
