The future of the World Series

The Women??s Sevens World Series (WSWS) began last week with arguably the best ever tournament in Dubai. We are regularly assured by World Rugby in all of its public statements that the series has been a great success, that this is the biggest women??s series ever, and that World Rugby is committed to expand it the future.

But this season the reality has begun to depart from these worthy statements and here at ScrumQueens we are beginning to wonder ?? what is the future of the WSWS?

Looking back, the first three seasons of the WSWS the tournament have seen a steady expansion, from four rounds in 2012/13 to five in 2013/14 and six last season ?? plus, for the past two seasons, a promotion/relegation tournament allowing the top teams from around the world a chance to compete for a place in the series.

Starting off in Dubai every year, the tournament visited the USA and Netherlands in each of its first three incarnations. For the first two seasons it also visited China, and in 2013/14 it expanded from four to five tournaments when it dropped into the Southern Hemisphere for the first time to visit Brazil. In addition Hong Kong staged the first qualification tournament.

Last season saw China dropped from the schedule, but in their place two new rounds ?? in Canada and England ?? were added to further expand the series to six events, while Ireland rounded off the season with a very successful second qualification event.

This upward trend in the series really seemed to matching the hype ?? until last month??s shock announcement that the only four tournaments were confirmed for the season, with negotiations in play for a fifth (which should be in Clermont-Ferrand, in France, once discussions are resolved). Dubai, USA, Canada and Brazil were all signed up again, but the two legs in London and Amsterdam had disappeared from the list.

Explanations were initially few and far between, and have remained somewhat clouded ever since.

However it has become clear that ?? even with World Rugby support ?? hosting an event is far from cost free. World Rugby pay to get the teams to and from the events, but after their arrival it is the hosts that pick up the tab. Canada may have made a small profit for their event in Langford last year, but that is an exception. Without your own stadium full of enthusiastic fans, hosting a round of the WSWS can be expensive. For example it appears that each Sao Paulo leg costs Brazil around $400,000 each year ?? a huge amount for a small union, and probably only possible as it is part of the country??s preparations for the Olympics ?? and, from what we hear, the cost of other legs have generally been similar.

Most unions cannot afford to meet such costs on a regular basis. It is difficult to believe that Brazil, for example, will be able to find such funding after the Olympics, especially if they are not among the core teams.

As a result the future of the WSWS, in its current format, after the Olympics looks even rockier than this year. A series that relies on small rugby nations - such as Brazil and the Netherlands ?? hosting events is simply not viable

That said not all Unions are small - there are some seriously wealthy Unions out there. Countries where rugby is a major sport, with thousands of players (and potential volunteers), where the game generates millions, and where there is a solid infrastructure with dozens of possible venues. We refer, of course, to the ??Tier 1?? nations, lead (in terms of sheer financial clout) by England, but also including others like France, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia.

And it is at this point several remarkable facts become clear.

First, it is these Tier 1 nations who have gained most from the WSWS so far. They have provided almost all of the series winners (and, come to that, finalists), attracted most of the media coverage, most of the sponsorship, and have been able to use the series to develop a new generation of players.

And second, of the 16 regular season WSWS tournaments played to date, only ONE has been hosted by a ??Tier 1?? nation ?? the round in London last year.

That should double this season ?? once the Clermont round is confirmed ?? and might have been greater yet if plans for a round in Australia have come to fruition this season, but it seems both odd, and frankly unfair.

The mismatch is even more stark when you realise that the main exceptions to that rule, Canada and the USA. They have been as (or even more) successful on the field as the Tier 1 nations, but ?? unlike the richest unions - they actually are stepping up to the plate and running events. By the end of this season these two far-from-rich Unions will have hosted three times as many tournaments that all eight of the wealthy, professional Tier 1 nations put together.

So why are the Tier 1 nations not doing their duty? We asked the RFU, the only one to host a WSWS series so far, why there would be no event in England this season, and received this reply from Nicky Ponsford, Head of Performance:

??The option to host a World Series event was discussed with World Rugby but it was felt that it was not a viable option this year. However, hosting a women??s tournament alongside the men??s event has not been ruled out in the future??

We sought clarification on what was meant by ??viable??, and it was clear that was a commercial decision, which we find remarkable. So, to put it bluntly it appears that most of the world??s richest and best resourced,?˜unions whose success in the World Series has generated all of the positives we list above, expect someone else (principally the small Tier 2 and 3 unions) to pick up the tab for it all.

Given such a hard-headed profit-centred culture at the heart of some of the unions most capable of hosting you have to ask the question ?? does the WSWS have a future?

The answer has to be yes, but not in its current form. With the exception of Dubai, to date it has been World Rugby??s policy to run the women??s World Series as a series of standalone tournaments separate from the men??s series ?? a policy that (with the exception of Canada) simply does not work.

Indeed it is the very success of the Canadian leg shows the limitations of the current standalone policy. Played at Rugby Canada??s own facility in Langford, BC, hosting costs were minimised while a highly successful top-three Canadian team, playing at home for the first time ever, pulled in the crowds over a weekend of perfect weather with few significant competing events in the region.

Most other unions simply do not have those advantages. Instead, due to the requirements of the series (including broadcast requirements), they have to hire stadia and host teams in major (expensive) cities, where there will also invariably be competing attractions.

The solution to the future of the WSWS surely lies by learning from the one tournament whose future is not threatened ?? the one that will go on even if every other tournament fell by the wayside.

Dubai.

And why does Dubai work? Quite simply because the WSWS is part of a double-header with the men??s sevens (plus about a dozen other tournaments).

It is glaringly obvious that double headers must be cheaper to run, will attract bigger crowds and greater media attention. In fact that was also the overwhelming response from other sports, such as tennis and cricket, when they were asked about what worked before the WSWS was launched

With ten men??s SWS tournaments around the world it would not, perhaps, be too much to ask for half of them to be double-headers. Indeed it quite easy to see which they might be:

* Dubai* Sydney ?? if the calendar had allowed Australia to host this year it would have been a double-header in Sydney. We may see that in the future.* Hong Kong ?? who have bid to host the WSWS in the past, and* Las Vegas ?? who had a tradition of hosting a major women??s sevens prior to the launch of WSWS

To these four can be added Canada (either standalone at Langford or a double header in Vancouver) to make a minimum of five tournaments, before venues such as Cape Town and Wellington are considered.

It would not be possible to run double headers everywhere, of course. The rugby pitches next to the Twickenham Stadium, for example, are not big enough to host international rugby and it is probable that Paris would face similar challenges. However that does not mean that unions like the RFU should be allowed to sidestep their duty to the world game. There is more than enough rugby played outside London to suggest that even an England leg is not a lost cause.

The WSWS is going through some rough seas at the moment, but it is not fatally holed ?? only the current model. A bit of imagination, plus perhaps some willingness from the organisers of men??s series to be more flexible and the future be assured.