WHEN Japan beat South Africa in the final seconds of their match in this year’s Rugby World Cup, it was perhaps the most exhilarating moment of the tournament. That an unheralded nation which had won only one of its previous 24 World Cup matches could defeat the double world champions underlined the growing globalisation of the game.It also highlighted an uncomfortable contrast with cricket, the other big sport to hold a World Cup this year. Rugby and cricket share certain characteristics. They are both international sports that have traditionally been popular in a small batch of (predominantly Commonwealth) countries. Yet in both, the divide between the traditionally dominant nations and the rest is shrinking. In the Rugby World Cup, the points differences in games between the ten "Tier One" nations and the rest has decreased in the last four tournaments, from an average of 46 to just 20 this year. In this year’s Cricket World Cup, the four “associate” nations—ie not one of the ten elite Test-playing countries—were credited with producing their strongest overall performance in a tournament.

Yet the two sports take very different approaches to growing the game. This is perhaps best typified by the size of their World Cups. Rugby's version comprises 20 nations. World Rugby, the sport’s governing body, is considering increasing the number to 24 for future tournaments. “It allows us to justifiably claim we're a global sport. With a smaller World Cup you could dispute that,” says Morgan Buckley, a bigwig at World Rugby. Inclusion in the World Cup has helped smaller nations gain exposure and so increase sponsorship, bringing in more money to develop the game, he says.

In contrast, this year’s Cricket World Cup featured only 14 sides. The plan is to reduce that to only ten for the 2019 and 2023 events. “Retrenching is a strategy that isn’t conducive to growth and development,” says Simon Chadwick, a professor at Coventry University. “Cricket needs to get on the front-foot and fight back in building its constituency and fan base beyond its traditional core markets.” All the major international cricket tournaments, until at least 2023, will be held exclusively in Australia, England or India—the sport’s three wealthiest nations. The 2019 Rugby World Cup, on the other hand, will be hosted by Japan.

Rugby is also benefiting from rejoining the Olympic Games after a 92-year absence; 12 nations will compete in men’s and women’s rugby sevens tournaments. Olympic inclusion has given the sport access to funding from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as well as “credibility” with government agencies, including in education, says Mr Buckley. This has meant significant extra investment in emerging nations, including over $15m a year in China. The women’s sport has especially benefited. Despite being recognised by the IOC, the International Cricket Council (ICC), that sport’s governing body, has so far decided not to apply for Olympic inclusion, although a meeting between the two bodies will take place this month.

Rugby has also been far more effective at ensuring emerging nations compete against the best sides to help them develop. In 2007 Argentina surprisingly reached the World Cup semi-finals. The reward was an invitation to join the Rugby Championship from 2012, where they play against New Zealand, Australia and South Africa every year. Cricket has been less receptive. After reaching the World Cup semi-finals in 2003, Kenya played only five one-day internationals (ODIs) against Test nations in the next 35 months. Ireland, currently the most successful associate nation, played just nine ODIs against Test teams between the 2011 and 2015 World Cups.

One reason for the contrasting attitudes lies in the sports’ governance structures. After reforms of the ICC in 2014, Australia, England and India gained permanent seats on the crucial decision-making organs of the council. The ICC is run “to do what is best for the three richest countries,” says Jaimie Fuller, a sports ethics campaigner. Australia, England and India now claim more ICC revenue than the other 102 members combined.

The governance of World Rugby is much better, thinks Mr Fuller, even if it is not completely meritorious. World Rugby’s voting structure awards 16 out of 28 votes to the eight “foundation nations”, while the ten Tier-One teams (the original eight plus Argentina and Italy) get paid over twice as much as Tier Two nations for participation in the World Cup. If the priority is to develop the smaller teams, then depriving them of funds is wrong, says Mr Fuller. The three Pacific Island nations with strong traditions of rugby—Fiji, Samoa and Tonga—receive scant financial support, for example. The Six Nations tournament in Europe does not offer a pathway for other European teams such as Georgia, which has won the European Nations Cup First Division five years in a row.

Despite those criticisms, cricket could learn much from rugby’s more inclusive attitude. That 25m people in Japan watched their match with Scotland highlights how rugby’s expansionism is being vindicated. Mr Fuller says that the ICC’s “petty-minded, selfish attitude to world governance is breathtaking”. World Rugby, meanwhile, is “a million miles ahead” in how it treats emerging nations. Rugby's expansionary zeal is putting cricket's status as the world's second most popular sport at risk.