A South American outsider takes on an English knight, in the battle of the sport’s top job. Once again, rugby follows football nearly four decades on.

Sir BIll Beaumont, current World Rugby Chairman

Sir Stanley Rous, former FIFA President

While Sir Bill Beaumont will always be one of England’s finest captains, he may also go down as rugby’s Sir Stanley Rous, should Agustin Pichot’s campaign for the chairmanship of World Rugby succeed at Sir Bill’s expense.

The Argentine’s candidacy was revealed on Saturday, just a day before close of nominations and a fortnight before a World Rugby Council vote on April 26th.

Pichot’s strong personality and reputation suggests this is no random throw of the dice, but while Sir Bill has a strong advantage as incumbent— the Six Nations holds a big blocking minority on the World Rugby Council — Pichot has a shot.

It’s very tempting to draw parallels with 1974 when FIFA’s leadership election changed the course of football. Sir Stanley Rous was challenged by Joao Havelange who ran on a platform to globalise the game with support from South America, Africa and elsewhere to usurp a perceived European hegemony.

An excellent Four Four Two article outlines just how the Brazilian businessman exploited deep seams of resentment to Rous’ patrician, bureaucratic rule. A similar fate awaits Beaumont if he’s not careful.

There are differences. Beaumont cannot be as politically naive as Rous, who re-introduced South Africa to FIFA in the 1960s before the Gleneagles Agreement. Sir Stanley also and infamously allowed a World Cup play-off in Chile’s National Stadium then used by General Pinochet to torture and murder his political opponents.

Pichot is certainly not corrupt either and who could be as brazen as Havelange who lined his pockets for years while FIFA coffers overfloweth?

So it’s not identical. But as Europe dominated the running of football in the 1960s, the Six Nations leads rugby now, especially on the commercial side.

Pichot’s idea of a year-long World League played every two years between the top 12 nations — based on the Six Nations and Rugby Championships — will inevitably resurface.

Bringing in relegation from the top tier was too much for the Six Nations who kiboshed the concept. Winning the chairmanship might allow Pichot more flexibility to benefit more emerging nations through the World League, either through financial compensation or more room within the top tier.

To become World Rugby chair, either Beaumont or Pichot needs 26 of the 50 votes on offer to claim the prize. Remember it’s not one country one vote, with votes weighted towards the foundation unions.

The Six Nations (3 votes each) will vote en bloc with Beaumont as will Rugby Europe (2), making 20.

Pichot claims support from the four Rugby Championship nations (3 for Aus, NZ, South Africa and 2 for Arg — 11 in all). The Americas will back him too. (North & South America (4), plus USA & Canada (2). Throw in 6 from Asia, Oceania and Africa, 2 from Japan and 1 from Uruguay as well.

That makes 26 for Pichot, leaving Fiji, Samoa, Georgia and Romania unaccounted for. Unless South Africa can be persuaded otherwise, I can’t see Pichot losing — though the world of the smoke-filled committee room is often a mysterious place.

If Pichot does win, what next? Cue a World League far more ambitious, free of a Six Nations veto? Revenue-sharing for all Test internationals? Stronger regulations on residency qualifications? World Cups in South Africa and in the United States? What price the future of the Lions?

The most interesting part of Pichot’s manifesto was when he spoke about a global realignment of the game. One member one country voting would certainly shake things up…

Let the games begin.