Italy finished the 2016 Six Nations as a structureless shambles in sixth place. In fact, they have never finished higher than fifth in the Six Nations table. Despite playing a game of passion and pride, Italian rugby lacks intelligence. The image of Sergio Parisse in Paris taking a punt at the game winning drop goal is an image which summarises what Italian rugby has come to. Excuses of an injury ridden squad can be nullified upon learning that Italy have finished last in 11 of the 17 Six Nations they’ve been involved in. Their consistent dormancy in the tournament has provoked discussions about a Six Nations relegation system.

Whilst Italy endured a 53-point thrashing to Wales on the final day of the Six Nations, Georgia won their sixth successive European Nations Cup. In fact, over the past nine years, Georgia have been crowned ENC champions eight times. Across the same time period, Italy have finished last in the Six Nations, six times. Is this really ignorable? Evidently, Georgia are a league ahead of the other tier-two nations, yet they are denied any opportunity to even qualify for the Six Nations. With Italy struggling and Georgia thriving, many have supported the idea of introducing a relegation system to the Six Nations.

So what would a relegation system look like? The most popular suggestion seems to incorporate a play-off setup, where the winner of the ENC and loser of the Six Nations battle it out for a spot in Europe’s premier event for the following year. The main advantage of a play-off is that the Six Nations Wooden Spoon holders are given a final opportunity to prove themselves instead of an automatic demotion. This would help avoid a cyclical rotation between Georgia and Italy every year, one dominating the ENC and one looking out of place in the Six Nations.

The idea of expanding the Six Nations to Seven or Eight Nations has even been suggested, allowing Romania an opportunity to prove themselves. An expansion would allow for more competition and nobody to be relegated. The philosophy of expansion in rugby has only ever been healthy for competition, Argentina’s introduction into the Tri-Nations gave them the experience to reach the RWC semi finals. Additionally, many would argue the welcoming of the Sunwolves and Jaguares into Super Rugby is another positive case study for rugby globalisation.

A straight promotion of Georgia and potentially Romania would, however, mean that the ENC would get less support and lose popularity, isolating the other tier two nations. Expansion would also mean extending the tournament period to account for more games. This would be unideal considering how much top Aviva Premiership, Top 14 and Pro12 sides already suffer from the absence of their international players for weeks on end.

Whether it be expansion of the current tournament, or the introduction of a play-off for relegation, it’s crucial that Georgia are at least given an opportunity to grow and improve as a rugby nation. Georgia cannot get fixtures against Tier One nations outside World Cups. Second tier nations can’t expect to improve if they’re only exposed to major opposition once every four years and are abandoned to their second-tier microcosm in between tournaments. With no change and without anything to aim for, we can soon expect Georgian rugby to stagnate.

Argentina were in a very similar position to Georgia before the four-sided Rugby Championship formed. SANZAR’s encouragement to globalise the game, gifted the Pumas with the chance to grow. Unless World Rugby wishes for the World Cup to constantly be contested between the same four or five teams, they need to give others the chance to grow. Now I’m not saying that Georgia are in for a chance in 2019, but reluctance to evolve in Northern Hemisphere rugby has knock on effects.

It has been 13 years since a European team has lifted the RWC. If the northern hemisphere wish to close the equatorial rugby gap, everyone needs to step up their game. Creating a relegation system incentivises all European teams to raise the bar. Playing to stay in the competition creates an environment in which nobody feels secure in a permanent position. This in turn, will demolish the cyclical, “there’s always next year” attitude. Raising the standard from the bottom of the European pyramid will only resonate upwards, forcing the likes of England and Wales to improve.

Sadly, Six Nations organisers show a reluctance to change the tournament setup. They went on to disassociate themselves from any responsibility towards expansion of the game. The issue is that change won’t come from the teams; if left to their own devices, home nations will always choose to organise fixtures which will bring large, lucrative crowds for big entertaining games. At the end of the day, France, Italy and Scotland aren’t going to put up their hands and volunteer this new system if they’re in jeopardy of relegation. The decision needs to come from the organisers themselves in order to expand the game.

Sergio Parisse rebutted the relegation idea, commenting that the whole thing was “stupid”. He believes Italy’s “historic results” mean that they deserve to remain in the Six Nations. Parisse, like the Six Nations committee, needs to recognise that rugby is constantly evolving and the tournament directors need to accommodate for these changes.

Reluctance to change is what separates SANZAR from the North. A play-off system would have the wider positive benefits of boosting northern rugby competition, improving Georgian rugby and finally incentivising other tier two nations to battle for a place in Europe’s premier event. Additionally, The European Nations Cup will gain more popularity if France or Italy are integrated into the competition. A Six Nations Relegation System decision is a no brainer: it benefits everyone involved aside from Six Nations Committee Members who sheepishly fear change.

Main Photo