As every four years, Uruguay’s national rugby union team is taking a very long route to qualify for the 2015 IRB Rugby World Cup.

The Teros beat Chile and Brazil in the South American qualifier last May. Next March we will face the United States for the Americas two spot, which is possible to win but unlikely.

If we lose, we will play the Asia two team, for example Hong Kong. If we win, then we will likely play Europe three, for example Russia.

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Reddit Email Share

Only then we will chant “we are at the World Cup!”

It’s unfair that Uruguay has to take such a long path, when other teams have had worse results.

We scored a win in both the 1999 and 2003 tournaments, whereas Russia, Portugal and Namibia never scored a win, and Japan only collected one in seven tournaments.

I’m not suggesting taking Africa’s second spot for South America.

Instead, the Rugby World Cup should expand to 24 teams, given the expansion of the sport around the world.

More tier three teams should be allowed to play, which would help those countries to know more about rugby.



The most important concern with this would be the high number of low-interest matches. New Zealand doesn’t want to play Spain or Hong Kong, just tier one teams.

The reverse is also true: tier three teams want to play tier two teams, where chances of winning are well higher playing tier one matches.

So, here’s my proposal: there should be six groups of four teams, split into three Cup groups for the top 12 teams, and three Plate groups for the remaining 12 teams.

This way, teams in Cup groups would play two tier one teams, plus a strong tier two team.

The eight best teams advance to the Cup knockout, like today.

Weaker tier two teams may fear on missing the party. Therefore, my proposal is the top four teams from the Plate groups join the remaining four teams from the Cup groups to play an eight-team Plate knockout.

This would allow tier two teams like United States, Romania and Japan to play Italy, Scotland and Samoa.

The 12 Cup teams would qualify at the previous tournament. That is, the eight teams that reach the Cup knockout would play the the next tournament’s Cup groups, as well as the four teams that advance to the Plate semifinals.



This proposal has some extra advantages. Since there are no bye weeks in the group phase, there would be no issues with tier one teams getting better schedules than other teams.

Also, the number of matches would barely increase from 48 to 50-52, depending on whether third place matches are played for Cup and Plate.

Best of all is all teams would face teams with similar skills, unlike present (Australia’s 2003 142-0 thrashing of Namibia anyone?).

Three of the four extra World Cup spots would be given to South America one, Europe three and Asia two, so teams like Uruguay, Georgia, Russia and Hong Kong would be allowed to avoid repechage.

The last spot would be added to repechage teams, to ensure the best teams qualify, and reduce the number of repechage matches.

So, what’s your thoughts on having 24 teams at the World Cup?