The financial struggles faced by rugby unions in the Pacific islands are emblematic of challenges encountered by many developing rugby nations. The recent announcement by Lakapi Samoa to cancel a planned tour to the Northern Hemisphere underscores the ongoing difficulties small rugby unions confront.
Tu’ilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegao, the chair of Lakapi Samoa’s board and a former Prime Minister, identified a lack of sponsorship as the principal hurdle to the union’s growth and sustainability. In a letter addressed to World Rugby chairman Sir Bill Beaumont, he proposed exploring targeted initiatives that could provide meaningful assistance to a country like Samoa, including enhanced financial help and stronger support structures to better navigate the complexities of international competition.
In an interview with RNZ Pacific, Tu’ilaepa expressed that Lakapi Samoa requires funding to sustain operations, suggesting that current government support falls short compared to previous administrations. He noted that the organization has been grappling with financial issues since the government transitioned, and they are now seeking to secure new sponsors and financial assistance.
World Rugby’s response to the union’s situation indicated that the financial difficulties stem from decisions made by Lakapi Samoa. They stressed the importance of addressing core issues rather than seeking immediate fixes that could exacerbate the problems. This suggests that World Rugby is either dissatisfied with the financial management of Lakapi Samoa, akin to their past criticisms of Fiji Rugby Union and Tonga Rugby Union, or they are growing weary of continual financial requests from smaller unions, including Samoa.
While World Rugby already allocates funds to Samoa, Fiji, and Tonga to cover costs associated with major tournaments like the Pacific Nations Cup, the agreement details regarding gate receipts and sponsorships during tours are managed independently by the unions. This arrangement means that Pacific Island teams touring the Northern Hemisphere must incur substantial expenses to send their squads abroad.
Former official Charlie Charters highlighted that overseas tours are financially burdensome due to high costs, particularly airfares and player compensations. He pointed out that the financial return on these tours is a critical factor for unions, especially considering the caliber of teams they compete against. For instance, the Manu Samoa was slated to face Spain and Portugal, while Fiji would meet stronger Tier 1 opponents such as Ireland and Wales. Consequently, Manu Samoa’s tour cost is significantly higher, projecting less revenue in return.
Securing sponsorships could prove challenging for Lakapi Samoa if potential sponsors perceive minimal return on investment. This is compounded by the fact that matches against nations like Spain and Portugal do not attract significant viewership, making it difficult to entice sponsors.
Both Tonga Rugby and Fiji Rugby have undergone scrutiny and restructuring to address financial management issues, with Tonga facing a four-year period of strict oversight to improve their financial standing. The emphasis is now on these unions achieving independence and stability, free from the pervasive influence of World Rugby while still needing their support.
The Tongan Prime Minister recently expressed concern over the situation facing Lakapi Samoa, labeling it a tragic reality for Pacific rugby. He called for improved support from World Rugby and sponsors, acknowledging the difficulties teams face when they lack necessary resources.
Discussion now centers on who should cover the costs of tours beyond World Rugby’s official commitments. Charters suggests that financial arrangements must work to the benefit of all parties involved, advocating for a system where developing nations could have significant overhead costs subsidized.
As Lakapi Samoa navigates its future, it remains clear that developing rugby unions do not possess the financial advantages enjoyed by Tier 1 nations. Historically, the disparity in funding and appearance fees has plagued these unions, prompting calls for better support and equitable financial arrangements from governing bodies to foster long-term growth and competitiveness in rugby.