RFU says 'catastrophic' relegation from Nations Championship would be a 'commercial disaster'

World Rugby has proposed drastically changing the face of international competition in developing a 12-nation top tier

The RFU has raised concern over the financial uncertainty that would follow in seeing England relegated from the top tier (Getty)

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has warned that relegation under the proposed Nations Championship would be “catastrophic” for England and could prove to be a “commercial disaster” for the game in this country.

World Rugby has proposed drastically changing the face of international competition in developing a 12-nation top tier, which would be comprised of the top six countries in both the northern and southern hemispheres – all of whom would be safe from relegation until 2026.

But the RFU has raised concern over the financial uncertainty that would follow in seeing England relegated from 2026 onward, potentially forcing the organisation to sell Twickenham Stadium – such would be the financial impact of dropping to the second division and facing the likes of Spain, Portugal, Tonga and Uruguay on an annual basis instead of Tier One opposition.

A number of nations have pushed back against relegation with the likes of Scotland and Italy concerned also about how the plans would impact their futures in the Six Nations. However, a ring-fenced competition would cut off the rest of the world outside of the Nations Championship top tier until 2032 at the earliest.

Nigel Melville, the RFU’s interim chief executive, revealed on Tuesday how concerned England are with relegation, stating that agreeing to playing for two years against less competitive opposition – given there would be no relegation in a British and Irish Lions tour year and no Nations Championship in a Rugby World Cup year – would be akin to financial suicide.

“The narrative makes sense, but there are obvious concerns coming out of the proposal,” Melville said. “I don’t think anyone is against the principles of (promotion and relegation). In order to make it work Six Nations-wise, you need a credible tier two tournament. I don’t know what you’d be relegated into at the moment.”

Melville added: “For us it would catastrophic being relegated, commercially. To be relegated, the catastrophe isn’t just the team being relegated, it’s our ability to fund the game as a governing body in England. Can we fund the community game in England to the level we do now if we don’t have the revenues we have?

“And the next point of promotion and relegation, in the model, there’s no promotion and relegation on a Lions year and there’s no tournament in a World Cup year. So when you’re relegated, you’re relegated for two years, not one. It’s not quite up and down, one season on the naughty step and go back up, it’s actually two years and that could be a disaster for people. But a credible tier two, when you’ve got a buoyant competition, you can see that working.”

The unions involved in holding talks with World Rugby two weeks’ ago in Dublin have another fortnight to decide whether the proposals are worth pressing on with. The inclusion of promotion and relegation appeared to be included to appease the Tier Two nations who voiced their grave concerns about being cut off from the top table – particularly in the Pacific Islands – but Melville appeared to suggest that the RFU under no circumstances would agree to relegation until a competitive second tier is formed.

“I think we make sure it doesn’t arise,” said Melville. “That solves that problem. We’ve got to look at the development of Twickenham down the line and what happens to Twickenham – I don’t think… that’s a bit of a throwaway line isn’t it, it’s not something we should be thinking about now.

“You just don’t want to get into a situation where you’re making decisions like that. You’ve got to look at it as an opportunity to have a global competition, how can you get there, how quickly can you get there, what are the key points to get there. But the narrative is good.”