Rugby as a diplomatic weapon

Rugby may not have the international reach of soccer. But its geopolitical impact is no less real. As the Oval Ball World Cup is held in France until October 28, The Press discusses sport and the power to convince (soft power) with Carole Gomez, author of the book Rugby conquering the world.

We often talk about soccer (football) as a geopolitical tool, but much more rarely about rugby. Why you think ?

The first explanation is that football is the most globalized sport and therefore, there will inevitably be greater echoes. Another explanation is that football has been developing since the 19th^e century. In the case of rugby, it is much more recent. There are only 132 national federations in rugby and therefore fewer players taking part in the issues. Statistically, the number of complex geopolitical situations arises less.

Why has rugby not globalized as much as football?

It’s linked to the inventors of this sport. The British were quite reluctant to institutionalize the sport. The first World Cup was not organized until 1987, which was relatively late. There is also the question of professionalization, which arrived late. Historically, rugby was a sport practiced by an elite who did not need subsidies.

Does this elitism also explain certain things?

Football developed through ports thanks to the merchant navy. It was quickly practiced by everyone. This is not the case for rugby, which mainly involved colleges and business. This is how the sport developed in Japan, New Zealand, Fiji. It arrived in suitcases of students who had gone to study in the United Kingdom.

Why was it established in some British colonies and not others? Why in New Zealand, but not India or Canada?

In certain countries with a Hindu culture, there may be the fact that the ball is made of leather and as we touch it with our hands, this may explain this reluctance. For Canada, I find you harsh. Your country has still been present nine times out of ten editions of the World Cup and the women’s XV team is in the top 5 global. Now, why does the transplant take place in some countries and not others? I have no response. For New Zealand, on the other hand, that’s understandable. There was a significant resemblance to a Maori game and people were immediately hooked. There is also the fact that at the time, we took everyone on the team, regardless of size or speed. This made it possible to have farmers, loggers, teachers, doctors on the same land. It brought the whole of society together. It allowed the New Zealand population to come together in one place and come together as one.

Rugby as a vector of national unity…

Yes, there are various cases where rugby has helped unite your country or several countries. I am thinking, among others, of the Irish team, which brings together players from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, despite persistent tensions between Catholics and Protestants.

Or to South Africa, and its famous rainbow nation, whose story is told in the film Invictus…

This film is romanticized, idealized. But the fact remains that it is something that has marked the history of the country. Not all problems were resolved after this victory at the World Cup in 1995. Political and social difficulties remained extremely strong. But it allowed South Africa’s great return to the international community after the end of apartheid. It also made it possible to show an extremely positive image of the country, with full stadiums and this very strong symbol of Nelson Mandela who wears the national team jersey, while this sport was still practiced very largely by white people. Invictus helped to democratize this story and show how sport could have a beneficial impact on a nation.

We often talk about “sports diplomacy” when we talk about the Soccer World Cup. Namely that there are political issues underlying the tournament. Is this the case in this Rugby World Cup?

Tensions were expected between Argentina and England, because of their past [la guerre des Malouines]. That didn’t happen. In fact, there have been few geopolitical hiccups so far. Perhaps it’s because the Rugby World Cup is actually a fairly closed competition. There are only 20 teams participating and we often end up with the same ones, countries where there are no significant geopolitical tensions. You’re not going to have a Russia-Ukraine, for example. Russia has qualified for the World Cup twice, but Ukraine has never qualified.

Can this select club expand?

There is this will. The Americans are showing more and more interest. The women’s and men’s World Cup will be organized in the United States in 2031. We have also seen countries that are very far from the culture of rugby showing more and more interest in this sport. We think of Qatar, where there were rumors about a potential organization of the World Cup. Or to Saudi Arabia, which could potentially organize it in 2035.

By economic or geopolitical interest?

Both. Geopolitics, because it allows us to continue to develop sports diplomacy. Economical, because it allows you to attract new sponsors and create links with countries in a more informal way. It’s always complicated when we talk about sports diplomacy. We see the efforts made, the amounts invested, but it is extremely difficult to quantify its impacts. Does it work ? Is there a return on investment? Difficult to answer fully. Difficult to measure the effect and repercussions of soft power…