Interesting to work out the economics. 20 teams with 30 players in each squad makes 600 players.

If each of these is palying at a pretty good level in UK, Europe, or Japan, they will be on about $200,000 per season. If they lose 20% of their season through World Cup duty (including a basic minimum for team camps etc), that is $40,000 eash.

600 x $40,000 = $24,000,000.

Which, in terms of the money generated, is not all that much (it isn't mine at all, so I can say that!).

Where the argument comes in: Should only selected poorer countries have their players paid by the RWC organisation, or should it be a flat fee for all players? The Australian players, for example, will pick up a couple of hundred grand each as their share if they win the Cup. England, France, NZ, and the Jappies would be in the same league. I can see the reaction of these blokes to the proposition.

On the other hand, how should players be selected for the subsidy? Should some no-name amateur from Georgia get the same as Jacob Rauluni (Fiji) or Brian Lima (Samoa), who might be on big contracts elsewhere?

Should the big earners from the powerful countries have the RWC amount added to their already large payout?

These are dififcult questions - but they have to be dealt with, somewhere, and the sooner the better.