Are you a fan of the plans?

The proposals would see the top 16 teams in the world play in four pools of four in one tournament.

Meanwhile 32 other countries would take part in eight pools of four in a lesser competition.

The two-tier competition would also see the traditional knockout stages replaced by a new 'Super Eight' system, in which eight teams battle it out in two pools for a place in the semi-finals.

Is the competition in need of a shake-up?

The plans for the 2007 RWC are a breath of fresh air. In this year's football World Cup we saw certain 'wild card' teams progress to the quarter and semi-final stages, however this will not happen in rugby for many years to come, due to the relative lack of interest in the sport.

With this revamped system, the lesser unions are given a chance to really shine. No one learns anything from a 100 point drubbing at the hands of one of the big five. Smaller nations can build up their confidence against teams of equal ability, and thus create interest in a sport that is not football.
Nick Rushton, UK

When people on this page criticise the two tier idea they fail to notice that it will allow another 28 countries to take part in the World Cup. It will give countries which most of us don't realise play rugby an opportunity to show themselves on a world stage without humiliating themselves.

With the right marketing behind it this can only be a good thing for these "lesser" countries.
Ed, Wales

The cost of putting on so many matches is too great for the interest they generate. England can't fill a decent stadium in the North of England, so minor nations couldn't possibly do so.

Most "nations" are really no more than a couple of ex-pat clubs, and wouldn't challenge one of the club sides in the top countries. That said, even eight teams is too big, as none of Wales, Scotland, Ireland, or Italy could conceivably win the tournament.
John, England

How are the emerging nations supposed to improve their game and international standing if they are only allowed to play an "elite" team maybe once a year?

Rugby already has a bad reputation for being an upper class sport, and this will only make things worse.
Rhys Morris, Wales

The arrogance of the RFU continues to astound me. I cannot think of any other national sporting body in the world which would independently announce its own reorganisation of a world event.

If the World Cup needs restructuring, then it should be discussed by all rugby playing nations. Then the smaller nations would have the chance to say whether they prefer to play each other all the time or have a shot at the big nations every four years.
Allan McGrath, Australia

We haven't even had the 2003 kick fest yet and already the media is full of the 2007 rugby union World Cup.
Paley, London, UK

People should examine the proposals clearly rather than just react to the headlines! This is an intriguing idea deserving support for tackling the biggest problem facing rugby - i.e. expansion / contraction. Rugby League faced similar problems capitalising on its popularity in the 80's and 90's and failed. Not the finished article I'll agree but at least they have grasped the nettle!
Gavin Curnow, UK

It's a travesty that Japan hasn't hosted the Rugby World Cup yet. Japan has superb stadiums, a great rugby tradition and a proven ability to host world class events. Once again, rugby is playing catch up to football. Japan has just hosted a superb Football World Cup complete with magnificent stadiums that put to shame most British and French venues.

Instead of fighting about French or British plans to host the Cup, the best plan would be to award the World Cup to Japan. The fans, the players, broadcasters and advertisers would love it.
Duncan Wood, USA

All the cricket scores are a farce and a waste of time, no one learns anything from it!
Craig McDermott, Manchester, UK

Rugby is not established enough to warrant a World Cup [Tonga v Canada? Come on guys!] The RFU should be realistic and stage an eight nations championship. Qualification would be gained by world rankings
John, UK

Once again the RFU show us what an insular, short-sighted bunch they are. Two-tier? Perhaps they should have tried that in the soccer World Cup to stop those cheeky South Koreans/Turks from causing problems! Sometimes my countrymen make me feel ashamed to be English!
William, Chester

I'm not sure that there is an argument that the standards of play at the lower levels can be improved by making them play among themselves.

This "restructuring" would not be necessary if the haves of world rugby simply gave a bit of their wealth to help develop the smaller nations. Some chance!
Rich W, Northampton.

I agree with it, the old system doesn't work in its present format. I wish they'd do that to the Six Nations too, with Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy playing against themselves, then a play-off for the Cup against the winner of England v France.
Charlie, France

It is about time the lesser nations were able to compete in a tournament on equal terms. It ought to remove the almost meaningless games we have had in the past of one way traffic - no rugby fan enjoys this sort of thing.

All that is required now is that the lesser team competition is competitively priced to ensure big crowds at the venues.
Robert, England

In principal it seems like a good idea. It would provide the opportunity for the "lesser" nations to play competitive matches against a similar standard of opposition whilst letting the more established nations continue to compete for the bigger prize.

The only concern would be that, as has happened in football, there runs the risk of top players suffering burnout from the number of games they will play as a result.
Nathan Griffiths, UK

It's certainly an idea with some merit. Sevens has managed very well with tournaments offering lesser teams the opportunity to continue competing for lesser prizes after the top teams have knocked them out of the title race.

As for the proposed 'super eight' system, that might require a bit more thought but it has some merit too - certainly if it more fairly sees the top teams through to the latter stages. In 2003, for example, at least one of the, arguably, top three teams (NZ, ENG, SA) will be knocked out in the quarter-finals, while lesser teams will clearly cruise into the semis.
Aiden, UK/NZ

Usual divisive rubbish from the RFU. The only way the lesser nations will improve is if they gain experience of playing the top nations.
Gareth Rees, UK

As long as the 'minor' teams generate enough interest in the game at home and receive enough financial rewards from the new set up, it's brilliant idea.

No one likes to see a drubbing of some minnow by one of the top four, there is no satisfaction or benefit to the game in such a one sided pasting. They may well think it is a brilliant achievement to qualify for the World cup but a series of thrashings by a top side knocks the heart and support out of the players & fans.

Although I'm not a big soccer fan, in the last World Cup it looked like any team could have won it, which was good for the game. Hopefully this system will allow that situation to develop in years to come.
Monty, Ireland

This plan will actually devalue the World Cup. The competition should be as the name suggests i.e. open to all worldwide teams. Theoretically this new format would produce better games for a TV audience. However, most viewers also relish a triumph for the underdog.

By denying the smaller nations the opportunity the chance to participate, you also stifle their development. The players from these smaller countries would learn from playing against the very best but without this chance the prospect of them ever becoming one of the bigger teams are reduced. This could also have the effect of reducing the level of interest for the sport in these areas.
Alan Gilroy, Coatbridge, Scotland

I don't understand why a model following the football World Cup can't be followed; having two tiers only serves to reinforce the elitism that exists within the major nations.

Just as rugby failed to follow football when it moved from amateur to professional (country contracts for some, club contracts that conflict!) it looks like they will fail to recognise a proven team competition format in favour of some "cup" and "plate" scenario.
Mark McCluskey, UK

I think it's a good idea that would create a lot of interest from the public for later knockout stages. Super eight works in the Southern Hemisphere so it's got to be a format worth toying with.
James, UK

The competition should not be spilt up. The whole idea is to have representation from across the world and let the minnows have a crack at the stronger nations. The idea of the super eight round does seems like an exciting prospect though. The stronger teams should easily make it through to this round but then they will be given a proper test ahead of the semi-finals. Bring it on!
Simon, Scotland

There should be three tiers - with just the elite eight in the top tier. It works in ice hockey where - like rugby - only five or seven countries have a realistic chance of winning the worlds. (Thus, you never see Britain embarrass itself playing Canada in ice hockey, but do see Canada embarrass itself playing England in rugby.) No more of these 101-3 scores please; let's see the best play the best.

And so long as there's an opportunity for promotion (along with relegation for whoever finishes last in the top tier), it'd be better for the lower tier countries. Middle tier countries like Samoa or Canada or Romania get stomped by the elites but they in turn stomp all over the lower tiers like Spain, USA, Georgia). So let's recognise the reality that there are three general skill levels in world rugby.
Doug Holmes, France

Proposed changes with the formation of two competitions could have many benefits. Firstly, the employment of league systems for the latter stages of the main competition, will ensure that any would be champions would have to meet and conquer most of the best sides in the world.

Currently there are around six rugby giants and with a lucky draw and a knock-out structure, the giants are kept apart and have a relatively easy passage to the quarter-finals or even higher.

Rugby is a game of attrition and any team wishing to clam the title would have more credibility if they were to sweep all before them. Fiercer competition would also give fans a true spectacle.

The idea of a twin competition for the up and coming nations is great for the games development and gives the smaller nations the opportunity to remain longer at the world party. Until now these financially stretched sides are no more than whipping boys that then have a long journey home.
Matt H, UK