Let’s try to put the good news from Edinburgh in its place.
Scotland will play their first planned match at Murrayfield next spring against England. This is a huge leap of faith by the SRU and congratulations to them. I add ‘planned’, as there was that accidental match in 2020 that I reported on at the time. (http://4theloveofsport.co.uk/2020/02/11/snowball-fight-6-nations-scotland-v-england/). Scarf and gloves needed to read it.
It means that when that day arrives, precisely half the six nations will have played at least one match at their national stadium, as follows:
England – Yes, Twickenham, 58,498 in attendance
France – No
Ireland – Not yet
Italy – Not yet
Scotland – Yes, Murrayfield ?
Wales – Yes, Principality, 21,186
That is a reward that every international player deserves.
The RFU has committed itself to holding one match per year at HQ. That is quite an undertaking, since they need something close to a full house to ensure they make a profit. Even that 58k meant around 23,500 empty seats. It takes a lot to fill these vast stadia. As the RFU has been tightening its belt again, we can’t assume this venue will remain available for ever.
The WRU took the plunge last year, and were delighted to see the previous record for a women’s match attendance more than doubled. But my point about empty seats becomes even more relevant to a union that doesn’t have pennies to throw away. It remains to be seen whether the experiment will be repeated. Needless to say, the WRU has far more urgent matters on its desk.
Another consideration that crops up every year: teams have either two or three home matches scheduled. When they are restricted to two, the choice of venues becomes that bit trickier.
Policies differ
The Red Roses like to spread their favours, but if HQ remains a permanent choice for one match, where should the other(s) take place? Fairness says each region should take its turn. Unfortunately, rugby grounds with the appropriate size and facilities are not on tap everywhere. With average attendances increasing, the number of possible sites reduces.
France are in a unique position. First, they will not use the Stade de France as it is not owned by the FFR, and costs an arm and a leg to hire. Second, their tradition is to take matches all around the nation, a success that other countries can only admire and envy. Everywhere they go they get full houses and a rousing reception.
Of the two “Not yets” I’ve listed above, Ireland must be much closer to breaking their duck than Italy. There have been loud calls for the voluptuously shaped Aviva Stadium to be used for home matches. Thus far the IRFU has said no. You don’t need to be a crystal-ball gazer to suspect a change of mind could be close. The capacity is currently 51,700.
The Aviva is a rebuild on the site of the famous old Lansdowne Road Stadium; the station of the same name lies next door, so is conveniently close to the city centre. And you can learn a smattering of Irish as you make your way.
Once more Italy remains an outrider. The FIR made the Sergio Lanfranchi Stadium in Parma its headquarters for all the home matches of the Azzurre. The plan hasn’t been a sure-fire success, leaving the authorities with a mixture of possible alternatives; for example, select another medium-sized city (Padua is not far away); adopt a policy closer to France’s; go the whole hog and opt for the Stadio Olympico in Rome, or take the easy way out and stick to Parma.
At all events the Azzurre deserve a far larger audience for their deeds.
One last thought
The Six Nations is now a multi-billion business. That is thanks to the men’s version rather than the women’s. But the women are establishing a huge increase in interest, and they operate under the same umbrella organization.
It’s a pity then that their 2026 schedule still isn’t published at the same time as the men’s. We have known theirs since 19 May. Why this ongoing disparity?
