Rethinking the Rugby SVNS Series Format—But Holding Onto the Vision

In a quiet but significant update last week, World Rugby hinted at a possible overhaul of its SVNS and Challenger Series formats after the current season ends. While these changes might be aimed at tightening budgets and streamlining operations, they raise a critical question: what happens to the teams who fought so hard to earn their spot on the world stage?

The SVNS Series, despite not turning a profit, delivered something far more valuable—global participation. We watched as nations like Thailand, Samoa, China, and Brazil didn’t just appear on the circuit—they grew. They invested. They inspired the next generation.

The current structure gave every nation, regardless of ranking, a chance to climb. The Challenger Series, often overlooked, gave emerging women’s programs like China, Poland, Thailand, and Colombia a shot at high-performance competition. They got to measure themselves against the best. That exposure is irreplaceable.

And now, with the final stop of the 2025 SVNS Series headed to LA—a Grand Final designed to determine promotion and relegation—it suddenly feels watered down. In theory, the bottom four SVNS teams would face the top four from the Challenger Series, fighting for a coveted place on next year’s circuit. But under the proposed new format, these matches appear to have no real consequence.

Even if a Challenger team beats an SVNS side in LA, it won’t guarantee promotion to HSBC SVNS 2026. Instead, losing teams would be shuffled into regional qualifiers for a revamped Challenger Series in 2026. The stakes? Blurred. The opportunity? Muddied.

This isn’t the first time the format has shifted. In fact, if the current review leads to changes—whether it’s fewer teams or more—it’ll be the third major revamp since COVID.

Let’s rewind a bit:

Rugby Sevens returned to the Olympics in 2016, nearly a century after its last appearance at the 1924 Paris Games. That spotlight helped launch the format into new markets and drew in fans worldwide.
Then came COVID, and with it, a reset. World Rugby reduced the number of tournaments from 11 to 8. The men’s competition was scaled back from 16 to 12 teams to align with the Olympic model.
Even traditional hosts like New Zealand, England, and France didn’t feature on the most recent circuit. North America and Asia stepped up, each hosting two legs.

Despite those adjustments, attendance has dipped. So have TV numbers. And now, another review is underway.

But here’s the thing: this system was built to give the rest of the world a shot. A real shot. Not a maybe. Not a marketing story. A pathway.

Yes, profitability matters. But the short-term solution shouldn’t come at the cost of the long-term vision: a truly global game. A format that only benefits those already at the top risks turning the world of rugby into an echo chamber—fast-paced, yes, but closed off from the very people who gave it life beyond the traditional powerhouses.

There’s still time to shape the future. And we hope World Rugby uses this moment not just to rethink the format—but to double down on inclusion. To protect what’s already been built. And to ensure that emerging nations still have a seat at the table, and a chance to climb.

Because a global game only works when the whole world is playing.