There was a time in the early years of the professional era when the Lions made a loss for the four home unions, but they are now unashamedly commercial, one reason why next year's tour kicks off with a fixture against the Barbarians in Hong Kong, an important base of the principal sponsors, HSBC.
There may well be a similar excursion before the 2017 trip to New Zealand: Fiji have already issued an invitation, but it would not be a missionary visit as in the old days: it would have to be profitable. The Lions are big business, making money for the unions who host them to such an extent that without the tourists, Sanzar countries would struggle to hold on to their best players, never mind that they each enjoy visits just once every 12 years.
The Lions expect that 40,000 supporters will be following them in Australia, as many as were in South Africa in 2009, a figure that would be remarkable at any time, never mind during the worst economic climate since the 1930s. The Lions are attracting global companies as backers and a tour by them has become the game's second biggest event after a World Cup.
It almost seemed sacriligeous to ask, given the setting and the mood of celebration, but given the failure of the Lions to win a series since 1997 and with just three victories in their last 10 Tests, would an ever-inflating bubble be burst if success on the field remained elusive? Would tens of thousands spend thousands of pounds flying thousands of miles to watch a team likely to lose a Test rubber not because the players and coaches were not up to it, but because the domestic calendar in the British Isles made no concessions to the Lions?
Warren Gatland's squad will gather six days before the match in Hong Kong, a day after the finals of the Aviva Premiership and RaboDirect Pro 12 are played, and little more than a week after the two European finals. The amateur era, when tours were considerably longer and player release was not an issue, showed how testing it was to mould a squad of players from four different countries. Gatland and his management team will have little more than a month to find the mix before the first Test.
The Lions have two more tours under the current agreement with the Sanzar unions. Their current manager, Andy Irvine, said a new deal must provide adequate preparation time, even if it meant moving the start of a trip back by two weeks. He accepted that clubs, as well as unions and the International Rugby Board, would need to be involved in any discussion: putting back to start date would delay the time players would return to their clubs/provinces/regions, impacting on the Premiership and the Pro 12, and the season in the southern hemisphere is longer now with the Super 15 and the Rugby Championship both enhanced.
There is little wriggle room. In 2009, the Premiership play-off final was brought forward but a Lions tour brings little tangible reward for clubs, apart from the compensation they receive for supplying players. They are part of the effort, but the Lions are very much a product of the four unions involved.
If there is to be any meaningful and profound change after 2017, it will only be because the clubs are part of the decision-making process. That would mean they had a share in the rewards: it is not enough for the Lions to point to intangible rewards, such as the heightened interest inrugby union there will be next summer with no major football tournament being held.
Two of the last three tours have been lost by narrow margins. The Lions won the first Test in Australia in 2001, reward perhaps for the then coach Graham Henry deciding his Test team in advance and focusing on that formation in training from the start, a policy since viewed as contrary to what the Lions stand for.
The second Test turned when Richard Hill was taken out off the ball by Nathan Grey, ending his tour. The Wallaby centre was not cited, a decision almost as shocking as that four years later to ignore the spear-tackle that ended Brian O'Driscoll's tour in New Zealand.
In 2009, the Lions looked more resourceful than South Africa, but a series of less than demanding warm-up games left them vulnerable and they were targeted in the scrum in the first Test. They threw away the second after being decimated by injuries and comfortably won the third.
The tour to New Zealand in 2005 was a failure in every sense bar one. Henry was by then in charge of the All Blacks and the Lions arrived with an army that left the many who were confined to minor skirmishing disaffected. Gatland intends to take no more than 35 players to Australia, giving everyone a chance in the opening weeks to challenge for a place in the Test side.
It will be only the second tour in the professional era that Sir Ian McGeechan has not been involved in – 2001 was the other. He helped provide the sole salvation in 2005, ensuring that the midweek team did not fall apart and his understanding of the Lions' ethos is unrivalled. Without him, the tours may have stopped after 1997.
McGeechan will not be used as an adviser next year, even though he has a tie-up with one of the sponsors. The Lions committee feels that it would be unfair to cast his shadow over Gatland, but given the lack of preparation time and the fact that some leading players for their countries are not going to be in the Test side – the back row, for example, will be fiercely competitive – it would be daft not to have him available as a sounding board, a man with a burning pride in the Lions.
guardian
