Convoluted 2026 Sevens World Series format meets with criticism and anger

Daily Maverick

14-05-2025

A third restructure in five years to the SVNS World Series has left a bad taste in the mouth for fans and players.
World Rugby's recently announced rejigged format for the SVNS World Series from 2026 has met with stinging criticism from players and fans.
The structure, which is overly complex and exclusionary, looks set to face more opposition in the coming months despite World Rugby's best attempts to spin the decision as a way of promoting Sevens through an 'expanded calendar'.
Adding to the unhappiness was the fact that details were announced just days before the culmination of the 2024/25 SVNS World series in Los Angeles, where the Blitzboks were crowned winners.
'Shaped through stakeholder consultation and evaluation of the sporting landscape, the new structure introduces a devolved, three-division hosting model that expands the series from 10 to 13 events in 2026,' World Rugby's statement read.
'HSBC SVNS Division 1 will see core team numbers reduced from 12 to eight per gender in a six-tournament series, with all events adopting a two-day format — enabling more agile, cost-effective delivery while elevating competitiveness, fan interest and broadcast value.'
It is a fact that there will be 13 tournaments instead of 10, but not all those tournaments are equal.
What was not mentioned, is that the 2026 Rugby World Cup Sevens has been quietly dropped from the calendar.
A quick scroll down World Rugby's official social media channels revealed an angry reaction from fans, while coaches and players within the set-up have been critical.
Sevens shambles
It is the third format change in five years, suggesting much more complex issues with the format and circuit than is being revealed.
The newly released format is confusing and was conveyed poorly to the teams on the circuit, which has led to pointed criticism and condemnation of the process, and of the new format itself.
'Shameful, unprofessional and Machiavellian behaviour by those been (sic) given the responsibility to lead 7's at World Rugby,' was the view of former USA and Britain Sevens coach Mike Friday, who posted on X.
USA Sevens player Stephen Tomasin made a 10-minute video explaining how the change of format would affect a team such as the USA, who were outside the top eight this season and now face an uncertain future.
What the new format will do is limit the top division to eight teams that will compete in six tournaments.
There is a second division with three tournaments, and a third division with regional qualifying events.
Basically, the second division teams have three tournaments to fight their way back to the top 12 (see accompanying graphic) while division one is distilled into eight core teams. Quite how that grows the game is unclear.
Eventually the season will progress to a point where there will be three SVNS World Championship tournaments with 12 teams each (men and women).
Traditional men's teams such as the USA and Ireland have dropped out of the top eight and will only play in the second division, where they have limited opportunities to qualify for the three World Championship events. This lack of exposure will also affect their funding.
While World Rugby claimed the change was done to be in line with the Olympic Games format, it doesn't make sense because the Olympic Games features 12 teams. World Rugby has essentially made more than half its tournaments eight-team events.
It's a lesson in taking something that worked — the original 10-tournament Sevens World Series — and turning it into something convoluted and confusing.
Friday was particularly scathing in a string of posts on X.
'Having read the press release it is just more WR (World Rugby) spin… you mean 'shaped' through Machiavellian consultation and underhandedness. Investing £10m — you mean the money IOC allocates to WR!!!' he posted on X.
'A PowerPoint competition that looks pretty in theory on paper, definitely not expanded and in reality a disaster for all Tier 2 and Tier 3 players and programs (sic) and offers anything but a clear pathway.
'The gap will just get wider… all so the select Tier 1 unions can invest less in 7s and still remain at the Top 7s table. Shame on you World Rugby. The format isn't the issue, it's your event strategy and 7s leadership who are not fit for purpose.'
Late confirmation
To make matters worse, teams that needed to finish inside the top eight to make next season's first division, were only told of the new format towards the end of the 2024/25 campaign, meaning they had no time to save themselves.
'No team agrees with it. And the worst part about it all is that it wasn't like we learnt about it this season and they are going to implement it next season,' Tomasin confirmed in his video, posted before the Los Angeles tournament.
'The teams found out about this, that things were changing, around January, and we found out this was going to be the way things were going forward in late February or March.
'So we found out mid-season the changes were happening for next season, which doesn't give teams any time to prepare. It also creates a lot of volatility on the World Series. It's essentially not the way Sevens has always gone.
'You could say we should have played better if we didn't want to be in this position. I agree with that. We haven't played well enough this year to compete at the top of the table.
'If you know me, you know I'm not someone who will throw shade at other places [over] my performance.
'It puts us in a pretty precarious place. I'm ultimately making this video because World Rugby hasn't said anything to the fans, and I've been getting messages wondering what's going on.
'This weekend in LA, the men's Sevens team will be playing in the outside fields. We don't even get to play in the stadium. The top eight teams, both men and women, will be playing in the stadium. We will be playing on the outside field versus other teams in this Sevens 2 situation.'
In a letter circulated to members World Rugby acknowledged that money was an issue. It offered participation payments to the teams between ninth and 12th that dropped out in 2025.
In other words, they were paid what they were due had they been in division one next season. It's essentially a compensation payment.
For teams such as the USA and Ireland, the £300,000 participation payment won't be enough to fully sustain them, but for smaller nations, it will go a long way to funding their programme for a year.
It has been widely reported that the SVNS series has been losing money, and that was confirmed by World Rugby CEO Alan Gilpin in an interview during the recent LA finale. The letter to members from World Rugby's executive board also noted that 'in light of the current financial challenges facing Sevens, it is essential that we adapt and take appropriate actions to ensure the short-term sustainability of the Sevens game'.
Daily Maverick sources suggest that World Rugby's decision to take over the running of various tournaments, instead of outsourcing them to the host city and host rugby union, is one of the major factors in added expense.
Lack of consultation
World Rugby's official press release on the new format claimed it had been devised through discussion. It's a statement that has been challenged.
The changes were 'shaped through stakeholder consultation and evaluation of the sporting landscape', according to the official statement.
Global players' trade union, International Rugby Players (IRP) delivered an embarrassing rebuttal.
'During World Rugby's recent development of a new tournament model, IRP can confirm that players were not involved in devising the model and were presented with its details at a late stage, immediately prior to its submission for ratification by the World Rugby Executive Board,' a statement from IRP revealed.
'Early exchanges took place, however discussions on the actual mechanics of the model did not include the players.'
The United States Rugby Player Association also released a statement declaring that changes had been carried out 'without consultation, transparency and support from players'.
'Announcing major structural changes mid-season — unexpectedly designating this as a qualification year — undermines teams' ability to plan strategically and compromises the integrity of the competition,' the statement read.
'World Rugby had ample time to notify and include the players in this process from day one, but failed to do so. These decisions have profound consequences on players' careers, contracts and programme funding, and the manner in which they were implemented is wholly unacceptable.' DM