Numerous factors are conspiring to permanently transform the landscape of rugby union. But numerous inadequacies that respective national unions continue to exhibit must be put aside before changes are made to domestic, super and international series.

Are there really inadequacies? In New Zealand, the game's health is irrevocably linked to the fortunes of their premier brand - the All Blacks. With the national team posting their worst ever result at last year’s World Cup, the game has suffered at all levels. Perceived mismanagement by the NZRU, led by chairman Steve Tew, resulted in unclear objectives, including by the reappointment of head coach Graham Henry despite failing in his job description of winning the William Webb Ellis Cup.

Attendances are at their worst level in years. The traditional strength of the New Zealand game at domestic club level is in rude shape, with the Air New Zealand Cup, a relatively new competition, suffering with the announced axing of the Northland and Tasman unions in 2009. Tasman chairman Max Spence has implied that the debt-ridden province is unlikely to last the current season.

Mockingly for the rugby-mad country, their biggest problem is over-saturation of the market. This has been accentuated by a horrendous player exodus, with reports that ex-players such as Tana Umaga and Byron Kelleher are all but encouraging players to leave New Zealand.

But what if they want to come back? Ex-All Black great Justin Marshall recently exhibited interest in returning to the New Zealand game but was told clearly by the NZRU that there was no room for him in any domestic unions. Where is the transparency?

In Australia, things are on the up – largely thanks to the high-level management ability of supremo John O’Neill. After leaving the code in 2003 and the ARU posting a AUD $20million surplus, the Australian game has suffered in the last four years. The most prevalent reason was the complete failure of the Australian Rugby Championship – a domestic competition to try and rival the Currie and Air New Zealand Cups. After one year and a loss of AUD $4.7m, Australian rugby was considered in crisis at the end of last year.

Unlike New Zealand and South Africa, Aussie rugby is under constant threat from competing codes, with the AFL (Australian Football League) the NRL (National Rugby League) and the new A-League Soccer championships all dominating the Australian sporting landscape. Ironically it was O’Neill in his role as football boss who invigorated soccer in Australia to threaten rugby union.

South Africa has less glaring issues and has many aspects not appearing to suffer from the same mistakes their Southern counterparts make.  The Currie Cup is the world’s oldest and arguably premier domestic rugby competition – and, as evidenced by their overseas selection policies, is pragmatic and more adaptable to the embryonic landscape.

However, the prehistoric views by Cedrick Frolick, vice-chairman of the parliamentary sport portfolio committee, don't help matters. He recently claimed there were not enough black players in Peter De Villiers' latest Springbok side.

On Ricky Januarie's axing, Frolick stated: "I think Ricky has proved himself as South Africa's leading scrumhalf. Is it Fourie's World Cup status that now elevates him above Ricky? In my view, Fourie has done nothing to justify a place in the starting line-up."

Frolick said he felt De Villiers had selected Montgomery for sentimental reasons, allowing him to raise his century of Test appearances in his old home city, adding: ''Conrad Jantjes is, on present form, the No.1 fullback. It is worrying that people make decisions with their heart to give someone (Montgomery) his 100th Test cap."

Aren’t these selections being made to enable the Springboks to defeat the All Blacks? Frolick made no attempt to hide the race issue and believes De Villiers is being driven by success in results rather than transformation.

He said: "This creates questions about where we are heading. I know Peter wants to win the Tri-Nations but he must realise he will be measured according to his ability to transform the team and to make it representative of the country's population for the 2011 World Cup.

"We cannot repeat the cycle of the White era - we must build for 2011. It is easy to fall into a comfort zone. Peter should be reminded of his mandate. It's not all about transformation but transformation is an important part of it. Not one black player has let South Africa down this year."

I do not live in South Africa so cannot comment on such race issues. But aren’t the Springboks the world champions? Why are non-rugby entities getting involved in such affairs when it appears that, despite the question marks (which exist over every national rugby coach), De Villiers is just trying to maintain a winning culture?

Why is the government involving themselves so negatively? Are we not as a human race beyond how many black and white people there are in a sporting team for goodness sake?

The affluent rugby economies of England and France are turning players' allegiances upside-down. The popular ELVs still remain an unknown entity due to Northern Hemisphere resistance. The Super 14 as we know it may soon cease to exist, with the massively lucrative contract between SANZAR and News Limited due to be reviewed in 2010.

Our independent national unions need to ensure that they have their game efficiently run so the code can continue to compete globally. So, most importantly, we can continue to enjoy our great game and not be frustrated with the ramblings of the men who control the sport.