World Cup final a clash of ideas, money and the future

World number one versus world number two. The best team this year versus the best team this month. The heirs apparent versus the emerging pretenders.

Add a record 82,000 crowd, some recent past – England's last world title came in 2014 against Canada – and two centuries of shared history and Saturday's Rugby World Cup final has the gravity of a small moon.

But, for some, there is another, even more important dimension.

For them, the game is not only a contest for silverware, pride and glory.

It is also about the vindication of an idea, with millions of pounds and the shape of women's Test rugby for years to come at stake.

It is a big claim for an already big match. This is the context.

England are the best-funded women's rugby team on Earth. They have 32 players on full-time contracts. Their highest earners in the squad are reportedly on nearly £50,000 a year, with bonuses for victories and titles on top, and cutting-edge analysis, preparation and coaching at England's high performance centre to help them achieve success.

They invariably find that success. Since full-time contracts were introduced in 2019, the Red Roses have won 73 of the 75 matches they have played.

England also has the best league in the world.

The nine-team PWR attracts talent from around the globe, creating a quality and quantity of rugby unrivalled in any other domestic competition and a production line of future Red Roses.

Canada have none of this.

This week, Rugby Canada chief executive Nathan Bombrys estimated that if his women's players "did everything this calendar year", they could expect to earn 12,000 Canadian dollars (£6,420) from the national body.

The Rugby Football Union committed a combined £28.7m to its national teams - men and women - in its most recent annual report. Rugby Canada's equivalent figure was less than a sixth of that at £4.5m.

Canada's domestic rugby scene is tiny compared to England's, limited to a university scene and disparate clubs across a vast nation.

Including kids, coaches and officials, there are only 41,202 registered participants in Canadian rugby - enough to fill only half of Allianz Stadium.

The team's World Cup preparation plans - nothing too fancy, mainly more time together in a centralised camp - were beyond the federation's finances.

Rugby Canada's C$2.6m (£1.4m) backing had to be supplemented by a million-dollar fundraising drive, titled Mission: Win Rugby World Cup, to cover the costs.

Donations have come in from community rugby clubs, former players, new supporters, and big backers. The Tragically Hip - long-standing alt-rock legends in Canada - raised C$30,000 (£16,000) through sales of a special T-shirt.

It is inspiring underdog stuff. But the funding gap still yawns wide.

On the pitch though, the difference is marginal.

No other team at the Rugby World Cup - Red Roses or otherwise - have touched the heights than Canada hit in their first-half bombardment of New Zealand in the semi-finals. Their 46-5 demolition of Australia in the last eight wasn't far behind either.

They are playing with flair and tempo, recycling ball at speed, and puncturing defences, either out wide with the pace of Asia Hogan-Rochester, Florence Symonds and the rest, or with smart darts around the fringes from Sophie de Goede, Justine Pelletier and Karen Paquin.

At the last Rugby World Cup, Canada were within four points of England in the last 10 minutes of their semi-final.

In their last meeting, at WXV in October, Canada led by five going into the last 15 minutes.

On neither occasion could they steer a promising performance home to victory. But they are better prepared than ever to do so on Saturday.

Canada's Alex Tessier or England's Zoe Aldcroft will lift the Women's Rugby World Cup trophy on Saturday

England may have a landslide of money behind them, but Canada have cut their cloth with care and cunning.

Eighteen of their 32-strong squad, including world player of the year nominee De Goede and captain Alex Tessier, play for PWR clubs, getting them crucial high-quality game time.

There is a cluster of eight players together at Saracens, another six at Exeter, while Ealing Trailfinders, Gloucester-Hartpury and Leicester are also represented.

Canada have also hired Alex Austerberry, Saracens' director of women's rugby, as an assistant coach to pull together the knowledge the players have gained at club level and then add his own.

As part of their extended preparations, Canada played four warm-up matches, twice the number England played. Two of them came away to fast-improving South Africa, as part of a mutually beneficial arrangement struck between the two unions.

After New Zealand invested heavily and late in the last cycle to turn around a faltering Black Ferns side and lift the trophy, is there a template emerging?

If Canada win, how many cash-strapped unions will invest in full-time women's professionalism, instead pointing to a record that suggests nimble, clever, targeted preparation, along with piggy-backing on England's investment, can deliver similar results on a fraction of the budget?

England have dominated between Rugby World Cups. But if they fail to win the big one, will it be a big loss for women players everywhere?

To take those lessons from a Canada win, however, would be to ignore what their own players and coach are saying. And what the numbers show.

Canada have dug deep for their women's team. It is just their pockets are comparatively shallow.

Rugby Canada funds its men's and women's teams equally - something few, if any, other unions around the world can say.

Head coach Kevin Rouet explained the rest of their philosophy, with a caveat.

"We try to be that creative because when you don't have money you have to be creative in the way you prepare," he said.

"I think it allows us to do a lot of stuff that we wouldn't be able to do if we had too much money.

"I know it's crazy to say that, but sometimes it allows us to be to find the best of everything and try to just be efficient with everything.

"But I want more money, if that wasn't clear!"

Pamphinette Buisa, who was selected in Rouet's squad but withdrew after suffering an injury in their final warm-up match against Ireland, says similar.

"We want the support, we want the resources," she said in a social media post.

"A win wouldn't prove that professionalism doesn't matter. It would prove how much this team gives without the systems it deserves."

Canada have a good chance on Saturday. With more money, and the subsequent increased depth, cohesion and conditioning, they would have a great chance.

If Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, United States, France or Ireland want to be England's primary rival in a growing game, stalling on cycle-wide spending is only going to make that goal less likely.

And to reduce England's return on investment to the number of shiny pots in the cabinet also seems short-sighted.

A Rugby World Cup victory would be huge, super-charging the growth of the sport.

But the success or failure of a policy can't be entirely decided by a match that may turn on the bounce of a ball or, as in the last Rugby World Cup final, a first-half clash of heads.

England's money has delivered a dominant, excellent team, that draws crowds, sponsors, spectators, players and attention to the game like no other.

The Red Roses will go into the next World Cup in Australia in 2029 as one of, if not the, favourites.

While the Rugby Football Union has invested financially, England have thousands of fans invested emotionally.

That investment doesn't glitter like a World Cup, but it is just as rare a commodity. And just as valuable.