2013 World Cup is set in motion.

Before a ball had been kicked, the 2008 World Cup was under criticism from fans and the media for its ten team tournament structure. The fact that three teams could progress into the semi finals from one group of four was scandalous, a mockery to the sport, and downright embarrassing.

And maybe it was. For those unfamiliar to modern day rugby league, we are not in a position to draw up a "fair" tournament and expect attendances, revenue and TV audiences to remain consistent. The 2008 World Cup was a success because it was biased and because the top nations in rugby league were guaranteed to play each other in the early rounds keeping fans interested throughout the four week competition. It generated a good amount of interest, attendances and TV audiences for the pinnacle of international rugby league. More importantly, it generated enough money to make a profit and wet the appetite of smaller nations for more international rugby league in the near future. So the news this week that the 2013 World Cup will consist of 14 nations, with 12 being granted automatic qualification, should not be criticised until we have the full facts about the tournament structure.

Rugby League hasn’t been afraid of introducing innovative ideas to draw in new fans and dive into fresh territories, all in the name of expansion. The Magic Weekend was considered by the Premier League, albeit on a larger international scale, in that each team plays one more league game on neutral territory. This shows that the Rugby Football League and the Rugby League International Federation must be doing something right if the smartest businessmen in world sport want to copy an idea from a small sport from the north of England. So what new hair-brained scheme must the International Federation some up with to make the World Cup an even bigger success? Here is my ideal tournament structure for a fourteen team competition.

They can start with including the ten teams that competed in the 2008 tournament. That leaves the RLIF a choice of three teams for two remaining automatic places. The most realistic choices would be between Wales (the current European Cup holders,) Cook Islands (who surprised everyone to reach the 2009 Pacific Cup final,) or Lebanon who earned a massive amount of credit from neutral fans for their performances in the qualifying process for the 2008 World Cup.

It’s important for the top three teams to play each other early and carefully seed the competition so that interest is created early on in the tournament. Therefore a ‘Super Group’ is the only way to go. Include Australia, New Zealand, England and the fourth team from the 2011 Four Nations tournament, which would be the last before the World Cup. From there the remaining ten teams are split into one group of four and two groups of three. Have three teams qualify from the groups of four and one from the two groups of three leaving eight teams remaining in the quarter finals. Teams should be carefully seeded to keep TV interest and try to prevent a team whitewashing another.

The groups of three should be the sides of the lowest quality, including the two qualifiers in each group. The winners of the groups of three (pools three and four) will play the winners of the two groups of four (pools one and two.) The runners up from pools one and two will play the team finishing third in both groups. Moving onto the semi finals it would be the winner of those games that meet each other in the first semi final, with winners of the first two quarter finals meeting in the remaining semi final.

The above tournament structure is only a theory, but following the same style of the 2008 competition in seeding the top teams, it will guarantee competitive games as well as giving the better sides in pools one and two an advantage. As I’ve mentioned countless times already, TV audiences and revenue is what will make the tournament a success in this country. The aim is to build on the success of the 2008 competition and provide international rugby league with a secure long term future.