Whoever wrote this post is suggesting something which would change the image of the six nations forever.the places where these matches should take place is where the support and interest is highest,why on earth would you stage a massive international match like ireland v england in new york surely the irish and english supporters would prefer to seem their team in their own country with their own supporters,and for a english/irish supporter a trip over the irish sea is cheaper and easier than one over the atlantic.
the six nations is finacially healthy with sell outs for nearly every match.we dont need to be tryin to make money all the time,we should be making rugby matches involve the people who most apreciate,and thats us not the bloody americans!!!!

I think that Rugby must continue to expand the number of countries invoved in playing the game. I love the 6 Nations tournament but, in order for the game to prosper at international level, it must be exposed to a larger audience. FIFA took a calculated gamble in the 90s' by playing the World Cup Finals in the USA. As a result, soccer/football at club level was essentially revived in the US. This growth has been translated directly into the improvement shown by the US soccer squad. Rugby needs to expand into a market that has potential. Canada and the US have some of the core requirements in place vis a vis rugby clubs. The NFL has tried to export their game abroad with limited success because they have no bases to build on in the overseas market. The cost of outfitting a player for an NFL game is prohibitive - not so rugby. The IRFU should take the chance and play the Ireland v England game in New York. They would certainly draw a sell out with all of the ex-pats living here.

Even though I am a resident of the US, and an avid rugby supporter, I must agree with Luke. The first step to getting the US involved will be to televise the matches much like BBC America is this Championship season.

As great as the idea sounds, sadly it fall well short here in the United States. After attending last years U.S. vs Wales match in Chicago, it was sad to see that half of the soccer stadium empty. On top of that, there were more Welsh fans than there were U.S. in attendance. The location in Chicago was out in the sticks and transportation there was much to be desired. What was done wrong besides the location, was that of the ticket prices. USA Rugby charged regular test match prices for a sport that is still in its infancy with getting U.S. fans in attendance behind its product. In order for a big event like Six Nations to get a huge attendance here, it would take discounted tickets, comp tickets to the local schools to get the kids attention and a location that is easily accessable by transport. This "bloody American" will look on jealously when the Six Nations is on BBC America, and hoping in the future we can attract those great teams and fans here to enjoy this great sport.

As a "bloody American" I can tell you that there are many rugby supporters right here in the USA who are as passionate about the game as anyone- a match here would be a huge draw. Holding a match in the USA would make it more expensive for European-based fans, and that is a significant issue. But sports are omnipresent on TV here, and a big match with the right marketing and the right emphasis on introducing Americans to the game could really help grow the sport. In fact, I don't think making money off of the match itself is the primary objective- rather, it's growing the game in important, relatively untapped markets (like Asia with the Bledisloe Cup matches). Rugby is a business, competing against other sports- and it has sometimes struggled in its traditional markets against football/league/aussie rules. Growing its popularity in the USA and globally makes sense for the long-term health of the sport. Maybe moving a match every year or two to the USA is a reasonable price to pay.

One point that hasn't been raised here is that a number of European rugby fans have, for a number of years now, been questioning why the IRB insists on awarding World Cups to the 'Big Eight' of world rugby. There have been calls to award the showpiece event to Japan or USA before, but in an attempt to stop bigger unions whining about it, they've always gone with safe bets. 6 Nations and Tri Nations are the life-blood for the Big 8 unions and they're entitled to it. But spreading the game globally is the remit of the IRB, and as such they should spread the gospel via the World Cup, by awarding it to an emerging nation.

It's an utterly ludicrous idea. There are four Bledisloe matches per year - they can afford to spare one. The situation with the 6N is totally different.

It also displays a breathtaking level of self-delusion and arrogance. Rugby in Europe is not so respected and popular that it can afford to treat the fans with contempt. Professional rugby is still a nascent sport in this part of the world and needs to cement its home base before it embarks on foreign expeditions.

I live 10 minutes from Giants stadium and also play Rugby so naturally I would love to see a match come to the area. However I don't think it makes any sense to play a 6 nations match there. I think an international friendly would suffice. I look at it from the other side. If they moved a Yankee world series game away from New York and played it in Europe I would livid. I could't imagine how upset fans in England and Ireland would be if this took place. I'm obviously all for trying to grow the sport in America. I think it has a chance to be really popular here. However I don't think that should come at the expense of fans and countries that how supported it for generations.

As an American rugby player, my first reaction was that it would be fantastic for there to be a Six Nations game, especially one as huge as England v. Ireland, to be played in the U.S. I think the sport has enormous potential to grow here, due to the fact that rugby and football (the most popular sport here) share one very important aspect; tackling. I think if the sport was promoted more here, then it could start to tap into a market where 9 out of 10 most watched single telecast programs in 2009 were NFL games/shows, according to The Nielsen Company. However, I also understand that if I were an Irish or English rugby fan I would be furious about a Six Nations game being played in the U.S. In the end, I must agree with Justin that televising more games here is the first step to promoting the sport, and with Joe that an international friendly would suffice for now.