Amazing Harlequins are great for the game, but it won't help rugby survive financially.

In bright sunshine and a packed stadium, Harlequins stunned Bordeaux

Harlequins' thrilling win over French side Bordeaux on Saturday » with a score of 42–41. Begles ridiculed the serious doubts I expressed in last week's column about their chances of winning.

I was wrong, as were the bookmakers who made Quins 7/1 outsiders into the European Cup semi-finals. That we got it so wrong is more than welcome.

Queens have been responsible for so many remarkable and unlikely rugby victories over the last few seasons that I, like almost everyone else, should probably have realized by now . Qualify any predictions about the West London side with “but we’re talking about Harlequins.”

Whether this victory was better than their comebacks against Bristol Bears or Exeter Chiefs in previous seasons is debatable, but the common denominator of all these triumphs is the willingness to take risks and throw off the shackles of the systemic approach to rugby that is so often lauded in modern game.

Some might say that this Quins victory is evidence that my assertions last week about the ever-increasing strength-orientation of modern rugby and substitutions were also wrong. I admit I shouldn't have limited the teams that can withstand these problems to Leinster, Ireland and the All Blacks, but I'm sticking to the general ground. Make no mistake about it, Quins had to stand up to the enormous might of Bordeaux to secure victory. They did this thanks to the physicality of players like Fin Baxter and his fellow forwards. It was a stunning performance from Baxter, replacing Joe Marler; an old production in which smaller but more technically advanced props outdid Ben Tameifun's giant 25-stone Tongan.

22-year-old Baxter had an amazing game in France. Photo: Getty Images/David Rogers

Credit must also be given to Quins' other substitute, scrum-half Will Porter, who made Danny Care's unavailability a non-deciding factor. Not only was his assist to Marcus Smith quick and reliable, but he also showed a penchant for caution as he collected his own chip and scored the second of his two tries. After the game, Queens captain Stefan Lewis stressed that «the work is not done yet.» He's right: Quins need to add reliability to their demonstrated resilience and repeat this feat to reach the European final.

Whatever the ultimate fate of Queens in this competition, no one can either criticize the exciting nature of the match, or legitimately criticize it as both a sporting competition and entertainment. This brings us back to other points I made last week about the sustainability of rugby at club level from a financial perspective.

Those people who argue that rugby's real problem is simply a PR problem need to answer the following question: how much more interesting could European Club Cup rugby be made? The match was played in glorious weather in front of a full stadium filled with loud and dedicated fans. It was a game in which the lead changed hands several times, with 12 tries recorded, some of which showed great skill.

Actually the answer is that you probably couldn't do it. If this is the case, then the next question is why the competition has not been able to emulate its football counterpart — the UEFA Champions League — and continue as a tournament that has no title sponsor, but which attracts more money due to multiple non-title sponsors and a huge television contract ?

The answer to this, the most basic of commercial questions, is that the problem is not simply a presentational one, as some claim. It's more fundamental. Simply put, rugby is not as big or powerful as football, which brings us back to other core business issues. There are only two ways to stop losing money and at least break even for the season. Rugby must either increase revenue or reduce costs.

As the European Cup shows, even the best club rugby product has a ceiling on its commercial appeal. Rugby could create more competitions to sell more broadcast rights, but there is no room on the rugby calendar for more tournaments. It's also impossible to balance the load on players if you create more competition.

Additionally, if you could and did do so by creating yet another commercial property, you would certainly be detracting from the viability of the existing property.

Barring seismic changes to the current rugby structure, Similar the way one hemisphere reschedules its traditional season to match the other hemisphere, the only path to profitability is to cut costs, which goes back to what I said about reducing the size of teams. One way to do this is to limit or prohibit substitutions. If you do not agree with this, what can you suggest to achieve this goal?