Numerous disputes are raging in rugby union, and the next major conflict will be for the spirit of the English game. All parties acknowledge that something needs to change. As Pat Lam, the director of rugby at Bristol, stated last week, it has become a topic of global interest. “Everyone in the world is aware that England has the most rugby players and resources,” he said. “They are jealous. Then how do we struggle? You must raise the issue.”
What benefits Lam and his club’s wealthy proprietor, Steve Lansdown, may not necessarily benefit a Premier League rival like Newcastle, whose playing budget for the upcoming season is believed to have been significantly reduced. Where are the most fundamental concerns in all of this? What is optimal for the overall health of the game, not just the most visible apex? And what is the ultimate purpose of the complete exercise?
This type of debate is not unique to England. It is presently raging in Wales, Australia, and almost everywhere else besides France and Ireland, which appear to have multiple key boxes checked. It must also include women’s rugby and cannot be separated from the player welfare imperatives that are defining the future of the sport.
Ultimately, however, it reduces down to determining what is most important. This debate is nowhere more evident than in England’s second-tier Championship, where numerous historic clubs are attempting to preserve what remains of their illustrious heritage. Many of them are beginning to question whether or not the Rugby Football Union genuinely cares about preserving them.
Nick Johnston, chief executive of Coventry RFC, is an example. This week, he told that he believes the governing body has been attempting to “run them into the ground.”
Johnston has worked on both sides of the divide, having previously held positions at Sale, Northampton, and Worcester, but he is reaching his limit. According to him, clubs like Coventry are merely attempting to do what they have done since 1874. He states, “We are not attempting to resolve the political situation in the Middle East.” “We’re just trying to promote the game.”
Because, as he stresses, if 149-year-old clubs like Coventry are allowed to wither away, it will decimate the second division of English rugby, which is ostensibly the stepping stone to the top level. Where will the RFU train its future professional players, coaches, referees, and administrators? Is a society without Premier League relegation truly superior? Can England now only support a maximum of ten professional clubs? And if so, how intelligent is it to separate them from their feeder roots?
The counterarguments are well-known. Insufficient funds exist in the central receptacle. The clubs in the Championship do not presently attract enough fans to be viable businesses. Then you hear Johnston’s mission statement for Coventry: “One of our most important strategic goals is to become the most community-focused professional club in the country.”
What purpose does English rugby serve?
Our mission is to produce the next generation of players, coaches, and administrators who will propel English rugby to the pinnacle of international competition. I care a great deal about this. I truly have faith in this competition. It is the basis for expanding the game.”
Consequently, the club operates its academy and is enthusiastic about a young 18-year-old fly-half in the pipeline. Next month, they will launch Coventry Netball, and construction plans for a hotel are also well advanced. Since the Wasps have left their city and they are currently third in the division, they see no reason why they cannot continue to expand. Johnston adds, “We have ambition, but it requires growth at the right time and not an aimless investment.”
However, their national union seems to pose the greatest threat to their future. As newly promoted Caldy discovered at their first meeting, annual central funding is already so meager that, after insurance and travel expenses are deducted, there is scarce £40,000 left. There is talk of reverting to two regional divisions, but Johnston believes this would be disastrous for England’s most prominent talent pipeline. “I think we’re the glue if they get it right,” he says. “I wish for our league to maintain ties to the grassroots. And I would also like a women’s championship.”
Insiders of the Championship believe Premiership clubs should pay for their players to compete in the Championship.
In recent weeks, London Scottish has fielded more loanees from Harlequins than their players. Another proposition for an eight-team “League 2” is circulating: if the eight largest Championship clubs – Ealing, Jersey, Coventry, Cornish Pirates, Doncaster, Bedford, and Nottingham plus, potentially, Wasps – each put in £1 million, would the RFU and Premier Rugby match it? “You could make it part of the PGA [Professional Game Agreement] to fund a sustainable pathway league,” suggests Simon Halliday, a member of the Championship’s negotiating team. Incentivize us to play younger players and fund it properly, and you’ll have a fighting chance of rebuilding some of the completely broken development pathways.
If this is not the intention, Halliday believes the RFU should be forthright. They would destroy authentic rugby heartlands where new players can develop. However, if they believe the Championship is not a pathway, they should be forthright and state so. Currently, they are simply stating, “Keep going, but it will take you years.” The conflict for the soul of English rugby is not yet over.
