>> Guscott: Clubs need a say in global talks
THERE have been some sensible thoughts on a global season from World Rugby, a body that we are usually concerned is not keeping up with developments in the game. However, with Bill Beaumont (chairman) and Agustin Pichot (vicechairman) wanting to sort this out, it’s moving at warp speed compared to some issues World Rugby/IRB have tackled in the past.
However, there are important challenges to be overcome, because with New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Wales, Scotland and Ireland wanting to make progress to a change in the global season, they have to be prepared to enter into realistic negotiations with the English and French clubs.
That is because in England and France, which are numerically the two biggest rugby countries in the world, player contracts are held by the clubs rather than the national unions. This means that trying to establish a global season without them being at the negotiating table is a waste of time.
In the past World Rugby have insisted on by-passing the clubs and negotiating only with national Unions like the RFU.
However, what they have to understand is that while the RFU may have a heads of agreement with the English clubs, it is difficult for RFU administrators to enter into detailed negotiations on behalf of clubs which they do not own, or control.
The reason you cannot leave out the professional clubs in England and France is quite simply because they have a lot of players from all around the world contracted and it affects their business, and therefore the negotiating model has to change to include them in any discussions. After that, if everyone starts from the position of having an open book, then some form of consensus will be easier to reach.
It is predictable that each side will say they want what is best for player welfare, but it should be remembered that that can happen only with a lesser number of games – and we all know that fewer games is not the priority. Commercial success is what comes first.
However, it is also important that a global season does not get blown out of all proportion.
Most international elite squads number no more than 45 players – and when you consider that is only around 10 per cent of professional club players they are in a minority.
While it’s true that our best players need looking after, it is also true that for the majority of pro players who are not involved in international callups, there is plenty of rest time.
At the moment the clubs do not like the interruption caused by international weekends, either during the Autumn Internationals or during the Six Nations. This is mainly because they do not want their stadiums lying dormant – or their competitions being overshadowed.
However, part of the problem could be that they have not developed good enough competitions outside those like the Premiership, and consequently cannot sweat their assets as much as they’d like during international blocks.
The key point with changes like moving the Northern Hemisphere season a month later so that it starts in October and finishes in June, is that nobody wants to lose any revenue.
English and French clubs will not move to October unless they feel it is beneficial – so the advantages need to be clearly spelt out. Until that happens, World Rugby’s plans to change the global structure will be in limbo.
One proposal that seems to me to be unlikely to work is for a NorthSouth international window in July and August, which would involve something like six Tests being played home and away.
The idea appears to be for this to replace the existing structure of teams from the North making summer tours to the Southern Hemisphere in June, with teams from the South making reciprocal tours to the Northern Hemisphere in November.
My view is that even if the season in the North moves a month later, with summer tours being played in July rather than June, it works far better for the Autumn International window to remain in November.
The idea of six consecutive Tests in July-August, involving thousands of miles of air travel, and coming to a conclusion in Europe’s biggest summer holiday month, might be overkill. Much better to space it out.
A mix of competitions didn’t bother me as a player, and actually the variations between European and domestic rugby were often good.
I’m pretty sure that the supporters didn’t mind either – however, what they do mind, is if their best players are not available, or are knackered.
Another proposal that needs to be
“The key point with discussions over changes is that nobody wants to lose any revenue”
workable is no Southern Hemisphere summer tours by teams from the North in World Cup years. While that is great news for player welfare, this is problematic.
This is mainly because the SANZAAR Unions argue that they cannot afford to lose summer tour income in World Cup years, even though the November international schedule in Europe is also wiped out in World Cup years. (Any Union financial losses in these two off periods should be made up by World Rugby).
The essence of any solution is that it has to work equally well for North and South, whether you are maximising player welfare, or commercial opportunities.
If that cannot be achieved we have little chance of making progress.
One possible solution is for World Rugby to put in the assurance that if something in the global structure is changed, and it doesn’t work, then there will be a mechanism in place to change it back.
History tells us that negotiations over a global season will not reach a consensus quickly, but with a new fixture schedule due in 2019 it is essential that a new timetable should at least be on the boards by December 2017.