Prem must stand on its own so RFU can fund grassroots
“When boys reach the age where they should start playing the adult game, there are no teams to play for”
Sometimes the simplest act can make all the difference – but somehow those who should take the decision fail to grasp the nettle. Whether it be the RFU failing to admit the game’s urgent need for proper funding below the Premiership, a number of clubs sitting in the Championship with no desire or ambition to take the final step up to the Premiership, or World Rugby changing a law to make the game safer for all: the facile attempts by them to justify their stance is frustrating for all and, worse still, damaging for the game.
As an after dinner speaker I travel to many clubs up and down the country. The vast majority of clubs I speak at are junior or grassroots and the story I hear is the same: A constant struggle to fund and field more than just a couple of adult teams. Yes, they all have burgeoning mini and youth sections but when the boys reach the age where they should start playing the adult game, there are no teams to play for, and starting and funding a new team costs money.
Add in the fact that not all clubs will be able to grow at the same rate, so finding local fixtures is a major problem and rugby is what I describe as a ‘habit’ game. In other words, a game that you need to play every week, particularly at the lower levels, otherwise other things take priority and players drop out.
The good news is that one area is growing teams and that is women‘s rugby. Because of a concerted effort by the RFU, providing additional funding and loans for facilities, more girls are taking up the sport. The base level was very low so even doubling the number of women playing would not have a significant impact on the game but it does on RFU finances as they get substantial grants from Sport England for being more inclusive.
However, the real problem is with the men. From a game that requires only 15 players to now where substitutes are common place at all levels, the strain on player resources impacts on the teams below the first XV with men sitting on the bench instead of playing.
The troubling issue is the RFU have known this for a long time but until recently have failed to act and are now only doing so because they no longer need to focus on the women’s game.
I was at a grassroots club dinner a few weeks ago with the current vice president of the RFU, Chris Kelly, and we listened as the president of the club made his speech which included a list of between eight and ten clubs in the local area that had either closed or were struggling to field just one or two teams.
Grassroots are the heart and soul of our game, failure to support the senior game at that level has seen a decline in the number of adult male teams playing the game while reducing the opportunities for young players.
With the Premiership boasting bigger crowds and better TV deals, now surely should be the time when they begin to stand on their own and reduce the reliance on RFU funding, allowing for at least some of the money to be diverted to grassroots?
Meanwhile, if ever there was a reason to allow the Premiership to ring-fence itself, it’s the number of clubs who are happy to sit in the Championship hoping upon hope that they don’t get promoted.
Those clubs have reached the level of their ambition and live out season after season dual contracting players from the Premiership to ensure survival but not promotion. All are keenly aware that should promotion happen they would lose their dual contract players and be forced to either spend money they don’t have to buy a new team, or decline the opporsions tunity of promotion.
I suppose some would say that if a team want to play in the Premiership they should have the resources to beat the ‘remainers’ in the league. But, given those teams are using Premiership players, albeit developing players, teams have fluctuating squads as players are moved up or abandoned which means a constantly varying level of quality, making it harder for teams trying to make the step up.
Then we have World Rugby’s steadfast refusal to look at the tackle law despite the Professional Rugby Injury Surveillance Project requesting they change the height at which a tackle is legal.
The current laws allow tackles up to the shoulder line and have been subject to a zero tolerance order which World Rugby say has resulted in fewer yellow cards this season for dangerous tackles. The project, however, cites the fact that there has been an increase in the number of concussions as the reason for the need to change.
Logic tells me an increase in concus- indicates a more tolerant approach by referees as the season has progressed with only the most serious miss-timed tackles punished with a yellow.
It is accepted that concussion has the potential for many long term consequences which could have a lasting impact on the players who suffer even a single episode. Surely it is beholden on the governing body of the game to try and ensure that everyone who plays the game leaves it at the end of their playing career able to lead a fit and normal life?
If it was down to me I would lower the boundary to the waist and bring back the old fashioned method of tackling at waist height and sliding down the legs to bring your opponent down.
This would have two benefits. First, it would remove the danger of head clashing by accident and second it would allow players the chance to offload, making for a quicker, more exciting game, which is something World Rugby say they are constantly trying to achieve.