Meritocracy is RFU’s need...not diversity
THE lack of strong leadership at the RFU was reflected starkly this week in an interview with the chairman, Andrew Cosslett. At a time when English rugby’s national governing body needs leaders with a clarity of vision and a will to steer the game through the Covid storm to a brighter future, all Cosslett had to offer were platitudes.
These ranged from statements on diversity and inclusion, that smacked of virtue-signalling rather than deliverable initiatives, to a lame explanation of why the RFU are in financial dire straits following their decision to empty their reserves into the crippling £230m PGA agreement with the Premiership in 2016.
During that period Cosslett was an influential RFU non-executive board director, and the following year he took over as chairman. The general rule is that board chairmen have a wide range of experience and success in running businesses, and are charged with developing strategies that, going forward, deliver positive results.
However, while Cosslett had an impressive enough CV having been a chief executive of Fitness First, and InterContinental hotels, there was little forthcoming from him over the last five years in terms of a coherent, clear map for the English game.
Cosslett said in the interview in The Telegraph that the decision to secure 40 per cent more training access to Premiership players in the England squad was his main focus after being “stunned” by England’s exit from the 2015 World Cup – even though it meant emptying the RFU coffers in the process.
The RFU chairman also repeated the mantra that the former England chief executive/financial officer Steven Brown gave me in 2018, which was that the expenditure was justified because the future health of English rugby was almost entirely predicated on the success of the England team, and filling Twickenham.
The idea that a massive spend on a knee-jerk financial package for the Premiership, and the statement of the bleeding obvious that a winning national team is important to the health of the game in England, is allowed to masquerade as a comprehensive RFU strategy beggars belief.
It is worth noting, for example, that Francis Baron, the RFU chief executive credited with transforming the union’s finances after he was appointed in 1998, presented the board with a comprehensive report, and his recommendations, within three months of arriving at Twickenham. These were scrutinised and then, for the most part, implemented.
Yet, with the RFU’s financial reserves picked clean, expenditure everywhere from the Championship to the Community game slashed, falling male participation levels, constant strife over promotionrelegation, and deep concerns over the Premiership’s broken financial model, Cosslett’s main aim seems to be a whitewash job to cover-up the gaping cracks in the Twickenham administration.
There is obfuscation in every area of the RFU’s governance apart from Cosslett’s trumpeting of his commitment to diversity and inclusion. In line with the current business/political vogue for bashing anyone “white, male, and stale”, and replacing them with anyone who does not fit that description, he argued that it is time for a change when he leaves office.
Cosslett, who steps down in July, said of his RFU successor, “if it is someone who didn’t look like me, in every respect, that is probably a good idea”.
Like me, you may think that this sentiment is a bit rich coming from a 65-year-old white male who has banked £400,000 in pay during his tenure – especially as he did not appear to have diversity quite as high on his agenda when he failed to resign in favour of someone with a more diverse background soon after being offered the job!
Among the potential replacements for Cosslett are a number of female candidates, both from within the RFU management board, and the wider administration.
That is as it should be in a world in which ability has never been defined by gender – or by colour, creed, or age. However, like everyone else applying for the role, any candidate should be judged first and last on their merits.
Instead, the decision by the RFU to employ a global executive search firm specialising in diversity appointments, suggests that it is heading into the minefield of putting positive discrimination ahead of merit.
Positive discrimination should not be allowed to influence the selection process, and especially not in the case of Twickenham insiders, of whichever gender. Their suitability for the role of chairman should be measured in significant part against their performance as part of the RFU administration during Cosslett’s tenure.
It could be argued that this would rule the majority out of the running, and that the RFU should look far and wide for their next chairman – with the proviso that they know as much about Rugby Union as business.
The game in England has never been in more urgent need of a strong, intelligent leader who, irrespective of whether they are male, female, black, or white, can chart a path towards a bright future – and only an appointment made on merit will do.
“Ability has never been defined by gender or by colour, creed or age. Any candidate should be judged on merit”