American dream
A transatlantic blueprint to save our rugby
There is much discussion at the moment around what a professional rugby season should look like. Interest has been heightened because of a number of factors, the main ones being the English Premiership losing significant amounts of money, player welfare and the number of games they are expected to play in a season – do more games mean more money? – as well as Ireland’s success in the domestic and international arenas.
Going forward, there are bound to be ideas and opinions from all quarters of the game, and it is making those who want to see the best structures put in place, particularly in England, think very hard about the next steps.
It has been established by World Rugby that, in restructuring the global season, player welfare must be the overriding priority. The most important component is getting a player’s game time down to a maximum of 32 games per season, preferably fewer. The other big priority, from the clubs’ perspective, is getting their best players playing a higher percentage of key games so, when it gets to crunch time in April/ May/June, they have players who are fit, having played fewer games.
How to manage both and turn a profit? This is where the RFU and Premiership Rugby need to put trust in a growing relationship, which can be open and creative. What helps one should help the other.
The big questions remain. Is there a better domestic structure than the current set-up, one that builds interest and excitement on and off the field, as is happening with Pro 14 and Super Rugby? For example, would a ‘conference’ structure be more suited to generating excitement, particularly in the latter stages of the competition?
There is a natural interest during the first two months of the season. It is at the middle and end that a different approach could make an impact. There are three professional playing groups that need to be catered for – internationals, experienced club players or former international players and young talents who need to build up playing time.
If you had two conferences of seven teams, and each played one another home and away, that would be 12 games. It would also mean that each team had a rest weekend during the season. The top four would advance to the play-offs in April/May, with the bottom three playing for final positions. (I have said before I would favour periods with no relegation, but that is a different subject altogether.)
So basically, you are looking at 15 domestic league games. Europe takes care of at least another six, possibly as many as nine if you go deep into the competition. That does not leave a lot to work with. But here is where you need to be creative. Why not scrap the Anglo-Welsh Cup, which neither serves any useful purpose nor makes much money, and replace it with an Anglo-American tournament?
We know Premiership Rugby – and World Rugby, for that matter – would love to expand in that region. We all saw the reports this week that a United States insurance giant is set to replace Aviva as the league’s title sponsor.
And I think America is ready. There is genuine interest in the game out there. They are fascinated by these players without pads or helmets. Perhaps the NFL teams could supply a union side each? Why not?
It would open up new commercial opportunities and compensate for the loss of a few domestic games.
It need not be a long tournament. The games could take place during the international windows in November and February/March, with a showpiece finale in May/June. And they would be exclusively for noninternational players. That would mean opportunities for younger, development players to come through. In fact, squads in general would be smaller, with fewer games, which would mean lower salary caps and bigger profits (salaries taking up the largest chunk of clubs’ budgets).
For too long, clubs have relied on the largesse of benefactors. There have been many great ones down the years. Nigel Wray has just reclaimed full control of Saracens following Johann Rupert’s decision to sell up. Wray has been one of the saviours of English rugby. But it is time to put the game on a sounder financial footing, one which promotes the interests of the national team and puts player welfare first.
If Ireland’s success this season, both domestically and internationally, has shown us one thing, it is the importance of giving players rest. The issue is nothing to do with hangovers from Lions tours or the Premiership’s style of rugby. It is about managing the game time of the international players. It is about accepting that there are two groups of players, an international group and a non-international group.
Why not devise a new competition structure that would put welfare first, meaning no more than 32 games a season for any one player? That would allow top players to play up to 11 internationals per year and still leave them time to rest – four weeks’ holiday, a six-week preseason, with other rests that would occur naturally during the season – and would see clubs properly compensated for that.
This would keep star players fresh and raring to go for the big Premiership and European fixtures in April/May/June, when the weather is at its best and the crowds would come out in force.
Would it still respect World Rugby’s current requirements for Test windows? And could it perhaps open up new revenue streams and grow the game in a key market, while affording young players greater playing opportunities?
Major decisions await.