Outspoken Genge should let his talent do the talking

Nobody wants to strip Leicester player of his individualism, but he has to question himself

When I had Yorkshire schoolboy trials, I did not see why state-school players had to have six trials to get in the team, but their public-school counterparts only three. A clear case of class distinction you would think, and many did. In a recent interview, the Leicester and England prop, Ellis Genge, similarly claimed that he got nowhere at age-group rugby because of his background. However, the deductive headlines that claimed rugby is crippled by class prejudice require further thought.

That rugby union in England has a disproportionate number of public-school players is true, but it is equally true that the split of around 50:50 and seven out of every 15 players coming from the North is not evidence that you cannot progress from a state or non-southern background. Owen Farrell is public-school educated, but does anybody doubt that he is not your stereotypical hooray that some claim are the only people who can thrive in the game?

Rugby’s roots are in both sectors and rugby has struggled to break into the working class just like every other minority sport. Football is, and always will be, the focus of state-school players, not least because the rewards are now so disproportionately lucrative that anyone with footballing talent can see a life of luxury unachievable through any other sport or way of life. What people forget is that all sports are battling for the decreasing number of youngsters who want to play and football, with infinitely more resources, fights hard to take young talent as well.

It is not simple black and white. Rugby needs to do better, but its intrinsic handicaps cannot be ignored when assessing what progress has been made.

You have to add to this the compartmentalisation of class in rugby. Just over the border from Bristol, where Genge grew up, the Welsh game is solidly working class. In Gloucester, rugby is also a working-class game, whereas in Bath it is more middle class. This is all rugby played within a circumference of 100 miles, with widely differing demographics.

Genge’s claims are inevitably intertwined with his personality. His claim is to be allowed to be himself and he is right, nobody has the right to tell him who he should be and what he should say. Though you have to note that his complaint of not being allowed to say things is made while actually saying them.

What Genge, whether he accepts this or not, is tangentially saying is not just that people should accept him for who he is, but that they should not have negative opinions about him. That is not unreasonable if by that he means he should not be automatically prejudiced from the way he speaks or looks. It cannot stand as a claim when it comes to other people having the same rights as he claims. For example, when Genge professes that Mike Tyson is his hero because “no one f---- with Mike”, he can have that view but cannot complain if people then ask him whether that is appropriate, to trumpet his love for a convicted rapist when rugby is trying to widen its appeal to women.

I do not believe Genge and other players are only role models for kids for what they do on the field. What high-profile players cannot escape is that their comments are heard by many and they cannot avoid their consequences. People have different views and can use the same social-media platforms as Genge to air them.

When Genge allows an interviewer to note that his fridge contains only beer, cheese and avocado, he could claim that is his business; fair enough.

On the other hand, when the battle for the England loosehead position is a tight one, between Mako Vunipola, Genge and Ben Moon, will this go down well with England’s nutritionist and conditioning coaches? Is this revelation a big issue – no, but why make it? Does it reveal anything beyond reinforcing his case to be a maverick, which we already know and which cuts many ways?

Genge’s England case will be decided where it should be, on the field and not where he comes from. In this regard, he has made huge strides and I hope he makes more. Nobody should want to strip him of his individualism, but he in turn must ask why, when he clearly has an interesting, even forceful personality, does he not let that speak for itself. When you ask why things like how you dress and speak matter. They do not, to me, but they obviously do to you because you mention them.

In the same article, Genge mentions the recent furore surrounding Raheem Sterling but declines to “get into that”. If anything, that is a more worthwhile topic and one on which Genge could have much more valuable comments to make.