Clubs do have a contract, but so did their players
What is it about a disaster that makes people think of change and accept things that they would normally dismiss out of hand?
The acceptance of CVC’s £70m for a share in the Six Nations should be seen as a mixed blessing, giving large cash injections to all six unions at a time when the losses for all as a result of the continuing lockdown and social distancing seem unending, but with an unknown cost to the game.
The money is set to be divided on a sliding scale depending on the size of each union, with England and France getting the most. It looks as if the other unions have all accepted a reduced amount, with Italy probably getting the least even though it has more players than Wales or Scotland.
Selling a share in the crown jewels of rugby would probably not have been countenanced had it not been for the virus, but the need to fund the professional game in all unions is all consuming with principals and tradition thrown out the window.
It is probable that a certain number of the ‘bigger’ Six Nations games will, with CVC’s influence, now be sold to pay-to-view television to increase profits, despite the reduced exposure of a smaller audience.
The irony of this situation is for those of us who remember the first time the offer of pay-to-view was made back in 1996, that had it been accepted then the unions probably would not have been in the destitute desperate situation they are now and may not have needed CVC’s intervention.
At the time the BBC was paying around £1.5m to each of the home nations while BSKYB were prepared to pay England just over £10m per season, while offering Wales Ireland and Scotland around £4m each.
This led to the threat of removing England from the Five Nations championship on the pretext of supporting fans when WRFU’s chairman, Vernon Pugh said: “It is the strong view of the other unions that rugby people and the public have a right to see the top rugby competition in the northern hemisphere, or at least a very large part of it, shown live on TV without restrictions imposed by satellite and pay-perview.”
However, his second comment revealed that envy was the truth of the matter when he added, “Ireland, Scotland and Wales believe they share jointly in playing the Championship. If we share the playing of a competition, it is fair that we share equally the proceeds from it.”
The BSKYB offer was based on size of potential audience in each country and each union’s costs, bringing a level benefit to all participants, but it was eventually turned down.
Even with the prospect of a projected £70m windfall from CVC, the RFU are preparing to cut staff and restructure, probably by cutting funding to grassroots competitions.
Unfortunately, as I have always said, any cuts in funding that have to be made by the RFU to their member clubs will always fall on the grassroots as they are the part of the game that doesn’t have legally binding contracts for the funding they get.
As most of the funding paid to the lower leagues has been removed, the RFU have had to be a bit more creative in finding where they can claw back some money to help fulfil their commitments.
County rugby is no longer considered a part of the elite game with few if any professional players taking part and is now seen as part of the grassroots game. So shutting it down for a season or so to help the union pay their contracts with the Premiership is an obvious choice for the RFU.
One thing I don’t understand is why the Premiership are threatening not to release players for any extra Tests planned by the RFU this autumn, as it seems to show contempt for the rest of the game.
Even if the Premiership restarts in the autumn or before, they will be subject to social distancing rules reducing crowd sizes and so increasing the losses that virtually all are already making.
What makes this more laughable is the insistence of the clubs that they will stick to the contract between them and the union when it comes to player release for just four games, even though they have broken the contracts they have with their players by forcing a 25 per cent pay cut on them.
Although I believe some of the players are paid far too much in terms of what the game at professional club level generates, it remains a fact that the owners agreed those contracts and have no right to break them.
While it would probably be less of a problem for the international or marquee players, the impact on the Premiership journeymen players’ wages would be quite severe.
As a result, there is likely to be some long, unnecessary legal actions that will be of benefit to no one but the lawyers.
We still don’t know the final number of seats that will be available at Twickenham this autumn but even if the social distancing is reduced to one metre, it will still mean a smaller crowd with fewer tickets available to fans or clubs, with the RFU’s first priority to the corporate contract – so no tickets for clubs, fans or past internationals.
At least if the RFU are able to stage more internationals this autumn, they are more likely to make a profit than any games played by the clubs and hopefully will have more money to help benefit the whole game.
“It is probable that some Six Nations game will be sold to pay-to-view TV”