Player welfare is more than concussion alone
During the week Sir Bill Beaumont, chairman of World Rugby, issued an open letter in response to the ongoing debate about the affect of repeated concussions, and in it he outlined the various steps made by his organisation to try to make the game safer.
I don’t doubt his sincerity in any way, but a number of people would want to take issue with his claim that player welfare is, and always has been, World Rugby’s top priority.
The problem with ‘player welfare’ as a term is that it is bandied about so much that no one any longer really knows what it means. It has become a phrase that is obligatory in everything said and written by the game’s administrators, and it’s almost as if, once they’ve got it out of the way, they’ve ticked a box and can turn to the substance of what they want to say.
Inevitably the focus at present is on those retired players who are displaying symptoms of dementia, whether that can be attributed to their rugby careers, and if it can, whether anyone is culpable. That’s one for the lawyers to sort out, but player welfare goes far beyond that.
Everyone knows that elite players are playing too much rugby, and need more rest periods, but we’ve just had the ridiculous and largely meaningless Autumn Nations Cup, and the English Premiership season will run from November through to the end of June, with the only breaks from domestic action being the European weekends! Where did player welfare fit into that? We’re in the midst of a pandemic, and what matters is generating cash – to me that’s clearly been the number one priority.
The answer to this is obvious: squads need to be larger, and that can be done even in these straightened times if there’s a will to do it. We’re seeing head coaches having to manage their resources carefully, and young English prospects are getting more opportunities than ever before. What we need are fewer marquee players – for every one of those you could probably get five young English players.
Do that and you can build in obligatory rest periods for everyone in the squad, and not have to rush players back after injury: then you can spout about player welfare and have some credibility.
Professional careers seem to be getting shorter, and while the current focus is on the after-effects of concussions, more are forced to pack it in because of other injuries: knee, ankle, shoulder, and so on. Those tend to come from the force of the collisions and we still see players clearing out by flying into rucks, and going unpunished. To me that’s clearly dangerous, and if player welfare was top of the list, action would have been taken to eliminate it. Yes symptoms of dementia have a horrible effect on someone’s life, but so does not being able to play with your kids or grandkids because of physical disability.
Keep in mind the words ‘player welfare is our number one priority’ as you watch Dan Leo’s wonderful and moving film, Oceans Apart. Whichever of the home nations you support, they, and World Rugby and the SANZAAR countries, have treated the Pacific Island nations appallingly over the years. If they truly cared about player welfare then Unions wouldn’t countenance paying their players tens of thousands of pounds while some of the Islanders were getting £300 for a European tour, and having to busk to pay for a post-match meal!
The attention being given to head knocks is essential and admirable, but it must not be allowed to take the focus away from other areas of player welfare.
Talking the talk is really easy, but it’s time for rugby’s administrators to properly walk the walk and tackle these issues. Let’s see the northern hemisphere nations take the lead on this, as I’m unconvinced that World Rugby have the will and the clout to drive the sort of seismic change that’s required.
You would have hoped for better from Nick Mullins than what we heard during the Bath v Scarlets match. Scarlets captain Steff Hughes repeatedly asked the ref whether a Bath penalty offence merited a yellow card. I hate it when players try to get a fellow pro binned, and when they do it they are challenging the ref ’s decision. In my book that merits a warning, and then ten minutes in the bin if repeated. Mullins, instead of condemning this, commented, ‘You can’t blame the bloke for asking’! Actually Nick, you can, and you should have done!