Relegation freeze makes sense in World Cup year
There’s actually a reason the Premiership have been paid such a premium by the RFU for the last eight years, and been allowed to ring fence themselves. Although we all thought is was just greed and avarice on their part without a care for the rest of the game, it’s actually based on a once every four-year player release issue at the World Cup.
A World Cup requires extra time and access to certain employees of the clubs who remain on the pay sheet even though they are not available to do their job.
With the potential unbalancing of the Premiership following player selection at the RWC, and the subsequent required rest period, it was agreed, after nine competitions, to allow a ring fence to protect the clubs who provide the players from the potential damage, financial and otherwise, caused by relegation.
The abbreviated season next year will have an impact. There will be just 38 weeks to complete the league and other competitions, including having to deal with player welfare and obligatory player rest periods after international matches, plus clashing fixtures. This means, as the Northampton director of rugby Chris Boyd said, “International players may only be available for around 50 per cent of the 2022/23 season’s games and the start of 2023/24 season when the World Cup takes place.”
This is partly because of the 10-week break that players are guaranteed after the summer tour, meaning they could potentially miss the first two matches of the new season, and the four international games this autumn, plus the potential of further clashes with Premiership fixtures.
This is even before we get into the next Six Nations and end-of-season summer RWC warm-up games before the start of the competition in September 2023.
This could potentially put clubs under the financial pressure of paying player wages while not actually being able to pick them for games and also damage the clubs’ prospects in the league by having to field weaker teams.
Having said that, the millions that are paid to the Premiership for player release more than compensates them for the salaries of the ‘missing’ star players. There could also be a break clause in the contracts so that players selected for international duty stop receiving their club salary during the period they are paid by the Unions. With figures around at least a quarter of a million per player if they win the RWC, I’m sure they wouldn’t miss a break in their salary for the seven weeks the World Cup takes.
As for the potential clash in fixtures, that is entirely the fault of the Premiership, whose negotiators way back when the basis for player release was formed and agreed, refused the RFU’s offer of re-scheduling league matches on international match weekends. In fact, if the Premiership had been a little more flexible in its agreement with the RFU, there would be no problems with league fixtures at all. Even now the Premiership could rearrange fixtures so that league games that clash with internationals are replaced with meaningless Premiership Cup matches.
Unfortunately, the collective insecurity of the Premiership clubs meant they felt they needed to offer alternative games to the international matches even though it was obvious that a majority of their own fans would be watching the internationals and not the club game.
Although it is unusual for me to agree with Colin Boag, even sacrificing the European games for a season would make sense if it is to help the national side prepare for RWC23 while also helping the Premiership clubs balance their books. With the next season lasting 38 weeks and 24 league games, five Six nations games and two or three RWC ‘warm-up’ games in the summer, there is not much ‘wiggle’ room, particularly for those clubs that supply a majority of Eddie Jones’ squad.
However, that’s also true of a usual season’s 42 weeks which has a similar number of games and may actually have more with a possible four autumn internationals and a summer tour like this season.
As much as I hate to say this, I can see the logic of a season with no promotion or relegation in a World Cup year where clubs can lose a number of ‘star’ players impacting on their ability to truly compete in the league and may end up relegated because of it. However, if there was ever an agreement for a four-yearly freeze on promotion and relegation, there should also be a lower player release fee paid by the Union.
This is because the risk of the club being relegated, plus the financial penalties that would encompass as a result of providing players for the national side, would have been mitigated by the removal of relegation for that season.