Perhaps the best way to embark on a shiny new rugby decade is to listen to Ricky Gervais’s coruscating speech at the annual Golden Globe awards. Fair play to the boy Gervais, there was absolutely no dull, formulaic box ticking (or kicking) involved. “If Isis started a streaming service you’d call your agent, wouldn’t you?” he challenged his wincing audience, before slaughtering virtually every other traditional sacred cow in Hollywood within seven and a half minutes.
If Ricky ever does oval-shaped speeches he will have no shortage of similarly juicy targets at which to aim. “So, how come it’s taken this long for anyone to be publicly punished for breaking the Premiership salary cap?” might be a nice opening question. “How come there are all these playing laws and you don’t apply half of them?” would be another. Or “If you really love Pacific Island rugby, why don’t their teams receive a share of your home gate receipts?”
And so on and so on. It has become a regular appeal but, notwithstanding an excellent World Cup in Japan, rugby needs a fresh injection of honesty and transparency if it wants to be in a significantly healthier state in 2030 than it is now. Never has the game sought to sell itself as more open and accessible while simultaneously remaining such a closed book on issues that affect almost everyone who plays or supports the sport.
Take the Saracens salary cap saga. It is neither to support nor to criticise Nigel Wray – who has given far more to rugby than many – to say his decision to step down as the club’s chairman does not mean the end of this affair. Until the publication of the full content of the judgment that prompted Premiership Rugby to hand down its mega fine of £5.3m and a 35-point deduction there can be no real closure on either side of the argument
Exeter remain upset – genuinely so – at the hidden human cost they believe should be factored into the whole Saracens “cheating” equation. The players the Chiefs had to let go because they could not fit all of them under the supposedly immovable cap, the extra depth of squad their rivals ended up being able to carry, the shattered dreams of others who, had there been a level playing field, could have secured a Premiership winner’s medal and now never will. They also think it is naive to imagine that Saracens’ extremely smart coaching staff were unaware about the joint business and property arrangements between their star players and Wray which, while legal in themselves, potentially opened up a way to retain them on salaries below their full market value.
Sarries, to their credit, are looking to confront such negative perceptions in the coming days and weeks and demonstrate – beyond any scintilla of doubt – they are operating in full accordance with the regulations. It makes it even more essential that Premiership Rugby also releases the full details of the judgment – redacted in places if necessary – to allow everyone to put the matter behind them and help dissolve the stain that has left people openly querying whether the champions should also have had their domestic titles taken away. One man’s cavalier accounting – supposedly Sarries’ downfall – is another man’s flat-out cheating. Until all the facts are available to scrutiny, the argument will rumble on.
It is the same, to some extent, with the “new money” coming into the sport via the private equity company CVC. Already agreements have been reached for shares of the commercial rights of Premiership Rugby and the Pro 14 and soon enough a ground-breaking deal with the Six Nations will be announced. Have we heard a syllable from CVC? Not yet. Is mortgaging the entire sport really going to yield only positive returns? Who knows? Has anyone from the RFU or Premiership Rugby or the Six Nations or anyone else stood up and publicly explained exactly why it is the deal of the century for rugby? Not yet.
Which leads us indirectly back to the labyrinth that is the law-book. If Gervais was talking to World Rugby he would be asking some more pertinent questions. Why is the offside line not being enforced more often in a sport in which the number of heavy collisions is already a concern? What about the breakdown: how come players are still at risk of life-changing injury from opponents steaming in to “clear them out” or peel them off with a neck roll? How come “jacklers” routinely get away with not supporting their own weight? What lasts longer: an entire Golden Globes speech or the average scrum-half’s pre-box-kick routine?
We could go on. Players in front of kick-offs, the endless prodded kicks to the corner following an attacking penalty. Nothing wrong with a good maul, clearly, but every time? There is a case for setting a maximum limit on how often per game a side can employ that option, both for player welfare reasons – those endless head-on tackles take their toll – and to vary the spectacle. Could it be that elaborate old-school tap-penalty moves and drop goals would re-emerge from the dusty vault to which they have mostly been consigned?
Players, for their part, could be encouraged, like Ellis Genge at the weekend, to speak their mind with more freedom, rather than restrict themselves to corporate speak or in-house channels. How are they going to earn one of those precious TV summariser gigs if they opt not to engage with the media during their playing days? It is the same with international coaches: if you slag off the media and actively encourage players to behave likewise, where is the long-term benefit for anyone, sponsors included?
In short, it is time for some different thinking. Want to enhance the spectating experience? Stop selling three-pint jugs that require spectators to visit the toilets three times per half. Fancy improving merchandise sales? Get teams playing in kit that looks genuinely classy and collectable, rather than charging extortionate amounts for a pale abomination of a change strip. Want to save money? Review the kind of over-large leagues that require semi-professional or amateur teams to travel ridiculous distances every fortnight for a game. Looking to increase rugby’s live audiences? Stage more women’s, age-group or sevens games on alternate weekends instead. And what if none of the above happens? Just phone Ricky. He’ll tell it to them straight.
Downward dog
It was interesting to read Ronan O’Gara in a thought-provoking column in the Irish Examiner suggesting that part of the reason Ireland tend to underperform at World Cups is that relegation is not part of the domestic equation. Currently based at La Rochelle in France, O’Gara floated the possibility that a relentlessly significant fixture schedule sharpens players’ competitive instincts more than sitting out occasionally mundane Pro14 fixtures. Clearly it does not affect Ireland’s performance in Europe and fresh bodies and minds should always be a plus but maybe this Six Nations will provide further evidence. If England and France both show up well in the championship, having returned from the World Cup straight back into the maelstrom of their dog-eat-dog domestic competitions, it might explode a few myths about top level preparation.
And another thing
The penultimate round of European pool games this weekend pales into insignificance beside the health of the 27-year-old Worcester lock Michael Fatialofa, who suffered a serious neck injury against Saracens on Saturday. Fatialofa has been in intensive care since being injured in a collision shortly after coming on as a replacement. Michael was due to have an operation on Monday evening and everyone in rugby sends their love and best wishes to him and his wife Tatiana.
