I was chatting with a Chelsea-supporting friend of mine as to which Premiership football clubs are kindred spirits with Premiership rugby clubs. Chelsea seemed an obvious link with Saracens. Both clubs have experienced recent success, though it is fair to say neither has been particularly popular outside their own supporters groups. One reason for this is that both have achieved success by splashing the cash, much of it, in the case of Saracens, allegedly “under the carpet”.
Both clubs have had chairmen who are, shall we say, not averse to coming forward with the odd strong opinion or two. I wouldn’t want to stretch the comparisons between Ken Bates and Nigel Wray too far (their lawyers might even read this) but certainly both men are famous for their provocative programme notes.
Nigel Wray wrote in his programme notes for the Exeter Chiefs game last weekend about losing key players to England while having to continue playing league matches. (Not a scenario admittedly with which Ken Bates had to deal for most of his reign).
Wray wants the rugby calendar to be changed so that the clubs and England play at different times. He described the current system, whereby Aviva Premiership clubs lose their international players for three months every season, an “absolute nonsense.” Saracens had gone into the New Year unbeaten, but welcomed back their international players after a Six Nations run of three victories in seven matches.
“Professional rugby dawned 20 years ago and we still behave as if the game is amateur,” wrote Wray in his programme notes. “While it was a matter of pride to sit in Paris last Saturday and watch Saracens guys deservedly claim most of the awards, we are still left with the absolute nonsense that the Premiership clubs are giving their players to England to compete with them on the same day. Imagine saying to Arsenal and Chelsea you have to play the next 10 matches without eight top players.”
His solution was to reorganise the season so that the Premiership is played at different times to internationals. The play-off system does, to a certain extent, allow the top clubs to catch up at the end of the season but it is an unscientific process. And it is a fact that the clubs and owners have been responsible for making professionalism work, and had it not been for them it might have been still-born, in England at least
The problem with Wray’s comments is that they do not contain a definitive solution. Does he mean a global rugby calendar? The relative climates of the two hemispheres mean that the sensible change is for the northern hemisphere to move its season to the summer. Would the Six Nations survive such a change?
Does he mean a European super league? This would increase the standard of competition, but without a realistic and rigorously policed salary cap, such a league would rapidly become a playground for the rich only – presumably to include Saracens and their South African backers.
But there are many reasons not to trust those in charge of the European club game, whose interests and those of their respective unions are not mutual and there is no practical way of making them so.
Does he mean a reduction in the number of internationals? The autumn internationals could be cut from the current four games but the battle over this would be fierce and the unions involved would complain bitterly at the loss of any of these cash cows, as I suspect would the fans who would miss the chance to see teams from outside the European enclave.
Whatever the solution there are a number of drawbacks. The most effective I believe would be to move northern hemisphere rugby to mirror its southern counterpart. Not only would this make a more coherent set of fixtures, the better weather, better playing conditions and relative lack of competition from football would be significant positives.
Nothing is likely to change any time soon, but what rugby union cannot afford to do is to think conservatively when it bothers to actually think about the future of the game.