The jeopardy and joy that comes with relegation and promotion is entrenched in British sporting culture. Nothing beats April and May, as the jockeying to determine who will be the winners and who will face the trapdoor becomes clear. There will be relief for some, sadness and reflection for others, and it these emotions that the British sports fan grows up with from a young age. It is an institution.
In rugby’s case should this unique sporting landscape keep with tradition, or has the game reached a tipping point where the standards at the top are just too great for those being promoted into the Premiership to realise?
The argument for keeping the status quo is becoming weaker. The data suggests that the team who progresses to the Aviva Premiership inevitably will make its way back down that season. Indeed, London Welsh bet the farm and their now sorry story is a cautionary tale of how clubs can over extend themselves to have a seat at the top table.
This is compounded by structural flaws which inherently rig the game. The RFU funding available to the Greene King IPA Championship is mandated to 2020 with no prospect of improvement, the RFU is in a constant battle to find commercial partners willing to help provide additional revenue streams and the reality is that they aren’t flocking to associate themselves with a fledgling product; the Play-off system means that clubs in contention for a stab at the top-flight have missed the prime buying opportunities in the player market and the sheer brutality and durability in a squad, necessary to even be mid-table in the Aviva Premiership is simply hard to comprehend until you have experienced a season of it. The only analogy I can use is that it is like playing cards in Vegas: There is a sporting chance, but the Casino very rarely loses.
Exploring further the commercial viability of the second tier the best gates in the league are weak, with approximately 4,000 in attendance at the 28,000 seater Madejski stadium to watch London Irish play Bedford – a team with a world cup winning all black, Premiership budget, capable marketing team and a serious investment driving it forward. How can Doncaster Knights, or Rotherham Titans (another victim of yo-yoing between leagues) hope to do better? If gate money can’t top up income, and as alluded to earlier sponsorship opportunities are light, then where is the business model needed to nurture a team to success without a wealthy benefactor?
Also read into it what you will, that 50% of the play off clubs competing to win the league stated they would not accept promotion if they won. Both Ealing and Donny making the decision as a result of not fulfilling the strict ground and commercial criteria necessary to play under license as laid down by Premiership Rugby Ltd.
Football has significant commercial value all the way down to to level three. The commercial models still stack up, TV rights are secure and players earn a living which is very good (Avg. £10k per week), thanks very much, and wouldn’t we all want some of that. In rugby however, most tier 1 players couldn’t hope to make that kind of a living.
At level two, that issue is compounded. My one experience of a season at this level would certainly put to bed any ideas that a fledgling rugby career is either glamorous or healthy. Many, apart from the London Irish lads, make as little as £10K per annum with some incentives tied in, such as win bonuses, concurrent appearances etc. Some clubs will have flats or properties for players to live in (for the season)and little or no rent is typical, but even with that cost removed the ability to even go for dinner with a girlfriend is a real stretch. Also virtually all Championship deals are one season long, and that makes setting down roots very hard to do.
In my experience the people playing at that level who are in full time set ups and who are genuinely capable are either on loan, on their way to retirement having been at the top table, or have secondary incomes from parents which helps them circumnavigate the realities of life faced by many of the working pros. I often hear people say “that’s their choice”, or “I’d do it for free, so stop whinging” and yes, you are right, it is their choice, and yes, many would do it for free but in the context of relegation and promotion, the differences in lifestyle in just one league are so vast, to me it is evidence of the second tier failing to deliver on it’s purpose – which is to provide teams and players capable of pushing on.
There have been successes though. Both clubs and players. Exeter is clearly the poster boy, Worcester has a chance, and with the RFU scrapping the play offs, Bristol or Leeds could come up and survive – based on having the time to recruit and plan which currently teams just don’t get. Much of England’s current team have played on loan and Saracens’ relationship with Bedford is often cited as an example where championship teams can rely on Premiership clubs to drive wins with little to no investment of their own.
The practical and commercial view would state that the case for ring fencing is solid. Close the competition, ramp up the product, pool the investment from sponsorship, return the clubs to profit and deliver a world class platform, which in theory will make the national side more competitive. Whilst I agree in concept, the real edge in English rugby is based on the fact that relegation creates hunger to survive. The fact that there are no easy games is as a result of this jeopardy, and I’m not sure that we’d be better for it.
Nigel Melville is looking at models and ways to reform the structure and has ideas enough. There may be a review which re-purposes the second tier and it becomes a farm or affiliate to formally hot house more academy prospects. The practice of being on loan is well known, but this would take elements of financial risk from the clubs taking players and may improve the quality of the competition enough that commercial sponsors do turn up and invest.
The crying shame is that in reality a lot of the better tier two players are playing at level 3 or 4. They are able to play reasonably good rugby, stand out above the rest at that level, earn as much or more from their rugby whilst building a career outside of the game, all the while not having to invest the massive levels of commitment needed to be good at level 2. This then asks huge questions of professional and amateur rugby more broadly, but we can discuss that at another time…
By Gerry Hill
Gerry, you say that there are no easy games as a result of the threat of relegation but surely there are – London Welsh being the extreme example. Bristol have been on the wrong side of a few hidings. There was nothing wrong with their desire but they just couldn’t compete.
I’m an advocate of expanding the Prem by two and ring fencing but I can certainly see the downsides.
Scrapping the Championship playoffs is a good move for a side like Bristol who can prepare and spend without risk of ‘Welshing.’ What about other teams without their resources though? They’d have more opportunity to recruit, but might end up overstretching because of it.
It’s certainly a good article Gerry.
I understand the argument around maintaining competitiveness right to the end of the season, but there are also downsides to relegation, not least the movement of players away from the relegated club. I do not blame the players of course, as they are quite right to seek to maintain their own top-level status. Very often, they move up from a lower standard, or the club’s academy, prove themselves capable of playing in the top tier, and would then be foolish to step back down.
The RFU support the academies of 14 clubs, and it is across these 14 academies that the cream of the English youth comes, so it would make perfect sense to maintain a top-tier status for these clubs, so that these players have a clear Premiership path – if they are good enough.
I suspect the list of Academy graduates from Bristol, London Irish, Worcester and Leeds that are now in other Premiership clubs is quite a lengthy one. Newcastle too – although their successes of late would appear to slow this somewhat.
I used to be against ring-fencing but have now swayed having seen the fortunes of London Welsh (last year) and the struggles of Bristol this year.
Frankly, most clubs do not have the infrastructure to support a top team. More (and most importantly) do not have the support base to do the same, so frankly it is ridiculous to think that the likes of Ealing, Jersey, London Scottish, Doncaster or Rotherham could ever support a successful Prem side. Arguably; Leeds, Newcastle and Sale too, but I understand fully the geographic need of the RFU to encourage these teams to continue.
Exeter will remain to exception but this is almost entirely due to its geographic position in a strong rugby part of the country. I accept that they are also very well run and coached, but this really is what takes them to the Prem Final, as opposed to scrapping for survival. A few years back it could have been Plymouth, or (at a stretch) Penzance who made the jump up before Exeter, and thus would have cornered the SW market.
Competitiveness? Well 12 teams qualify for European competition today. This could remain with a 14 team Premiership.
Too many games? The teams do not have to play each other twice.
Just sticking to your very last comment there – I really hope you aren’t suggesting some sort of conference system?! That’s not going too well down south…
Or if you mean a 6N play home one year, away the next, then it would be a short season of just 13 games!
So what are you proposing?
No VJ, I don’t propose conferencing, but what i would want to avoid is increasing the number of games.
In fact i do not propose anything, I am merely floating an idea. I have given it very little consideration but it does not seem unreasonable to play, say, 10 teams twice, and 3 teams once
I absolutely agree with not adding further matches to the calendar, however the idea of playing some teams twice and others once is far from watertight, sadly. If you were to try explaining to fans and management that their team has to play twice against the top three from the previous season (so eg: someone like Sale having to play Sarries, Wasps and Chiefs twice each) whereas another team only has to play them one each, you’d be laughed and sworn at in equal measure.
I think if this hypothetical ring-fence happened, you would end up with a Top14 style calendar and thus a longer season – its practically impossible to make it fair otherwise.
VJ, i think you’re confusing an idea for a proposal so of course it is not watertight, but thanks for your consideration.
I must say that being laughed at and/or swore at is not necessarily a bad thing, or even reflective of an ideas merits, more a reflection of the ignorant, or the change-averse. If there is not some opposition to a change then its probably not much of a change anyway.
That said I believe that the idea of choosing the teams is something that would need sensible consideration to provide an application of fairness, but as there would be no relegation, would it make that much difference across 23 (ish) games?
You shouldn’t forget that there is an element of today’s system can be argued as unfair, in that some teams play strong teams at weak times (International periods). Alternatively Sarries needed to rest players against Wasps (because of Europe) which arguably affected their league season. Is that not also unfair that they had no rest time?
The flip side is that to win the league you need only to finish in the Top 4, so this lessens this unfairness (or luck of the fixture draw) across the season.
There is a league (in some sport) that has this system today – although I do not recall what league/sport it is.
Here’s a suggestion re number of games:
each team plays each other once (13 games). Some teams would have 7 home and 6 away but that’s not too big a deal if it alternates each year like in the 6N.
Then split the league in a similar way to the Scottish Premiership (football): each team in the top 7 plays each other once, each team in the bottom 7 plays each other once and the point tallies from both the first and second half of the season are totalled together. (6 games + one week for a bye for each team, so 7 weeks)
This gives 20 weeks in total so is better for player welfare (2 less weeks) but still gives a good amount of games (13 is just too few) and is fairer than some teams arbitrarily having more games against certain teams than others. Sure so it’s not completely fair but no system is, not even the one we have now.
One idea I had is that the top 4 in the top half would still have playoffs like usual, but also perhaps the 6th and 7th teams in the top half and the 1st and 2nd teams in the bottom half could have a similar playoff system for the last Champions Cup place? It would keep the bottom half exciting as Champions Cup matches are such a financial boost for a team and are what the fans want so much (for instance see Quins v Northampton this year or any of the playoff games)