Rugby’s future is at stake – the game needs action, not empty words like James Haskell’s

Forget the platitudes, unpopular decisions need to be made on issues such as player salaries and broadcast deals to ensure sport’s survival

Last Friday, a crowd of nearly 18,000 watched a thrilling, 11-try match between Bristol and Gloucester, that the visitors won 44-41. It was very good entertainment; the sort of spectacle that can satisfy rugby’s faithful and might persuade a few casual watchers to become regular viewers.
Juxtaposition the above with a report that was produced last week by a firm of insolvency practitioners that concluded only three clubs – Leicester Tigers, Northampton Saints and Gloucester, are solvent. Add to that the portentous words of James Haskell, who provided the foreword to the report, who stated: “I hope this report wakes rugby up.” He went on to criticise what he termed “old-school values, amateur ethos and poor business acumen” and called for drastic changes and the game to be “correctly run and sold properly”.
As three clubs have recently gone from the Premiership, Haskell is right not to dismiss balance-sheet insolvency, even though it is widespread in many sports and many professional football clubs would technically not pass this test. What rugby needs is a route to profit and at least neutral balance sheets. All commenters, from Haskell to rugby writers and anyone else, must stop simply shouting “DO SOMETHING” and issuing ill-defined platitudes. Start debating specific options, so we can make specific conclusions.
There is not much about the product that can be easily changed to make it more watchable, unless you make the sort of drastic law changes that almost nobody in the game has suggested. If you disagree, tell us what you want. In the meantime, World Rugby must continue to minimise stoppages with stop clocks for scrums, line-outs and reduce time allowed for kicks at goal (NFL kickers manage this in a few seconds from the snap to kick).
In traditional business, nobody argues with the fact that reducing costs or increasing income, or a combination thereof, is the only way to long-term viability. Reducing the wage bill must be by salary cuts or culling squads. The former will be unpopular with players; the latter impossible without changing the laws on the number of replacements allowed and still complying with player-safety workloads. Are you prepared to back either of these?
I have previously outlined many different approaches to the lower tiers of English rugby, including the strict demarcation of professional and non-professional leagues – but neither the clubs nor the Rugby Football Union are willing to introduce this. You could move to a university and draft system to replace the Championship and academy structure, but this would require extreme vision and the non-Premiership clubs accepting a role which they do not want to countenance.
Increased income will not come quickly through attendances. Although they are growing, they are not keeping pace with costs and the same goes for merchandising. You are therefore left with broadcast or other digital-media rights and here the picture is nowhere near as rosy as claimed. Without new sporting rights to market there is only incremental gains in existing rights on the table. The number of potential broadcasters has increased but they are now mature businesses and have worked out what they want to pay for and this is down to their granular knowledge of their consumers. You can no longer, with any credibility, just trot out Amazon, Sky, TNT and Netflix as possible sources of income without explaining why they will suddenly start bidding against each other with significantly more cash.
If you want new broadcast rights, do you suggest an Anglo-Welsh league, a British (and possibly Irish) league or a European-wide model to include France? If you want any of these, will the increased revenue, split between more clubs, be voted through? If you want to get more money from subscription-based broadcasters, are you prepared to wear the reduced visibility to traditional supporters and the possible knock-on effects in participation?
When it comes to the mind-bendingly dull, but absolutely crucial, topic of governance, critics must stop saying it is the RFU’s fault and it needs root-and-branch reform. What changes: board and/or executive? Council: smaller, larger, younger, and differently qualified? Yes, no, yes and yes for me – and with a more restricted role.
Though every bit of me resists this, it is also time to consider an open-market option. At least one of rugby’s biggest financial club backers advocates removing the salary cap and other qualifying restrictions. They argue this would remove current limitations on return that presently confront rich potential investors; large returns could mean large investments, as with football’s Premier League and Championship. This strategy is high-return and high-risk. Are you prepared to lock in advantages enjoyed by the richer clubs over the poorer? If it all goes wrong and owners remove their backing, the Premiership could end immediately.