Like RugbyRefs.com
Cloud
As most followers of rugby union will have realised by now, there has been a huge spat building over the future of the European Rugby Championship, the Heineken Cup. For the rugby fans and supporters who follow teams involved in this dispute, there must be some worrying times ahead. But for the neutral observer, like myself, it has been a something of an amusing watch.Just to recap, the Heineken Cup began in 1995 as a twelve team competition with three French, three Welsh and three Irish teams, two Italian teams and a Romanian team. It was a shaky start, it was poorly supported with most crowds being far less than 10,000 until the final in front of a less than half-full stadium at the Arms Park. The English refused to be a part of it (still coming to terms with the fact that England was part of Europe perhaps) and the Scots weren’t even invited. However, the competition survived and it grew. The following year the number of teams was increased to 16, with the English and the Scots taking part for the first time, then to twenty the following year, before ending up in 1999 with the 24 team/6 pool format that is familiar to anyone who follows it.
Every new competition needs a “trigger point”; an event that sets the competition alight. Some say it was the 75,000 crowd that turned up for the 2002 final. Some say it was the inclusion of teams from all the top six nations in Europe (and I still think that is a vital part of what makes it so great). Perhaps it was the 76,000 who watched the Stade Francais v Harlequins match in 2008/09, the highest ever attendance at a pool match. However, for me, that trigger point was the 1996/97 final where Brive overran Leicester in one of the best Northern Hemisphere club rugby games I have ever seen. The Cup slowly, but definitely grew from there to become a fantastic competition and one that is the envy of many here in The South. It’s the only rugby competition in Europe that I follow.
So, it is with some amusement (and concern) that a neutral kiwi like myself looks upon what appears to be going on at the moment. We see two groups of people, the English “Premier Rugby Ltd” ( PRL) and the French “Ligue Nationale de Rugby” (LNR) on one side of the rift, and the Celtic Unions and the Italian Union of the Pro12 on the other. Both sides appear to be hell-bent on destroying the Jewel in the Crown of European Rugby, arguably the world’s premier domestic rugby tournament, and one that has put Northern Hemisphere domestic rugby on the international map. It’s like someone pushed the self-destruct button on European Rugby.*
This madness has been accompanied by a lot of anger. On the one hand, we have the supercilious posturing of Mark McCafferty (the big banana at PRL) along with his counterpart Paul Goze at the LNR, both of whom have exhibited gross acts bad faith, as well as wilful breaches of iRB regulations in negotiating an illegal TV rights deal with BT Sport, and all behind the backs of the RFU, FFR and the iRB itself. On the other hand we have and tit-for-tat sniping from the Celtic nations, who are bullish in their steadfast refusal to give in to the bullying demands of the English and the French for fears that they will be financially marginalised. I am also pretty sure there have been some downright lies told on both sides of this debate.
That the club owners have their own interests at heart, ahead of that of the game itself, is fairly obvious. Their past record of acrimonious dealings with the National Unions, who are mandated by the world governing body to run ALL rugby within their own borders, has been plain for all to see. Those of us who remember the bitter dispute between the RFU and PRL over their Long Form Agreement, where finally the issue was taken to court, will understand that much of what is happening now, at least as far as PRL are concerned, is down to lingering animosity from that issue.
From my own perspective, it comes down to “who would I trust run rugby in England and France?”
a. the private owners who are out to make a buck; the biggest buck they can in the shortest possible time, or
b. the National Unions, who, as individuals, stand to gain little, if any, pecuniary return from running the game of rugby in their country.
It’s a no-brainer really.
In an interview, McCafferty was quoted as saying “We want all the teams from the six countries involved in the Heineken Cup to take part but it will be run by the clubs with safeguards put in place to ensure it does not cut across international rugby."
Really? Does anyone really think that McCafferty can be taken at his word after the way he and his organisation has acted? Well, if the way the English and French club owners are treating the current organisers and the other participants in the European Cup is anything to go by (considering that they are not yet in any position of power) then it is abundantly clear that McCafferty and his cohorts cannot be trusted.
There is little doubt that whatever happens, there will be a negative impact on the game world wide. You only have to look at other professional sports such as Football and Rugby League to see what happens when private individuals get their hands on the reins....
► the game gets driven for the benefit of the individual owners
► the players are treated as property rather than people
► the international game suffers as a result
► the power in the club game centralises geographically at the expense of the game globally.
Fortunately, International Rugby is still enough of a draw card that players still see it as the pinnacle of their game. Enjoy it while it lasts, because it might not remain the case for much longer.
It specifically forbids the negotiation of TV rights without the express approval of the relevant national union, yet of their own admission, they negotiated such rights with BT Sport.
This is not an assertion of mine, it is an established fact, and if that is not an act of bad faith, and a breach of regulations, then what is?
vBulletin Message