Sanity must prevail over power and money

LAST Thursday was a black day for European rugby.

The threatened boycott by the French and English clubs of next season’s European cup was confirmed by a series of bland statements that threatened the very future of the professional game on this side of the world. Today and tomorrow, high-ranking European officials meet in Dublin, in an effort to keep the European ship afloat.

Not for the first time the English clubs have chosen to promote self interest to the detriment of the game at large. In the Heineken Cup’s inaugural season of 1995/96 and in 1998/99 the tournament survived the absence of any English club. Remaining tenable without England was viable in the short term. Attempting to do so without the combined presence of the English and French teams is a totally different proposition.

This latest struggle has its roots in the very foundation of the professional game in 1995. France, England and Italy continue a system where the clubs as opposed to the international unions hold player contracts. In the other major rugby playing nations, central contracting applies. Argentina are the exception to this rule where their club rugby remains amateur while the majority of the professional players are contracted overseas.

The kernel of this problem revolves around power and money. The Heineken Cup has become a victim of it’s own success and is being used as a pawn to resolve domestic issues in France and England.

The participating unions own ERC Ltd, the umbrella company that runs the Heineken Cup. In recent times the French Federation has offered a percentage of its shareholding and voting rights to La Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR), the body that represent the French clubs interest. The Italian union intend to do likewise and Premier Rugby who represents the English clubs claim that the RFU gave a commitment last October to do the same. The RFU refute this.

The latest Anglo/French alliance has been carefully choreographed over the past 12 months. In essence the LNR have agreed to boycott the competition due to the failure of the RFU to grant a percentage of its shareholdings to Premier Rugby who insist that they were promised this by the RFU. No evidence has yet surfaced to support this claim. If such a commitment was made, it was surely documented somewhere and needs to be clarified as soon as possible.

The RFU, on the other hand, are reluctant to discuss any power share of their European interest until a long term agreement has been agreed with Premier Rugby in relation to elite player release and management for the international rugby programme.

It would appear that LNR has been somewhat economic with the truth as a boycott of next season’s Heineken Cup would resolve a cluttered domestic fixture list in a World Cup year. The French clubs are currently negotiating a highly lucrative television contract for their domestic championship with Canal Plus on increased terms. However, should the Heineken Cup take place then some French championship games would be forced to run parallel with the World Cup. This would reduce the payout on the new domestic deal. It suits the French therefore to support the English clubs in the short term. If the LNR were up front about their difficulties then one suspects that a solution could be found.

Premier Rugby on the other hand is using the withdrawal of the French clubs to renege on their pre-existing contract to partake in European competition until 2009. They claim that the withdrawal of the French clubs alters the core of the competition for which they had signed up.

What is clear at this stage is that the relationship between the RFU and the clubs in England is at an all time low. Suggestions from Martyn Thomas, chairman of the RFU, that English first division clubs will be drafted in to ensure the continuance of next year’s Heineken Cup seem ridiculous. That would only result in the participating teams incurring the same level of expenditure as normal without any chance of generating the same level of income.

The re-action from Celtic nations has been consistent. The provincial/regional sides in Ireland and Wales are predicting financial hardship in the short term and potential redundancies in the longer term. The Scottish rugby union, who have already been forced to close down The Borders, are even more pessimistic.

Just examine the implications from a Munster perspective alone. Currently Thomond Park is the sole preserve of the building contractors who are upgrading the famous old stadium to cater for a capacity 26,000 audience. This development is being funded from a range of sources including the sale of 10-year tickets. If there is no Heineken Cup then who will want to buy those tickets and what is the requirement for a stadium of that size? Munster have renewed their sponsorship with Toyota on improved terms but will receive less money if they do not participate in Europe. They have also just signed a new gear sponsorship with Adidas which could also be affected.

From a recruitment perspective, the loss of the Heineken Cup could not be more ill timed. Munster badly need to attract at least two marquee names to beef up an aging back line. With players contracted to their respective unions until after the World Cup, a number of quality players will become available to the market in October. However, without the attraction of European competition, it will be easier for the French and English clubs to secure those signatures because of the strength of their domestic competition and the absence of the European outlet.

THE majority of the French and English clubs are still supported by private benefactors, which offer them greater bargaining powers when attracting top class players. While Munster’s annual budget amounts to approximately €6m, Stade Francais have upwards of €12m to play around with. Even if the Heineken Cup is re-launched in the season 2008/09 the majority of southern hemisphere players will be signed up at that stage.

One wonders what the support base of the English clubs think about the decision to boycott Europe. One would image that being confined to a staple diet of games against Bristol, Worcester or Newcastle three times a year would be less than attractive to the Leicester Tigers faithful. The English clubs could make the fatal mistake of taking their core following for granted.

The one point that has been highlighted the past week is the vulnerability of the professional structures in Ireland. While the majority of revenue generated in this country is done through the international game, the success of the national side in recent seasons has been built on the progress made by the provinces in Europe. They are totally interdependent.

It is inconceivable to think that a tournament that has generated such an emotive response could be allowed crumble at the height of its power. One hopes that sanity will prevail and that those in authority retain the will and determination to defeat the selfish requirements of the minority. Whatever it takes, it has to be sorted out. The future of the professional game depends on it.