This past weekend produced games in London and Paris that were a great advert for international rugby, but they were played against the backdrop of something roiling behind the scenes - the news that a breakaway franchise competition was planning to offer contracts far in excess of present club deals for a much shorter season.
Up to 40 test stars had been understood to have been offered £1-million (R22-million) each to join the league, that if there is veracity to it, it would take the form of a Formula 1 type travelling league featuring eight men’s franchises and a women’s competition - both of which would be set to start in 2026.
PREVIOUS REBEL LEAGUES NEVER GOT STARTED
Of course, it’s not the first time a rebel league has been mooted and planned. In the mid-1980s there was one planned by the English businessman Frank Lord, and then a decade later, just as coincidentally rugby union shook off the shackles of amateurism, there was a move by a consortium who had the backing of Australian media mogul Kerry Packer to take over the sport.
That second one, under the banner of World Rugby Corporation, got to a much more advanced stage than the first, and the Springbok captain Francois Pienaar, became unpopular with his international peers for accepting a counter offer from Sarfu president Louis Luyt to stay loyal to the establishment. The Packer circus needed the Boks, as they were the newly crowned world champions.
Pienaar’s fellow Boks had to follow him and were unpopular at their provinces. Most of the rank and file Natal Sharks players had been signed up, and they gave the likes of Mark Andrews, James Small, Andre Joubert and other returning Boks to their ranks a chilly reception.
It had long term ramifications, as for the next few years the Bok coaches had to spend much of their time trying to placate new players who came into the Bok squad who were unhappy that they weren’t earning nearly as much as the 1995 World Cup winners were.
SO MUCH PIE IN THE SKY
There were even some Boks who were unhappy with Pienaar’s unilateral decision to stay loyal to the establishment, but speak to them today and many will agree that what was being proposed was a bit pie in the sky and, even if it had worked, might not have been good for the sport. And until there is more detail that emerges, I’d say the same about the latest rumoured breakaway, said to be being put together by American backers.
For a start, the new venture is planned to co-exist side by side with international rugby. Meaning that the players will play in the new league and be available to play the usual 12 to 14 tests a year played by their country. That would mean agreement from World Rugby and the various national bodies.
Cricket didn’t allow players who signed up for Kerry Packer’s breakaway series in that sport in the late 1970s to continue playing test cricket, and rugby showed no appetite for co-existing with the 1995 Packer venture either, so why will it be different in rugby now?
Yes, cricket’s IPL, which has no doubt inspired the breakaway move, does now coexist with the international game. But that’s only because of the massive power wielded in that sport by India.
Then there are the numbers being attached to the details around squads. If my maths is right, the eight franchises will have not much more than 30 players at their disposal.
Assuming the mooted new league is not going to embrace a formula that embraces less contact than rugby currently does, that’s just not enough players for a 14 week league. Injuries will force them to be scouring the world for new recruits within a few weeks of the tournament starting.
QUESTIONABLE APPEAL
The biggest question mark though revolves around the appeal of the venture to the rugby public. The club/provincial level of the sport may be in trouble in several parts of the world but what keeps it going is that it is driven by tribal loyalties, by fans long identifying with their teams jerseys and colours.
Throwing a team together made up of players from different regions and countries like, for instance happens in cricket T20 franchise competitions won’t work as easily in rugby. There’s much more of an individual element to cricket, meaning that when AB de Villiers went out to bat in the IPL, or Kagiso Rabada bowled, their individual skill was more obvious and could be watched as it’s own entity by adoring fans.
Frans Malherbe being part of a dominant scrum or Eben Etzebeth being the kernel of a strong driving maul means something to Springbok, Stormers or Sharks fans when they are playing for their teams.
But it will mean diddly squat, and won’t be appreciated for it’s aesthetic appeal in its own right, when those players are surrounded by teammates and are in a team Malherbe and Etzebeth’s regular fans have no link with. An attitude of who cares who wins as long as it’s pretty won’t work in rugby.
WELFARE ISSUES AND PLAYER WORK LOAD NEED ATTENTION
But while there are so many reasons all of this is pie in the sky, there is something the world game needs to heed. For there are player welfare issues that have been highlighted by those top players who allegedly like the breakaway idea that the sport has too long ignored.
The Times quoted “one prominent international” who predicted that stars would flock to the new competition because of the welfare provisions and reduced workload. Apart from the package being offered featuring welfare provisions that include mental health support and career training, one of the biggest appeals for players is a much reduced workload.
If the new league did coexist with the international calendar, the players who play in the league and play international rugby would be playing around 10 league games in a year and a maximum of 12 internationals.
That’s 22 games, which is far more palatable from both a physical and mental health perspective than what is happening currently. In England they are currently working on a 30-game maximum a season for a player, but not all the clubs are happy about that, while in France players can apparently conceivably end up playing 37 games.
South African players who are on a constant 12-month treadmill, with bits and pieces of rest thrown in rather than a proper off-season, would be particularly fertile ground for the breakaway league.
LESS IS MORE - IT SIMPLY HAS TO BE
If rugby’s governors took a cue from the organisers of the breakaway league, then rugby would be in a much better space too. The sport doesn’t appear to understand the concept of less is more.
Many of those who were supporting rugby at the time will agree that the best formula in South Africa was when the Super 12 was just a Super 12, meaning there were 11 games in that competition plus knock-outs and it was all over in a few months.
All games were at full strength as there was never a clash with international rugby and then there was time in this country to have a proper Currie Cup and in New Zealand to have a proper NPC. The top Boks were missing in some of the domestic games if they were playing in the Tri-Nations, but otherwise the top teams were much more at full strength than they are in that competition currently.
Other contact sports where concussion is an issue, most notably the NFL, have seen the penny drop and seasons have become much shorter and more condensed. The reaction to the breakaway league by the unnamed players quoted in the UK media suggest rugby union needs to do the same.
At the moment there's a disproportion between the interest directed at international rugby compared to the lower levels of the game. One of the reasons for that might be that the international season doesn’t feel like it is year round with only a minimal break.
If the stories around the breakaway league achieve some awareness of the concerns of the players, and what they feel they need, and World Rugby reacts to it (for goodness sake a global season is long overdue), it will have a positive spin-off for fans as much as players. Less is more. It simply has to be.