When Rugby League Meets Chat GPT

People who are far more intelligent and technologically-clued up that I seem to believe that we are at the start of an Artificial Intelligence revolution. This could be wonderful, it could transform healthcare, education and make our lives better. But its creators warn it could go too far and threaten jobs and ultimately livelihoods.

As I say, we are only at the start of this new era. One common example is Chat GPT. As I understand it, this is a form of 'conversational' google. If I had the inclination, Chat GPT could write this blogpost and probably do so in a more engaging manner than I could. Sadly, you're stuck with my ramblings.

In the early days of Chat GPT, people have created CV's, online dating profiles, coursework essays and even Court pleadings using this technology, with mixed success.

What has this got to do with Rugby League, I hear you ask?! I'm getting there I promise (though Chat GPT may have got to the point far sooner).

Where some outsource everyday problems to Chat GPT, the RFL has done the sporting equivalent and outsourced large amounts of its operations to IMG. A cynic may describe this as a subtle admission of a lack of ability in self-governance.

The IMG Takeover

IMG have been tasked with the de facto running of the sport, at its heart, a restructure of the professional game in the UK. The result being a return to a licensing system, which we previously deemed a failure. The RFL have recently published IMG's grading criteria on its website and I'd encourage you to read it. Here's the link!

On first glance, you see a snazzy presentation, full of persuasive language. You may be persuaded that this is the panacea that Rugby League has been looking for. Finally, we have shed ourselves of bumbling CEO's with a track record of failure and instead got a proper sporting consultancy who will whip this sport into shape.

The criteria claim to be objective. Strictly, they are. But, like any criterion, the parameters of them are subjective. The percentage of your overall score attributed to what IMG call "pillars" are subjective. The levels of attendance required to secure precious "IMG points" are subjective. Even what is included are subjective. Points for LED advertising boards but not standard of floodlights.

Let's take a more detailed look at a couple of criteria.

Attendances

We'll start with attendance figures. If you average 3,000 fans, you get 1.5 points. If you average 3,001 fans you get 2 points (you also get 2 points if you average 6,999 fans). 

If you average around the 3,000 attendance mark, then the difference of just one fan can alter your score. Yet, a club which averages almost 4,000 more attendees would receive the same points award. 

What even a cursory glance at the criteria shows is that Championship clubs have an almighty hill to climb.

Firstly, attendances will always be lower in the Championship. Particularly under this system where the reward for winning the league is pride and this acting as the equivalent of a flash of flesh for a man with a necktie and clipboard who will deem if you are worthy of a place in the top flight.

Viewing Figures

Equally, points are awarded for viewing figures on TV. Naturally, being in a Super League seat when the music stops is a huge advantage, by virtue of Sky Sports' higher subscriber base than Viaplay (and it is unknown whether the Championship will be televised at all next year).

Even within Super League, clubs remain at the mercy of the gods (well, whoever picks the TV matches).

Take Salford for example. They have had a lot of exposure on Channel 4. Matches shown by Channel 4 get higher viewing figures than Sky, irrespective of who is playing, as the matches are shown free-to-air to a larger target audience.

You get scored on how many TV viewers tune in. So if you happen to have a larger percentage of your TV matches on Channel 4, the more you benefit. Not due to your skill or management, just because a TV executive says so. That same TV executive's decision could be the difference between a place in Super League or not.

Maintaining the Status Quo

Whether by design or accident, this is a system which favours the status quo and favours whichever 12 sides happen to be sitting in the Super League seats when the music stops.

If the new system was in place last year, it's hard to see how a side like Leigh would get in. They averaged a crowd of less than 3,000, their TV viewing figures would have been lower than every Super League club, they aren't in an expansion area, their youth development is hardly famed.

Would IMG really have relegated Toulouse or Wakefield who finished 10th last year for Leigh? Almost certainly not. The result? Leigh would not be second in Super League, or in the semi finals of a Challenge Cup, or have players that have won these competitions before parading in leopard print, or be averaging a crowd of 7,000 this year.

The sport would have missed out on not just a great story of this year but one of the greatest success stories for many a year because Leigh would have bounced off the glass ceiling. I worry that this new system is not, as many think, one that harbours ambition but one that stifles it and instead throws a ring of protection around the current elite.