There's a Storm Comin'

Rugby League in the UK has had more relaunches, restructures and new eras than I have had hot dinners. If reports are to be believed, we may be standing on the precipice of another new era, with the NRL in some form becoming involved in Super League / the UK game.

You would be forgiven for thinking we have tried different approaches before. We have tried Super League as its own entity twice. We have tried the RFL running the Super League. We have launched "RL Commercial". 

We have had Maurice Lindsay, Richard Lewis, Blake Solly, Brian Barwick, Roger Draper, Robert Elstone, Ken Davy and a conglomerate of leading club executives running the league. We have had Nigel Wood, Ralph Rimmer, Tony Sutton and probably plenty of others who slip the mind involve themselves at the highest level of governance of the sport.

We tried first past the post. We tried a top 5 play off system. We tried relegation. We tried getting rid of relegation. We tried a top 6 play off system. We tried relegation again. We tried a top 8 play off system. We tried giving sides three year licences. We tried the 'Super 8's'. We tried the top 5 play off system again. We tried a traditional form of promotion and relegation again. We tried another form of the top 6 play off system. We are now trying a grading system.

If God loves a trier, then he must be a Rugby League fan. Rugby League is never afraid to innovate they say. Rugby League is so insecure in its own skin, it constantly changes in an attempt to gain wider public acclaim, I say.

Rugby League fans adopt differing stances when it comes to the sport that are often difficult to reconcile. You could speak to a fan of this sport who will tell you unprompted that it is the greatest game in the world and that if only more people knew about it, we would be huge. Yet barely by the time they have finished that sentence, they will tell you the game is dying.

The game is dying is one of my favourite Rugby League expressions. It is used for almost every happening in the sport from the most minor inconvenience to unabated catastrophe and everything in between.

We have tried it all and the reality is that Rugby League in the UK has never taken off into the stratosphere, nor is it at death's door. It is in stasis and has been for several decades now.

Yet there have been some things that even we have not tried. There was talk a few years ago now of private equity investment in the sport that we ultimately decided against.

Rugby Union took the opposite approach and CVC purchased a 27% stake in their premier domestic competition. I am no expert in the other code and a rational analysis of whether that has been a success or not is probably for others to judge.

But the facts are that their last TV deal decreased in value and three clubs in their top flight have faced bankruptcy and have been removed from the competition. I also think its fair to say that the public profile of their league is no higher. On the other hand, reports suggest rugby union’s Premiership is about to strike a record TV deal next time around.

Rumours were also abound that Eddie Hearn et al wanted something akin to a takeover of Rugby League. We apparently refused as they wanted too much control.

The Hearns have no doubt succeeded in many sports. Though I doubt you have heard about their involvement in table tennis, fishing and tenpin bowling. There is a reason for that. They have also never been involved in a team sport, only individual, and we seem to have concluded that the risk of being the first team sport and their demands were too great.

The current proposal seems to be that in some shape or form, the NRL come in and have (as a minimum) a greater involvement in the sport in this country. We have tried most other things, so one argument is what do we have to lose? What is the worst that could happen?

At the time of writing, specifics of the proposals are thin on the ground so that makes it almost impossible to make a judgement about whether this is a good or a bad thing.

What it is possible to do is make observations.

Cooperation is Good

Whatever form cooperation with the NRL takes, the two major leagues in the world working together seems an unquestionable positive.

For too long, the two leagues have coexisted but not cooperated. That has led to a situation in which the if, when and where a World Club Challenge is played becomes an annual soap opera. You would hope closer ties would prevent this.

The tentative signs of greater cooperation were clear to see as Super League attached itself to the NRL’s annual extravaganza in Las Vegas. And whilst it is too early to assess any long term benefits of this, there was certainly a greater level of interest than a regular fixture.

A closer relationship should lead to further such opportunities.

The Aim

The NRL is not going to invest time, money or other resource into the UK game for altruistic reasons.

So why is it considering the move? It could be one of many reasons. To improve its offering when it comes to broadcasting rights? To try and develop a brand beyond Australia? To have greater access to our player market?  Possibly something else that I haven’t thought of?

Without knowing what the NRL’s aim is, it is very difficult to predict what will happen next.

Revolution or Evolution?

In March, Sky Sports’ Brian Carney hinted on air that the changes coming to the sport in the UK would look like “a teddy bear’s picnic” compared to the establishment of Super League in 1995 and launch in 1996.

You could either dismiss this as journalistic hyperbole or take it at face value. Without knowledge of what is going on behind the scenes, you cannot know which of the two it is (or if it falls somewhere in the middle).

For now, let’s take Brian Carney’s comments at face value and run with the premise that the events of 1995 would be a drop in the ocean compared to the changes that are to come.

Let’s remind ourselves of what happened in 1995.

When mergers were proposed here in 1995, legal challenges were threatened. Mass protests occurred. Even 30 years on, it is hard to overestimate the strength of feeling that proposed mergers caused. Take a look at this clip for just one example.

A recurring theme in this post, I know, but we do not know if the NRL sees its model as a boilerplate and one that can simply be imposed upon the UK and all will be fine or if it sees the situation as more nuanced and is willing to adapt, listen and (of course) act where appropriate.

Brian Carney’s comments suggest the former is more likely than the latter.

Picking Battles

If that is correct, my one piece of advice to the NRL would be to pick your battles. And pick the ones that you can be confident of winning.

In the NRL, there have been successful mergers. The adoption of feeder clubs instead of lower leagues works well.

Turning back to the UK and I will give you two words. Manchester Lions. In the words of Peter Kay, “what were all that about?!”

Swinton are a club which averaged 833 fans through the gates last season. Yet look at the reaction when a name change to Manchester was proposed in 2019.

The backlash was so great that it led to the resignation of the club’s entire board of directors, threats of violence (which it goes without saying is deplorable no matter the strength of feeling) and condemnation of the proposals from the Mayor of Greater Manchester and Councillors from both Swinton and Pendlebury.

The irony of this entire situation is that Swinton Lions have not played in the town’s boundaries since it left its Station Road home in 1992.

If (and we do not know that they will, despite paper talk of attempting to rebrand Salford as Manchester) the NRL try to enter and make changes such as these, you will be taking on fans and local communities who sometimes care not for Rugby League but care deeply about town identity.

If that is the reaction for a name change at a club the size of Swinton, you can put rocket blasters on it for a larger club.

There are plenty of other examples. Australia’s mergers of clubs in 1999 / 2000 were significantly more successful than attempts at mergers in the UK in 1995 (and mergers in the UK in 2000 which were essentially takeovers).

Even recently, it was proposed that NRL play offs are moved from some club's home grounds to larger venues. The sort of proposal that would never fly in the UK and be met with a backlash so loud you could hear it from outer space.

I am not saying one approach is right and the other is wrong. I am saying that doing the exact same thing for both leagues and expecting the same outcome would be misguided.

An issue that the NRL would face if it chooses the imposition approach is that our sport in the UK is too small to alienate fans, whether that be by name changes, changing the relationship between lower league and Super League clubs or by other means and to succeed. If the authorities take on the fans, they will lose.

Equally, if the NRL comes in and changes little or nothing then this begs the question of what the purpose of its involvement is at all. It is a tricky balance to strike.

There is a significant difference in not just sporting culture but national culture of the two countries, especially when it comes to town pride.This tweet from Rugby League journalist Steve Mascord summed up the difference between the two hemispheres on this subject quite nicely!

Britain v Australia

People often draw comparisons between Rugby League in the UK and football. In my opinion, the scale of the two sports are so vast that such comparisons are devoid of meaning.

Increasingly, due to the difference in scale of Rugby League in the UK and Australia, such comparisons are becoming less valid.

You often hear people say that the NRL is like Premier League football in Australia. I do not know if that is accurate. But if you are an Aussie and are reading this (I’d be impressed if my little old blog reached that far but still!), I’ll explain a little more about sport in the UK.

In the UK, the Premier League enjoys a state of hegemony when it comes to domestic sport. There is no other domestic sport in the UK that attracts eyeballs to a significant scale in the UK.

The more successful sports outside of football know that internationals are the route to attention and adapt accordingly. In Rugby Union, the Premiership is small fry by comparison to the Six Nations. In cricket, attention is captured for multi format World Cups and the Ashes against Australia, not the County Championship.

Cricket has tried 20 over summer tournaments and 100 ball innings with domestic teams but despite huge investment, neither have made a significant dent in the sporting psyche.

Many think that our teams not being from major cities holds us back. Yet other minor sports such as ice hockey and basketball have major city presence and greater geographical spread. This alone has done nothing to enhance either sport to national attention.

Football's hegemonic status is even true in the case of what we think of as 'Rugby League' towns. I'll use my hometown of St Helens an example.

In St Helens, Rugby League is as big or almost as big as anywhere in the UK. The majority of people who follow Rugby League follow the town's team. When it comes to football, there is more of a mix of Liverpool, Everton, Manchester United and increasingly, Manchester City fans.

In May 2019, Liverpool FC reached their first Champions League final since 2007. In August 2019, St Helens reached their first Challenge Cup final since 2008.

Flags and decorations adorned far more properties in St Helens before Liverpool FC's major final than it did for St Helens'. And that is before you consider that many St Helens folk support Liverpool's rivals.

Even in the towns that are what we think of as 'Rugby League heartlands', we are in second place to football. That presents an enormous challenge to the sport's growth ambitions.

It is why takes such as "why has the NRL been able to grow their Magic Weekend and we haven't?" are overly simplistic and do not take into account the respective size of markets.

Many also think that the reason that sport has not cracked markets even on its doorstep in the UK are due to lack of effort, exposure or a lack of competence.

Maybe that is in part true. But a far more important point is that football’s monopoly means that not only do people not know about us; they do not want to know.

It is not a case of show the sport to the masses and they will come. Show Rugby League to scousers, to carry on my example, and many would not even entertain it because they would see it as a "wool"* sport.

(* - For the uninitiated, a Liverpool phrase referring to people who live on the outskirts of the city).

That goes back to the whole town pride point I raised earlier.

Yet, what I said about St Helens folk adorning their homes with Liverpool FC regalia flies in the face of that.

If people from St Helens are so partisan about town identity, why do so many actively then associate themselves with Liverpool?

To use another example, on 24th May, Castleford will host Leeds. Tune into that match and you will hear the Castleford fans chant "we all hate Leeds". A lot of those same Castleford fans would probably have been at Leeds United's promotion parade on 5th May, this time chanting "we all love Leeds".

The reality is these quirks do not make sense. And that is to someone who lives in these communities. I do not envy anyone from the NRL, not even from these shores, trying to make sense of it.

Where from Here?

Some people seem to think that it is a good idea for us to cede entire control of the sport to the Australian authorities.

That is understandable but the more obvious answer is to get better leaders rather than to give up. Once that control is gone, we will never be able to get it back if we want to.

We have had some pretty experienced leaders of the RFL in the past. Many have succeeded before they were at the RFL and after they have left. Yet seemingly not here. Why?

In part, there is such a scepticism surrounding the RFL that many are blind to when it does succeed. An example would be this autumn's Ashes series. Two tests sold out before they hit general sale and tickets sales for the Wembley test have passed 30,000 with five months to go before the event. This is an unprecedented success.

People are pleased, of course, yet you will be hard pressed to find anyone praising the RFL for this. I would wager that if this test series had the NRL's fingerprints on it, or even IMG, there would be far more column inches dedicated to praise for the organisers.

There are high profile examples of the RFL failing to meet self-imposed targets, financial mismanagement, avoidable PR blunders that have damaged the brand. Fans are right to be sceptical and perceptions matter. Therefore, if the NRL do become involved there would be a natural sympathy for what it tries to do from fans.

In Australia, Rugby League has a far greater foothold, historically, compared to the sport in the UK. Some may say that this is the RFL's fault but I am not persuaded that greater administration would mean the sport would enjoy a significantly larger footprint.

If the NRL does become involved, I hope it appreciates the scale of what we are up against to get attention and what does and does not get attention in the UK. And I hope our fans temper expectations accordingly.

I am conscious that this piece may come across as overly-negative, which was not the sole intention. But it did intend on highlighting how simply parachuting in the NRL and expecting all of our ills to be cured is naive.

Closer cooperation between the only two major leagues in the world presents opportunity and is long overdue. The pooling of resources, talent and having a more joined-up approach is logical and if done right has the potential to bring improvements to the sport, especially in the UK.

An approach of under-promise and over-deliver would be more sensible than the reverse. I am not expecting miracles but there are opportunities for things to get better. 

There might be a storm about to hit Rugby League in the UK. But get this right and maybe there will be sunshine at the end of it. How is that for ending on a positive?