Forget boardroom bonuses, RFU must wake up to amateur rugby’s money drain

Participation numbers in English amateur rugby have declined since the advent of professionalism 30 years ago - Alamy Stock Photo/John EvesonOn August 26 this year rugby union will mark its 30th year of professionalism. Many of the predictions that were made as to the consequences of that decision were mere guesswork in 1995. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now look at how this has worked out for the game and, if we are sensible, learn from history to avoid making the same mistakes over the next three decades.

The travails of professional rugby at the international and club level have been well documented and will continue to attract more scrutiny, but what is happening at the game’s grass roots, which provides the future stars and enjoyment for the vast majority of players? The answer is a mixed bag.It is difficult to get authoritative participation figures for 1995, but it is indisputable that participation numbers have fallen for men and boys, with the decline only being partly ameliorated by the increased number of women and girls coming into rugby. Most clubs run fewer teams than before, and the number of clubs has declined.



Who is to blame for this? Well, the Rugby Football Union made the first and most serious blunder by failing to properly plan for professionalism in the first place. The consequences of this failure are still being felt today. At club level, a nationally organised league structure has given the amateur game shape, but it has not been universally beneficial.

A handful of genuinely ambitious clubs have climbed the league, but the majority have found that progression has brought its own problems like excessive travel, ancillary expenses and losing touch with local clubs.This is a topic aired many times, but it continues to be a major problem at the lower levels of English rugby. In 2017, an ad-hoc RFU committee introduced new rules about paying grass-roots players.

It did not, as I and some other committee members suggested, divide the game into strict professional, semi-professional and amateur sections. It chose to set maximum annual spending limits for clubs at certain levels and to withhold RFU grants from teams in other ranks which chose to pay players – no level was subject to an outright ban on paying players.The rules on player payments are a divisive topic in the amateur game, as Teddington RFC (see link below) found last year when winning the Surrey 1 title - Simon RidlerHas this worked? No, it has not.

The same complaints are still ringing loudly at lower levels as they were in the two decades before the RFU made the revised payment regulations. If those changes had worked, I would not still be hearing these objections.The higher echelons of the RFU do not want to revisit this subject but dismissing it is a mistake.

Each time a club finds a sugar-daddy investor to pay players it causes resentment because rivals have to struggle to just stay still. It is the same when that club poaches players that have been developed elsewhere.The RFU will say that this is not still a raised complaint.

It might not be but that is because clubs have gradually lost hope that they will properly deal with it and see no point in complaining. They do not see the club members who simply throw up their hands and walk away from the extra unpaid work this causes.Money wasted on bog-standard playersWhy the RFU continues to let individual clubs disrupt leagues in this way is beyond me.

So much money is wasted on players who are so bog standard they might all go under the pseudonym ‘Armitage Shanks’ on team sheets. The RFU recently announced that it was guaranteeing the grass-roots game £300 million over the next 10 years, that number would be worth some much more if it stopped a handful of clubs distorting and destabilising their leagues by wasting money they cannot afford in the long run.As a governing body, the RFU has a responsibility to stop its members committing acts of sabotage against each other.

Each time a club stomps up a few leagues, and sinks again when their funding goes away, they damage themselves and their rivals. This should not be allowed to continue for another 30 years. Are we going to do the same thing again and expect different results?The money wasted should be spent on improving facilities, widening the clubs’ mini, men’s and girls’ and women’s set-ups.

A club that pays just £110 per player per game could afford to employ its own local rugby development officer. How many times does this have to be said before decisive action is taken? Those who have been complaining recently about boardroom pay and bonuses need to look closer to home when it comes to advancing grass-roots rugby.One senior RFU figure told me recently that clubs should be allowed to make their own mistakes, and he was not worried.

I’ve heard that before.Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

.