Rugby Union: Why Brittle must win the big battle

Chris Rea fears for rugby's future if the clubs' campaign prevails

Your country needs you. Now is the time for all good rugby men to come to the aid of the game. Whatever advertising slogan comes to mind it should be summoned forthwith in support of Cliff Brittle and a negotiating team representing the Rugby Football Union in their fight to the death against the English Professional Rugby Union Clubs (Epruc).

For the past three months the clubs have been attempting to break the game's governing body in England first by blackmail and then by a campaign to discredit Brittle, the chairman of the RFU executive committee. For the sake of the game's future they cannot be allowed to get away with it.

The plain truth is that the clubs never expected to come up against a man of Brittle's resolve. They had fondly believed that if they confronted the RFU with a scheme which, unsupported by central funding, would lead to mass bankruptcy, the establishment would meekly capitulate. They now know that resignation has never even crossed Brittle's mind. Nor is he, as they are seeking to portray him, a tinpot dictator, out of touch with the needs of the game and isolated from his colleagues.

He has the full support of those on his negotiating team, which is a formidable body at least as battle-hardened as the opposition and possessing a far greater awareness of rugby's past traditions and future needs. Very few got the better of Jeff Probyn and Fran Cotton on the field, and they are unlikely to be outflanked off it. Neither is exactly a member of the honourable company of old flatulence.

From the very start of this sorry episode in rugby's grim journey towards the professional era it is the clubs, not Brittle, who have been intransigent and unreasonable. Brittle and his team have conducted their negotiations in a manner befitting those who are the democratically appointed guardians of the game's future. He and his team have been both conciliatory and, at times, astonishingly accommodating in their efforts to meet the demands of Epruc.

A proposal submitted to the clubs last month offering them considerable autonomy would have been unthinkable at the start of the season. Not only was it rejected out of hand but it has never even been discussed at club level. A number of club chairmen know nothing about the document.

The demands of Epruc on the other hand, were they accepted, would give that body complete control of the game in England. The RFU would be left picking over the meagre remains of the carcass with responsibility for limited sponsorship and television rights, for devising a national plan which would be unworkable because of the structure put in place by the clubs and for the development of what was left of England's young talent after the clubs had creamed off the best.

Does all this ring a bell? Right first time. Cricket is already far down that cul-de-sac. Sir John Hall even had the gall to highlight the fact with his chilling remark that as the club game improved so the international game would diminish. Not only that but the Scots, suffering the modern- day equivalent of the highland clearances, and the Irish face the loss of their best players and the decimation of their domestic game.

It is not hard to see the ultimate aims of this group of megalomaniacs now holding meetings with anyone who will talk to them. It was only a matter of time before Louis Luyt, the controversial president of the South African RFU, got in on the act. First smash the RFU. Then break up the Five Nations' Championship and establish an international competition involving England, France, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia. This would inevitably lead to the break-up of the International Board and the dissolution of the World Cup. The game would then be at the mercy of a small group of unassailably powerful overlords.

The last thing that Brittle and his team need in the circumstances is to be fighting a war on two fronts, which is exactly what the RFU are now doing by taking on the other three home countries as well as their own clubs. Why the RFU should be seeking confrontation at this time and once again surrendering the moral high ground by displaying the same voracious greed as the clubs is beyond belief. One can only assume that forces from within the RFU itself are seeking to undermine the power and authority of the negotiating committee. It would seem that some are perfectly prepared to sacrifice the game in order to settle old scores and soothe bruised egos.

On the question of the share-out of television money, the RFU should be prepared to make concessions. The health and safety of rugby union is worth a few million pounds of anyone's money. Because, should Brittle and his team lose the day in their struggle against the clubs, the consequences would surely be too awful to contemplate.