British rugby must protect its core values

As leading rugby union administrators, coaches and players prepare to attend a seminar on the game's future in London tomorrow, Mark Bailey (left), a former England international and current member of the RFU national playing committee, argues that preserving the best of the past will ensure future success

The future of rugby union in Britain is not a subject on which any sane person should pronounce with any certainty or confidence. So here goes.

Most sports evolve in a more or less predictable manner, but not rugby union. The decision in August 1995 by the International Rugby Football Board to abandon forthwith a century of amateurism did nothing to promote stability or evolution. It was like throwing open the doors of Fort Knox and expecting the money markets to remain calm.

Not surprisingly, the ship of British rugby was thus cast upon stormy seas, although the shrewd matelots of the Antipodes had anticipated the changing climate and battened down their hatches. Since then, the British ship has endured mutiny from all quarters and has been taking a course across variable winds with little sense of its final destination.

To some extent, that destination will be determined by the game's capabilities and qualities. So what are the attributes of British rugby?

Although it seemed unlikely a few weeks ago, one welcome quality is the establishment of some semblance of political stability within the game. The recent outbreak of peace between the English Rugby Union and the leading clubs provides a vital context for any future progress. Who knows whether future mutineers still lurk below deck, but for the moment the smiles appear genuine.

Relative to other sports, British rugby enjoys a fresh image, untarnished by scandal. The recent political rows have meant that this image is currently more six o'clock shadow than clean cut, but this is nothing that a public relations company could not rectify.

The game has a popular and captivating showcase in the Five Nations' Championship. Even the club scene has been revivified and spiced by a combination of new money and the Bosman ruling. There is a distinct snap of expectation in the air.

British rugby's final attribute is perhaps the least understood. The game attracts a degree of interest from commercial and television companies which is disproportionate to its spectator base. International matches apart, attendances at leading matches do not readily square with the vast amounts of money invested in rugby.

The key to understanding this paradox lies in the type of people who follow rugby. One report claimed that nearly three-quarters of ABC1 males in the South-east watched the broadcast of the 1995 World Cup semi-final between England and New Zealand. Find an ABC1 audience and you will find blue-chip companies queuing to promote their wares.

This diversion into British rugby's current attributes is important, because it helps to define those qualities which the game should defend as it considers its future. First, because these are the qualities which distinguish it from other sports. And, second, because these peculiar qualities are the guarantee of its future financial security.

Clearly, the future of British rugby does not have to conform to any detailed blueprints and it is not necessary for us to predict the exact nature of the game in 10, 20 or indeed 50 years' time.

To define closely where the game must or might progress and to hold that vision rigidly would be reckless, because the range of variables affecting, or likely to affect, professional rugby is too great.

So, it is better to state the things we do not want to happen in the future, rather than be dogmatic about those we do want to occur.

First, the traditional closeness between the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish unions must not be destroyed. Their interdependence is central to maintaining the unique attraction of the Five Nations and the playing strength and spirit of the British game.

However, it would be foolish to equate interdependence with introspection, and individual countries must also be allowed to develop closer links with, say, the rugby powers of the southern hemisphere. A balance must be struck between the desire for self-development and each union's obligations to their collective roots.

Secondly, the image of rugby must not be tarnished. Modern professional sport is expected to be business-like and profitable, yet, unlike businessmen, its exponents are expected to exhibit the old values of sportsmanship. This paradox creates onerous demands, but it remains the essential difference between business proper and the business of sport.

As suggested earlier, British rugby enjoys a strong image, one which is largely responsible for the game's popularity with those vital blue- chip sponsors and ABC1 spectators. So the game must rigorously enforce standards of behaviour and discipline on issues such as violence, corruption and drug abuse. If such standards can only be guaranteed by strong and independent governing bodies, then they should be given the requisite powers to enforce them.

Thirdly, rugby must ensure that its growing dependence on commercialism does not become excessive. It is well known that commercialism chases winners in sport and thus has the potential to create disproportionately high rewards for a tiny elite. It also ties players and administrators to their sponsors which may conflict with their obligations to opponents or the game.

If left unchecked, commercialism will destabilise British rugby by skewing the distribution of wealth excessively into the hands of the few. While it is entirely appropriate that the successful are amply rewarded, there is little point in courting commercialism unless a decent proportion of the money is invested for the broader benefit of the game. Rugby must ensure that its infrastructure and grassroots are nourished.

This list of objectives is negative: it focuses upon what must not be lost in the future rather than what must be achieved. It also lacks a plan that outlines how these objectives are to be attained. It is put forward in the hope, but not the expectation, that British rugby can retain a sense of its special qualities in a period of rapid and revolutionary change.

Mark Bailey won seven caps for England between 1984-90 and is a Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge

Rugby union in the professional era: how the game must adapt

Rugby union in Britain is at a crucial point in its history as the sport attempts to adapt to the challenges of the professional era.

A seminar in London tomorrow entitled "Rugby's future - a discussion on the state of the game" will address the key issues. Chaired by Cliff Morgan, the former Welsh international and British Lion, it will offer all those who attend - including players, coaches, administrators and fans - a chance to air their views.

Among those speaking at the seminar, which is organised by Rugby News magazine in association with the Independent, will be:

Tony Hallett, secretary of the Rugby Football Union, who will explain how the RFU has handled the changeover from amateurism;

Dan Rooney, president of the Pittsburgh Steelers, who believes that rugby should learn the lessons of the American football experience;

Nick Farr-Jones, the former Australia captain, who will discuss what the players can expect in a professional future;

Jon Callard, the Bath and England international full-back, who is concerned about the needs of the game at schools level;

Peter Johnson, director of rugby at Redruth, who will speak for the clubs in the regions.

All available tickets for the seminar have now been sold.