Brittle should not be allowed to be a dictator

Leaving aside such arcane pursuits as clay-pigeon shooting, we can agree that, of all sports, it is at rugby (both league and union varieties) that England are now best. In rugby union, they occupy a world position between third and fifth. The optimistic will claim that they could and should have beaten France in that spiritless play-off for third place in the World Cup. The more realistic may say that their place lies below France's, and that Australia - in addition to the inevitable South Africa and New Zealand - are above them as well.

No matter. England are clearly now a force in international rugby such as they have not been since the early 1920s, when, in any case, worldwide competition did not exist on anything like its present scale. For their current pre-eminence, they can thank, first, Geoff Cooke and, second, the Courage Leagues, in particular the intense competition which has been generated by the First and Second Divisions and did not exist previously - when, for example, Wasps were not even on Harlequins' fixture list.

There are those who pay tribute also to the Rugby Football Union's famous "structure" of A-teams, development squads and the rest. I am afraid I do not. Young players who do not reach the squads go unjustly unnoticed; while others who find a place and are then discarded become discouraged. But this is by the way. My view is that English rugby of the 1990s is the creation of Cooke and the leagues.

Cooke was always - how can one put it? - uneasy in his relations with the RFU. As far as I know, he has played no part in the present negotiations or, rather, absence of negotiations with that body. But there is something of what William Blake called fearful symmetry in the conflict between clubs and union. There is also a paradox in that the union under Cliff Brittle - whom the union establishment did not want as chairman of its executive committee - claims to be representing the clubs too, though in his case the smaller ones.

The first step is for the RFU to make a formal and belated recommendation for entry into negotiations with the First and Second Division clubs. Brittle is not or should not be allowed to be a dictator. He can be given instructions constitutionally. If he disagrees with them, he can resign. I am writing, by the way, before the announcement of whether or not there will be relegation from the First Division. Whatever the decision, it is a disgrace that it has taken so long to make, until the very last month of the season.

If there are negotiations, as there must be, their outcome will be determined less by rationality and common sense than by the resolution of interests, of which financial interests will predominate. I am here giving what would, in my opinion, be the ideal solution rather than any that will be adopted.

Both divisional and county competitions would be abolished completely, consigned to the rugby museum. Why Brittle supports the counties, and Fran Cotton has suddenly become attached to the divisional competition, are equally mysterious to me. The sole purpose of the County Championship has long been to allow Cornishmen, Yorkshiremen and others from the outer fringes to come up to Twickenham to make a lot of noise, deluding themselves the while that their rugby prowess is insufficiently recognised in the Courage League tables.

The divisional competition is a more serious affair. It is certainly taken most earnestly by the RFU, which arrogantly excludes non-England qualified players from participating in it. But no one really cares about it at all. Bath against Harlequins last Saturday generated more interest and provided a better game than the South-West against London Counties would ever have done. I certainly hope the next touring party to visit England play Bath, Harlequins, Leicester and Sale - or whoever are at that time the best sides in, respectively, the South-West, London, the Midlands and the North - rather than the divisions.

In addition, contracts would be between players and clubs rather than between players and the RFU. These individual contracts would, however, be governed by a written agreement between the RFU and the clubs collectively, providing that the interests of a Five Nations country (Wales, Scotland, Ireland and, yes, France as well as England) would predominate over those of a club.

But recently it seems to me that the countries, England especially, have been claiming too much, notably in the cavalier way they remove players for whole training weekends. As Clive Woodward complained on Saturday, referring to Ireland not England, this is unfair. Though his language was intemperate, his conclusion was correct. And needs to be properly addressed in the coming months. Some hope!