I have found it fascinating following the debate about the future of the global game. You could almost hear the tectonic plates shifting as one by one club owners and administrators acknowledged problems that have long been issues but which have now been brought to the fore; the over-reliance on television revenues and benefactors, the commercially unsustainable club structure, the unwieldy international calendar, the self-interest which has influenced decisions.
The interesting thing is that this crisis might prove to be good for the game in the long run. I thought London Irish owner Mick Crossan was spot on when he said the pandemic might be the "the kick up the backside" the professional game needs. Certainly that is the way the game has to look at it. As much as there is going to be short-term pain, this hiatus has at least provided a chance to hit the reset button (off the field at least - on the field, the game has never looked so good).
When you think about it, it is easy to see how we have reached this point. After the initial "land grab" when the game went professional in the mid-1990s, everything has just been bolted on; a competition here, a TV deal there. Every union, every league, every tournament developed down its own path, with the result that everyone is out to protect their own interests.
There have been various attempts to come up with a more joined-up way of doing things. I remember sitting down in Guildford 10 or so years ago for a conference run by the IRB (World Rugby as it now is). Unions and players from around the world were represented. Richie McCaw was there. But the pro game was only 12 years old and there wasn't the same incentive to fix it. In the end, the French did not want to change their season. More recently World Rugby floated the idea of a world league, but again it hit the buffers due to self-interest.
This time, I think it really is in everyone's interests to thrash out what a healthy global game looks like. Administrators have to think of the greater good; we need a more integrated business model.The starting point has to be to reduce the number of games, because that is the biggest problem in modern professional rugby, and the biggest change in thinking required. Ideally players would play no more than 30-35 games per year. How you do that, and still satisfy everyone, is open to debate. Television requires its pound of flesh for the vast sums it pumps in. But maybe it is time for rugby to accept a bit less money is the trade-off for a properly run, properly structured game. Squads could be trimmed. Agents' fees need to be looked at. Fewer games opens up opportunities in the calendar.
Looking at the Premiership the obvious answer is to reduce the number of professional clubs. At the moment you have maybe 13 viable clubs, but the Rugby Football Union could step up and support a 14th (Of course, I'm biased and going to say that should be in Yorkshire, but it really should be because it is such an important region and geography should be part of the RFU's strategy as the governing body for game development). You could then have two leagues of seven.
Whatever happens, the issue of inequality must be part of any discussion. The game is hugely lopsided. And I don't just mean the international game. Revenues should be spread more equally amongst clubs, too. Bernard Laporte's idea of a world club cup as a revenue-raising scheme is possibly a step too far. But if it was to happen, the revenues should feed back into the professional game rather than make the rich richer.
On the international front, tier one nations have a moral obligation to help tier two and three countries, and there are so many ways they could do it. Through coaching and administration, through support alongside a playing programme which allows countries to develop and transition at each level.
We must start thinking in a more integrated way. Warren Gatland has proposed a one-off game between the Lions and the All Blacks to help preparation and to bolster revenues. I've nothing against that. Playing two home Lions games between tours could be interesting. One game in a short season making significant impact on finance, and put the monies raised into a development fund? It might sound naive. The likes of CVC Capital, the private equity fund which has ploughed NZ$450 million into the Premiership and is closing in on a Six Nations deal, are hardly going to want to share out their revenues. But if you make the overall cake bigger, your slice can also grow that way.
One thing is for sure, we have an unprecedented opportunity. World Rugby's latest figures suggest the game now has a significant growth in interest and following in Asia. Add the US to the list of World Cup venues and there is the potential for large global market involvement.
If all the thinking is on the table, the status quo can be challenged in a healthy way with open minds.
