It’s a relief to find a statement from Belinda Moore, CE of the company overseeing the Premier 15s, outlining future intentions about non ‘EQPs’ (England Qualified Players) remaining in the league.
Moore says clubs will be subject to more stringent controls than before.
Till now they have been penalised for fielding more than two non-EQPs. But that hasn’t affected the rich clubs, a persistent weakness of the Prem 15s since its establishment in 2017. Hence Exeter Chiefs’ presence in the 2023 final and their double triumph in the Allianz Cup.
The funding balance remains unclear. How will clubs that don’t have a benevolent billionaire sitting in the directors’ box compete on level terms?
What a pity that the statement still doesn’t offer a black-and-white picture of the future. Moore indictates that clubs will have to have a minimum number of England qualified players.’ But how many?’
Chiefs parade precisely five EQPs in their starting fifteen for the final. How many of the rest will be forced to return home next year?
Home or Away?
It’s a dilemma that goes to the heart of the game. On the one hand, the league was established (in truth, re-established), to ensure an improved pathway to the full England team. On the other, to attract talented players from elsewhere.
Moore repeats that line when she says: ‘we [ ] don’t want to lose those global sporting superstars that people also want to come and watch.’ (My italics)
How many of the non-EQPs match that description? Some for sure, but there are plenty of others who would be embarrassed by such hyperbole.
It brings us back to the state of the game worldwide. Most overseas players come to the league to improve their own game with better back-up than they can enjoy at home. That means better coaching, better physical preparation and the chance to earn some money for their pains. In other words, England remains a fertile nursery for women’s rugby.
For as long as other leading nations can rely on England to provide these resources, they may feel less need to offer them themselves. It’s a pretty problem. Most immediately, it concerns the future well-being of the Celtic nations.
That’s where the term ‘foreign’ comes into question. Are Welsh and Scottish players really ‘foreign’? They are part of the UK, just like the English. But in rugby terms they aren’t part of the flock. For them to be removed en bloc would mean massive upheavels to their respective unions.
Ireland is even more complicated.
One of rugby’s triumphs is for the IRFU to represent the whole island. Ulster girls wear the green alongside their republican sisters. Who’s ‘foreign’ there?
England, my England
Moore adds: ‘You can see from the recent success for the Red Roses that (growing the pathway) is starting to pay dividends.’
That’s an interesting reading of history. Long-term, England have led the way, with only New Zealand standing in their way of constant triumph. The ‘recent success’ still failed to result in a World Cup victory. Kiwis can gloat, if they’re so minded, at the Red Roses’ continued inability to reach the pinnacle of rugby power.
Draft too draughty
It’s no surprise that Moore is not considering introducing a draft system, as is commonplace in USA sport. It was first hinted at in the early days of the Prem 15s, when Nigel Melville, spotting the developing inequalities, said it might be necessary to introduce some equalising measures. He didn’t specify how – very wise! In 2023 it looks just as impossible to say to an individual: ‘We intend sending you to X club next season’. Umpteen laws might be broken pushing that through.
The announcement may affect the two new clubs directly. They have already picked up top players (Abby Dow, Amy Cokayne), but might have been looking abroad for more playing strength.
Moore admits her company needs to ensure more income before such a revolutionary step could be taken.
A new Identity
Intriguingly, she hints at a change of name for the league. No name, no pack-drill. Perhaps that means the addition of a term like ‘Super’ or ‘World Class’. Anticipation reigns.
