The first part of Alice Soper’s deep dive into women’s pro-rugby is a must-read (www.scrumqueens.com/features/the-professional-era-part-1.
It serves to confirm my view that the world of rugby as a whole is in a troubled state. Not one nation has solved the problem of setting its female rugby players on a stable financial platform.
In the last day or two the RFU has been beset by yet another attack from the second-tier men’s Championship clubs about the way they are being treated. Stats from across the world point to a continuing fall in numbers of men playing the game. The women’s sector is keeping the overall figures buoyant.
From the moment the game went pro in 1995, voices were raised doubting its survival, and they weren’t solely from men in dark suits.
As we peruse Soper’s report, we can see the chasms set between the best paid in the women’s game and the worst. If they happen to be playing for the same team, that can’t help enhance togetherness. Pay-systems vary enormously, both in size and availability.
That is inevitable when sources of income are so limited. Gates large enough to pay female players a decent wage don’t exist. In the men’s game we need only look at the state of Gallagher Premiership clubs in England to see the position is the same.
Four days ago Tom Tainton, CEO of Bristol Bears’ men’s team, said the pro-game was at a cross- roads commercially. He’s even planning to stage the big derby game against Bath at the Principality Stadium in Cardiff, in the hope of gaining more income and publicity.
Since money is in short supply, unions adopt a sliding scale of payments for its female players. All too often they are tied to demanding schedules, if they are to remain eligible for them. “Attend all training sessions, all tours”, etc.
A few details: Soper deals with her own nation first, New Zealand. NZR has managed to reduce the number of categories from eight to five, but five still represents a heap of disparities. For example, players under 25 have a pay-limit set of $50,000. Of course, anyone who played through the fully amateur days, or still does, will be goggle-eyed at such a sum. But the demands of a professional attitude to the game then kick in.
How many hours do I devote to the game? Will I still need to moonlight to make ends meet? Questions like this help explain the extreme diversity of approach to the subject.
Rugby Canada takes a different view from others. It offers individual agreements rather than formal contrasts. One disturbing feature is the lack of insurance. This is hardly credible in a sport where injury can prove career-ending. Yet, of all the major rugby-playing nations, Canada can claim to be riding highest at present.
England served as the guinea-pigs for introducing players’ contracts five years ago. Since then, the Red Roses have been flying high.
The underlying policy of the PWR board is for clubs to tie in with men’s clubs, but, as we saw above, they aren’t making money. There is a desperate tug-of-war between the nine clubs to obtain Red Roses. It’s an unequal struggle.
It’s noticeable that other countries didn’t copy England’s example unquestioningly.
France still sticks to a half-and-half approach, close to the Canadian model. The people in charge, Brigitte Jugla and the FFR, believe that primacy should be given to the whole woman, her whole career, her whole life. So jobs have to be found that allow a Bleue to combine her rugby career with another outside the game. Critics of this approach line up by the dozen.
Rugby Union in Australia fights a battle against other more popular sports. The success of the women’s Sevens squad has helped enormously to raise its profile, but it’s a desperate battle.
Behind all these variations lies the central question: where does a national union obtain its income?
Of the four players Soper interviews (Emily Tuttosi, Canada, Jo Brown, Ireland and ex-England, Chelsea Semple, NZ, and Emily Chancellor, Australia) – only one comes from a country where rugby union is top-dog in the nation’s affections. And even in Aotearoa/New Zealand it has proved extremely challenging drumming up crowds to watch Black Ferns’ matches. There, all the focus is on the All Blacks.
And mention of the All Blacks raises the question of how to balance a female rugby player’s salary against her male equivalent. That topic brings the most virulent responses from men who prefer to see the game played by one sex only.
Few of these issues make sponsors and TV companies more willing to allocate money to the women’s game. So the PWR, the leading league in world rugby, has to make do with one match per week, available behind the inevitable paywall.
When the six top nations meet up in Canada for WXV1 next month, we may expect some exchange of views about this vexed topic. At least it will open eyes to the varied approaches available.
