England players have decided to abandon the traditional union and use a new agency to negotiate contracts and deals. Photo: Getty Images/Dan Mullan
It was announced this week that England players had formed their own company, Team England Rugby Ltd, and said they should appoint representatives to oversee their commercial rights in place of the Rugby Players' Association. I'm guessing this was because they thought their newly appointed agents would be able to get them a better deal.
There is nothing wrong with this, although the fact is that every agent who is not your agent will always claim that they can make you more money than your current one. The move also comes as the RPA successfully challenged a six-figure award from the Rugby Football Union's Sports Resolutions Commission for the third place play-off game at the recent World Cup.
To properly analyze this, it is necessary to look at the history of the RPA and the reality of its funding. Like any other players' organization, with the exception of the Professional Footballers' Association, the RPA relies on the input of the governing body. The RFU and Premiership Rugby donate around £1.6 million a year to the RPA. By comparison, the Professional Cricketers' Association receives £2.6 million from the England and Wales Cricket Board.
No player union exists solely on the basis of player subscriptions and independent commercial transactions. Without these payments, no players' union would be able to offer more than the most basic services to its members. They certainly won't be able to fund, as RPA does, a range of services such as education grants, legal support, mental health support, end-of-career insurance and the Gain Line personal development initiative, to name a few.< /p >Inherent conflict of interest
There is an inherent conflict of interest in the players' union accepting funding from the governing body. However, given that no other union survives without similar funding, how do you propose to create a fully functioning players' union that offers important support services to players and former players? Moreover, if the conflict of interest is more than theoretical, why did it not prevent the RPA from competing for the above award?
The fact is that creating an England players' union was an extremely difficult task and remains problematic. This was clearly demonstrated recently when Ellis Genge, backed by the former England captain, threatened to form a rival players' union. This idea died quickly and quietly when both the RFU and the PRL refused to fund the rival union.
The creation of TERL leaves many questions. If RPA's representation was so flawed, why did TERL appoint Gaia Bursell, former RPA England commercial manager, as its commercial representative? What influence did/does Rob Burgess have, given that he was the original director, as well as Joe Marler's former manager and Bath's head of human resources?
We know the appointed directors of the company, but we do not know who will ultimately own the company. There are serious problems here because shareholder control raises questions about how each player will be rewarded. Do the appointed directors have a conflict of interest given their powers of control?
What if a director like Owen Farrell decides to play overseas and fails to make the England team? What will be the attitude of Steve Borthwick and his team of managers and coaches?
New Zealand is putting a lot more money into the game
Let's move on to another fact: England players are paid much more than any team in the world. This is true even though, for example, the New Zealand Rugby Union's annual payment to the All Blacks players' union is £2.7 million. The New Zealand system therefore allows for much larger sums of money to be invested in the professional game as a whole.
I was instrumental in setting up the first company to act on behalf of England players in 1991. I was also the first Chairman of the Professional Rugby Players' Association, which became the RPA. I appreciate both sides. England players can choose whatever commercial representatives they want, but they must also take responsibility for any consequences of their decision, which are likely to be real.
For example, the RPA's total budget for education for all its members is published at around £95,000. The surcharge for player insurance is even higher. I understand that RPA's loss of fees for managing contract negotiations with England is likely to exceed these amounts.
It is therefore common for England players to not agree to return this money to RPA. Club members and fellow professional England players will have their services cut.
Market forces, I hear some screaming. Not all players are equal. Well, England players already earn much higher club wages than their peers, who, by the way, need to play well for their stars to thrive.
So which of the current RPA services are England players happy with? see the cut?
Recent Comments