The Welsh Rugby Union is right that change is needed, but it has made a mess of the process, according to supporters and critics alike. Since chief executive Abi Tierney’s interview with ITV last week, social media has seen further criticism of the governing body.
The overwhelming view among supporters appears to be that the WRU should find a way to retain four professional teams, while the manner in which Tierney and the organisation have handled the situation has attracted widespread criticism. Numerous figures have even called for the WRU board to resign.
Two separate questions
There is another, quieter argument that radical change is unavoidable, principally for financial reasons. The two positions, however, are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely reasonable to believe that Welsh rugby needs to reduce its professional footprint, perhaps to three teams, while simultaneously believing that the WRU has made a dog's dinner of the process.
Those are two entirely separate questions: is the decision right, and has it been handled well? You can support the principle of cutting a team and redirecting greater resources into the academy system while still questioning the uncertainty, communication and apparent lack of a coherent plan that have surrounded the process.
The WRU may ultimately be right about the destination. That does not mean it has demonstrated much competence in getting there. Those advocating four underfunded and weak teams simply to avoid upsetting supporters should be dismissed. Preserving the status quo for the sake of popularity is not a credible strategy for the future of Welsh rugby.
Lack of evidence for three-team model
Tierney was right when she told the Daily Mail: “There are two choices – we either continue to struggle, we'll see further decline and we could see Wales drop out of the world’s top 12.” The status quo is not an option and Wales needs change. But again, the WRU has not done a great job of explaining exactly why its new structure will get Welsh rugby back to winning ways.
The most striking aspect of the proposed three-team model is how little evidence has been provided to explain some of its key decisions. The union says it has considered factors including population, financial sustainability, player pathways, sporting performance, supporter numbers and heritage. But where is the evidence showing how those factors have been assessed, and what weight has been given to each?
Why, for example, have Cardiff and Newport apparently been given their respective geographical areas while the Ospreys and Scarlets are left competing for one western licence? What evidence supports that model? Why is geography being used in this way, and how were the boundaries determined? These are not minor details. They could determine the future of one of Wales’ four professional clubs.
The WRU may well have compelling evidence behind its decisions. If so, it should publish it. Supporters do not necessarily have to agree with the conclusions, but they should be able to see the reasoning and evidence that produced them.
Reactive rather than strategic
Then there is the constant yo-yoing between different positions and proposed solutions, leaving clubs, supporters and the wider game unclear about what the WRU actually wants. Initially, Y11 buying Cardiff appeared to be the route to three teams and, if Swansea Council is to be believed, would have resulted in the Ospreys dropping into Super Rygbi Cymru. But the WRU board and executive could not get that deal over the line.
More than two and a half years into the WRU’s current leadership, there is still little evidence that Welsh professional rugby is in a healthier position. The fundamental question of how the professional game should be structured remains unresolved. The regions continue to face uncertainty, supporters have become increasingly disillusioned and relationships between the WRU, clubs and other stakeholders have become increasingly strained.
The Y11 proposal was emblematic of the problem; months of uncertainty and anger before the deal was ultimately abandoned, leaving the underlying issues unresolved. The WRU has faced public criticism from regional executives, club owners and Swansea Council, while plans to centralise academy staff were shelved on financial grounds. Reviews have been commissioned and new structures proposed, yet there remains no clear, settled vision for the future.
The result is a governing body that appears increasingly reactive rather than strategic. Clubs cannot plan with confidence, supporters have lost faith and the structure of professional rugby remains uncertain. Almost three years after the change in leadership was supposed to herald a new era, Welsh rugby is still wrestling with the same fundamental problems.
After almost three years, the questions are whether the WRU’s vision for Welsh professional rugby is the right one, whether it has properly explained and justified the decisions behind it, and whether it has the leadership and ability to deliver it successfully. The toughest challenge will come early in the new year, when the WRU must decide which side to cut or push towards a merger. But the greater challenge may come afterwards: whether it has the authority, credibility and ability to make that decision happen; and whether the final structure proves to be the right one.
