 |
| Is Peacock right to call for 10 clubs? |
For the past few years, he has been most vocal about calling for a reduction in the number of Super League clubs, from 14 to 10. Perhaps most tellingly, he has repeated this call whilst he has been involved in the creation of the new players union, 1eague3. This new union has player welfare at its heart, yet Jamie Peacock is calling for a situation which would cause many players to lose their full time status and perhaps even his own, if he wished to carry on playing. This shows that he is not motivated by self interest but the interests of Rugby League.
Is Jamie Peacock right to call for a reduction in the number of Super League clubs?
The case for...
There are two main reasons why a reduction to 10 clubs (or to a lesser extent 12) is often seen as desirable, and both come with the end goal of catching the Australians. By having a league with fewer teams, you are concentrating the player pool, meaning that on average the clubs are stronger. This therefore, creates a higher standard of competition and ensures that the players are subjected to more intense level of rugby, hopefully emulating the NRL. In support of this idea, recent evidence does suggest that British RL cannot sustain 14 competitive clubs. Just this week, only the second of the new season, the newly promoted Widnes side suffered a huge blow-out against a Huddersfield side that looked to be in second gear for large parts. This mirrors the experience suffered by the Crusaders and Salford since their promotion in 2008; there simply isn't the pool of players to sustain 14 competitive clubs.
Inevitably, fewer clubs should also mean fewer games. One of Peacock's biggest complaints is that our players suffer burnout. It is hard to argue this point when the season starts in the first weekend of February and doesn't end for international players until November; Kevin Sinfield for instance, played over 40 competitive games last year. In contrast, the NRL doesn't start until March and their players on average play fewer games. This inevitably means that their players come into international tournaments fresher. It also means that players should, in theory, be able to prolong their careers as they have fewer miles on the clock.
If only things were so simple
It would appear that it is a clear cut case and that a reduction would benefit the game. There are however, big reasons as to why this will never happen and it is purely to do with the licensing system.
I am a firm believer that the licensing system is the best system for British RL, at this time. That is not to say that it doesn't have flaws. Were we to take Jamie Peacock's advice and move to a league of 10 teams, we would have to drop 4 current clubs. For argument's sake, assuming that Super League wanted to retain a London presence, let's say that those clubs were: Wakefield, Widnes, Salford and Castleford. These clubs would then drop down into the Championship.
Initially, this would be a great boost for the Championship, creating a much better middle tier competition with higher crowds. However, since the abolition of yearly Promotion and Relegation, we are left with a system where clubs are only promoted every 3 years. This creates a situation, where it is unlikely that most of those clubs will see Super League for a long time, if ever again. Inevitably, over time crowds would decrease and interest would wane. Unfortunately, we have seen this happen at a number of clubs whose Super League ambitions have slowly faded such as: Oldham, Whitehaven, Workington and Keighley. The sad reality is that these clubs look unlikely, under the current system, to ever be in a position again where they could make the step up.
The RFL are currently trying to balance a vibrant Super League with licensing, whilst trying to sustain interest in a Championship without P & R. The current situation is sustainable because there is not an outstanding candidate for promotion and a number of clubs could put themselves forward for a place. This for the time being, is helping to sustain a level of interest amongst those clubs. As a Widnes fan, I am all too aware of this factor. Prior to the acceptance, the dream of Super League was all that kept many fans going and attendances had already suffered. Had we been rejected in 2011, Widnes may not have been in a position to reapply in 2015, as crowds would have been likely to drop considerably. Some people like to think that the Championship is enough in its own right but the reality says otherwise. It is no coincidence that attendances are highest at clubs where Super League is still a goal.
In relegating those 4 clubs, the RFL would be virtually eliminating the chances clubs like Leigh, Halifax and Featherstone have of ever being promoted, whilst making it unlikely for probably 2 of the 4 newly relegated clubs. Without the prospect of Super League you would have to expect that many of these fans would be lost to the game amounting to a potential huge loss of support for Rugby League as a whole. Whilst the top division could see a boost in its attendance, it would be unlikely to cover these lost fans and would be reducing their spread.
Currently British RL has 13 clubs in Super League, with approximately another 5 that have it as a realistic goal. A reduction, like that suggested by Jamie Peacock, would see 9 British clubs in Super League and the strength of the newly relegated clubs may mean than only 3 clubs could now have it as a realistic goal. It is for this reason that the RFL will not reduce to 10 clubs. They are not going to risk the future of a number of relatively strong RL clubs for a marginally more intense competition. They also don't want to envisage a situation where a couple of Super League clubs start struggling and there is nobody left to replace them.
What are the alternatives?
A solution we often hear is the creation of a 'Super League 2.' This idea involves creating 2 leagues of 10 clubs and reintroducing P & R. The problem with this idea is that, without adequate funding to ensure that the clubs could stay full-time, you are simply re-branding the old P & R and the issues that it had with short termism, boom and bust and expansion. Also, a second tier will always be viewed as a second tier. It actually wouldn't surprise me if the RFL see this as a long term goal, but only when the standard has increased to the point we have comfortably too many strong clubs for SL.
In my opinion, we must persist with the status quo for the time being, albeit with a few adjustments to make it easier on the players. Firstly, I would scrap the Magic Weekend or at the very least make it a regular season game. I would also reduce the number of rounds to 22. The playoff system means that playing every team home and away has become less important; this is how the NRL get around having 16 clubs. This could then allow us to start the season later and give the players a shorter season. We could also introduce a cap on the number of games that international players can play. If I recall correctly, Rugby Union introduced a similar law some years ago.
Unfortunately for Jamie, I cannot see him getting his way on this issue in the near future. Hopefully though, he will encourage the RFL to make some changes, to take the burden off some of our star players.
There are two main reasons why a reduction to 10 clubs (or to a lesser extent 12) is often seen as desirable, and both come with the end goal of catching the Australians. By having a league with fewer teams, you are concentrating the player pool, meaning that on average the clubs are stronger. This therefore, creates a higher standard of competition and ensures that the players are subjected to more intense level of rugby, hopefully emulating the NRL. In support of this idea, recent evidence does suggest that British RL cannot sustain 14 competitive clubs. Just this week, only the second of the new season, the newly promoted Widnes side suffered a huge blow-out against a Huddersfield side that looked to be in second gear for large parts. This mirrors the experience suffered by the Crusaders and Salford since their promotion in 2008; there simply isn't the pool of players to sustain 14 competitive clubs.
Inevitably, fewer clubs should also mean fewer games. One of Peacock's biggest complaints is that our players suffer burnout. It is hard to argue this point when the season starts in the first weekend of February and doesn't end for international players until November; Kevin Sinfield for instance, played over 40 competitive games last year. In contrast, the NRL doesn't start until March and their players on average play fewer games. This inevitably means that their players come into international tournaments fresher. It also means that players should, in theory, be able to prolong their careers as they have fewer miles on the clock.
If only things were so simple
It would appear that it is a clear cut case and that a reduction would benefit the game. There are however, big reasons as to why this will never happen and it is purely to do with the licensing system.
I am a firm believer that the licensing system is the best system for British RL, at this time. That is not to say that it doesn't have flaws. Were we to take Jamie Peacock's advice and move to a league of 10 teams, we would have to drop 4 current clubs. For argument's sake, assuming that Super League wanted to retain a London presence, let's say that those clubs were: Wakefield, Widnes, Salford and Castleford. These clubs would then drop down into the Championship.
Initially, this would be a great boost for the Championship, creating a much better middle tier competition with higher crowds. However, since the abolition of yearly Promotion and Relegation, we are left with a system where clubs are only promoted every 3 years. This creates a situation, where it is unlikely that most of those clubs will see Super League for a long time, if ever again. Inevitably, over time crowds would decrease and interest would wane. Unfortunately, we have seen this happen at a number of clubs whose Super League ambitions have slowly faded such as: Oldham, Whitehaven, Workington and Keighley. The sad reality is that these clubs look unlikely, under the current system, to ever be in a position again where they could make the step up.
The RFL are currently trying to balance a vibrant Super League with licensing, whilst trying to sustain interest in a Championship without P & R. The current situation is sustainable because there is not an outstanding candidate for promotion and a number of clubs could put themselves forward for a place. This for the time being, is helping to sustain a level of interest amongst those clubs. As a Widnes fan, I am all too aware of this factor. Prior to the acceptance, the dream of Super League was all that kept many fans going and attendances had already suffered. Had we been rejected in 2011, Widnes may not have been in a position to reapply in 2015, as crowds would have been likely to drop considerably. Some people like to think that the Championship is enough in its own right but the reality says otherwise. It is no coincidence that attendances are highest at clubs where Super League is still a goal.
In relegating those 4 clubs, the RFL would be virtually eliminating the chances clubs like Leigh, Halifax and Featherstone have of ever being promoted, whilst making it unlikely for probably 2 of the 4 newly relegated clubs. Without the prospect of Super League you would have to expect that many of these fans would be lost to the game amounting to a potential huge loss of support for Rugby League as a whole. Whilst the top division could see a boost in its attendance, it would be unlikely to cover these lost fans and would be reducing their spread.
Currently British RL has 13 clubs in Super League, with approximately another 5 that have it as a realistic goal. A reduction, like that suggested by Jamie Peacock, would see 9 British clubs in Super League and the strength of the newly relegated clubs may mean than only 3 clubs could now have it as a realistic goal. It is for this reason that the RFL will not reduce to 10 clubs. They are not going to risk the future of a number of relatively strong RL clubs for a marginally more intense competition. They also don't want to envisage a situation where a couple of Super League clubs start struggling and there is nobody left to replace them.
What are the alternatives?
A solution we often hear is the creation of a 'Super League 2.' This idea involves creating 2 leagues of 10 clubs and reintroducing P & R. The problem with this idea is that, without adequate funding to ensure that the clubs could stay full-time, you are simply re-branding the old P & R and the issues that it had with short termism, boom and bust and expansion. Also, a second tier will always be viewed as a second tier. It actually wouldn't surprise me if the RFL see this as a long term goal, but only when the standard has increased to the point we have comfortably too many strong clubs for SL.
In my opinion, we must persist with the status quo for the time being, albeit with a few adjustments to make it easier on the players. Firstly, I would scrap the Magic Weekend or at the very least make it a regular season game. I would also reduce the number of rounds to 22. The playoff system means that playing every team home and away has become less important; this is how the NRL get around having 16 clubs. This could then allow us to start the season later and give the players a shorter season. We could also introduce a cap on the number of games that international players can play. If I recall correctly, Rugby Union introduced a similar law some years ago.
Unfortunately for Jamie, I cannot see him getting his way on this issue in the near future. Hopefully though, he will encourage the RFL to make some changes, to take the burden off some of our star players.
No comments:
Post a Comment