Premiership Rugby’s salary cap secrecy shows a lack of moral authority

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/apr/30/premiership-rugby-salary-cap-moral-authority

Version 0 of 1.

Back in October 2013, Premiership Rugby announced that it was increasing the policing of salary cap compliance with a warning that those found in breach would be dealt with severely. A maximum punishment of 40 league points was mentioned.

Fast-forward 18 months and any clubs in breach this season will not be called to account at the end of the Premiership’s regular season next month: that is the date when any investigation into salary cap irregularities would turn into charges and a disciplinary hearing.

The clubs voted earlier this year to suspend any investigations until later in the year amid reports that two clubs – one of which was identified as Saracens, although no evidence has been produced against either and Saracens’ chairman Nigel Wray said recently his club is not being investigated – were being looked into. Officials at the meeting were sworn to secrecy: “I dare not say what was discussed,” said one, “and I doubt you will find anyone who will.”

If Saracens and another club were being investigated – and as well as nothing to substantiate the allegations, Premiership Rugby’s policy is not to comment when alleged breaches are being examined – any punishment could lead to them losing their places in the top four and missing out on the play-offs.

Why would the clubs vote for suspension unless investigations were going on? One answer would be to seek an opinion on the legality of the cap, something that has been questioned in the past, another is that the bad publicity would be inconvenient at a time when Premiership Rugby is locked in talks with the Rugby Football Union over the renewal of the elite player agreement.

The clubs want some substantial changes on top of an increase in the value of the deal. They have put forward a proposal to increase the Premiership from 12 to 14 clubs and want relegation to the Championship suspended for four years from the start of the 2016-17 season. A salary cap scandal would leave them divided at a time when they need to be united.

The decision shows weakness at a time when the clubs should be strong. The RFU has given substantial power to them over the years, including the right to run the Premiership and negotiate all the deals relating to the tournament: the union did not stand in the way of its clubs in the long struggle to revamp the European Cup, but with power should come responsibility.

What does it say of a governing body that announces that it will police a salary cap it regards as essential to its well-being and competitiveness only to sabotage the process when it threatens to become an inconvenience? Premiership Rugby, while being unable to comment on the suspension of the salary cap investigation(s) because it is unable to say in the first place whether one or more is taking place, said there had been no amnesty awarded to clubs who may have been in breach. It is lacking in transparency and its moral authority has been eroded.

The clubs, in England and France, are often critical of World Rugby but that body is in one sense no different to Premiership Rugby: the executive of the former is bound by member unions and that of the latter is subject to the whim of its 15 shareholders – the 12 clubs in the Premiership along with Bristol, Worcester and Leeds.

Once the clubs have agreed a policy, such as the salary cap and the ways to police it, the executive should be free to look into any suspected breaches and go where the evidence leads. By interfering, the clubs are undermining their own rule and weakening their legitimacy. Northampton were last season fined and warned for including a clause in the Wales wing George North’s contract that allowed him full international release, contrary to Premiership Rugby policy for non-England players; why should they, or any other club, worry about such infractions in the future given the non-sanctity of rules?

Premiership Rugby operates on a code of silence and its circle is small. It is made up largely of hard-headed businessmen who have succeeded in other rules. They have learned over time that not all the rules of business, such as trying to eliminate competition, apply to sport, but the salary cap issue shows that the collective will only goes so far and that is not as it should be. Who will stand up if this season’s champions are later found to have succeeded by cheating?

It may be that there have not been any major breaches of the salary cap – minor rule breaks in the past have been dealt with internally – and that reports of off-shore accounts being set up to pay some wages are bogus. But if there have been breaches, those clubs who have paid no more than they are allowed to have been disadvantaged.

Why are they not seeking redress? Self-interest determines that it is prudent not to: if Premiership Rugby remains united, those who have come to live under the threat of relegation will have it removed while those whose ambitions are higher will be given the means, through an increased salary cap, to compete with their rivals in France and the Pro 12. A rocky boat can end up with clubs overboard.

Premiership Rugby cannot, on the one hand, lay down rules and conditions to clubs aspiring to join the elite while, on the other, flout them. The Exeter director of rugby, Rob Baxter, this week said that when it came to the expansion of the league and suspension of relegation, the top flight had to be morally correct. “I would be very uncomfortable if we established a set of rules whereby a team that was successful on and off the pitch could never have the ambition of being in the Premiership,” he said.

“As long as we don’t enforce rules on teams trying to get into the Premiership that we’re not prepared to enforce on teams who are already in it – and there are quite a few cases of that – then we have quite a strong moral argument that it is good for the game.”

London Welsh won promotion on appeal two years ago by showing that Premiership Rugby operated different rules for those inside it to clubs on the outside. It took a long and often bitter scrap with the RFU for the top-flight clubs to gain the right to self-determination: good governance is taking a little bit longer.

• This is an extract taken from The Breakdown, the Guardian’s weekly rugby union email. To subscribe visit this page, find ‘The Breakdown’ and follow the instructions.