Rugby Union: Vision's the thing in the flaw show

Chris Rea says a consensus for change is building throughout the game

The drawing-boards in the classrooms of British sport have never been more congested. Cricket went back to it and emerged with the much- maligned but well-intentioned Raising The Standard. Football has been there and, by the look of things, it is now heading for another planet, and rugby union's vision for the future is contained in Cliff Brittle's blueprint, Rugby Restructure 2000, published last week.

It is a radical document, but of all the sports in Britain none is more urgently in need of serious surgery than rugby. Brittle has merely set out in the starkest terms what has been blindingly obvious ever since Sir John Hall opened his cheque book and sign-posted the road to ruin. The problem is that Brittle's vision is about two years too late and the difficulty that he and his supporters now face is to reclaim the ground so recklessly lost by the appalling mismanagement of the previous regime. This is implied in so much of what is contained in the document - "the Rugby Football Union has underachieved in the way it manages its business assets" - and again - "the present culture and structure of the RFU are impediments to the development of the game in England".

These are facts which can no longer be denied even by the most powerful clubs. Leicester, the best-supported club in the land and potentially the wealthiest, recently went public and the flotation has raised pounds 1.8m which, according to the chief executive Peter Wheeler, is highly satisfactory and will enable the club to develop its facilities. But with a wage bill comfortably in excess of pounds 2m, one has to ask whether or not the money raised has already been committed elsewhere. The financial plight of other leading clubs is even more grave. It may be therefore that Brittle's plan will be welcomed in what would previously have been considered hostile territory.

A great deal of thought and care has gone into it. Of particular interest is the section relating to the amateur game and the structure immediately below the top tier of professionalism. The establishment of an amateur international side has significance beyond England with the development of similar sides in the other home countries and abroad, including the developing nations. It could also open the way for rugby's participation in the Olympics and would, with good management, provide a steady stream of top-quality talent for the professional game.

The principal thrust of the document is, of course, aimed at professional rugby and in particular the production of the best possible England team, because upon this the rest of the game, professional and amateur, depends. Only the most bone-headed, or those at present employed by Rupert Murdoch, seriously believe that the present system works. Even the top clubs are beginning to acknowledge the fact that the European Cup, although a grand idea, is not in its present form the way to develop a consistently successful England side. Only four clubs can participate and from those fewer than half the players are qualified to play for England. Could the gap here be bridged by the provincial unions? In Brittle's plan they are mainly linked to the administration of the amateur game but there would seem to be ample room for manoeuvre and increasing their influence.

Brittle's reference to the past mishandling of the RFU's affairs goes far beyond the governing body's abdication of their responsibilities in the immediate aftermath of the game's headlong dash into professionalism. The deal brokered with Sky, which was held up as being the greatest event since the birth of Webb Ellis, is showing more holes than a Richard Branson balloon. Quite apart from the catastrophic drop in the viewing figures under the present joint arrangement with Sky and ITV - conservatively estimated at two million below the audiences who watched England's matches on BBC Grandstand - the RFU are losing money in the all- important peripheral areas of alcohol and merchandising sales at Twickenham as a result of the 2pm kick-off imposed on them by their new paymasters. This is estimated at more than pounds 60,000 a match and in addition to the loss of revenue from perimeter advertising, and in time, from disenchanted sponsors, the sums will be considerable. Hence Brittle's plans for RFUTV. Some years ago a group of us submitted a proposal for the RFU to set up its own in-house TV production company with a view to establishing its own broadcasting operation in later years. It never saw the light of day.

It is, however, when we scratch beneath the surface of Brittle's proposals that the problems begin. The RFU ceded so much to the clubs at the outset that it will be almost impossible to retrieve the situation without a massive financial commitment. Central to Brittle's plan is the power to control the top players, which means contracting them to the Union. But the clubs are not going to surrender their prize assets without the promise of sizeable compensation.

Brittle has one thing in his favour. Despite the rantings of thrustingly ambitious clubs such as Worcester, who have the money at the moment but not the sense that comes from experiencing life in the real world, there is almost universal acceptance of the fact that the time has come for a reassessment and reorganisation of a fatally flawed system. The seamless game concept has been shown for what it is - a load of old cobblers.

Not the least impressive part of last week's magical day at Twickenham was the reaction of England's captain and coach to the team performance. They knew full well that England's achievements that day were not because of the present structure but in spite of it. One can only hope for the future of the game in this country that others in high places share their view, otherwise Brittle's grand vision will be just another sad illusion.