OSB explodes some franchising myths

By OSB
February 22 2005

I was intrigued by a not very well-argued piece on the message board promoting a franchise system for the Zurich Premiership. It said simply – It works in the NFL. Here I give my own prejudices an airing and try to see if what is being proposed for the ZP is indeed what is on offer in the USA.

Let’s summarise what “works” in American sports – principally in NFL and NBA as they are the big college sports. They work on a franchise system governed by a commissioner who dispenses the franchises and sub-contracts the divisional championships, gradually feeding into the big pay-day (or 7) come the season’s end.

Promotion and relegation do not exist on the playing field – only on whether an investor can buy an existing franchise or convince the commissioner that there is enough money and support to create a new one that will not affect the viability / profitability of the others.

The involvement of the colleges and the draft system is crucial. The franchises have minimal involvement in the development of the next generation of players, the highly funded colleges and high schools have everything to do with it. College football and basketball provide seasons of high quality, competitive sport. A large proportion of it is broadcast on television so there is a ready-made system for scouting the second tier competition.

With no on-field losers, the compensation for a losing season is that the tail-gunners get to offer contracts to new players graduating from the college system. The successful franchises have to wait their turn.

The stated aim for this is to equalise the competition – the last shall be first and the first shall be last.

This may not deal with the intricacies of life in corporate-sporting America and the trading of draft picks and so on. There is no explanation as to why, with budget proposals twenty times that of a ZP club, players and franchise owners have allowed a whole NHL season to be canned. It seems that not everything works in America.

Would this system work for the Zurich Premiership?

To start with, how many of the components are in place?

Is there a franchise system? No. What is more, all monies poured into the system so far have been on the basis that it is a pyramid with the chance that playing performance may decrease the value of the investment or decrease it very quickly.

Is there an equivalent to the college system capable of providing the draft of fresh talent at the bottom end of the age-range, experience and pay scale to replace those who retire? No.

The closest things to colleges are the clubs’ own academies. What a tremendous idea – Northampton Saints off to Oadby for first pick of the Tigers Academy; London Irish off to the Stoop to take the best Harlequin, Leeds pick up Matthew Tait…[insert your own joke here!] and Worcester down to Gloucester or Bath to fetch back the best they can find in the west country academies.

I hope we can agree that the model we have in this country is remote from the American system. That should not be a bar from trying to move towards it. What would we need to do?

Who would be the commissioner? How would that person be appointed? The first thing to understand is would you want the commission to be a subsidiary of the RFU?

It seems to be the thing that Mr Cotton wants; he wants something like a pyramid, starting with the elite level he wants everything to be built up towards the England team at the top. I am sorry if I misrepresent him but that is my understanding of what he says as reported by the press and broadcast media. I would suspect that for the majority of club owners / chairmen and those who regularly attend ZP, Powergen and European club rugby, that is NOT what they want. For the casual fan, the armchair watcher and the denizens of TW1 on match days, would be more in favour of Mr Cotton’s approach – a commissioner whose prime role is to develop rugby for half-a-dozen Twickenham sell-outs a year.

If we follow the preferences of the biggest investors (as far as share ownership is concerned) in ZP clubs – who would they select as a commissioner? I think there would be a good chance that it would be somebody outside the RFU and who would put the franchise/club game at the pinnacle.

How about a compromise – a partnership between the clubs and the RFU? The RFU could appoint the commissioner but his power to run the game would be tempered by the management board.

How would we go about dividing up the developing talent for the future good of the competition?

How many would we need? For the sake of argument let’s say that there will be a Top 16 – like France – each requiring a squad of 40 players. A roster of 640 top class players each with an average career length of 10 years means that an average of 64 ZP-level players would be required each year. How big would the organisation to produce that many players per year need to be?

One thing is for sure – the funding for a production line of that magnitude will take some finding.

How’s this for an idea? The funding for the development of this crucial life blood of the future of rugby could come from the “auction” (for the want of a better word) of the franchises. At £6million a pop, there would be nigh on £100million of funding for the “Future of Rugby” competition. [I think I had better © the name and the idea. It’s a winner].

I sense that some of you disagree. There wouldn’t be an auction of franchises. OK, but how does that work? Who would operate the franchises if you didn’t make them freely available for a price? Oh, yes, the current ZP clubs and anyone they had to invite in to prevent a Competition Commission enquiry.

To summarise, the franchise system we talk about is nothing like the systems that operate in the United States. There would be no commissioner looking out for the good of the competition just the fudge that is EPDR. There would be no high grade competition for burgeoning talent independent of the franchise holders.

So the throw-away (perhaps it should be “disposable”) remark that it works in the NFL is specious. None of the things that characterise NFL franchises and the American system are being proposed.

Nobody is proposing anything other than a ring-fencing of the current environment with all of its inbuilt conflicts and discords. The RFU wanting to put Team England at the top of the pyramid and the franchise holders wanting to be able to get on and run meaningful competitions with the players they have developed and nurtured or otherwise brought on or bought in – but not too deep in meaning.

As it stands, the game is open to amateurs and professionals alike from the highest level (ZP) to the lowest level 11 (Yorkshire 5). Each club is allowed to invite sponsorship and investment and may nurse a dream that it may, one day, play in the highest echelon.

In practice, the clubs in the pyramid nurse goals closer to the established order of things: to beat their nearest neighbours, to try to win their league’s championship or to overturn the shock defeat (I’m sure the matches with Aireborough and Halifax Vandals mean every bit as much to the folks of Garforth as the matches against Wasps and Tigers mean to us).

There is an important level where aspiration is matched by investment. It could be to try to rekindle the spirit of a bygone day but, whatever its root, it is an attempt to launch into a brighter future. Coventry is not a suburb of Leicester – why should its rugby ambitions be subordinated to those of the franchise at the other end of the M69? Similarly, Bedford would not see the current relationship with Northampton as the colonisation it would become were the drawbridge to be raised for them to left permanently outside the bailiwick.

What would the proposed carve-up say about the value of the pound in your pocket? It establishes a dual-value currency where the money spent by the holders of the current ZP franchises is worth more than the money being invested by the likes of Coventry and Exeter.

What right has the pro-franchise lobby to say that one investment is more important than another? Nigel Wray bought Saracens as a second tier club; similarly, John Hall and Newcastle. Should those clubs now be consigned back to the second tier in perpetuity because investing money at that level means nothing? These clubs earned their right to play at the top level by what they achieved on the pitch. Why is it even countenanced that the path followed by these two clubs should be prohibited to the current occupiers of that most unfortunate of perches?

In most of the debate surrounding this topic, there comes a curious whiff. I am sure there are some who could recognise the fragrance. Families the length and breadth of the country would recognise the entreaty that what makes sauce for the goose makes good sauce for the gander. The pervasive odour of hypocrisy seems to be masking the aroma of that sauce.