RUGBY: Jon Swift
IT IS not overstating things to say that we all live in an unequal world. This is true at the top of the rugby pile where George Orwell’s contention that some are more equal than others freely applies.
Certainly this is the type of thinking that prevails in England’s top rugby circles where the sniff of TV millions has proved too much for the officials at Twickenham. They are demanding a far larger cut of the money generated from televised viewing of the Five Nations tournament than the other countries involved.
The Poms are not alone. The Australians, down to play home-and-away tests against South Africa in the upcoming Sanzar series, are involved in litigation over the pay-for-view rights to the Wallaby internationals. The whole issue is a minefield of big money and high expectations, fighting the indignation of viewers who feel they have an inalienable right to watch their nation’s sporting cream do battle.
The English have gone as far as to take the issue to parliament and ensure that specific events are not blacked out for those without satellite dishes, cable TV or decoders.
Whether this will work in rugby union is still a matter of de-bate. The pre-mise on which England’s un-precedented demand is based is that the vast majority of viewers tune in to watch England in a series rapidly losing its mystique and relevance in world rugby.
It beggars two questions. First, would they tune in at all if Scotland, Ireland and Wales decided not to field 15 men as good and true as are readily available to face the Poms? One would suggest that the majority of spectators from the other home nations have long been of the opinion that England should play with themselves anyway.
And second, is it specifically for an England victory that they have tuned in? One would hazard a guess that this is not necessarily so and quote from perhaps the best sporting T- shirt currently available. It reads: ”I support two teams. Scotland and who-ever is playing England.” Quite so.
But the England demands could have a more far- reaching effect than to merely entrench a dissatisfaction with the imperious way the English have always handled those for whom they coined such unsavoury names as Wops, Dagos, Paddies and Kikes. Nothing, it seems, has changed.
Insisting on filling the Twickenham coffers before anyone else gets a sniff of the gilt may well bring the Five Nations to an abrupt halt. It could also mean the end of the British Lions, one of rugby’s more eccentric and enduring traditions.
The Lions are slated to make a three-test tour of this country next year with internationals at Newlands on June 21, King’s Park the following weekend and at Ellis Park seven days later.
Should England stay with their demands — fuelled doubtless by the growing demands of their clubs who want a more equitable share of the money coming into English rugby and a threatening breakaway from the arrogantly named Rugby Football Union — do not hold your breath until the Lions arrive for their first game.
It would be an impossibility to expect a handful of Scots, Welshmen and Irishmen — already paid far less by their unions than the English players — to fit into a touring party with the wearers of the red rose.
The Orwellian outcome in terms of internal equality among the tourists would be akin to lighting the blue touchpaper and then refusing to retire.