As Rugby Unions’ national governing bodies have continued to grapple with rising commercial demands on and from the sport, it is the participation level – clubs below the top/elite level – who now feel like the sport’s unloved and neglected constituency.

The RFU in England is experiencing this, and earlier this year, their CEO survived a no confidence vote brought by unhappy clubs below the Premiership tier. While there has been an underlying tension with the community game for some time, the RFU’s recent corporate approach to the CEO’s remuneration seemed to be the catalyst for this particular bout of wrangling. The Chair of the RFU was a casualty and whilst the CEO remains in place, a strong shot across the bows was delivered, with governance reform being promised to address the regular complaint of ‘we are not being listened to, and we are not part of key decision making’ by clubs below the elite level.

The 2022, Crerar Governance Report of Scottish Rugby, centred on this same “governance problem”, described as:

“Much of the recent unrest amongst Clubs and others, stems from a feeling that they have not been allowed to participate in or have been properly consulted about important decisions. Whether this is true or not, it is what is felt”.

In the last 25 years, the SRU has had its fair share of governance acrimony. Whilst there is not currently the same level of public dispute as we have seen at the RFU, looking below the bonnet, there seems to be some key issues which need considered to maximise the Union’s ability to deliver for the sport in the future.

The present governance structure of the SRU has in effect two Boards overseeing distinct parts of the business, with an ‘umbrella’ Custodian Board above them.

  • The Club Rugby Board [CRB] is for the participation aspect of the sport.
  • The Scottish Rugby Limited Board [SRL] is for the professional and commercial aspects of the sport.

Significantly, the new CEO, Alex Williamson, doesn’t have any employed remit for participation aspects in the game. He may take an interest in it, but that is very different from being the accountable senior executive with annual or longer terms targets tied into financial incentives which in effect means that what gets measured gets done.

By assumption, that leaves the Director of Rugby Development [Gav Scott], line managed by the CEO, as the lead executive on participation. This seems like an arrangement that could create a lack of executive alignment, which accentuates the different agendas between the two operational Boards.

One recent strategic decision caused by this Board structure is to split responsibility of the performance pathway between them, with the under-18 academy led and financed by the CRB, while the over-18s academy programme is run by the performance department under the SRL Board’s remit. This limits the potential of the performance pathway.

Having an aligned and cohesive performance strategy which runs from starting ages (14/15-years-old) to national team is the desired model. There may be well intentioned persons in the Rugby Development department and on the CRB, but it will not be their central focus or skillset, understandably.

The KPIs for Rugby Development are player numbers, referee numbers, league games completion rates, rather than the secondary outcomes of talent development.

Whilst I have experienced separate governing bodies in a sport for performance stages, this has been down to historical structural reasons such as different external funding bodies – not by a sport’s internal design. In my opinion, every Performance Director would want to have start to finish leadership of the pathway. Therefore, for a singular governing body to set itself up like the SRU has, does not enable highest possible effectiveness.

Direct lines of responsibility

From an overall perspective, the leadership structure with three Boards looks as if it is rooted in the continual debate since 1995 as to whether it is the elected members representing the membership or the corporate non-executives (and executives) who ultimately control the union. There needs to be a complete reframing of this debate to enable a new discussion on the way forward.

I am sure the mere mention of governance brings out cold sweats for many who lament the time and energy which has already been eaten up politicalising/lobbying rather than focussing on growing the game, while total disinterest will be the response of many others.

Perhaps a better term is to look at the leadership structure of the sport, and whether it should be fragmented in the present manner. If it is to remain fragmented with multiple and separate Boards, then better to enable more ownership to the Boards, specifically the Club one, to enable improving outcomes .

No doubt the present incumbents across the SR Custodian Board, SRL Board and the Club Rugby Board have been working hard to build relationships, but the present structure does not promote a culture for this to organically grow.

The John Jeffrey decision in respect of SRU’s non-support of his candidature to become Chair of World Rugby ended up being a very public affair and provided an insight into competing viewpoints between the Custodian and Scottish Rugby Limited Boards. Such incidents cannot help with building trust, especially needed when working across Boards.

The sport, whilst categorised into specific areas, remains an inter-dependent entity which needs to be led holistically. One of the key tenets of the Dunlop report [the basis of the previous governance structure from 2005], highlighted in the 2022 Crerar governance report, which set out the present structure, was;

“Participation so that all stakeholders are represented when decisions are taken.”

The Crerar report managed to move the then governance impasse to a structure that had sufficient compromise for all and could secure wide enough buy-in to be adopted. It should be acknowledged that this was no mean feat, given the reported acrimony at the time.

To do so, it did split up aspects of the sport through discrete Boards and remits with leadership of isolated areas of the sport. The way forward ideally needs renewed focus on the aforementioned Dunlop principle. To significantly increase leadership effectiveness in the future, the preferred option is to have one Board at the top of the organisation, which is accountable to the body representing the membership. One Board creates ultimate purpose for the organisation/sport, clarity of decision-making and accountability.

There should be the ability to create a Board of eight to 10 personnel possessing skillsets and experience to cover the full range of key strategic areas that the Union is required to lead, manage and influence.

This range has certainly grown in recent times. It was interesting to listen to RFU CEO Bill Sweeney recently talk about speaking to private equity in the morning and about stadium redevelopment in the afternoon, both crucial commercial matters, then be at a National League club with a room of volunteers in the evening. It came across that the last of these meetings was the more challenging audience for him.

The mindset of elected member non-executives versus independent non-executives on Boards needs to change. There needs to a collective mindset where Board members are drawn from inside (the member clubs and the sport) and externally to create the best Board ‘team’. Those coming from within the sport need to be assessed alongside independents on their ability to operate at Board level and not through election methods which don’t inherently have this robust process.

There needs to be a Board with a mixture of lived experience of the sport (bringing a cultural understanding) as well as external and independent viewpoints which can bring new and fresh perspectives. All members need to have the ability to operate at a Board level, meeting the key requirement of any Director, acting in the company’s best interest, rather than representing a faction of it. Finally, but crucially, they need to be able to know how to add value from this position and hold the executive to account.

The present Scottish Rugby structure significantly dilutes the opportunity for this ideal mixture of experiences and perspectives but also potentially creates further division between the elected and independent executives over time.

The second option is to complete further the present separation of the Club Rugby Board and SRL Board. This would still require an umbrella Board as the Union presently has. Or could we see a breakaway body for a participation constituency in the same manner that the elite clubs have created in football codes? It seems improbable in the short time but if the dissatisfaction becomes chronic, it could yet come to pass in time. It is interesting to note that in the ongoing saga of Bill Sweeney and the grassroots revolt at his leadership, a core peace offering was for those clubs to have more control over participation strategies and investments. When does giving more control become a tactic for CEO and Boards, who are more experienced in commercial and interested in high performance, to let the masses of the membership lead themselves?

A big weakness, in my opinion, in the present Club Rugby Board is the application of the ‘Presidential’ model of leadership. Elected non-executives serving short terms in office do not create continuity for strategic intent and development. With reference to recent SRL Board minutes, that Board discussed the development of a 10-year strategy with subsequent implementation plan. In the same minutes, the SRU President presents what he wants to achieve in his two years. They were admirable goals set by him, but two different timelines and two separate Boards is a recipe for non-alignment. This is the fault of the structure rather than the persons.

The problem with presidential power

If there is to be a President of Scottish Rugby, then have it be purely a ceremonial and ambassadorial role, rather than trying to combine with being a key non-executive role. I have seen this combination model create far more problems than solutions in sport.

The participation aspect of the sport deserves the same robust Board leadership. The Club Rugby Board should have a Chair just as the SRL Board has, appointed for set terms, ideally up to three terms of three years, and appointed through a robust process, matching skill-set and experience to the needs of the Board and that branch of the sport.

Other Board members should be appointed in the same manner, and drawn appropriately from different geographies, league level or facets (e.g. referees) of the sport. The Chair may include line management of the lead executive, in this case, the Development Director. Furthermore, there is a case to make the Development Director the CEO of the participation body.

The present leadership structure of the SRU appears to have been a necessity, due to the political context it was born out of. However, for the medium to longer term future, it may not serve for the greatest effectiveness for the whole sport. The concern is that the appetite for further amendment is limited on account of exhaustion and exasperation at past periods of governance turmoil, and a sense that ‘we are getting along okay now’ when compared to previous periods of in-fighting.

Alex Williamson, whilst avoiding bold claims about winning Worlds Cups in his opening interview, talked about the organisation overall being the best Union in the world. This is challenging under the present leadership structure, particularly for him as he has no official remit for a significant constituent of the sport – the member clubs and grassroots of the sport.

Back in June 2019, right at the start of the last round of governance reform, Sheriff Bill Dunlop – the lead architect of the structure which had been in place since 2005 – made the following observation:

“It doesn’t matter what system you have in place, if you don’t have the right people operating it, and operating it in good faith, it isn’t going to work.”

I think that comment stands true, but the leadership system/structure is fractured with a lack of “across the sport” cohesiveness for the future. Even if the best possible people are in place, they will be restricted by it, in their ability to make the maximum impact collectively.

It does appear that relationships across the Boards are working reasonably well, especially given no further public disputes since the Jeffrey nomination issue. However, consider if in the future, persons change and personalities don’t work so well, the structure they work within will not provide a compensatory aspect to counter this and more so will accentuate personnel divisions.

I have seen Boards, where egos take over, positions become entrenched, and the organisation suffers. That is within one Board, and I would contend that the same situation arising across three Boards in an organisation will multiply the negative effect.

The ideal leadership model is of one Board, with recruitment systems that lead to very capable non-executives being appointed, who are collectively able to lead the whole sport in conjunction with the senior executives.

 

  • Graeme Thompson has been Performance Director for the Rugby Football League, British Water Polo and British Curling/Wheelchair Curling. He has been Chair of International Rugby League, the world governing body. He played rugby union for Watsonians and West of Scotland.