It’s not only in politics that a week is a short time. Ten days ago English rugby was in high spirits and fans looking forward with eager anticipation to winning the World Cup. Now after defeat by South Africa and the sight of some disappointed players boorishly declining to wear their runners-up medals comes the depressing news that Saracens, club champions of England and Europe, are in the dock for breaching the salary cap, or, perhaps more precisely, of finding a way round it by investing in companies set up by some of their leading players, among them the England captain, Owen Farrell, and the Vunipola brothers, Mako and Billy.
Saracens are of course protesting innocence and appealing against the imposition of a heavy fine and a big points deduction, and it is possible their appeal will succeed. Yet from what one has read in the newspapers, complete exoneration seems unlikely, and perhaps the best they can hope for is a less severe sentence, a sharp rap on the knuckles and a warning about their future conduct.
Whatever the outcome it’s rotten publicity for the English game. One has some sympathy for Saracens owner, Nigel Wray. Ever since the game admitted professionalism a quarter of a century ago, he has bank-rolled Saracens and invested huge sums in the club. Thanks to him Saracens and their fortunes have been transformed. In the amateur era they were scarcely among the more famous or highly regarded of London clubs. They weren’t as glamorous as Harlequins, and they had, I think, produced fewer English internationals than clubs like Wasps, Rosslyn Park, Richmond and Blackheath. Now, thanks to Mr Wray’s money, enthusiasm, and commitment, they are the top dog.
Not surprisingly, the news of their present discomfiture has met with no sympathy from other clubs. Two at least – Exeter, their closest rival over the last few years, and Sale, who hold their own in the Premiership on a much smaller budget than Saracens, have been ready to say that Sarries have for some time been breaching the salary cap or at the very least bending the rules. No doubt there’s an element of schadenfreude in their response. But it’s understandable. Exeter have pointed out that they have this summer dispensed with the services of the try-scoring Argentinian Santiago Cordero because they couldn’t afford to retain him without breaching the salary cap. The former England captain, Chris Robshaw, who plays for Harlequins, says bluntly that Saracens “have been cheating to a certain extent,” harsh words from such a respected figure.
The salary cap is set at £7 million, although there are a couple of amendments which permit this to be exceeded somewhat. It is intended to ensure that there is a level playing-field, and that no club should be able – as football clubs are able – to “buy success”. It should also be seen in light of the fact that although, in many respects, the English Premiership has been a remarkable popular success, it still loses money and requires financial support from the RFU, the governing body of the English game.
Saracens point to their record of developing home-grown players, and this record has indeed been remarkable. There were eight Saracens players in the 23-man squad for the World Cup final, six of them in the starting XV. Yet this surely has little, if anything, to do with the matter in hand.
The question is whether investment by the club, even if not directly, in companies set up by players represents an additional payment which takes Saracens over the permitted salary cap. From what has been said, it appears that the money invested may not have come from the club’s players’ budget, but from some indirect source. The weakness of this as a defence is that it would seem to indicate an awareness that such investment would not meet with the approval of Premiership Rugby Limited, the league’s governing body with which clubs agreed to the salary cap. Mr Wray apparently argues that investment is not the same as salary, and that its purpose was to set up players for life when their active rugby career is over. This is of course laudable in intention, nevertheless surely a matter that might have been submitted to PRL for approval. Given the initial verdict delivered, it seems likely that such approval would not have been given. Some may think that the England players earn enough from club and country to make provision themselves for their future.
There seems to be little sympathy for Saracens from their rivals in the Premiership, many of whom are sure that Saracens have been engaged in dubious practices and breaking regulations for years. Certainly, those clubs which have abided by the rules have reason to feel aggrieved. Danny Care, the Harlequins and former England scrum-half, says their trophies are “tainted”, and believes the punishment of a fine and points deduction is inadequate. I would guess that a lot of other players agree with him. Saracens, they think, have bought success by what appears to be sharp practice. The words “cheats” and “cheating” are going the rounds.
It’s a sad business, especially coming at a time when English rugby has had good reason to be proud of itself. One hopes that it is soon resolved, and, that, if Saracens find their appeal rejected, they accept the punishment with good grace and offer an apology. It is especially sad because Nigel Wray, with the help of the managers and coaches he has employed, has created what in other ways is a model club, one that has bred and formed a team that plays magnificent rugby.
Moreover, if it isn’t resolved quickly, it’s difficult to see how, come the Six Nations, the Saracens players and their colleagues in the England squad can be the happy band of brothers they appeared to be in Japan. For the sake of English rugby a speedy resolution – with any punishment tempered with mercy – would seem to be in everybody’s best interests. Otherwise there may be long-lasting bitterness and a mood of festering resentment. And who wants that? Certainly not England’s loyal fans.
Subscribe to REACTION
Iain Martin and the team make sense of the news, providing commentary and analysis on the stories that matter in politics, geopolitics, economics and culture.