By BrianC
January 9 2005

The second part of The Relegation Debate takes a look at those bodies who make the decisions on automatic promotion and relegation, the factors involved and the arguments both for and against.

We saw in the first part of this series looking at the history of promotion and relegation that there are two clearly opposing views of where we stand now. Depending on your viewpoint automatic promotion and relegation is a fact of life or has effectively been dead and buried for years.

This season we are likely to find out which of those arguments is closer to the truth. Newly promoted Worcester have proved, against many peoples expectations, that they can hold their own both on and off the field in the Premiership. The most likely promotion candidate, Bristol, will meet the ground criteria set out by PRL and were only relegated two short seasons ago. To ring fence them out of the premiership at this stage would be unfair and quite possibly illegal.

Who calls the shots?  

There are a number of bodies and factors, both formal and informal, that are part of the decision making process. In many cases the lines between them are blurred but put simply they are: 

The Rugby Football Union (RFU): The RFU is the supreme governing body of English rugby. It is responsible for the government and development of the game at international, club (professional and non-professional), grassroots and school levels. Once famously referred to as fifty seven old farts by former Harlequins and England captain Will Carling it could be argued that the RFU are ultimately responsible for setting and enforcing the league framework. As we'll outline later in this piece it is however not quite that simple. Over the years the RFU have consistently been advocates of automatic promotion and relegation although even within it's walls dissenting voices have been heard. 

Premiership Rugby Ltd. (PRL): PRL was set up and is by and large owned by the clubs that make up the Zurich Premiership (ZP). I do not claim to understand the structure of this organisation. One issue that caused a stumbling block during Malcolm Pierce's messy divorce with Bristol two seasons ago is that he wanted to retain his share of PRL. This body manages the ZP and the sometimes fraught relationship between the professional clubs and the RFU. Generally regarded as more commercially aware than the RFU they deserve great credit for developing the ZP into arguably the best club rugby competition in the world. Although PRL agreed upon automatic promotion and relegation at the inception of the ZP they have since consistently lobbied against it, particularly so in the past three or four years. 

Non ZP clubs: These are pretty well all affiliated to the RFU and most certainly influence it's decision making so could probably fall under that category. They do, I feel, deserve a separate listing as they are key to the games survival. In general these clubs fall into two categories. The vast majority have no premiership ambitions whatsoever. A small number however are ambitious and aspire to be playing in the ZP either sooner or later. In general both sets of these clubs favour automatic promotion and relegation. 

Supporters: Whilst not formally part of the decision making process it is wise not to discount the influence that supporters have on the decision making process. Without supporters, both to watch and to introduce their children to the game, our sport would be moribund. The powers that be know that well and do try to take their views into account. I have no hard evidence but from what I have read on the various boards over the years it would appear that a substantial majority of supporters favour automatic promotion and relegation.  

Media: In general but not exclusively this means Sky TV and, to a lesser extent, the national print media. Every weekend during the season some sixty thousand go to grounds to watch ZP rugby. Many times this number will watch the sport as it is broadcast on Sky and/or read about it in the print media the following day. The influence that this gives the media is significant. In general the media has also favoured automatic relegation and promotion.

Money: This underlies all of the above. The big cash cow in rugby, now and for the foreseeable future, is the international game. This is firmly under the remit of the RFU however they in turn are dependent on the top clubs to train, develop and provide players. To stay in business the ZP clubs need to be profitable. A significant part of any ZP clubs revenue comes from the RFU. Some would argue that this is a grant others that it is a business arrangement. Supporters are often attracted to the club game by success at international level and to particular clubs by star players. The more people who are drawn to the club game either as visiting or armchair spectators, the greater the revenue for the clubs and the media covering them.  

On the face of it, it would appear that PRL are fighting a fairly isolated battle against automatic promotion and relegation. A battle against the wishes of their own governing body, the smaller clubs, the majority of rugby supporters and the media. They do however have substantial clout. The clubs hold the players contracts, they are becoming in increasing independent of the RFU and its funding. Gone are the days when the RFU could simply tell the ZP clubs what to do and they meekly obey. The relationship between the RFU and PRL is now one of mutual co-existence, need and benefit.

Automatic Promotion and Relegation - The Arguments

Before penning this article I envisaged that there would be a long list of arguments both for and against automatic promotion and relegation. When it came to it the lists turned out to be short. I may have missed some things. No doubt if I have you, the readers, will put me straight. For now this is what I can think of.

For:
- Creates excitement at both ends of the table. If there was no relegation the season would be more or less over for most clubs, and their supporters, by mid season.
- The threat of relegation keeps the standard of the competition higher.
- Gives aspiring clubs something to aim for. If the ZP was ring fenced where could a Worcester of the future go?

Against:
- Restricts development. Professional club rugby requires substantial investment in teams, back office staff and facilities. Investors are less likely to plough this money in if their team is under threat of ruin every season.
- Player welfare. As clubs come under pressure to avoid relegation they play their top players more often than is good for them. This puts them under increased risk of injury or burn out.

In the third and final part of this series we will look at the likelihood of automatic promotion and relegation being dropped and what alternative options there may be.