BACK in March, Rugbyleaguehub.com Long Reads reported on the relaunch of the Rugby League Players Assocation (RLPA).
Four months later, the whole enterprise has collapsed amid a funding row which once again leaves the men’s and women’s professional players in the UK without any sort of collective representation at a time when, arguably, they need it more than ever.
It began on Monday when the GMB union, which had been overseeing the RLPA, released a statement announcing funding for long-serving association representative Garreth Carvell, who was fighting the corner for players at financially-stricken Salford Red Devils among other issues in the game, had ceased.
- Wigan Warriors CEO Kris Radlinski: Women’s rise ‘a really brilliant story’
- A year on from the loss of Rob Burrow
- Subscribe to rugbyleaguehub.com on YouTube
Furthermore, GMB senior organiser Pete Davies made some pointed accusations towards charity Rugby League Cares (RLC), which had been provinding the funding for former Super League player Carvell’s position.
“Our rep had a strong voice within the game and was working with the governing body on many issues including Salford,” Davied said.
“RLC pulled the funding for his post smack bang in the middle of yet another pay crisis that has hit the sport.
“One officer at the club, supported by RLC, described non-payment of players as ‘not a union issue’.
“That is appalling and shows that there is a strategy at play to block our RLPA branch from reaching out to help.”
This came after several partners and wives of Salford players had criticised RLC when it published a statement last week outlining what it had been doing to support Salford’s players amid the ongoing issues around delayed wages.
RLC and the RFL issued a joint-statement responding to the GMB on Tuesday, claiming the funding from the charity for Carvell’s role as RLPA convenor had only been guaranteed until May, with the governing body having funded it from 2021 to November last year.
Along with citing “increasing budgetary pressures” for the governing body ending their funding, both the RFL and RLC claimed the GMB had failed to convince enough players to join the union to make it worthwhile.
“The RFL still believes that it is in the best interests of the players – and indeed the wider sport – that they are represented by an effective and independent players’ association,” RFL chief executive Tony Sutton said.
Just not enough in their best interests to actually fund it.
More to the point though, how truly independent is any union or association when it is being funded by a body which it may have to represent the players against should they come into a dispute with it?
Then there is the this from Sutton, which seems to imply RLC should be taking the lead in representing the players.
“The RFL will continue to work with RL Cares, the players and others to find a way forward by which a trusted Players Association can emerge to successfully represent the playing community,” Sutton said.
“The RFL also remains committed to maintaining its arrangement with RL Cares as the sport’s recognised Player Wellbeing Provider.
“As an independent charity, and with its proven track record in delivering world-class player welfare programmes, RL Cares is well equipped to fulfil this important role.”
In other words, it seems the RFL are happy for the players to form their own association as long as it is on the governing body’s terms and with their approver partner.
But for all the good work it does through its welfare and career transition programmes, plus managing the sport’s benevolent fund, RLC is not a trade union and is not equipped to represent the players in employer disputes.
It begs the question as well, that if the GMB’s accusation – which was, notably, not responded to in the joint-statement – about an RLC officer telling players that wage disputes are “not a union issue” (Hey, guess what? They absolutely are) is true, then what other potential disputes with employers were players told were not matters to discuss with the union?
And if players are being told that matters that, in any other walk of life, a union would deal with can be sorted through another body which is supposedly looking out for their interests, then why would they join the RLPA in the first place?
It also underlines the strange dichotomy that rugby league, a sport founded to allow working men to be compensated for time taken off work to play sport on Saturday afternoons in England’s industrial North, has failed to sustain an independent players’ association in this country when football, cricket and even rugby union – the latter of which has only allowed professionalism for 30 years and could hardly be accused of being a hotbed of left-wing radicalism – all manage to.
The assumption is it has been due to player apathy more than anything else, although that is difficult to square with what is an apparent long-held desire among the professional playing base for collective representation.
It therefore seems as if it is down to them to organise themselves, either in conjunction with a union like the GMB or starting from scratch, and to push for funding for the association being ringfenced from the next broadcast deal in the same way it is for Australia’s RLPA, which was founded in 1979 and is today a powerful voice for those plying their trade in the NRL and NRLW.
Crucially, that last point would ensure true independence from any of the sport’s other bodies.
Aftet all, if the RFL is sincere in its desire for the players to have independent representation then the governing body wouldn’t have any problem with funding going directly to their association rather than through them, would they?
At a time where potential upheaval is on the cards through the ongoing club-led review, NRL involvement in the Northern Hemisphere and ongoing issues over wage disputes like the ones at Salford, the players urgently need a voice to make themselves heard – and one free from the influence of those running the sport.
