RFU ‘old farts’ council could be scrapped in radical governance shake-up

The RFU council – the decision-making body infamously dubbed ‘57 old farts’ by Will Carling – is likely to be scrapped in a radical governance shake-up

The Rugby Football Union council – the decision-making body famously dubbed “57 old farts” by the former England captain Will Carling – is likely to be scrapped as part of a radical governance shake-up in the wake of Bill Sweeney’s survival as chief executive.

In a move that would represent the biggest change to the structure of the organisation in recent history and would appear to strengthen Sweeney’s position, an independent review has recommended two options to overhaul the RFU’s governance – both of which would do away with the council that now has 63 members.

At last month’s Special General Meeting, Sweeney survived a vote of no confidence – facing down a rebellion that was sparked by the RFU pay scandal – while a second vote was passed to expedite the union’s governance review. The review has been 14 months in the making and was set up before details of Sweeney’s salary emerged, so it is not a reaction to the rebellion.

However, the proposals – published in a consultation document released by the RFU on Wednesday – have gone down badly with the Whole Game Union (WGU), the organisation leading calls for Sweeney’s removal, given the council provides oversight of the board on which the chief executive sits.

A WGU statement read: “The proposals put to the RFU’s membership on changes to the governance show exactly why 200 clubs called for rule changes at the SGM and will do so again at the AGM in June. While the role and composition of the council is sorely in need of reform, these proposals will reduce scrutiny of the board and executive, the two bodies that have brought the RFU to its knees.”

The calls for overhaul set out by the governance and representation review group are on the basis that the existing structure is “dysfunctional”, “effectively established back in the 19th century”, and “clearly unfit for the modern era”.

The two options presented include replacing the elected council with a smaller national advisory group or replacing those members with appointed experts who would be embedded within all the decision-making bodies.

The review group will report back to the council with a final report and set of recommendations after the consultation period that will run until the end of June.

“This review represents an opportunity for real change,” said Malcolm Wharton, chair of the review group. “We want to work with the game to identify a progressive, inclusive, agile and local approach to governance, where we can deliver greater transparency built on a culture of shared ownership so rugby can thrive across the country.”

As well as providing oversight of the board, the council is responsible for setting regulations for the game in England such as competition structures and laws. Historically, the council has been staunchly opposed to ending promotion and relegation to and from the Premiership but its final act could be to approve the franchised league that executives hope to introduce. The majority of council members are elected from geographic areas made up of a single county, or group of counties.

Ed Warner, the chair of GB wheelchair rugby, a former chair of UK Athletics and a member of the review group, said: “The headline-grabbing corollary is our suggestion that the RFU council be disbanded entirely, or alternatively be replaced by a smaller collection of selected [not elected] individuals who are available to be consulted as expert advisers when necessary.

“I’ve no doubt this will rankle with a number of existing council members, but am hopeful that the logic of this streamlined structure, empowering those within community rugby, will win the hearts and minds of the majority. None of this lets the RFU board and executive off the hook.

“In fact, it makes it near impossible for them to wriggle out of their responsibilities. Which is just as it should be. All, then, will rest on the effectiveness of the system established to identify appointees to the board, and on the willingness of clubs to exercise their influence, as enshrined in their voting rights, to ensure that the directors and the executives they employ are held firmly to account.”