Welsh Rugby’s difficult options: who exactly are the key stakeholders?

This is Blog no 110

The Welsh Rugby Union has been in trouble, on and off the field for years. Hardly surprising, therefore that a consultation emerges on radical plans to change the national sport.

But they are doing it in a rather curious way. A formal consultation with key stakeholders and a separate engagement exercise for everyone else.

First there is a comprehensive 90-page consultation document, called The Future Of Elite Rugby In Wales. It bemoans the evident failures to emulate the glories of the past and proposes the drastic solution of halving the number of professional clubs from four to two.

This is called ‘a proposed optimal system’. Three other models are described in the paper, retaining three or four of the existing clubs - and the WRU stresses that it has not definitively made up its mind. It invites key stakeholders to provide input but is clearly very committed to the two-club model. 

Unusually, this is a consultation paper without any questions!

It sees its role mostly as providing the right baseline of information, and states:-

       “Throughout the consultation, the WRU will formally consult with key stakeholders directly impacted by  

        any potential change to the current structure. This includes the four professional men’s clubs, the

        Professional Rugby Board, the Welsh Rugby Players Association, players (both senior men’s and

        women’s) and the Joint Supporters Group associated with the four professional clubs, the WRU Council,

        the Women's Rugby Committee, as well as WRU member clubs and representatives of the United Rugby

        Championship.”

In most cases, I understand that direct face-to-face dialogues are taking place, and the Welsh media periodically reports on comments made by the parties following such meetings. 

For a predominantly ‘stakeholder’ consultation, this seems fine. Not very transparent. But acceptable.

It then adds:

       “The WRU Board is mindful of its public responsibilities as regulator of the game in Wales and wants to

         ensure that everyone impacted by these changes has the opportunity to make their views heard so the

        WRU Board can take them into account in making its decision …”

This explains why there is a parallel exercise taking the form of a public engagement survey, which seems open to everyone and “invites views on a range of possible models for professional rugby in Wales.”

Indeed, it could not be more specific, and adds,

       “This engagement survey and the consultation in general, is the opportunity for anyone with an interest in    

         Welsh rugby, to express their view on the proposals we have shared.”

Instructions to those interested are also very clear:

       * Visit the One Wales mini site
       • Read the consultation proposal documentand look at the four models as well as the ‘Proposed    

         Optimal system’

       • Complete the engagement survey before 26 September 2025

There are several problems with this approach

1.  Having said that it wants views on ‘the proposals we have shared’, the questionnaire asks no such question. It asks for views on the key ‘drivers’ of the game, whether we agree that the Welsh national team is not performing (duh??)., and ditto for the regional teams. It asks whether we agree with making changes, where investment should go (a very good question!) and then a last catch-all, anything-else-to-add type question. That’s it. Nothing about the four options and the massive controversy that exercises half of Wales. It reminds me of the famous 2015 High Court case about a ‘missing question’ (Derbyshire Council v Sheffield Combined Authority). The Judge explained it as follows

        “As the questionnaire was the major vehicle for public response, it ought to cover the major proposals of  

        public controversy in the scheme. Put another way, the public were not in substance consulted about a

        major proposal of the scheme.”

        No doubt, WRU’s lawyers may argue that that this was intended as a separate exercise and not part of

        the consultation. But that leads to problem 2.

   2. Most people will believe that the survey IS part of the consultation. Experienced consultees would  

       expect to find survey questions built-in to a consultation document. Finding no such questions but seeing

       that a survey was also being run simultaneously with the same closing date as the consultation – and with

       the words quoted above, it would be a natural assumption that the survey was, in fact, the data gathering

       element of this consultation. That being the case, it is hard to invite ‘key stakeholders’ to offer their views

       on the four proposals, but not the general public.! And that causes Problem 3.

   3. It is almost impossible to define ‘key stakeholders’. If it was easy, many more organisations would be

       tempted to use run quite separate consultation exercises. The reason they do not is that it is seldom easy  

       to identify stakeholders objectively, and also to label some as ‘key’ and not others. In the case of Welsh  

       rugby, it is especially challenging as whole communities have defined themselves by their

       association with our national sport for generations. Local authorities, voluntary bodies, churches,

       choirs and a whole host of bodies representing the spirit of towns and villages from the Monmouthshire  

       mining valleys to the farming folk of north and west Wales all see themselves as deserving of a voice in

       what happens to Rugby. Not to mention the Welsh Assembly and Assembly Members, MPs and others

       from the nation’s great and the good ( e.g. authors, actors, opera singers and creators of popular comedy

       series!!!). To relegate their interests to being bystanders not entitled to be asked about the proposals  

       themselves is an insult.

I’m sure the WRU never intended to treat ordinary fans as second class citizens, and may feel that having a dialogue with formal supporters clubs is enough. But it is not, and maybe therefore, they should have listened to better advice in how to conduct a sensitive consultation.

The irony in all this is that the big change in the accountability of sport in the UK is occurring not in Rugby, but in Soccer. The Football Governance Act ( See my Blog 98) introduces statutory fan consultation – obliging Football League and Premier League clubs to consult their fans on a whole range of important aspects.  Much will change, for the natural consequence of having to consult tens of thousands of supporters in our large cities, will be to create a wider, more transparent dialogue with entire communities, and the Councillors that represent them.  It will mean that supporters of Swansea City, Cardiff, Wrexham and Newport may have a stronger voice on what happens to their football clubs than the four rugby teams of Ospreys, Scarlets, Cardiff or the Dragons! Who might have predicted that?