Sports

The Championship Making Motorsport Accessible to Women: What is the W Series?

The Promise of Scotland

PETER GEDDES | CONTENT WRITER

CYANN FIELDING | LIFESTYLE EDITOR

The W Series is an all-female racing championship in single-seater cars. With the first season in 2019, the championship consists of twenty drivers contesting in six races. Its aim is to provide equal opportunities for women and eliminate the financial barriers that have historically prevented women from progressing to the upper echelons in motor sport. Each driver in the W Series is selected purely on their ability and every car within the championship is mechanically identical, meaning that all races and the Series will be won by the most talented rather than the wealthiest, unlike other motorsport championship such as Formula One. The W Series believes that the more it shows that women can compete at the top level and become successful within the sport, the more girls will be inspired to go into karting, ultimately bringing more participants into the sport in the future. In 2021, the W Series made a further step forward by racing alongside Formula One at eight of Grand Prix weekends. Looking back through history, female role models in motor sport have been rare. With it being more than 45 years since a female driver last started a championship Formula One Grand Prix, the W Series offers the opportunity for women to get into motor sport in a more accessible way. The Series is also working to achieve the UN's gender equality 2030 deadline to ensure female empowerment within the sport. Unlike Formula One, the W Series race a car that is the same for every single driver: the Tatuus F3 T-318. Like other motor sport championships, the series features women from around the globe with the title then awarded to the competitor with the highest number of points at the end of the series, from all qualifying round runs but excluding any points penalty points incurred. If more than one driver finishes the season with the same number of points, the highest place in the series shall be awarded to the driver with the highest number of race wins. However, if the number of race wins is also the same, the championship title is awarded according to the number of second place finishes, third place finishes, and so on. Points are awarded to the top ten positions in each race with first place securing twenty-five points, second place - eighteen points and third place - fifteen points. Again, like other motor sporting championships, the W Series travels the world, but with fewer races than the likes of Formula One, Formula Two, and Formula Three. The sport is also becoming successfully broadcast and is now available on Channel 4 in the UK. The show is presented by longtime F1 journalist Lee McKenzie, who shares his duties with Anna Woolhousem, and he was also joined by Naomi Schiff as a studio analyst in 2019. The Series is also live streamed on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter in countries without the Series’ television rights. Despite the championship coming across as progressive for women within motorsport, the W Series has also faced its fair share of criticism, with opponents claiming that the category segregates female drivers rather than promoting their inclusion in other championships. However, the Series today has proved to be a great success, helping to inspire thousands of young girls into motor sport - whether that be driving, engineering, or the media side of the sport. And having been dominated by Briton Jamie Chadwick since 2019, the sport offers a great example to the female British public that motor sport is not male-exclusive. Instead, the W Series illuminates opportunities for women fairly, setting an example for all other motorsport championships. After a somewhat frustrating European Championship, there was a concern among some Scotland fans and commentators that a draw against England and two disappointing losses against the Czech Republic and Croatia might be as good as it gets for this Scotland team. It was such a satisfying achievement to get to the tournament in the first place that the experience of actually playing in it understandably left some cold by contrast. This posttournament hangover has continued into the World Cup qualifying campaign with a loss to Denmark and an ugly win against Moldova seemingly risking a return to the disappointments of old. However, the collective strength the squad has shown to go on and beat Austria and Israel - in admittedly fraught fashion - has been heartening and displays a determination to build on the success of the Euros qualification. In light of those recent results, I want to take a look at the current squad and what Steve Clarke has been able to achieve.

The win against Israel is perhaps the most illustrative; it is beyond question that in years gone by, Scotland would have lost that game. 2-0 down at half time, against a team you’re expected to beat, with a penalty missed just before the break? That’s not a psychological barrier that any Scotland team has been able to overcome in decades. Yet they did it, and they deserved it. The entire second half the Scots controlled possession and crafted some fine goals; Billy Gilmour was central and showed just how valuable a player of his quality can be the sort of player Scotland haven’t had. His intelligence on and off the ball were exemplary, but what was most impressive was how he didn’t simply maintain possession but advanced it: he pushed the team higher and became more and more involved in the attack. The most impressive thing about Steve Clarke’s system is that it is both adaptable and geared towards the strengths of its key players. Both Robertson and Tierney are given the freedom to attack, and both have the intelligence to cover the other. McTominay, when played as a right sided centre back, can carry the ball forward and his tendency to not show for the ball is mitigated by his role at the start of build-up on the right. Clarke very rarely deploys him as a 6. The emphasis on the wing backs on either side stretches the play and delivers quality crosses for the improving Lyndon Dykes. If that fails, McGinn, Gilmour, and McGregor are all threats from range and can slip balls through for Ryan Christie or Che Adams. The 3-5-2/3-4-1-2 can either sit high or drop deep in to a back five. Set pieces need work and some players have the tendency to take unnecessary risks… Hendry vs Czechia, anyone? I would stress that the team doesn’t pose the counter attacking threat that it should with Dykes up front; though his hold-up play has improved, he is still technically limited and not particularly quick. I’d prefer to see a change in personnel when Scotland are likely to concede possession, perhaps Adams and Christie together. However, the team is overall defensively sound, and furthermore, the system can, and does, work against a variety of opposition. This brings us to the most difficult question of all: what can this team achieve? Qualification for the World Cup, as of writing, is well within their grasp. A win against Moldova and favourable draw in the play-offs could see Scotland through to a consecutive tournament appearance which, in itself, would be a good achievement. However, the Tartan Army will not accept simply qualifying for too much longer. There was a distinct feeling that Scotland could, and perhaps, should have done better at the Euros. It is fair to say that they'll be expected to win a game and put up a fight against nearly anyone given the quality within midfield and defence: that would put some building blocks down for next time round. Scotland aren't unrealistic to expect that they can get to the knockout stage of the biggest tournaments given the achievements of Wales, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, and a whole host of others who have smaller or equivalent populations and domestic leagues. They can aim high, but patience is key for what is a developing team.

Source: SNS Group

Club Case Studies: 2) Bologna

OLI GENT | SPORTS EDITOR

Abrief historical insight

Initially founded in 1909 by Austrian Emilio Arnstein, Bologna have grown to become one of the most recognisable clubs in Italy. In the 1920’s and 1930’s, they were incredibly successful, winning the Northern Italian League and National Italian League titles for the first time in the 1924-25 season, and then again four years later, a year before the Serie A was formed. Before the end of the Second World War, Bologna would go on to win the ‘Scudetto’ another four times, in 1936, 1937, 1939, and 1941, confirming their winning legacy at the peak of the Italian game. However, I Rossoblu would struggle in the post-war years, only winning the Serie A title once in 1964, and the Coppa Italia twice in 1970 and 1974. The club was knocked out of the European Cup in the qualifying round by Belgian giants Anderlecht in 1965. I Veltri started to fall off a very steep cliff, with backto-back relegations into the Serie C in 1983 to culminate a horrendous 20-year span for the club, regardless of the two domestic cups. The 1990’s were spent yo-yoing between the top, second, and third flights. Bologna would yet again suffer two consecutive relegations in 1993, but returned to the top division in 1996, which proved to be a short-term upheaval that Bologna needed, and two years later, they played in the UEFA Cup, having won the Intertoto Cup in 1998, beating Ruch Chorzow 3-0. The club remained in the Serie A until 2005, when they lost out to Parma in the play-offs, losing 2-0 at home despite winning the first leg away, with Alberto Gilardino scoring the fatal goal that sent I Rossoblu down. Strong favourites to bounce straight back, Bologna made a quick rebound much more difficult than it should have been for themselves. Chopping and changing between managers certainly didn’t help, with the experienced Renzo Ulivieri sacked, replaced by Andrea Mandorlini, and then reinstated in March of the following year. However, relations were thin between the chairman Alfredo Cazzola and Ulivieri, leading to the head coach’s second dismissal in as many seasons, before he was eventually replaced permanently with Daniele Arrigoni, who finally led the club to promotion in the 2007-08 season. On their return to the promised land, a tricky takeover in preseason was preface for a tricky campaign. An incredibly promising start ensued; including an exquisite smashand-grab 2-1 away win at the hands of AC Milan on the opening day, with Marco di Vaio and Francesco Valiani scoring the all-important goals.

However, the club continued to tinker with their management, sacking Arrigoni in November, and then sacking his replacement Sinisa Mihajlovic in April. Giuseppe Papadopulo was able to lead the Greyhounds to survival on the season, and Franco Colomba was assigned to the hotseat for the coming season, maintaining Bologna’s top-flight status despite arduous financial restraints.

The 2010’s saw further boardroom instability for the club, with the Bologna 2010 consortium taking over from Sergio Porcedda, who had only bought the club from the Menarini family months before. Granted, Porcedda had risked driving I Rossoblu toward bankruptcy, but boardroom insecurity was exactly what the club did not need as they strove to preserve their seat at the top table. Yet after only 28 days at the head of the table, chairman Massimo Zanetti resigned, due to ideological differences of how to run the business element of the club. Further uncertainty was to arise. Marco Pavignani lasted only 76 days in the job, and Albano Guaraldi stepped in as chairman. Guaraldi was strongly opposed by the Bologna faithful. Relegated back to the second tier in 2014, financial difficulties came to the fore yet again, and star man Alessandro Diamanti, known to many in England for his time at West Ham and his winning penalty against the Three Lions at Euro 2012, was sold to Guangzhou Evergrande. Taking advantage of the club’s off-field troubles, interest began to brew in yet another takeover. North American businessmen Joe Tacopina and Joey Saputo, who owned Montreal Impact, came in with an irrefutable offer in 2014 to take over Bologna as a new ‘BFC 1909 Lux Spv’ consortium, beating another offer from former chairman Massimo Zanetti. Since their return to the Serie A in 2015, the side have managed to maintain mid-table mediocrity, or as some would say, stability, at long last. How’re they doing this season? It’s been a mixed start to the campaign for Sinisa Mihajlovic’s men. At the time of writing, they sit 13th in the Serie A, with an impressive 3-0 win at the hands of Lazio their only victory in their last five games. They ran AC Milan close despite losing captain Roberto Soriano and centre-back Adama Soumaoro to red cards, and they were able to cling onto a goalless draw away at Atalanta. But against sides they really should be beating, I Rossoblu have struggled. Just squeezing past inferior opposition such as Salernitana and Hellas Verona by onegoal margins at home does not represent signs of success, and batterings away at Inter Milan and Napoli show that there is much to do to close the gap on the league-leading teams. Mihajlovic has set his side out in a 3-4-2-1 shape this term, dabbling in a 4-2-3-1 and a 4-33 early, but the 6-1 drubbing at the San Siro and a 4-2 humbling at the hands of Empoli forced the Serbian’s hand into a back trio, as well as injury to centre-half Kevin Bonifazi. The 3-0 victory over a lacklustre Lazio with the back three system would inspire I Veltri to persist with the shape, as veteran midfielder Gary Medel dropped into the middle of the trident, despite being only 5’7”. He is usually joined by Belgian 21-year-old Arthur Theate and Frenchman Soumaoro either side of him, and whilst reliable for the most part, it is clearly a makeshift defensive unit. Lukasz Skorupski continues to keep goal behind them, and Lorenzo de Silvestri and Aaron Hickey offer quality in the wide areas as wing-backs. In the engine room, talented duo Mattias Svanberg and Nicolas Dominguez occupy the ‘double pivot’, although neither player really has the profile to sit in as a number six, instead wanting to drive forwards and be more allaction as a number eight. The Swede Svanberg is the more creative of the two: with an incisive eye for a pass and a physique that allows him to drive through midfield and progress play with a dribble. His Argentinian team-mate does the more terrier-like defensive work: tough-tackling, energetic, as well as having the determination and technical ability to pick out a pass or carry the ball himself. Ahead of them, captain Roberto Soriano picks up the right half-space, being a more creative outlet than Musa Barrow off the left, with the Gambian known for trademark bursts in behind or inside onto his favoured right foot, looking for a goalscoring opportunity. And in the centre, the talismanic figure of Marko Arnautovic, acting as the complete forward to play off, and Mihajlovic often relies on a piece of individual brilliance from the Austrian when it comes to game-changing moments. Where do they need to improve? Whilst there is a beauty in having a wonderful complexion of youth and experience, the main downside to that philosophy is that the old often need replacing regularly. In Bologna’s case, the vast majority of their older players are at the twilights of their careers, and many will have run their contracts out come the end of the campaign. While there are some questionable loan deals that have led to supposedly important players leaving the club temporarily, there is still an improvement to be made if Bologna are to get back to challenging in the top half of the table again, just like they were in the mid 20th century. Skorupski is a competent goalkeeping option, but he has a mistake in him. He has performed admirably for I Rossonblu this term, but he could do with some competition, and a ‘keeper should be on the radar. Bologna are well-stocked for the moment at rightback, with a nice blend of experience and talent coming from Lorenzo de Silvestri and Ibrahima Mbaye, but it is at centreback where the real question marks lie. Stefano Denswil was curiously loaned to Trazbonspor despite being the club’s best central defender, and since the injury to Bonifazi, Mihajlovic has had to experiment with Medel in the middle of a makeshift back three. Arthur Theate is a decent option and can improve, whilst Adama Soumaoro is solid, but shouldn’t be relied upon as a mainstay. 20-year-old Luis Binks is promising English talent, but could do with a loan move to enhance his development at the top level. At left-back, 19-year-old Scotsman Aaron Hickey has managed to displace Mitchell Dijks, with the youngster offering guile and determination down the left flank. The Dutchman Dijks is the more physical, standing at 6’4”. He offers more defensive solidity and experience than Hickey might. In all, two excellent, complementing options to have on the left of defence. In midfield, it remains to be seen whether Bologna will keep the 3-4-2-1 shape or revert to a midfield trio with a conventional back four. Were Mihajlovic to go back to a more traditional 4-3-3, his central defensive midfielder should be Dutchman Jerdy Schouten. A good size, with an eye for a pass and a willingness to break up play, the 24-year-old will only get better with regular playtime. Flanking him, it should very well be that Svanberg and Dominguez partnership, where the Swede will more of an advanced playmaker, with the Argentine the box-to-box midfielder, supporting both defensive and offensive phases. Roberto Soriano would be an excellent alternative to Dominguez, or even to Svanberg, should there be a need for more defensive solidity and discipline against a stronger opponent. The depth in the engine room is not as strong as it could be: Medel is still going strong at 34, whilst Kingsley Michael is decent but replaceable. There is work to be done in the middle of the park. In the front three, Bologna could well score some goals were Mihajlovic to play a system that allowed for him to fit Arnautovic, Barrow and Riccardo Orsolini all in the same side. But for the moment, the talismanic number seven sits on the bench, with Soriano favoured, despite being played out of position. There is able cover across the front line: Andreas Skov Olsen is a tricky wide man capable of playing off both sides, while Emanuel Vignato is also promising but could be improved upon should the opportunity arise. Federico Santander is the go-to target man off the bench, allowing for a different profile of striker to impact games late on, and further attacking depth could be provided were Arnautovic be shifted leftwards to compete with Barrow, allowing for a more prolific number nine to come in and fire Bologna up the table.

THE FOUNDER November 2021

SPORTS 27 Fred Is Not as Bad as You Think He Is

TOM GIBBS | CONTENT WRITER

There are few players who receive as much hate from their own fanbase as the Manchester United midfielder, Fred. One of the issues may be the large price tag attached to his arrival: United paid £53.1m to Shakhtar Donetsk in 2018 to secure his signature, according to Transfermarkt. Yet, the same database estimates his current value to only be around the £20m mark. Even if overrated, the hate that Fred receives seems excessive. This begs the question, price tag aside, is Fred really that bad? Let’s start by saying that the Brazilian is not perfect. There are legitimate issues with his game. Furthermore, this article isn’t a pitch for Fred to start every game, nor a defence that he is necessarily Manchester United quality. Those things are far too subjective and lie outside the scope of this analysis. The goal of the piece is merely to assess if the hate is justified, to determine if Fred is as ‘useless’ as many on Twitter seem to think he is. Fred’s attacking numbers are, without a doubt, underwhelming, registering only one goal and no assists in the 2020/21 league season - a tally bettered even by Victor Lindelöf who registered one of each. However, the former Shakhtar man plays in a deeper role as part of a double pivot for Manchester United, so instead, let’s focus on his defensive numbers. Here, the story starts to change. According to FBref, in the last calendar year, the Brazilian was in the 92nd percentile for pressures per 90 in Europe’s top five leagues - compared with positional peers. This rises to the 94th percentile when you consider successful pressures per 90. That puts him in an elite bracket, but this isn’t the only area he excels in. Using the same comparison, Fred ranks in the 87th percentile for tackles per 90 and the 97th percentile for blocks per 90. Perhaps most impressive is that Fred is in the 99th percentile for passes blocked per 90. This is a stark subversion of the narrative that Fred has no discernible strengths. Interestingly, it is pressing that lets Kanté down in these averages. Of course, some of this will be systematic difference in the teams they play in, but it is interesting to observe nonetheless. This isn’t to say that Fred is a better player than N’Golo Kanté - of course not. But it does highlight the job that Fred does relative to other stylistically similar players in his position.

Source: FBref: An overview of Fred’s stats compared to positional peers in Men's Big 5 Leagues and European Competition over the last 365 days.

Compare this to the pinnacle for highoctane central midfielders - N’Golo Kanté. Fred is in a higher percentile for progressive passes, blocks, and pressures. Taking into account the four main defensive stats - pressures, tackles, interceptions and blocks - Fred averages in the 88th percentile for these metrics, the same as the Frenchman.

Source: FBref: An overview of Kanté ’s stats compared to positional peers in Men's Big 5 Leagues and European Competition over the last year.

Continuing the comparison, we can start to uncover the issue - Fred is being played out of position. He is not a deeplying midfielder, he is a defensive eight. His stats for defensive third tackles per 90 put him only in the 77th percentile. Kanté is in the 99th percentile for this. Yet if we compare tackles and pressures in the middle third of the pitch, Fred ranks in the 87th and 95th percentile, respectively, with Kanté only in the 83rd and 45th percentiles, respectively. So, what does this mean? Fred is more comfortable and effective in the middle third of the pitch, than when defending deeper into his team’s half. Simply put, Fred is better occupying positions that are more common for natural eights to find themselves in. The main issue with Fred defensively is that he gets bypassed far too frequently. The Manchester United man is quite dismally in the 14th percentile for being dribbled past. As a number six this is problematic as it leaves the backline exposed. As a high-pressing eight, it’s not great, but it’s less of an issue as there is more cover behind you. Even Fred’s passing, which has been heavily criticised, isn’t awful for a defensive eight. He is in the 84th percentile for progressive passes - Jorginho is only in the 80th. His passing looks so problematic because he is only in the 60th percentile for short pass completion percentage. Again, this is a huge problem if you are playing as a six, but not as bad if you are playing as an eight with cover. For reference, Jorginho’s short pass completion puts him in the 93rd percentile. Looking into the data, it becomes clear that Fred is good at quite a lot of things. This isn’t an argument for Fred being world class, worth the money Manchester United paid for him, or an argument against the club’s pursuit of a new number six. It is simply a rejection of the common online narrative that Fred isn’t good at anything or useful in any way. Fred may not be the silky footballer that many would like to see in the Manchester United midfield, indeed he is infuriating at times. However, to argue that Fred is a bad player, to celebrate his absence or to slander his selection, is to overlook the many positive attributes that Fred has. United’s number 17 is largely the victim of being played out of position. Furthermore, he may be a player that is better used as a tool in specific games than a mainstay in the centre of midfield. The truth is, it may not be pretty, perfect or jaw-dropping… but when it comes to players of his archetype, Fred’s game is effective.

The 2021 Ballon D’Or and The Problems with Individual Awards

BRETT VAN ZOELEN | CONTENT WRITER

Judging footballers is difficult. A variety of individual, statistical, and team factors come into it, and furthermore certain types of players fit better in particular systems and play better under different coaching environments and conditions. This is good for healthy debate and direct comparison, but individual awards are where these debates become more difficult. Naturally, the fans want more than a team of the year, and the football world is in constant debate. The Ballon D’or is popular because it stimulates fierce discussion between fans, such as, who is the greatest of all time? Who is the current best player in the world? Yet despite the hype, this prestigious award comes with a set of problems.

A dispute that comes to mind is the seemingly endless back and forth between Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo. The pair have dominated the award since Ronaldo’s maiden win in 2008, and his last coming in 2017. While these two legendary players are widely regarded as the greatest players of all time, as their careers begin to decline it is now clear that the criteria in which the Ballon D’Or judgement panel adjudge players is neither clear nor consistent. There are many ways to judge players. Firstly, you have the eye test. Technically speaking, this method should be able to pinpoint the most skilful individual, which is what the award claims to be about. However, it has its drawbacks. Because of football’s very different roles and systems, it would be unfair to compare players that play in different positions, but due to the nature of this award, it must be done. As a result of this, many believe that players who win the most major trophies that year should be the frontrunners to win the award. It is easy to see the logic in this argument: if a team wins the treble and then one of their players goes on to win a major international tournament with their country, it could be argued that they themselves were the consistent factor in their continued success. A good example of something like this being rewarded was Real Madrid’s Luka Modric winning the award in 2018. However, the problem here is that you can have players who, on paper, deserve to be in the conversation purely based on the competitions they have won, but when it comes to the eye test and their role within the team, they don’t stack up to the same level. A recent example of this is Chelsea and Italy midfielder Jorginho. Whilst he enjoyed an important role in both sides’ successes this last calendar year, there are other factors that allowed his teams to flourish. Along with many of his Chelsea colleagues, his game has been revitalised by the arrival of Thomas Tuchel at Stamford Bridge. This begs the question, are his recent stellar performances down to him, or are they a reaction to the quality coaching teams he works with all year-round? Essentially, you cannot solely judge players on team achievements: if that were the only criteria, then the award would go to a Champions League winner every single year. This argument was popular around the time Liverpool’s Virgil Van Dijk made it into the top three in 2019. Now that the list has been supposedly leaked for 2021, this point has yet again become relevant. As the leaked reports claim, Lionel Messi will win his record seventh Ballon D’or. Usually this would be warranted based on a variety of angles such as the eye test, statistics, and team achievements. However, this time around it’s a little different. Many fans believe Bayern Munich striker Robert Lewandowski to be the rightful claimant to this year’s award because, statistically speaking, the Pole has remained consistently at the very top since the beginning of the 2019/20 season. Watching Messi or even Ronaldo play is usually enough to put your vote behind them, and in the past, the numbers they have put up have been completely unrivalled. It appears though, that now somebody has surpassed their numbers as their careers begin to regress, that the goalposts have been moved. If the leaked list is true, the methods of France Football need to be questioned as it seems that there are no consistent criteria used. In recent years, fans’ interest has wilted in these awards, and if nothing changes, then it runs the risk of losing its prestige, disappearing into the oversaturated market of individual awards in sport. FIFA Ballon d'Or Gala 2015 - Mirror Online

Source: Getty Images

How Broadcasting Rights Are Killing Rugby in England

OLLY WALLACE | CONTENT WRITER

It's no secret that the landscape of rugby in England is under immense threat. With Premiership clubs having recently suffered massive financial losses from the Covid-19 fallout, it has left the domestic game in an inherently precarious position. Alongside the consequences of the pandemic, clubs have still had to take the weight of expected expenditure, meanwhile a continued lack of mainstream viewership in comparison to other major sports has exponentially hampered the growth of rugby across the country.

Pre-Covid, it was reported that the 12 clubs in England's top tier had collectively lost £89 million in the previous two years: a figure caused by the simple fact that, in its current state, rugby is not profitable or sustainable. The cost of player salaries, stadium ownership, and simple matchday resources greatly outweigh the amount of money coming into each club. Naturally then, when the pandemic started and halted the 2019/20 season, the situation began to worsen. Income for Premiership clubs stopped altogether, with the cancellation of games and subsequent empty stadiums causing ticket sales to cease. The strain this put clubs under was enormous and something which they are yet to recover from. To stay afloat during this period, the majority of clubs enforced a 75% pay cut across all players and staff for the simple reason that they couldn't afford to pay them while no money was being made. Now that restrictions have lifted and stadiums can fill up once again, it is vitally important to maximise the number of fans regularly watching and attending fixtures. The only feasible way to maintain the survival of rugby union in England is to expand its viewership and therefore broadcasting rights are fundamental. Unlike football, the scale of funding in rugby is comparatively minute. TV deals are valued at a fraction of the cost of competitions like the Premier League, but for this exact reason it is paramount to utilise what money is being generated to help expand the game. Where issues arise is the ongoing sale of broadcasting rights to a huge range of television providers at one time, all of which require a subscription. With different leagues and competitions being shown 'exclusively' on BT Sport, Sky Sports, Amazon Prime, and Premier Sports amongst others, it is simply not possible to get all your rugby in one place. Where this leaves the average fan is in a financial predicament. To watch the Gallagher Premiership (BT), European Champions Cup (BT), United Rugby Championship (Premier), Autumn Internationals (Amazon), Summer Series (Sky), World Cup and Six Nations (BBC/ ITV), a fan must fork out almost £100 per month as well as have access to terrestrial television. This categorically cannot go on. In doing this, the fanbase of English rugby are becoming further and further removed from the game, with excessive subscription costs alienating viewers who simply and understandably cannot afford to ship such a huge sum of money on services which they only want a tiny part of. This means that fans must pick which competition to watch and subsequently miss out on being able to follow their club universally. One good thing which came out of the Covid-19 pandemic in rugby terms was that every Gallagher Premiership game was broadcast live on BT Sport at no extra cost to the paying customer. Viewing figures skyrocketed and the venture saw overwhelmingly positive feedback as fans were able to watch all Premiership games at will and support their club every single weekend. Similarly, another positive sign has been the extension of the free-to-air TV deal between the Six Nations and the BBC and ITV until at least 2025, ultimately meaning that Europe's flagship international tournament will remain in the public domain for four more years and hopefully beyond. Initiatives like these are essential in maintaining the sport, as viewer retention is kept at a maximum and fans are not deterred by being segregated into groups of those who can and can't afford to watch everything. Subscription services in the current era are unfortunately inevitable, with platforms like Amazon recently staking its own claim in the world of sports broadcasting and others sure to follow suit soon. However, the issue lies elsewhere. Paying for sport is acceptable to an extent, but with the increasing number of platforms in possession of exclusive rights, it's becoming impossible for fans to keep up as there are simply too many to realistically afford. If Rugby Union continues down this path of selling rights to the highest bidder and dividing leagues and competitions between numerous broadcasters, we will end up with an extremely certain future, one which we really don't want. Viewership will fall, fans will become disenfranchised, and clubs will collapse. The growth of the game is already in the process of being damaged, so why is virtually nobody talking about it? The authorities in every union desperately need to step in and regulate broadcasting rights. Without any intervention, it is only a matter of time before we see the fanbase of the English game becoming separated altogether from their clubs as the financial burden of their various subscriptions will outweigh their desire to follow the sport.

THE FOUNDER November 2021