IMG’s gradings were released today, and prompted the expected range of comments. Namely “The RFL rigged it against us!”; “my club is better than your club”; and the ever-present “what a load of s**t this is”.

Firstly, I applaud a good piece of innovative, forward thinking, the first in a long while from our governing body. We cannot deny that our sport is in trouble, and we cannot deal with this until we acknowledge it. League has had 130 years to get professionalism right, and union has had just 30, yet there is no doubt which code has done it better (hint: not league). 

A system of grading clubs based on all the off-field factors that make up a successful business, as professional sports teams need to be, is a good step in the right direction, and that 20 of the 33 teams for which we have data saw their scores increase is a sign that it’s working.

The frustrating thing is, it’s been really, really, really badlyexecuted.

Grading

Firstly, the things on which clubs are graded are a bit nonsensical. I’m not talking about social media following (an important part of attracting new fans to any club and any sport), or the desire to get clubs making money from non-sporting revenues (making money is always good). However, Barrow revealed in their rankings from last year that they were penalised for not having LED advertising hoardings or enough executive car parking spaces. London could add half a point to there score by relocating from the London Borough of Merton a few miles down the road to Croydon (or further away to Barnet or Havering) all while staying within their true catchment area. A lot of their massive 4 point gain this year threatens to be undone next year, as promotion then relegation brings two huge changes in TV audience (as a general point, Championship clubs will always be at a huge disadvantage on this measure compared to Super League clubs, which surely hampers efforts to improve the sustainability of the game below Super League?) The grading idea? Good. The grading criteria? Not quite so good.

Oversight

IMG is a private company looking to make profit. Fair enough, there are many areas where a private company provides aspects of a service better than a public one, and certainly I trust a company that does this for a living to get it right over the RFL! However, there is no appeal to a centralised body, only to the Sport Dispute Resolution Panel, which although independent and not-for-profit, is not an administrative body and does not have the weight of law behind it. The process does not have any actual court underlying it, and this is potentially a problem for oversight. There is also no “review” built into the system, which means potentially we could be stuck with this until it’s killed the sport stone dead.

Outcomes

Save the most important until last. The stated aim is to have a Super League made up entirely of Grade A clubs. A worthy goal, and in the long-term not a bad idea. But this system seeks to do it by eliminating everyone else from Super League, rather than by getting all clubs up to that level. For me, this system should be a way to give clubs feedback on what they are doing well, and where they need to improve. When London were promoted a year ago, this system should have told them “congratulations! Now, this is what you need to do to be a Super League-standard club”. Instead, it told them “well done I guess, and by the way you’re getting relegated”. As a result, very few new signings were made, as what club would spend massive amounts of money on an already doomed season, and what player signs for a club that is relegated before the promotion party has even finished? In addition, they closed their academy as it was an expenditure that contributed nothing – nothing – to their perceived worth as a rugby league club. As such, the game in the south easthas lost probably its greatest asset, and now is in even more trouble. 

This, for me, is the kicker. If the system (with slightly different criteria – maybe consider academy strength over advertising hoardings and catchment area) was designed to give feedback to help all clubs improve, alongside traditional promotion and relegation, it would be fantastic. Instead, it is just another attempt to introduce franchising, which of course worked so well the last time we tried it, didn’t it?

Written by Thomas Haynes (site contributor & Hull KR fan)