The recent controversy surrounding executive pay in English rugby has sparked a full-blown crisis within the Rugby Football Union (RFU). The issue came to a head when it was revealed that RFU Chief Executive Bill Sweeney was paid £1.1 million for the year ending June 2024, which included a one-off £358,000 bonus as part of a long-term incentive plan (LTIP). Additionally, five other executive directors shared nearly £1 million in bonuses. This came at a time when the RFU announced record losses of £42 million and made 42 redundancies. These figures have ignited outrage across the rugby community, with many calling for the resignation of both Sweeney and RFU Chairman Tom Ilube.
The controversy over executive pay is particularly contentious because Sweeney’s £1.1 million salary makes him the highest-paid chief executive among British sports governing bodies, excluding payouts. This has caused significant discontent, especially when set against the backdrop of the RFU’s financial losses and redundancies. The union had warned of losses due to the World Cup year, but the pay hikes were a surprise to many, including members of the RFU council. Some have defended Sweeney, noting that he was merely fulfilling the terms of the LTIP, which was agreed upon in advance. However, the existence of the scheme itself has provoked widespread anger, particularly given that it was introduced after the executives took a pay cut during the pandemic. Many feel that this justification is insufficient, especially when players and Championship clubs also made sacrifices during the same period. Furthermore, the metrics used to assess the LTIP, including the combined performance of both the men’s and women’s teams, have also been questioned.
The pay scandal has triggered a significant rebellion within the RFU, with the 62-member RFU council having the power to call an emergency meeting and vote on a motion of no confidence in the board. This rebellion gained momentum when the RFU president, Rob Udwin, learned that a vote of no confidence was imminent. In an attempt to address the growing unrest, Udwin called an emergency meeting to discuss the LTIP and invited former chairman Andy Cosslett to provide context for the scheme. However, even before the meeting took place, the council had requested an emergency meeting for January 10, where a vote of no confidence could be held to review the RFU’s governance. The meeting that followed, described as a “night of the long knives,” lasted over four hours and culminated in the decision to commission an independent review of the pay bonuses. The RFU also acknowledged the reputational damage caused by the scandal. As the situation escalated, Udwin summoned Ilube and Sweeney for urgent talks, and it became clear that Ilube’s position was untenable. Under mounting pressure, Ilube resigned, citing the distraction caused by recent events.
While Ilube’s resignation has quelled some of the immediate unrest, the fate of Sweeney remains uncertain. The rebellion has focused on his leadership, with critics pointing to a series of crises under his tenure. During his time as chief executive, several high-profile clubs, including Worcester, London Irish, Wasps, and Jersey, went into financial ruin. Additionally, the sacking of Eddie Jones and the handling of the lowering of the tackle height in the amateur game have added to the dissatisfaction. More recently, under coach Steve Borthwick, England has slipped to seventh in the world rankings, further undermining Sweeney’s position. Despite this, it is ultimately the board that will decide Sweeney’s future, and his fate may depend on who replaces Ilube as chairman.
One potential candidate is Bill Beaumont, who served as RFU chairman from 2012 to 2016 and stepped down as World Rugby chairman in November. Beaumont is well respected within the rugby community and is seen as a steady hand capable of managing the crisis. However, his age and status as a former figurehead have led some rebels to call for a complete overhaul of the RFU leadership. As a result, the possibility of a special general meeting (SGM) remains on the table, where further changes could be demanded.
The ongoing turmoil within the RFU reflects a broader dissatisfaction with the current leadership and a desire for change. While some hope that a change in leadership will help restore stability to the organization, others believe that the crisis is symptomatic of deeper issues within the governance of English rugby. The coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether the RFU can weather the storm or if further upheaval is inevitable.
