Damian Hopley PRA - Exclusive Interview

Damian Hopley - PRA Chief Executive, talks about the Players' World Cup Agreement.

 

Damian Hopley, once an England International of some repute and now Chief Executive of the Professional Rugby Players' Association has been speaking to Barney Burnham this week about the Players' agreements for the World Cup. Here are the questions Barney put to Damian:-   1) Have there been players' agreements in earlier World Cups?  [Damian Hopley] Yes – definitely at ’95 and ’99, and I suspect that they also existed at all previous RWCs  

2) Were they’re the same problems reaching agreement that we're experiencing this time? If not, why not?

[Damian Hopley] There were issues with them in ’99, but the players were not as unified or indeed commercially collective as they are now. In previous World Cups, players were dictated to, and told to sign. Nowadays the players are far more aware of their influence, and refuse to be forced into signing a document about which they or their Associations have had no input whatsoever.   3) The key issues, as reported in the press, seem to be image rights and prize money. On image rights, is this a case of players trying to get more money for themselves, or simply ensuring that their images aren't used willy-nilly to line other people's pockets?  [Damian Hopley] The players are becoming increasingly protective of their image rights, as they are one of the most valuable assets a player has throughout his career. The last thing any player wants is for his image rights to be used without permission, and without compensation.   4) Prize money: if England win the tournament, the players stand to reap huge financial rewards - both immediately and for some time to come. They're already being well paid to take part. Why do they need prize money, as well? [Damian Hopley] If you look at both the Football and Cricket World Cups, both of these tournaments give prize money to the winning teams. In this year’s cricket World cup the host nation and the ICC jointly put up a sum of US$5 million. The Rugby World Cup is the third largest global sporting event behind the Olympics and the Football World Cup, and this year’s event will make profits in the region of £50m. To that end the players feel that it is justifiable that  - if they are going to hand over their image rights in perpetuity - some prize money is put up. RWC can’t have everything their own way. Indeed, the question still remains unanswered as to exactly what the IRB do with all that money. There has to be accountability in this multi-million pound business.   5) The International Rugby Players Association (IRPA) expressed its concerns about the agreement   as early as January of this year. Have the IRB and RWC made any approach to yourselves, with a view to resolving the matter? [Damian Hopley] We have still not had a meeting with them, as they refuse to deal with the very people who represent the stars of this year’s tournament. In an age where sport has become more enlightened - and employer/employee relationships are harmonious in most rugby countries around the world - the IRB have abdicated responsibility, and are guilty of not showing the leadership of an international governing body. Their attitude shows a healthy disregard for the players who will be making them vast sums of money.   6) The Australian squad have been given a deadline of July 31 to sign. Does that deadline apply to all countries? 

[Damian Hopley] Yes. 

7) If players remain unwilling to sign up to the agreement, what are the implications? Are they effectively disqualifying themselves from playing in the World Cup?

 [Damian Hopley] A lot will depend on the outcome of the Australian Players court hearing next week. However, in its current form, the England team are unable to sign the agreement, and we will wait further changes to the Agreement before recommending that the players sign up. I think that RWC would be foolhardy to disqualify players from playing if they did not sign. By forcing their hands, they could further strengthen the players' resolve.

8) Is there any realistic prospect of a players' boycott? If there isn't, surely RWC/IRB must feel they have you all over a barrel. [Damian Hopley] Of course there is a realistic prospect of a player boycott. It is not the way that anyone would like to go, but the ball is now firmly in the RWC/IRB court to ensure that the issues are addressed, and the players have full consultation through their Associations. The depressing thing about this is that, if common sense had prevailed, we could have met the IRB in January and now have a workable document. Instead, the build-up to what should be the best World Cup to date is being overshadowed by talks of player boycotts.   9) John O'Neill (Chief Executive of the Australian Rugby Union),  RWC 2003 Tournament Director, as well as ARU CEO. has dismissed IRPA as a "redundant organisation", and said that its concerns are "irrelevant and out of date". What is your reaction to that? [Damian Hopley] John O’ Neill dismissed IRPA as a redundant organisation, saying that the matter should be discussed between players and their National Unions. To be honest, I know that many of the leading Rugby Unions have issues with the IRB that also need to be addressed urgently to ensure the game fulfils its international potential. John O Neill is concerned that if the players continue to get their act together, then the face of rugby could change forever. If the ARU lose their court hearing next week, I will be interested to hear what he has to say for himself then!  

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

• Digg
• Delicious
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Stumbleupon

SPORTNETWORK SPECIALS

England Rugby Union Poll