The furore over the handling of the delayed appointment of a new chief executive by the IRB board may, on the face of it, appear merely to be an irritating domestic difficulty. But upon closer analysis it is a symptom of a much wider and significantly more important global struggle going on within the board and the game at large for control and influence.
As its heart is the direction the sport is being taken under Bernard Lapasset, the chairman. Its roots are in longstanding and often bitter political rivalries and divisions largely between the northern and southern hemispheres where intrigue, alliances and deal-making have long been a fact of life.
Added to that are the ambitions of junior emerging nations to create a new order, underwritten by the riches available from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) now that sevens has been included in the Olympic Games from 2016.
It is a potentially lethal cocktail. There is a fear among traditionalists that sevens will become a dominant alternative to the 15-a-side game, which must remain sacrosanct. They point to the impact that limited-overs cricket has had on Test matches in various parts of the world.
The IRB will no doubt argue that, as a governing body, it is modernising and becoming more inclusive and representative of the way that the game is developing. But suspicion remains about Lapasset’s long-term motives, which to his critics manifested in the bitter row in Dublin over the “flawed” process to find a successor to Mike Miller, who left in January. They wonder whether Lapasset sees rugby as a stepping stone to the IOC.
Advertisement
On the other side of the coin, there are concerns that too much power in world rugby is wielded from Dublin. The headquarters of the IRB, the Six Nations, the Lions and ERC are based in the city.
Lapasset has overhauled the IRB executive committee, which has caused resentment among the old guard. There is a feeling that the Frenchman owes his allegiance to the southern-hemisphere countries and that he sympathises with their concerns that the stronger rugby economies in Europe will have an impact on them.
There is little doubt that Lapasset has questions to answer, not least whether there have been attempts to manipulate the appointment of the chief executive. The resignation of Peter Boyle, a member of the IRB’s executive committee, from the interview panel in protest at the selection process is a brave move. It cannot be right that decisions were taken, which, whether they fall into the category of cock-up or conspiracy, have led to accusations of lying and deceit, undermining the reputation and integrity of the world governing body.
An appointment was due by the end of last month, but has had to be put on hold because of Boyle’s devastating accusations and his resignation from the panel set to interview the four shortlisted candidates. Boyle was due to sit alongside Lapasset and Oregan Hoskins, the IRB vice-chairman from South Africa.
But in an e-mail to fellow board committee members, he wrote: “The process in my opinion is fundamentally flawed and the process was not open, fair and transparent. The reputation of the IRB stands to be damaged. You don’t have a reputation if you do not have integrity. And the integrity of the process is clearly flawed.”
Advertisement
His comments and reservations are understood to be supported by independent legal opinion, which the IRB sought from a Dublin QC.
Interviews due to take place on May 4 and 5 in London were cancelled and are rescheduled for this month. A new interview panel has been put in place, although Lapasset, as IRB chairman, remains at its head. It is believed that Bill Beaumont, the former England captain, and Michael Hawker, the former Australia centre, have been appointed.