Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

I fear fewer women will take up rugby post-pandemic

Celia Quansah And Megan Jones pose for a portrait after they train together at their home (Photo by Naomi Baker/Getty Images)

Last week, I virtually attended The Sunday Times Sportswomen of the Year Awards, an annual celebration of the best women across all sport. It was a good night for rugby union, with Barnes RFC player Zainab Alema winning the Vitality Grassroots Player of the Year award.

ADVERTISEMENT

Alema, who is affectionately known as ‘Bulldozer’ by her teammates (and called it in spite by opposition) is also a neo-natal nurse, mum of three children under four, and charity worker. I am yet to confirm if she actually sleeps at all, but I am thoroughly impressed by her. I left the virtual awards ceremony with a buzz; women’s sport has come so far in the past five years, and to have a women’s rugby player win an award was the cherry on top.

But as the week went on, I began to worry that the coronavirus pandemic has caused irreversible damage to this progress. Women’s sport has failed to resurrect with the same intensity that it had before the pandemic. For months, after men’s sport came back, there was little (if any) women’s sport to watch on television. For women’s rugby, the Allianz Premier 15s is back, but fans can’t watch it on television. Fans of the league are left watching via Facebook, the dodgy links I mentioned last week, or just clips of sensational tries shared on social media.

Video Spacer

FULL DOCUMENTARY: Going Pro – Saracens Women

Video Spacer

FULL DOCUMENTARY: Going Pro – Saracens Women

In my column last week, I said how brilliant it was to have international women’s rugby on BBC Two, and how accessible it has become to watch. I’ve argued for better coverage of both men’s and women’s rugby because in the long term, rugby desperately needs more fans and players. But recent research from Sport England has left me concerned that despite the progress women’s rugby has made, and despite the better coverage, the women’s game will fall behind.

Sport England found that the ‘exercise gap’ between men and women expanded during the height of the pandemic to ten percent; ten percent more men were exercising than women. In fact, there are 313,600 fewer women than men who are regularly active in England. According to the same research, this exercise gap is due to women taking on more household responsibilities, as well as childcare and home-schooling, than men during the pandemic. There will be men shaking their heads at this point I’m sure, and this is not to say men do not have a role in household chores and childcare, but this is the anecdotal evidence provided to Sport England.

At the same time as women are becoming less active than men, there is also the worry that rugby, like most sports, is at great risk of losing a number of our grassroots players after a prolonged time away from the sport.

Grassroots rugby is, like most things, allowed in various levels depending on where you live and train, but the rules are difficult to navigate. In Scotland, all levels of lockdown allow physically distanced training, but unrestricted and full contact training is not allowed, nor are friendly matches. In England, there are six stages on the RFU’s ‘return to rugby road map’ for the community game. At the moment, England is in stage one (or ‘A’ as the RFU calls it) which allows individual training with one other person, maintaining physical distance and no equipment sharing. In Wales, touch rugby matches between local clubs have just been sanctioned by the WRU, with some restrictions to training, including no contact or huddles. In Northern Ireland, all rugby below the elite level is suspended, and there is a five-stage return to rugby in Ireland similar to the British nations.

ADVERTISEMENT

For someone new to the game, the idea of scrummaging or tackling – where social distancing is impossible – would be more terrifying than usual, even if no grassroots coach would seriously suggest this sort of training at the moment. For many, joining a new sport is just seen as an unnecessary risk.

Take these concerns about rugby on top of the research suggesting that women are less likely to exercise, and you’re left with a worrying image for women’s rugby at the grassroots level. There are many ways that clubs can help women come back to rugby and to recruit new female players. In my opinion, the best thing that clubs can do is make it entirely clear what training involves, including what the safety protocols are. The rules are confusing to navigate, and people in your area might not be sure if they are allowed to join in or not. If they are nervous, invite them to come and watch a session before they take part.

Clubs can do more to help with childcare for mums and dads too. I’ve seen some grassroots women’s teams have a childcare rota, where mums take it in turns to look after all children during a training session or can nominate a partner to come and help. One club told me they ‘employ’ the children as coaches, touch judges and referees to help out during training sessions. This is all so easy to do and can really help to make mums feel welcome at your rugby club, as well as make the little ones feel involved.

One thing that I love about my club, Epping Upper Clapton RFC, is that I play with women whose husbands and boyfriends play for the men’s teams, and their children are involved in the junior section. To involve women in rugby, clubs need to make sure their club is as inclusive and accessible for women as possible.

ADVERTISEMENT

We know that interest in the elite women’s game is growing. Rugby is not going to be the sport for all female fans, like it isn’t the sport for all men who enjoy watching rugby, but there are many who may just too be nervous to give it a go at the moment. If that’s you, please get in touch with your local rugby club. I’m yet to find a women’s team who turn down new players, we all desperately want more to join our game. You don’t need boots, a gumshield, or anything really. You can just turn up in any sportswear and trainers and give it a go. You might hate it, but you might just love it.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 32 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen."


That's not quite my idea.

For a 20 team champions cup I'd have 4 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 4 from the previous years challenge cup. For a 16 team champions cup I'd have 3 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 1 from the previous years challenge cup.


"The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime."

If teams get a tough draw in the challenge cup quarters, they should have won more pool games and so got better seeding. My system is less about finding the best teams, and more about finding the teams who perform at the highest level in european competition.

57 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Would I'd be think"

Would I'd be think.


"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.


"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂


"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.


"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

57 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Huh? You mean last in their (4 team) pools/regions? My idea was 6/5/4, 6 the max, for guarenteed spots, with a 20 team comp max, so upto 5 WCs (which you'd make/or would be theoretically impossible to go to one league (they'd likely be solely for its participants, say 'Wales', rather than URC specifically. Preferrably). I gave 3 WC ideas for a 18 team comp, so the max URC could have (with a member union or club/team, winning all of the 6N, and Champions and Challenge Cup) would be 9."


That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.


"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.


"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?


"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.


"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.


"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.


"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?


"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

57 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Top 100: Why do the best players come from the best teams? Top 100: Why do the best players come from the best teams?
Search