The Rugby Football Union (RFU) is on the brink of its most significant governance shake-up in decades, with proposals suggesting the abolition of its powerful council. The 63-member body, often criticised for being outdated and inefficient, could be scrapped entirely as part of efforts to modernise the organisation’s decision-making structure and reinforce executive leadership.
Two options have been laid out for the future of the council. Both would result in its removal, either replacing it with a smaller national advisory group or appointing expert individuals embedded directly into all decision-making processes. This marks a decisive shift from the current structure, where most council members are elected from local areas and serve as a key mechanism for oversight of the RFU board and chief executive.
This sweeping reform follows the survival of the current chief executive after a no-confidence vote in March, prompted by a high-profile pay scandal. The vote exposed deep divisions within English rugby, with grassroots and community clubs expressing frustration over the governance and direction of the union. Although the governance review had been initiated before the scandal, the fallout added urgency and intensity to the process.
The review describes the RFU’s existing governance as “dysfunctional” and rooted in a model that dates back to the 19th century, no longer suited to the demands of modern sport. It argues for a new structure that is progressive, inclusive, agile, and transparent. Reform advocates believe this could allow the RFU to function more effectively and with greater accountability.
However, these proposals have sparked strong opposition from the Whole Game Union (WGU), which has led the campaign for greater scrutiny of RFU executives. Critics argue that eliminating the council would weaken oversight of the board and its leadership, reducing the ability of grassroots representatives to influence decisions. The WGU contends that reform is necessary but believes the proposed models concentrate too much power in the hands of the executive and remove vital checks and balances.
Despite opposition, those involved in the review argue that the proposed changes could lead to a more accountable and responsive system. They suggest that by embedding experts across governance structures and relying on the existing voting rights of clubs, the new system could maintain and even enhance accountability. The key, they argue, will be in how appointees are selected and how clubs engage with their roles and responsibilities under the new model.
The RFU council has long played a central role in setting regulations for the game in England, including competition formats and promotion-relegation rules. Its influence has been particularly evident in its resistance to scrapping promotion and relegation from the Premiership. Ironically, its final act may be to approve a franchised league system that effectively ends this tradition an idea long resisted by many in the grassroots community.
The consultation on the proposed reforms will run until the end of June, after which a final set of recommendations will be presented. The outcome could reshape how English rugby is governed and determine whether the sport can adapt to the challenges of the modern era while still honouring the voice of the broader rugby community.
