Plymouth Albion Rugby Football Club (the “Club”) of National League 1 has hit the rugby press over the past few weeks after being hit with a heavy disciplinary sanction by the RFU.

On 26 May 2020, an RFU Appeal Panel (the “Appeal Panel”) upheld a decision of an RFU Disciplinary Panel (the “Disciplinary Panel”) to impose a deduction of 20 league points on the Club for a breach of RFU Regulation 7, in relation to the payment of players (the “Decision”). A 5-point deduction is to be imposed from the start of the 2020/21 season, with a further 15-point sanction suspended for 2 years on the condition that the Club does not breach Regulation 7 again.

In addition to the points sanction, the Disciplinary Panel held that “RFU Benefits” were to be withheld from the Club in respect of the 2019/20 season – a sum estimated by the Club to be around £20,000.

The case has attracted media attention after the Club published a strongly worded letter it had written to the RFU, attempting to contest the Decision and accusing the Disciplinary Panel of behaving “with a level of Dickensian authoritarian arrogance”.

This article will analyse the Decision, and the judgment of the Appeal Panel, and will argue that the sanction imposed is disproportionate.

1. Disciplinary Charge

The Club was charged by the RFU with failing to submit an accurate Declaration, in breach of RFU Regulation 7.4 (the “Charge”).

Regulation 7.4.1 states:

All clubs whose men’s first XV team plays at Level 3 and below, and who wish to be entitled to RFU Benefits, will be required to:

(a) submit an annual Declaration every season;

(b) during the submission window commencing 1 March and closing 30 June;

(c) in respect of any Gross Payments of Material Benefits paid or payable between 1 June of the previous year and 31 May of the current season;

(d) by or on behalf of the club (directly or indirectly) to any third party in respect of playing rugby union.

A “Declaration” is “the declaration submitted annually by a club via the Game Management System portal in the form prescribed by the RFU” (Regulation 7.2.3).

“Gross Payments” is defined in Regulation 7.2.4 as:

all Material Benefits paid or payable to any third party in respect of playing rugby union (including any payments in respect of England Academy Players and Loan Players) plus all payments payable in respect of such Material Benefit which includes, by way of example, national insurance contributions, income tax and agents fees.

“Material Benefits” is defined in Regulation 7.2.5 as:

money, consideration, gifts or any other benefits whatsoever contracted, promised or given to or by a person or any other individual, body corporate, partnership (or any other entity or body whether incorporated or not) at his/her direction in respect of such person’s participation in the Game.

In other words, a Declaration under Regulation 7.4 is a declaration of any payments made to players by clubs below Championship level. The Club was charged with failing to do so accurately. The Club denied the Charge.

2. Background

Regulation 7.4 forms part of what is effectively a salary cap on the lower tiers of English rugby. As the Disciplinary Panel noted (para 10):

In recent years, there has been a growing concern at the RFU as to the payment of players in the lower level of the game and for the continued sustainability of the community game

The RFU therefore introduced a ‘soft’ salary cap, with Declarations required from the 2018/19 season onwards. From the 2019/20 season, the following Payment Threshold was introduced (Regulation 7.2.6):

For clubs whose men’s first XV team plays at Level 3: the threshold is £275,000 of Gross Payments paid or payable to players and including the payment of Player Coaches save that only £12,500 of the costs of each of the first and second Player Coaches will be excluded in calculating whether or not the threshold has been exceeded. 

However, unlike the Premiership Rugby salary cap, this is not a ‘hard’ limit. Clubs may exceed the Payment Threshold but, if they do, they will not be eligible for “RFU Benefits” – monetary and non-monetary benefits set out in Regulation 7.2.8, including grants, travel funding and subsidised match officials costs – which they would otherwise be eligible for (Regulation 7.4.2). Clubs will also become ineligible if an inaccurate Declaration is submitted.

The Declaration serves as the primary way of administering this system.

The Club completed its Declaration in respect of the 2018/19 season (i.e. the first of its kind), signed by the four relevant individuals, and Max Venables uploaded it to the RFU system on 25 June 2019.

The form asks two questions:

a. Do any players or Playing Coaches of the Club receive any Material Benefits for playing rugby for the Club, whether directly or via a third party?

b. Are any players engaged in another non-playing capacity by the Club or third party associated with the Club in return for any Material Benefit?

The Club answered “no” to the first question and “yes” to the second question. It should have answered “yes” to both questions, as the Club’s players do receive Material Benefits.

The Decision notes (para 22) that the form specifies that it should be read in conjunction with Regulation 7 and an FAQ document. It also includes the following statement:

THIS DECLARATION MUST BE SIGNED BY ALL INDIVIDUALS REFERENCED BELOW. BY SIGNING THIS DECLARATION, YOU HEREBY CONFIRM THAT, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE:

(A) THE INFORMATION AND STATEMENTS SET OUT HEREIN ARE TRUE AND ACCURATE;

(B) FULL AND PROPER ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN MADE IN RELATION TO THE CONTACT (sic) OF THE DECLARATION; AND

(C) THE CONTENT AND SUBMISSIONS MADE WITHIN THIS DECLARATION HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND MINUTED AT A FORMAL CLUB MEETING.

ANY FALSE OR MISLEADING DECLARATION MAY CONSTUTITE A BREACH OF RFU REGULATION AND BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RFU REGULATION 19.

After uploading the Declaration, Mr Venables emailed the RFU to ask whether the declaration had been submitted “correctly”. Within 45 minutes, the RFU responded (para 23):

Max – I can see that the declaration is submitted and that an attachment has been logged.

At 7:59 the following morning, the RFU’s Head of Discipline, David Barnes, emailed Mr Venables requesting information to support the Declaration and notifying the Club that he was investigating a potential breach of RFU Regulation 7.4. Mr Venables then discussed the matter with Mr Barnes on the phone, before sending the following email (para 23):

Further to our phone call this morning I am writing to apologise for my misunderstanding with the payment for players declaration. I thought that question one, as it stated ‘material’ benefits it meant anything outside their wages for the club.

As you can see attached I did email the address provided by the RFU for questions asking if I had submitted everything correctly. This seems to have all escalated very quickly. I will spend the next few days pulling together the requested information.

The requested information was subsequently submitted, but the Club was not allowed to re-submit its Declaration despite the submission deadline not having passed.

In evidence, Mr Venables accepted (para 36) that the Declaration was inaccurate but said that he had made the mistake by misunderstanding the term “Material Benefits” – he thought that it meant “any additional benefits the players received ontop of their wages”. At the hearing it was put to him that the Club does in fact give players such additional benefits. When asked to explain why, in light of this, he had not answered the first question “yes”, Mr Venables said (para 37):

the form was incomplete, that he wanted to do an ‘example form’, submit it, see if it was right and then speak to someone. He added that “rather than drill into every payment, I wanted to clarify what each question meant; I was unsure what I was doing which is why I wanted to speak to someone at the RFU.”

Mr Venables said that he was “opening up a discussion” by emailing the RFU on 25 June. Presumably, he would have said that the fact Mr Barnes contacted him so quickly precluded any such dialogue.

The evidence from the other Club witnesses – the other individuals who had signed the Declaration – suggested a lack of understanding of the questions and highlighted that the process had largely been left to Mr Venables.

3. The Club’s Case

Despite Mr Venables admission that the Declaration was inaccurate, the Club denied breaching Regulation 7.4. Its basis for doing so was to argue that the RFU had acted unfairly in bringing the charge.

The Club appeared to argue that the RFU exceeded its discretion in administering the Regulations and that the Charge was thus invalid – although it also seemed to argue that “the Panel did not have to conclude that the RFU had acted unlawfully in order to dismiss the charge” (para 52).

The Club argued there was a degree of ambiguity in Regulation 7, suggesting that the requirement to submit a Declaration “annually” did not preclude more than one Declaration being submitted during the window for submission and that the Club should have been allowed to re-submit once the error had been identified. It further argued that the definition of “Material Benefit” could have been more plainly drafted to make clear that it included player wages. The Club said that any ambiguity should be resolved in its favour.

The Club submitted that “the focus of the Regulations is about helping clubs” (para 55). It said that, instead of immediately instigating a disciplinary investigation, the RFU could have taken a different approach, asking the Club whether the declaration was accurate and, after it realised the error, allowing it to submit an accurate Declaration within the submission window.

Mr Barnes, of the RFU, had given evidence to the effect that he thought the Club’s Declaration “strange” as he “had an idea as to which clubs pay” (para 32), but that hundreds of other clubs had submitted declarations and the decision not to reopen the Declaration was fair to all clubs.

4. Decision

The Disciplinary Panel upheld the Charge. It held that the Declaration was inaccurate and contained a false statement as the Club should have acknowledged that it paid Material Benefits to its players.

However, the Disciplinary Panel accepted that “the Club’s error was not deliberate or dishonest and there was no attempt on behalf of the Club to mislead the RFU” (para 58).

Nonetheless, the Disciplinary Panel referred to the earlier decision of RFU v Rams RFC [2020], also relating to a Regulation 7.4 Declaration, which noted that the submission system provides for a number of procedural steps which, in part, appear to be designed to prevent inaccurate or false declarations being made to the RFU. The form requires each of the four signatories to confirm (i) that the information is true and accurate; (ii) that full and proper enquiries have been made; and (iii) that the content of the Declaration has been approved and minuted at a formal club meeting.

It said that this clearly placed an obligation on the Club to ensure the accuracy of the Declaration and that it was “incumbent” on the Club to make any enquiries prior to submitting the Declaration (para 58). The Disciplinary Panel continued, stating that the “finality of the wording” made it “clear and obvious” that a Club would only be able to make a single Declaration each year. Certainly, there was no “legitimate expectation that a declaration could be made more than once”.

The Disciplinary Panel found the Club’s evidence to be “unsatisfactory” and found that it had “wholly insufficient regard for the process” surrounding the Declaration. It held that (para 58):

If the Club had taken time to read and understand the Regulations, and had followed the process correctly, including by holding a formal (minuted) club meeting at which the substance of the declaration was discussed in detail, it would not have fallen into error in the manner in which it did.

The Disciplinary Panel found the Club to have been “highly negligent” (para 58).

Notably, the Disciplinary Panel rejected Mr Venables’ contention that he was attempting to open a dialogue with the RFU by emailing about the Club’s Declaration – it instead found that Mr Venables was simply seeking to ensure the Declaration had been sent correctly. It described Mr Venables’ contention as an “attempt by the Club to recast the meaning of this email” to bolster its case (para 58).

Crucially, the Disciplinary Panel rejected the Club’s argument that the RFU had administered the Regulations unfairly (para 60):

While the Club may view the RFU’s conduct towards it as onerous and heavy-handed, the Panel accepts that the RFU’s conduct has to be viewed in the context of it having to review a considerable number of submissions in circumstances where there was a need to rely on self-policing, self-declaration and self-certification. The Panel has found that the manner in which the RFU administered the Regulations was entirely reasonable.

The Charge was thus upheld.

5. Sanction

Having found the matter proven, the Disciplinary Panel turned to sanctioning. In doing so, it referred extensively to the decision of RFU v Rams RFC, which also concerned a failure to submit an accurate declaration.

The starting point is that, under Regulation 7.4.2:

if a club fails to submit an accurate declaration in accordance with 7.4.1 above…the club will no longer be eligible for the RFU Benefits in respect of the entirety of the following season.

The Club accepted that it was not eligible for RFU Benefits in respect of the 2019/20 season.

Regulation 7.4.8 further states that the Disciplinary Panel is:

entitled to impose such sanctions and penalties against any such party as it deems necessary in respect of any breach of these regulations

As such, the Disciplinary Panel noted that its discretion is wide, “tempered only by the question of necessity and proportionality” (para 64). In this regard, the Disciplinary Panel considered (para 66):

the overarching principle which led to these Regulations being implemented; the need to protect the community game and to prevent an overwhelming imbalance between clubs where less-wealthy clubs either fall behind on the rugby pitch or falter off it when trying to keep up with those more financially powerful. Consequently, as in RFU v Rams RFC, it is the Panel’s view that there is a need for a deterrent to ensure clubs self-certify accurately and that there is a need to punish those which do not. (Emphasis Added)

The Disciplinary Panel then considered ten factors (para 68), identified in Rams RFC, to assess the seriousness of the regulatory breach. Of particular note, the Panel reiterated that this was not a case of deliberate or dishonest behaviour, but of “highly negligent” conduct, and that the Club was “culpable to a significant degree”. The Club had adequate resources and previously good conduct. No sporting advantage was gained, and the Club co-operated with the initial investigation by Mr Barnes. The Club would not have exceeded the Payment Threshold and will “inevitably feel the effect of the loss of RFU Benefits, situation that will be compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic”.

However, the Club did not accept the Charge and showed “little, if any, remorse” and attempted to “deflect its failing onto the RFU without any reasonable basis for so doing”.

The Panel then decided that it was both “necessary and proportionate” to deduct league points from the Club, to “uphold the core values underpinning the Regulations” and to serve as “both a deterrent and as a punishment” (para 70). A 20-point deduction was considered proportionate. In arriving at this conclusion, the Panel had regard to the fact that a bonus-point win equates to 5 league points, and the typical number of points accumulated by teams in National League 1.

Notably, this was the same level of sanction as in Rams RFC, though the Panel stressed that this case was decided on its own facts.

On the issue of when the sanction was to apply, the Panel took into account the fact that the 2019/20 season had already been completed by the time the hearing had concluded (9 April 2020), though it acknowledged that the delay was “through no fault of the Club”. Nonetheless, in order for the sanction to be “meaningful”, it was deemed appropriate for it to be imposed from the start of the 2020/21 season (para 74).

6. Appeal

The Club appealed against the sanction imposed by the Disciplinary Panel, and the appeal was heard on 26 May 2020, via video link.

Under RFU Regulation 19.12.1, an appeal can only be made on the grounds that the panel:

(a) came to a decision to which no reasonable body could have come; or

(b) made an error of law in reaching its decision; or

(c) failed to act fairly in a procedural sense.

(d) the sanction imposed was so excessive as to be unreasonable [sic]

The Club argued first that the Disciplinary Panel had made an error of law by classing the Club’s culpability as “highly negligent” based on its findings of fact. However, this was swiftly rejected by the Appeal Panel who “agree[d] entirely” with the Disciplinary Panel’s conclusions (para 15). It held that the finding of “high culpability” was “perfectly reasonable”:

We recognise the Panel concluded the Clubs actions were not found to be deliberate or dishonest and we, as the Panel did, have taken that into account. Nonetheless we agree with the observations of the Panel as to the context of these regulations and the importance of them to the game. Such safeguards as the requirement for 4 signatures, the detailed declaration and the need to minute the matter, clearly indicate that an appropriate level of governance is expected by the RFU of the clubs when they are making representations about this matter. That level of governance was clearly not present here.

Secondly, the Club argued that the total sanction imposed was disproportionate – i.e. that it was “so excessive as to be unreasonable”. In doing so, it drew a comparison with the Rams RFC case. The Club argued that Rams RFC’s culpability was higher and, therefore, it was disproportionate to impose the same sanction.

The Appeal panel dismissed that argument, noting that although some aspects of Rams RFC’s behaviour may have been more serious, other aspects of the case were mitigating – such as Rams RFC’s acceptance of the charge. Indeed, Rams RFC were also found to have been “negligent to a significant degree”. The Appeal Panel thus held that it was a “perfectly reasonable sanction” (para 22).

Third, the Club submitted that the Disciplinary Panel erred in applying the points deduction from the start of the 2020/21 season. It noted that the hearing was originally scheduled for 3 March 2020 but it was adjourned until 3 April because a panel member was unavailable past 3pm. This was the second time the hearing had been delayed without the fault of the Club – it had originally been scheduled for 16 September 2019 but was then re-listed by the RFU for 5 February. On 31 January 2020, the Club decided to contest the charge, having taken legal advice, leading to a further delay until 3 March. The Panel convened again on 9 April to consider its decision.

3 April was also the day on which the league tables for the shortened 2019/20 season were finalised by the RFU.

The Appeal Panel nonetheless found that the decision to impose the sanction from the start of the 2020/21 season was not “unreasonable” (para 25).

Lastly, the Club argued that the Disciplinary Panel failed to have sufficient regard to the impact of Covid-19. In particular, the Club highlighted that, in addition to losing out on the usual RFU Benefits, it would not be eligible for any of the additional help packages made available due to Covid-19, until the start of the 2020/21 season.

The Appeal Panel also rejected this argument, noting that the Disciplinary Panel had sufficiently taken the Covid-19 crisis into account (para 28).

7. Analysis

This is a very disappointing case; and the way in which it is now being played out publicly makes it only more so.

That the RFU took such a rigid approach from the start of the disciplinary process is unfortunate. On a human and sporting level, it seems harsh that, upon noticing that the Club’s Declaration appeared “strange” and upon making immediate enquiries which revealed genuine confusion as to the Declaration process, the RFU refused to allow the Club to correct its error. This is particularly so because 2019 was the first year in which a Declaration had been required, the submission window was still open, and Mr Venables was clearly an inexperienced administrator.

It seems that the RFU is particularly keen to enforce this regulation, to set an early precedent to clubs across the country who must now comply with it. It is difficult to escape the feeling that the Club, and Rams RFC, have perhaps been made an example of.

The Charge

It is certainly possible to feel sympathy for the Club as regards the bringing of the charge. Nonetheless, the Disciplinary Panel was right to uphold it. Having admitted that the Declaration was inaccurate, the Club faced an uphill struggle to argue that it should be dismissed.

The Club’s submission that the Panel did not have to find the RFU to have acted unlawfully for the Charge to be dismissed must be wrong. The RFU has a power to bring disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 7, so to argue that the Charge ought not to have been brought is to argue that the RFU exceeded the scope of its power in bringing it. In other words, the Club was arguing that the RFU abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction. This necessarily would mean that the RFU had acted unlawfully – outside the scope of its regulatory powers.

Such an argument is akin to arguing that the Criminal Prosecution Service ought not to have brought a prosecution. In the criminal context, such arguments succeed “only in very rare cases” (S v Crown Prosecution Service [2015] EWHC 2868 (Admin)), owing to the necessary margin of discretion of the decision-making and relative competence of the reviewing court.

Unless it could show that the RFU had committed a significant procedural failure, the Club would ultimately have had to prove that the RFU acted unreasonably/irrationally – in the Wednesbury sense. In other words, it would have had to show that the RFU’s decision to bring the Charge was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker acting reasonably could have made it. This is a high standard.

The RFU’s harshness was not on this level of unreasonableness – it is not irrational to take an approach that treats all clubs equally, even though it may result in a degree of unfairness to one club, especially given the number of clubs to whom this process applied. The wording of the Declaration form did convey the importance of its accuracy and, to the letter of the Regulations, the Club did commit a breach. There was a case to answer.

I therefore agree with the Decision, as regards the upholding of the charge.

The Sanction

However, as regards sanctioning, I cannot agree with the Disciplinary Panel – nor the Appeal Panel. To my mind, the total sanction imposed on the Club is disproportionate to the breach committed.

The Disciplinary Panel identified three factors relevant to the sanctioning process (para 65):

a. The importance of the policy which sits behind these Regulations;

b. The need for a deterrence; and,

c. The need to punish a breach of the Regulations

Regulation 7.4.2 provides for a club to lose its eligibility for RFU Benefits for one season if it fails to submit an accurate declaration. This, in itself, acts as a punishment for those who submit inaccurate information and deters clubs from doing so. It fulfils the sanctioning requirements set out by the Panel – particularly in this case, where there was no dishonesty or intent to deceive, and where the impact of losing RFU Benefits is so severe.

The Club’s open letter suggests that the loss of RFU Benefits is equal to a loss of £20,000. It is unclear whether that includes any assistance the Club may have been eligible for under the RFU’s Covid-19 relief scheme. Moreover, the impact of Covid-19 will be crippling for clubs like Plymouth Albion, with next to no way to generate revenue until competitive matches can be played and social events are able to properly resume. Indeed, when the UK lockdown was imposed, the Club resorted to crowd-funding in order to keep the Club afloat. In these desperate times, a £20,000 sanction (taking the Club at its word) alone seems more than sufficient to deter further breaches and as punishment.

The principle behind Regulation 7.4 – “the need to protect the community game and to prevent an overwhelming imbalance between clubs” (para 66) – is laudable, but the Club has in no way tried to undermine it. This was a case of incompetence rather than malfeasance.

Arguably, even a £20,000 sanction is too severe, given the circumstances. Earlier this year, Sale Sharks were fined £20,000 for breaching Regulation 7 in relation to “tapping up” (discussed here) – a case involving a far higher degree of culpability. £20,000 for a “highly negligent” administrative error seems disproportionate, even more so given the huge difference in turnover between the Club and Sale Sharks, and the impact of Covid-19.

It is my view that an additional 20-point sanction is entirely unnecessary and disproportionate – even if 15 points of it are suspended. In RFU v Rohan Janse van Rensburg, Sale Sharks and Matthew Ginvert [2020], the panel said that “the jurisdiction to make a points deduction should always be carefully exercised” (para 73). It continued:

This is because the imposition of a points deduction inevitably distorts the results of the rugby competition on the field…It also is likely to devalue competitions for supporters, because the results will have been decided by lawyers and a disciplinary process and not by the players on the pitch. For this reason points deductions, certainly in higher league competition, have been used where the effect of the infringement has been to distort competition on the field, for example by fielding an ineligible player or breaching a salary cap

Though it is debatable whether the Club plays in “higher league competition”, the reasoning ought nonetheless to apply. In National League 1, a points deduction will not only devalue the competition for supporters, but for players. The intention behind Regulation 7.4 is to “protect the community game”. Imposing points sanctions for administrative errors may do more harm than good – devaluing the competition for players, whose participation is so vital, and those associated with it.

Indeed, in RFU v Rams RFC, the RFU referred to three cases to support the application of a points deduction: Peter Rann & Medway RFC [2016], Exeter University RFC [2015], and Devonport High School Old Boys RFC [2016]. Though the full judgments are not presently available online, it is clear that, in each case, the clubs in question obtained a sporting advantage by committing regulatory breaches, justifying the points deductions imposed. Furthermore, in Rams RFC, the RFU noted that a 20-point deduction was applicable in cases of a deliberate submission of an inaccurate match result card. Again, this is an example of where the competition may be distorted.

In the case at hand, the Club gained no sporting advantage whatsoever by virtue of submitting an inaccurate Declaration, and the competition was in no way distorted. As such, a points sanction seems wholly inappropriate.

In any event, even if a points deduction was appropriate, I would argue that a 20-point sanction is disproportionate. Though the Club did contest the charge, the breach was merely an error (albeit a significant one) made by an inexperienced administrator, and the Club immediately attempted to remedy their mistake. It also co-operated with the RFU’s investigation.

In van Rensburg, Sale Sharks were given a 5-point deduction suspended for two years. Sale’s level of culpability in that case was much higher and, though there are more points available in a National League 1 season (1.36 times as many) and European qualification gives Premiership league points heightened importance, it is difficult to see why any greater sanction would be proportionate.

Therefore, I am of the view that the total sanction imposed on the Club was “so excessive as to be unreasonable”, and that the decision of the Appeal Panel was wrong. It is worth noting that this was the same sanction as handed down in Rams RFC. I am inclined to think that the sanction in that case, too, was disproportionate.

Finally, it is arguable that the Disciplinary Panel acted unreasonably in imposing the points deduction from the start of the 2020/21 season. The case should originally have been heard in September 2019, having concerned conduct from June 2019. That the case was not heard fully until April 2020 was not the fault of the Club – though it did cause the delay from February to March 2020.

Moreover, the Covid-19 pandemic means that it may well be 2021 before the sanction takes effect. That a team might be sanctioned in 2021 in respect of an administrative error from the 2018/19 season verges on the farcical. This is particularly so because the pandemic may well see significant changes to the structure of RFU competitions, to the playing resources of clubs and possibly even the laws under which the competition is played. By the time the points deduction is applied, the competition may look radically different from that in respect of which the breach was committed.

In such circumstances, I would argue that the sanction should have been applied in respect of the 2019/20 season – which would have seen the Club fall from sixth to ninth place in the final standings.

8. Conclusions

This case reveals an uncomfortable tension within the lower levels of English rugby – that between amateurism and professionalism. It is a tension elucidated brilliantly by the book ‘Unholy Union’ (by Michael Aylwin with Mark Evans) and is abundantly evident here. The community game, traditionally amateur in ethos and practice, has become increasingly professionalised by clubs paying their players. The RFU are, rightly, uncomfortable about this and the detrimental effects it has on community rugby.

As such, they introduced Regulation 7.4, to curb the effects of professionalism. Yet, in enforcing Regulation 7.4 here, the RFU has ultimately held the Club to a professional standard – demanding the standards of governance one would expect from a professional club, rather than an amateur one. In trying to thwart the growth of professionalism, the RFU has required the Club to be more professional. The sanction, in many ways, runs contrary to the spirit of the Regulation. This is a paradox rife in English rugby union.

Nonetheless, the clubs have brought this upon themselves by paying their players in the first place. If the community game was truly amateur, clubs would not need to worry about being sanctioned for their administrative carelessness. Such a return, though, is now surely out of the question.

The case also offers some important lessons to clubs for their handling of disciplinary proceedings. It shows that, unless there are truly exceptional circumstances, ‘strict liability’ breaches (i.e. those that do not require any form of intentionality) are best admitted. The focus can then shift to mitigating the offence and to reducing the sanction. Certainly, criticising the RFU is unlikely to aid a club’s case. Publishing a scathing open letter is also unlikely to make things better, and the Club ought to take care not to incur a further misconduct charge for bringing the game and the RFU into disrepute.

That said, the Club may have grounds to challenge the Decision – and certainly to feel aggrieved. In theory, it could launch a legal challenge under the Bradley v Jockey Club [2004] jurisdiction on the grounds of proportionality or error of law. However, given all the circumstances, it is unlikely to be worth the cost.