Opinion: RFU need to think about their own pyramid

The debate surrounding this season’s National Two league allocations has often been framed as a dispute about geography; in reality, it is something much bigger than that.

It is a conversation about governance.

The decisions involving clubs such as Macclesfield, Lymm and Loughborough Students have undoubtedly generated discussion across the National League Rugby community, but the most important question is not where clubs are travelling. It is whether English rugby’s governance structures are still aligned with the financial and operational realities facing the clubs they are designed to serve.

That distinction matters and the RFU are front and centre.

National League Rugby’s role is to administer competitions. It oversees fixtures, league operations and delivers one of the strongest products in the English club game. It can only work within the framework it is given. Responsibility for shaping that framework, determining league structures and setting the long-term direction of the community game ultimately rests with the Rugby Football Union - the RFU.

If clubs are increasingly questioning whether Level 4 remains financially sustainable, that is not simply an administrative issue; it is a governance issue.

For many years, National League Rugby has represented one of the finest examples of what English club rugby can be. Ambitious without being fully professional, fiercely competitive while remaining rooted in local communities, it has produced outstanding players, memorable rivalries and compelling rugby; plus real promotion and relegation.

It also occupies perhaps the most difficult position in the entire rugby pyramid.

Level 4 asks clubs to maintain exceptionally high standards. Coaching expectations continue to rise. Coaches are increasingly full time, they may work for a PREM Club. Medical provision has become increasingly sophisticated. Player welfare rightly demands greater investment. Facilities require continual improvement, while attracting and retaining players requires ever-greater commitment from clubs. Players themselves may have played in the PREM or the CHAMP; they may have been with academies or played BUCS SuperLeague.

Yet very few clubs operate with the commercial resources or financial certainty enjoyed higher up the pyramid.

Instead, they exist in an uncomfortable middle ground: too ambitious to operate casually, but without the financial security of professionalism.

For many clubs, success depends not on significant central funding but on extraordinary volunteer commitment, loyal local sponsors and countless hours donated by people who simply want their club to thrive.

That model has served English rugby remarkably well; now the question is whether the financial landscape has changed sufficiently for governance to evolve alongside it. Macclesfield’s decision not to continue in National Two West and instead compete in Regional 1 North West resonated far beyond Cheshire.

This was not a club lacking ambition and nor was it questioning the quality of National League Rugby; rather, it concluded that the financial realities attached to repeated long-distance travel no longer represented a sustainable balance.

Similarly, Lymm’s allocation once again highlighted the practical challenges facing clubs situated in the North West while regularly travelling into the South West.

These journeys involve far more than coach hire and fuel costs.

Players take annual leave from work.

Volunteers surrender entire weekends.

Medical teams, coaches and club officials all commit additional time and expense.

Recovery becomes more difficult.

Preparation becomes more demanding.

Families make sacrifices.

Many of these costs never appear on a balance sheet, but every community club understands them.

The prominence of this debate is telling.

National League Rugby Chairman John Inverdale recently captured both the pride and the challenge of competing at this level when he said:

“Playing in the National Leagues is prestigious and aspirational, but ultimately an expensive operation. It’s hoped this hugely complex and long drawn-out debate can lead to a rethink on how Level 4 and below is configured in the future.”

His comments neatly summarise the dilemma.

Playing National League Rugby remains a badge of honour. Clubs aspire to reach these levels because of the quality of competition and the opportunities it creates for players, coaches and supporters alike; but aspiration alone cannot balance the books.

That is precisely why governance matters. Good governance does not simply administer today’s structures; it continually asks whether those structures remain fit for purpose tomorrow.

The RFU has rightly invested considerable time in reshaping parts of the professional game, from the Professional Game Partnership to player pathways and the future of the Championship.

Community rugby deserves the same strategic attention and not via various committees. The recent strategic review of the national team following the Six Nations failures, is a case in point. Many felt the review got lost in the RFU bureaucracy's..

No one is suggesting standards should fall.

Nor is anyone arguing that ambitious clubs should be protected from competitive challenge.

Promotion and relegation remain fundamental to the strength of the English pyramid but the real question is whether competitive integrity and financial sustainability can be better balanced.

Perhaps the current structure remains the correct one.

Perhaps it does not.

Either conclusion would be credible if it were supported by detailed consultation with clubs, transparent assessment of travel implications and a clear long-term strategy for the community game.

Those conversations feel increasingly necessary.

One of English rugby’s greatest strengths has always been the diversity of its pyramid.

Historic community clubs.

University programmes.

Growing rugby towns.

Traditional rugby strongholds.

Emerging clubs.

All contribute to an ecosystem admired throughout the sport. Maintaining that ecosystem requires governance prepared to evolve as circumstances change. The financial pressures experienced elsewhere within the professional game should remind everyone that sustainability cannot simply be assumed.

Community rugby should not have to reach similar pressure points before meaningful conversations take place. The RFU needs to be thinking ahead, not reacting.

None of this diminishes what National League Rugby continues to achieve.

Every Saturday, volunteers unlock clubhouses before breakfast.

Grounds teams prepare pitches.

Medical staff give up weekends.

Parents drive hundreds of miles.

Players finish full working weeks before representing clubs that remain at the heart of their communities.

That authenticity remains one of English rugby’s greatest strengths and therefore it deserves governance that protects it. Encouragingly, there is recognition within the RFU that this conversation should continue beyond this summer’s allocations.

Representing the RFU Board, Paula Carter commented:

“We are grateful to all the NLR clubs who contributed to our thinking about how to optimise the structure of the leagues. All the work will be carried forward into a review of the RFU leagues next season.”

That commitment should be welcomed. The forthcoming review presents an opportunity to look beyond individual league allocations and ask more fundamental questions about the future of Levels 3 and 4.

Can travel demands be reduced without weakening competition?

Can league boundaries evolve to reflect changing economics?

Can ambitious clubs continue to pursue promotion without placing unsustainable pressure on volunteers, players and finances?

These are not easy questions, but they are the right questions. Governance is rarely judged by how effectively it manages today’s challenges; it is judged by whether it identifies tomorrow’s challenges before they become crises.

The RFU now has an opportunity to demonstrate exactly that and accept the challenge not bury it.

The review should be informed by clubs that live these realities every week, by National League Rugby’s administrators who understand the practical operation of the leagues, and by a governing body prepared to shape a pyramid that remains both ambitious and sustainable.

If well-run clubs increasingly conclude that Level 4 no longer represents a financially viable proposition, the issue will not be whether National League Rugby administered its competitions effectively.

The question will be whether English rugby’s governing structures recognised the warning signs early enough.

Level 4 is not the problem.

It may simply be where English rugby’s next governance challenge has become impossible to ignore.