By Roy Masters
It's taken John Grant, the outgoing chair of the inaugural ARLC, six years to realise that his code is populated by too many Thomas Hobbeses and not enough Immanuel Kants.
Hobbes, the English philosopher, believed that the natural state for men is to be at war. Kant, the German philosopher, argued that people must live together in an agreed, universal state.
On the way out: John Grant.Credit: AAP
In an email exchange with me in August, Grant conceded that a weakness of the inaugural commission board was a collective inexperience of the code's distinctive Hobbesian politics.
"The one deficiency I can see in the commission, which was impossible to overcome given the constraints in the constitution, was the lack of an understanding of 'how rugby league works', as it has often been described. It's interesting reflecting on this question – 'How has rugby league worked in the past'? I'm positive your understanding would be much deeper and potentially more optimistic than mine. But based on the more challenging aspects of my experience over six years, my answer to this is 'the battle for money and power; hating, not trusting; club first, game second; winning at all costs; unholy alliances based on favours and self-interest; and manipulating the media'. Sounds pretty negative, I know."
In his hands: ARLC chairman John Grant has presided over the game since 2011.Credit: Louise Kennerley
Negative, yes, but also accurate. Bill Carson, chairman of Western Suburbs, said something similar when he stood up at a Monday night meeting of the NSWRL in the late 1970s and declared: "In here, you've got to catch and kill your own."
The natural state of the NRL's 16 clubs and its two state leagues – NSWRL and QRL – is to be Hobbesian, or, if you prefer a modern-day philosopher/politician, Henry Kissinger, who admitted that the moral thing to do to protect your state (club) is to be immoral.
Paradoxically, those who framed the ARLC's first constitution took a very Kantian approach, almost as if they knew from bitter inexperience that the only way to protect the game from itself was to appoint independents committed to making decisions in its best interests.
Grant wrote: "In this construct, it is informative to reflect on the current commission. The constitution that defines its responsibility is very clear – it is to act independently in the interests of the whole game. This was crafted by those with an intimate knowledge of the environment into which the ARLC was to be born. They chose its commissioners to be independent, as defined by the constitution, and to provide a mix of skills across business and rugby league from the elite level to the grassroots; across gender and ethnicity; across geography; and gravitas that ranged from corporate icons to rugby league icons. And as chair, it selected a former rugby league player whose career spanned from junior to Kangaroo, who was also a successful businessman in a corporate industry with a grip on the future and with experience in chairing a wide range of boards (Grant). And in its first commissioners it also got connection with rugby league ranging from a celebrated game hero (Wayne Pearce) to avid fans."
Back in August, Grant was hopeful a new funding deal for the clubs, together with a finalised CBA with the players and a new ARLC board structure with four representatives of the NRL clubs and the states, would see him leave the game in a better position than when he inaugurated it.
He wrote: "Very fortunately for all, the ever-increasing skill of the players (in significant part fuelled by increasing levels of funding that has created the full-time athlete) has provided the entertainment value that has translated into increasing revenues for stakeholders to share. For our part, with finalisation of the CBA, the battle for money will wind its way to an end, at least until 2022. But the battle for power remains on foot through a new constitution and governance model. Whether the game or sectional stakeholders are winners is yet to be seen. But if that one deficiency I spoke of is right (a board lacking knowledge of 'how rugby league works'), the next construct of the commission, with six independent directors appointed by the independents, two directors nominated by clubs and two state directors nominated by states acting as they must in the interests of the ARLC first could be just the right solution."
Asked permission to publish his August thoughts, while also inquiring whether they had changed, Grant wrote, "I largely feel the same, ... but while the Commission supports 6:2:2 it does so in the context that this fulfills the three objectives of:
"1 maintaining independence of the Commission
"2 providing members direct representation
"3 that the Constitution is a modern, forward looking document that ensures efficient and effective operation of the governing body."
At Wednesday's AGM of the ARLC, at least 10 clubs, together with the NSWRL and QRL, will support a draft constitution which goes further than the mere addition of club and state representatives.
The draft, prepared by Souths chair, Nick Pappas, with the strong support of Roosters' chair Nick Politis and the recently deposed chair of the Bulldogs, Ray Dib, embeds the club and state representatives with enhanced powers to the extent ARLC meetings can't proceed without their attendance.
In other words, if an agenda item perceived to be advantaging the QRL is listed, nothing can be resolved if the NSWRL chair fails to attend the meeting.
Grant has been scathing in correspondence to clubs and states over the failure of the draft constitution to meet the third objective above insofar as it entrenches all the Hobbesian divisions of the past.
I would argue the clubs have also failed in achieving the second objective. Surely having representatives with an understanding of "how rugby league works" doesn't mean appointing a racing man and a lawyer.
It is sometimes said the greatest accolade given a rugby league man is to call him a survivor. This is consistent with Hobbes' description of the "life of man" as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
Yet my experience of the best rugby league men, like John Quayle, is more Kantian: the one who allows praise to fall on others for something he has achieved; who accepts blame when the fault lies with others.
He is Kant's man of good will, one who treats people as ends, not means.
Grant was accused of being a micro-manager but what leader isn't when there is much to do?
He was ultimately brought down by the protracted negotiations which guaranteed the NRL clubs annual revenue equivalent to 130 per cent of the salary cap.
Grant was criticised, initially for seeking to claw it back because revenue projections didn't justify it and was then accused of agreeing to the figure in order to save his position as chair.
Yet the original offer to clubs, even higher than 130 per cent, was made by former NRL chief executive, Dave Smith, and it was the subsequent NRL administration who discovered it was unsustainable.
A team man, Grant never once, publicly at least, blamed others for the predicament in which he was placed.
Admittedly, past leaders would have stood up to the warring clubs, staring them down, telling them to raise more revenue themselves, or cut costs. Perhaps this is not in Grant's nature, or, more likely, not consistent with his commitment to "good, corporate governance".
He is expected to move to the chairmanship of the International Rugby League Board where, given Australia's dominance, he can afford to reach out to the minnow nations, creating a more Kantian world.