And so it continues. First England captain Owen Farrell withdrew from international rugby union and now referee Tom Foley, television match referee for the World Cup final, has followed suit. Both cited online abuse and criticism as a factor in their decisions; both expressed a desire to reduce pressure and scrutiny on themselves and their families.
First of all, this column sends its warmest wishes to both the Farrells and the Foleys. All the high-profile rugby events around the world clearly mean nothing compared to the wellbeing and mental health of the individuals involved and those closest to them. I hope both of them return to international action as soon as possible.
It would also be nice to think of this week as a major turning point. The molten fury of social media is beginning to cool somewhat, and before booing match officials or high-profile faces on big screens, people are pausing to reflect on every household name. It’s not just English rugby that needs to pause and consider where the sport is heading.
Relating to: Wayne Barnes: ‘Over the last 12 months we have moved into the next phase of abuse targeting my family’
Something needs to change before the situation snowballs out of control. Farrell’s World Cup team-mate Kyle Sinckler told BBC Sport he “wouldn’t be surprised” if more international players took a break and said “this is just the beginning”. In Sinckler’s eyes, there is a growing need to help players adapt to the modern realities of their profession. “I don’t think it has anything to do with the fans,” said Sinckler, who wondered aloud whether enough was being done to ease the pressure within the team environment. “If I can be blunt and brutally honest, I think the support for the players could be a lot better.”
This is a debate of increasing importance, as the bonds of society become increasingly strained and harsh criticism on the Internet grows louder. If there is a big difference between someone criticizing your struggle or decisions in the Sabah newspaper and receiving harassment and death threats from anonymous accounts around the world, it is clear that there are problems for media companies too. If few online users care about the broader implications of what they say or write, cruder public discourse will inevitably follow.
Not only does the internet need more careful policing, attitudes also need to be reconsidered. Respect and courtesy are increasingly in danger of being seen as old-fashioned constructs rather than the oil that keeps the wheels of society turning. Which brings us back to sports writing, among other things. The relationships between players, coaches, match officials and journalists ensure fair, balanced reporting and ultimately shape public perception. Listening to Saracens’ director of rugby Mark McCall specifically blame elements of the “mainstream media” for triggering the build-up that saw Farrell back out, it is depressingly clear that distrust is widespread.
This cuts to the heart of the professional critic and professional athlete dynamic. Some of us have always started from the perspective that rugby players deserve respect because they get on the field more than most. The physical and mental demands at the highest level are enormous. Coaches have a difficult job, referees have an almost impossible job. Good and bad days can happen to anyone. Reviews, like theater, should be as honest and accurate as possible, without veering into the personal or gratuitous.
At the same time, the media spin is spinning faster than ever before. Fine details are harder, headlines are more punchy, clicks need to be collected. Sober columns in the newspaper are less striking than the 15 seconds of an ashen-faced coach in the immediate aftermath of a big defeat. Newcastle’s director of rugby Alex Codling was an excellent case study weekend: The price of your league accepting a fat television contract is having a microphone shoved in front of your nose in your darkest hour.
So what’s next? For some, the answer will be obvious. Less interviews, less intrusion, eliminates scary hacks. Wrong. Rather, rugby needs to do the opposite and speak out more often and more openly. Here’s why. If Farrell and Foley had been able to better voice their concerns six months ago and develop more open channels of communication with their employers, the media and, by extension, the public, perhaps things would not have gone so far.
We hope that in the midst of these negative effects, the relationships of individuals, clubs and unions with the media will be re-evaluated. The more access and openness the better. Forget in-house inflated content and give-them-nothing policies and think again. Mike has hoisted the captains – Cardiff’s Ellis Jenkins was very good at listening the other day – and the referees as a matter of routine, making every member of each team available to meet for an hour every week on request. Where there has been disdain and doubt for so long, originality and insight will suddenly emerge. Instead of blaming the “mainstream media”, invite rugby reporters for a coffee and discuss how things can be improved collectively.
Rugby in particular needs to find more ways to reflect its human side. Friendship and humor, hopes and fears, skill and fine decisions. Because if the public only sees part of the real story, it becomes harder to avoid flawed perceptions and finger-pointing. Nor does it mean shooting the messenger from the front. Better pastoral care aside, the best way to ease the pressure on Farrell, Foley and others is to inform and educate. Or, failing that, unplug the internet.