In what is shaping up to be an exciting summer of sports, the decision to rebrand Twickenham as Allianz Stadium feels like a significant setback. Learning about this was both surprising and disheartening for me. The rationale behind this change is clear: financial gain.
The RFU is in dire need of funds. This financial support is essential for the grassroots game, to finance new elite player contracts, to adequately support the women’s game, and to develop a rugby sevens program capable of clinching Olympic gold. Additionally, these resources are necessary to bolster England’s junior teams, nurture a new generation of coaches, and provide improved off-field support for players, among other things.
Steve Borthwick’s England displayed impressive potential during the latter half of the recently concluded season, but English rugby, as a whole, along with the RFU, has struggled to keep up with both global rugby standards and the competitive landscape of other sports.
The RFU faces a daunting challenge, and the board’s response has been to effectively compromise its integrity by eliminating the historic name ‘Twickenham’ from the iconic stadium.
Many, including myself, are left wondering how we arrived at this point. As an England player, you serve as a guardian of the jersey; it is not your personal possession. Your role is to wear it with pride and hand it over in a better state than you received it. This duty also extends to the head coach and the RFU leadership. I can’t help but ponder how the RFU board will reflect on this decision years from now if swapping Twickenham for Allianz Stadium becomes their lasting legacy?
The Rugby Football Union has made the contentious decision to rename Twickenham.
Sir Clive Woodward remarks that it’s a ‘blow’, but emphasizes that the RFU ‘desperately requires funds’ to bolster the community game, elite player contracts, and women’s support.
Twickenham symbolizes over a century of history, heritage, and English rugby tradition.
Australia already has an Allianz Stadium, making it not unique in the rugby world.
Looking back, this decision sadly feels unavoidable. It brings no solace that Ireland, Wales, and Scotland have already opted to sell their stadium naming rights. England should not take pride in merely mimicking their example. While the pandemic has severely impacted rugby, I understand the urgency of generating revenue; however, I do not see it as a valid excuse since every sport has encountered similar obstacles.
Australia already boasts an Allianz Stadium, so we’re not even the only rugby venue with that name! Some may argue that a name holds little significance, but I strongly disagree. Twickenham embodies over a century of history, heritage, and English rugby traditions. Those disputing this decision are being labeled as ‘traditionalists’ by the RFU—an easy dismissal akin to calling them ‘old farts,’ as Will Carling infamously did years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. The history and tradition embodied by Twickenham should be revered.
As a coach, I envisioned Twickenham as a fortress—the battleground on which we would face the world and inspire the nation, showcasing rugby like never before. Twickenham meant everything to us—truly everything. When I fly home over west London, I eagerly scan for Twickenham and still feel nostalgic when I spot it. I might be sentimental, but this connection resonates with many, whether they donned the England jersey or cheered from the stands.
Recently, I was intrigued and impressed to learn how much revenue Wimbledon chooses to forgo each year. They could easily sell numerous sponsorship deals—including naming rights for The Championships or Centre Court—but they refrain because they recognize what Wimbledon signifies as a brand.
Can you envision Novak Djokovic and Carlos Alcaraz competing on Allianz Centre Court? How would Scottie Scheffler feel arriving at Allianz Augusta? Do we want to witness the opening ball of the Ashes at Allianz Lord’s? Or have England line up at Allianz Wembley?
This is not a critique of Allianz; they are significant supporters of sports worldwide, and it’s wonderful they wish to continue their backing of English rugby as they have done for Saracens in recent years. However, it’s the responsibility of the RFU to execute this partnership respectfully, valuing aspects of rugby that are genuinely priceless. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
So, what comes next? The RFU must align their intentions with the substantial funds they expect. Yet how far will a reported £10 million annual income truly stretch? At first glance, it doesn’t seem adequate.
Imagining Carlos Alcaraz facing Novak Djokovic on the Allianz Centre Court seems far-fetched if tennis were to follow the same trend in the future.
RFU chief executive Bill Sweeney states that the partnership will prove highly beneficial for rugby.
Bill Sweeney is quick to assert that the revenue will benefit the community game, which is absolutely necessary, but just how much will it truly contribute? In what ways will this agreement help revitalize the sterile, mundane atmosphere at Twickenham, and redirect fan attention back to the pitch instead of their next drink?
While I question the RFU’s strategic direction for the game, what about the Olympics? I was incredulous that Team GB failed to field a men’s sevens team in Paris, or that the women’s players were not on full-time contracts. These are overlooked opportunities that the RFU board seems to undervalue. Hopefully, some of the Allianz funds will support initiatives like sevens.
The RFU has a long journey ahead to restore England to its former stature—at the summit of world rugby and international sport. Funding is vital for this endeavor, and I appreciate that. However, this naming rights arrangement is not a cure-all, and to me, the outright removal of Twickenham from the venue marks a profoundly sad and poignant day.
