A Failure to Consult: Clubs Accuse RFL of a Top-Down, “Dictatorial” Approach

The crisis engulfing Super League’s expansion is being framed by some clubs as the result of a “dictatorial,” top-down approach by the Rugby Football League (RFL), which failed to properly consult its key stakeholders. The rebellion is not just about finances; it’s about a deep-seated resentment towards a process that has made clubs feel like subjects rather than partners.
The core of this accusation is the claim that the expansion was presented as a fait accompli. While a vote was held, clubs argue that it was not a genuine consultation because they were not given the necessary information—such as a business plan—to have a meaningful and informed debate. The process felt more like a ratification of a pre-determined decision than a collaborative discussion.
This top-down approach has been evident in the RFL’s response to the growing dissent. The consistent referral back to the “overwhelming” vote, rather than engaging with the substance of the clubs’ concerns, has reinforced the impression that the RFL is not interested in a genuine dialogue. The failure to share minutes or financial models has added to this sense of an aloof and unaccountable leadership.
This has created a powerful “us vs. them” dynamic. The clubs feel that the RFL, from its central administrative position, is imposing a vision upon them without fully understanding or respecting the on-the-ground realities of running a club. The call to “press the pause button” is therefore an assertion of their own agency and a rejection of this perceived dictatorial style.
For the expansion to have any chance of being resurrected, the RFL will need to fundamentally change its approach. It must move from a top-down model of instruction to a bottom-up model of genuine consultation, treating the clubs as genuine partners in the decision-making process. Without this shift, the current atmosphere of resentment and rebellion is likely to become a permanent feature of the league.