FOOTBALL FOR MONEY

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 284, 20 August 1918, Page 6

FOOTBALL FOR MONEY

POSITION OF LEAGUE

PLAYERS

QUESTION OF REINSTATEMENT

The reply of the English Rugby Union to the resolution passed at a special meeting of tho New Zealand llugby Union, held on October 5, 1917, respecting certain suggestions mado by local ufiions as to tho reinstatement of men -who had lost their amateur status by participating in the League game, formed tho subject of two lengthy communications from Canterbury and Wellington, discussed at last nights meeting of the Management Committee of the New Zealand Rugby Union. Tho executive of the English. Union had asked for information regarding tho "special conditions obtaining in New Zealand," and a circular was sent out to*all local unions by tho New Zealand Union, asking them to state their respective points in dotail. The Canterbury ami Wellington Unions wero tho only ones which replied. In its letter the Canterbury Union stated that the fundamental, difference between tho two Rugby codes in England Was that Leaguo players for the most part were paid for their services, and so were professionals, while tho Rugby plajers were puroly amateurs. Those distinctions did notc'xist in New Zealand, where League players received no monetary payment for their services, and so wero not professionals in that , respect. The "money" element was not associated with the League, game in New Zealand as it was in England, where thousands of pounds were spent annually on players in some form or other. 'Scores of players who had taken part in the League game in New Zealand had done so purely as a pastime* without realising that tho mere playing of the game deprived them of their amateur status. Players like those, professionals in name only, were debarred by tho rules of the English Union, which body at tho 6ame timo had opened its door, to the professional boxer, rower, ■ cricketer, and athlete. To many in New Zealaud, all loyal amateurs, 6uch anomalies were crying aloud for reform. In Now Zealand they could not afford to shut out players by such arbitrary rules. Tho English Union had given pow£r- to tho Njw ZealandUniop to reinstato players not over 17 years of age when the offence was committed. If tho New Zealand executive was competent to deal with such reinstatements, surely it could be entrusted to deal with any player, irrespective of age? Tho Canterbury Union felt stropgly that whilst rigidly enforcing tho 'fundamental principle of nonpayment of players, the one endeavour of both tho New Zealand and English executives should be to raise tho barrier and bring into force some cardinal rules regarding professionalism, applicable aliko to England and to every part of tho Empire—rules that were compatible with tho needs and circumstances of to-day and not with those obtaining in England twenty years ago. ■ The Wellington Union expressed tho view that any player who had played Northern Union football should be allowed to play Rugby if ho desired, so long aa ho had not played for money or received payment for loss of time through playing football.

After the lottera had been read, Dr. P. M'Evcdy raid tlmt in New Zealand League players would play for money if it wis there for tliem to receive. Northern Union players were paid in Sydney. Mr. G. 11. Dixon (chairman of the committee): The idea of starting Northern Union was to pay the playors._ It was decided that further consideration of the matter be adjourned for a larger meeting of the committee,, and that in tho meantime a subcommittee, Consisting of the chairman, Dr. M'Evody, and Mr. E. Wylie, bo appointed to draft 11 statement for consideration by tlio committee before submission, to tho English Rugby Union.