The Lions Sleep Tonight

WHEN IT comes to domestic UK politics, I am all in favour of Scotland being an Independent nation. That said, however, unlike some Scottish Nationalists, I can get behind successes for Team-GB (as the UK and NI National Olympic Committee styles itself when competing in the Olympic Games).

I don't even mind God Save The Queen. Like it or loath it, GSTQ is the official National Anthem of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If someone from Team GB wins Olympic gold, I don't mind hearing the dirge; but, I do get a bit uptight when England tries to claim it as its own.

At the Olympic Games, I was out of my chair cheering our medal winners home. OK, I got some moisture in my eyes when wee Laura Muir bagged her silver, was delighted when Tom Daley finally bagged his long-sought-after gold, amazed at that utterly-dominant Madison win by Katie Archibald and Laura Kenny and bitterly-disappointed when Beith's Jemma Reekie just missed out on a medal.

Back in the amateur days, I could get equally worked-up about the Lions, or 'The British Isles Touring Team' as they were known back in those simple days. For all the overwhelming media hype, the Lions Tour which concluded in Cape Town on Saturday night left me largely unshaken and unstirred.

Sure, from a selfish, Scottish point of view, I was delighted that Finn Russell got his chance to show the world what Warren Gatland's craven, safety-first approach had denied the game of rugby. For me, Gatland is the type of professional sports coach whose primary ambition is Not To Lose.

OK, professional sport, whatever the discipline, is a results-driven business. Make the teams you prepare well-organised and difficult to beat – you will have a lengthy career as a coach. Today, increasingly, international sport is: “war without bullets.” Since you don't want to lose a war, it goes without saying, you don't want to lose a sporting international.

But, while I fell in love with the Lions back in the 1950s, just as I was getting into rugby, in the professional era, the whole Lions concept has struck me as increasingly irrelevant. Winning in New Zealand in 1971 and South Africa three years later seemed to matter. These days, I don't see why we continue to tour, when it is obvious, to the four Home Unions and in particular the too-influential English clubs – the Lions are starting to get in the way.

In the next few weeks, with Team GB back home from Tokyo, while the athletes in the various disciplines try to get back to normal, the movers and shakers will hang-up their Team GB blazers and get back to their individual sports.

They will do the debrief, then immediately start planning for Paris 2024. Budgets will need to be worked-out, depending on how successful each individual sport was in Tokyo, how much money they will have to pay for the long road to Paris will need to be divided up.

Those sports such as rowing, who have been perceived as having had a poor games, will need to work-out what they can do on a perhaps reduced budget. Those under-funded sports who punched above their funding weight, will have to persuade the money men: with better funding, we can produce more medals.

That scenario doesn't apply to the Lions. We know, for instance, that Team-GB is “owned” by the National Olympic Committee of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This body is managed by its full-time executive officers. But, the elected officials come from each of the designated Olympic sports.

Archery, athletics, basketball, badminton, boxing, canoeing, cycling, equestrian sports, fencing, football, golf, gymnastics, hockey, judo, karate, modern pentathlon, rowing, rugby sevens, tai kwan do, tennis, volleyball, wrestling, yachting, whether a “big ticket” Olympic sport or a minority one – each individual sport has a voice on the National Olympic Committee, and that individual sport's voice is a pan-UK & NI one, with the exception of football, where it's the (English) FA's ball and the three Celtic nations must never forget that.

Google (other search engines are available) Who owns the British Lions? And this is the answer you get:

“Lions Rugby Travel Limited is a joint venture company owned by British Lions Designated Activity Company and The Mike Burton Group Limited, registered in Ireland with company number 488318 with its registered office at First Floor, Simmonscourt House, Simmonscourt Road, Dublin 4, Ireland.”

That address is an interesting one, because it's the same address as for Six Nations Rugby Ltd., the corporate body which does what it says on the tin and runs the Six Nations competition each year. But, what is more-interesting is the association with the Mike Burton Group. This gives the impression, the Lions is more about making money out of selling Lions memorabilia and package tours to follow each tour, than about developing rugby.

The Olympics are mainly about giving those sports which spend their lives in the dark shadow of the UK's obsession with football, once every four years, a wee bit of daylight and the oxygen of publicity.

The Lions in the 21^st century is all about making money – with Lion #525, Mike Burton, getting a large cut of this, and fair play to him for that.

For me, however, the Lions should be about showcasing what's very good about rugby in the British Isles, and that probably goes against the grain of modern-day “We must not lose,” international rugby.

In the Olympics, as I said above, planning goes on in four-year cycles. It's the same in international rugby, where the various national teams plan things around the Rugby World Cup.

The Lions cuts across this, a Lions Tour is the mid-way point of each four-year RWC cycle and I don't think, treating it as a similar-sized campaign in terms of prestige helps either the Lions, or the game. Also, as rugby (hopefully) expands beyond its British Imperial roots, with World Rugby ranking points becoming more important. I suspect the four individual unions will become more-reluctant to see players taken away for a Lions campaign.

Then there is the attritional side of 21^st century international rugby. I can think back to legendary individual Lions' performances: Jackie Kyle in New Zealand in 1950; the youthful Tony O'Reilly, Cliff Morgan and Dickie Jeeps in 1955; Bev Risman, Ken Scotland, O'Reilly and Peter Jackson in 1959. Later on, we had the two top tours, 1971 and 1974: JPR Williams, Mike Gibson, Barry John, Gareth Edwards, Phil Bennett, JJ Williams, Andy Irvine and a hard core of forwards able to match the hard men from New Zealand and South Africa – Willie John McBride, Big Broon, Wee Fud, Fran Cotton, Merv the Swerve and so on.

Then, things started to change. Winning suddenly became more important than enjoying touring and learning about the countries you were visiting. Along came professionalism, and the particular Lions mystique became tarnished.

The big clubs were less-willing to release their stars for long tours. With players to pay, additional commercial considerations came into play, and rugby has been the loser in this.

So, whether the Lions That is a big question, which needs urgent consideration. Maybe we should be going back to something like the original flag-waving notion of the Lions (which we should remember, even from the start in 1888, was driven by commercial considerations).

Perhaps we should be sending out the Lions, under a maverick, pro-”Champagne Rugby” Head Coach, such as Gregor Townsend, to entertain and showcase the best of the British Isles.

Go back to South America, the Lions haven't been to Argentina since 1910 – in fact go to The Americas. Go to the Pacific Islands, they surely deserve a Lions Tour. Be constructive, send a perhaps less-experienced Lions squad round Europe.

The rota of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand has become stale, let's either freshen things up, or perhaps, with regret, close down the Lions.