Professional rugby has been compared to a planned economy by investors Andrew Trimble and Dan McKeown in an op-ed published in The Times. They argue that rugby clubs operate with a system where they fund player salaries, youth academies, and parts of player development, but they do not have full control over match schedules or the availability of key players. At the international level, the World Rugby Council includes 52 members from national federations or regional groups, but there is no direct representation for clubs or leagues. In England, the RFU Council includes 62 representatives, while the Premier Rugby Limited, which runs the Premiership, has only one representative. This setup leaves a Premiership club owner with "no individual authority and unlimited responsibility." Trimble and McKeown reference the concept of the "soft budget constraint," introduced by Hungarian economist János Kornai. This idea describes a system where a central authority sets rules, allocates resources, and controls access to the market, while individual entities—like rugby clubs—must manage their finances and compete in the market. In rugby, this means that while a central body sets some rules and distributes resources, clubs still have to sell tickets, attract broadcasters, and manage their own finances in a competitive environment. Several clubs, including Wasps, Worcester, and London Irish, have fallen from the top tier of English rugby despite their owners investing their own money. The Premiership relies on a financial agreement with the RFU, which pays £33 million per season to the ten clubs as part of the Professional Game Partnership. In return, the RFU gains increased control over the management of English international players. In contrast, France has taken a different approach. Since July 1, 2026, the new agreement between the French Rugby Federation (FFR) and the French Rugby League (LNR) gives the League responsibility for managing the TOP 14, PRO D2, and Supersevens competitions, as well as their commercial rights. The rules for international player availability and the match schedule will be jointly decided until 2031. French clubs remain within the framework of World Rugby, but the federation and the professional league have created a clearer division of responsibilities. Despite this, Trimble and McKeown caution that the French model is not a guaranteed path to financial success. They note that private ownership does not automatically ensure profitability, and centralized systems can still produce strong sporting results. Ireland is cited as an example where federations also fund amateur rugby, training, and referees. Their main criticism is about the distribution of economic power rather than the presence of federations. As the 2026-2027 rugby season begins, European rugby faces ongoing questions about who controls the schedule, who pays the players, who takes on financial losses in a bad season, and who benefits from growth in areas like stadium capacity and TV rights. While France has not yet solved all these challenges, its agreement between the Federation, League, and clubs already resembles a unique model: a system where stakeholders must work together, set the rules first, and then negotiate their roles.