A recent article by the UK’s Telegraph opened up a debate about as heated as the endless Dupont as GOAT narrative, and raised the question of what we understand a ‘star’ to be when it comes to rugby.
The headline – Ilona Maher: Rugby’s biggest star since Jonah Lomu – caused all kinds of consternation and debate. And let’s start by acknowledging that that’s exactly what it was intended to do. We all know that even the most reputable publications are waging a battle for waning audiences, and that clicks and engagement are what keep them afloat. In a media landscape such as this, headlines that grab attention and provoke reaction are everything. The hope is that people will go beyond the headline and read the article, obviously, but even if they don’t, the online engagement means the publication reaches more people than it might have otherwise. In this instance, those who did read the article would have been met with a nuanced interview with Ilona that delves into why she believes it's so important to bring the game of rugby into the spotlight.
It also provides context for the headline, and brings me back to my question – what do we mean when we talk about someone being a rugby star? Fiona Tomas, the author of the article in question, is really referring to fame, rather than talent (which is not to suggest that Ilona doesn’t have both – she does). But judging by many online comments, some people are conflating the idea of being rugby’s biggest star with the notion of being the greatest player of all time. And they are upset. Like, very upset. This isn’t the first time content about Ilona’s popularity has met with a wave of hostility, and it probably won’t be the last. It seems to make some people deeply uncomfortable when she is lauded for being more popular than players like Siya Kolisi or Antoine Dupont. We could delve into why this appears to be so unsettling for a particular sector of the rugby audience, but that’s not really the point of this article, and I think we all know the answer anyway. Setting aside the fact that hyperbole is a given when you want to get people to react to a headline, the comparison with the much-revered Jonah Lomu is a bold one. But when we’re looking at the right metrics, it’s also a fair one.
The challenge is that the world has changed since players like Jonah burst onto the scene and became household names. In the earlier days of rugby, you were less likely to know a player’s name if they weren’t doing better than everyone else on the field. With the advent of social media and content creation, that has changed to some extent. There are exceptionally talented players that are not stars in the more modern sense of the word – they go about the business of rugby quietly, and stay out of the limelight. Pieter-Steph du Toit is an example that springs to mind. On the other end of the spectrum, players like Antoine and Siya have huge followings both because of their on-field talent, and because they have developed almost cult-like status even among the most casual fans of the game (or those who know nothing about it at all). So where does Ilona fit into this? She is very, very good, but I would argue that she would be the first to acknowledge that, while she is undoubtedly a star, she is not yet in the conversation about the greatest players. Her talent is undeniable, but she’s not trying to contend that she is a better player than Jonah Lomu, or Portia Woodman-Wickliffe for that matter. What she is saying is that along with that talent, she also has immense popularity, which gives her a platform that she can leverage for the betterment of the sport.
That’s not a comfortable prospect for the traditionalists among us, but is it bad for rugby? Ilona believes fervently that her online stardom can be used to grow the game – you know, the thing we all claim to want. The Bristol Bears Women shared a few stats highlighting the impact that Ilona’s stint with the club had, and there is no denying – it was immense. Average attendance for their fixtures increased by over 100%, just for starters. Of course, the naysayers will argue that those people may have been there just for Ilona, and so its not sustainable growth. Perhaps that’s true to a degree. However, when the idea is to grow the game, getting people to watch it is the obvious first step. When you attract new fans, or appeal to casual ones, there’s a chance that some of them won’t stick around. But there’s also the chance that some of them who would never have been exposed to rugby otherwise will fall in love with the game and stay. That’s a win. And even those who don’t stick around have spent money on tickets and merch. Another win for a sport that desperately needs funding. Others might argue that the Ilona effect will be limited to only the teams she plays for, or to the women’s game. I’d argue that anything that leads to growth for one segment of rugby is positive for the game overall. And when better to target audiences for women’s rugby than a World Cup year? A World Cup which, by the way, has already seen higher ticket sales than any of the previous iterations of the women’s tournament.
Whatever your metrics for stardom are, it’s hard to argue the potential impact of players like Ilona. I’m fascinated, but frankly unsurprised, by the backlash she gets. The good news is, no one is being forced to become her fan, follow her on social media, or even watch women’s rugby if they don’t want to. I would encourage the naysayers to just unclench a tiny bit though, and consider the potential positives of this brave new world. We talk so much about how we can grow the game, get rugby in front of different audiences, and attract new fans. To do this, we could keep relying on the powers that be, and their approach, which seems to primarily rely on endless law changes that no one really wants, and that are more likely to drive existing fans away than attract new ones. Or we could have great players like Ilona using their celebrity to get people excited about the game we love. I know which option I’d choose.
コメント