As everyone’s aware, the price of a pint these days seems to increase almost daily. But what about the price of an IMG point?

Today you’ll see that our IMG score has reduced from 6.87 to 6.64. Our second reduction year on year.

Last year we lost points because of changes to the ‘Fandom’ pillar around viewership and social media targets, and this year we’ve lost points due to changes in the ‘Finance’ and ‘Community’ pillars. These changes seem to benefit Super League Clubs whilst impacting those outside of that bubble.

I’m sure you’re all aware that Championship Clubs were given the opportunity to withdraw from the process for 2026, and some of our colleagues have chosen to do that. The question rightly asked of us will be why did we participate if we don’t agree with the process? The answer is simple, as a member of the RFL council, part of our role is to hold the RFL Board to account, and we couldn’t do that if we weren’t actively participating in the process.

Our opposition to the process is well documented, and I don’t intend to revisit that here. Indeed, I’m sure the RFL will point to improvements made by Clubs to their grounds since the introduction of the system as a pointer to its success, but my questions now would be whether those improvements required to meet IMG criteria are the right ones for the Clubs, and whether the system offers ‘Value for Money’?

To offer an example, at Hunslet we had a choice this year. Invest in a big screen and pitch side electronic advertising or invest in refurbishing our bars. The only reason this was in any way a consideration was down to IMG Grading criteria, but in the end the decision was easy. Why would we spend money on a big screen and pitch side electronic advertising? These would be of use for, say, a max of 16 home games a year for 80 minutes at a time, whilst most people present would be watching the game unfold on the pitch as opposed to the screen or advertising. The bars, however, are used beyond match day, offering up opportunity for us to drive up income by having new, comfortable and modern spaces for use across the community. Any business would have taken that decision, but we’re not rewarded for making the right call on business investment.

On value for money there are two elements that spring to mind.

Firstly, the RFL should be open and transparent about the cost of implementing the system:

  • The initial set up the grading system
  • The annual payment to IMG
  • The cost of the annual audit system
  • The cost of the appeal system
  • The number of staff at the RFL involved in monitoring the system and associated staffing costs
  • The withdrawal costs to the RFL if we were to end the IMG partnership

Of course, that doesn’t include the admin costs incurred by the Clubs running the system which would need to be added on top.

That would allow us to take an objective financial view.

Secondly, a fairer way to understand ‘value for money’ would surely be to divide the amount of central funding a Club has by how many IMG points they scored. That would help us to understand the price of a point at each Club.

I’m confident it would also expose that more investment is needed in the Championship to allow those Clubs any chance of meeting some of the IMG criteria. No doubt the IMG Grading process will fall by the wayside eventually, but until then we remain at the table ready to question and challenge.

Grade C marking? We’ll have to take that on the chin. But anyone who’s experienced a match day with us at South Leeds Stadium knows we are way beyond that, and if you’ve never been then why not come down to a game? We’re sure you’ll love it!

Neil Hampshire
CEO
Hunslet RLFC