Don't blame Townsend for Red Bull gig — blame Scottish Rugby for allowing it
Gregor Townsend’s decision to take a secondary role with Red Bull has ignited a familiar debate in Scottish rugby: loyalty versus opportunity, optics versus governance. The core argument is simple: the Scotland head coach has not betrayed his team or the supporters by accepting a high‑performance opportunity outside his national role; the responsibility lies with the Scottish Rugby Union (SRU) for permitting, structuring and communicating the arrangement. If there is an issue, it is a policy issue.
What actually changed?
Townsend, Scotland’s head coach, has taken a second job connected to Red Bull. That has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest, time commitments and the message it sends about national‑team priorities. Yet in professional sport, dual engagements are not unprecedented. The meaningful questions are less about morality and more about management: what framework governs the role, and how does it protect Scotland’s interests?
Why the backlash misses the mark
Criticism directed at Townsend personally assumes he is acting outside acceptable bounds. But if the SRU has approved the move, then the guardrails, not the individual, are the story. A coach taking opportunities to broaden his high‑performance toolkit is rational; it is the governing body’s job to define when and how that is compatible with the national program.
- Coaches routinely seek fresh ideas from other elite environments. Learning transfer can be a net gain.
- If a conflict exists, it’s because policy allowed it. Accountability must sit with the author of that policy.
- Public trust hinges on clarity: what is permitted, under what conditions, and how is the national team protected?
SRU’s responsibility: policy, transparency, protection
The SRU’s role is to ensure Scotland’s preparation, performance and intellectual property are never compromised. That is achieved through clear rules, not vague assurances. If a second role is allowed, the SRU should be able to explain why it benefits Scotland, how risks are mitigated and what contingencies exist during intense international windows.
What good governance should include
- Scope and limits: a written description of external duties, time commitments and non‑overlapping responsibilities.
- Guardrails on timing: blackout periods during Test windows, camps and key preparation phases.
- Confidentiality and IP protection: strict clauses to safeguard Scotland’s systems, data and competitive insights.
- Workload management: clear thresholds to prevent dilution of focus or burnout.
- Performance accountability: transparent KPIs for the national team, so outcomes remain the ultimate measure.
- Communication: upfront, factual explanation to supporters to avoid rumour filling the vacuum.
Potential benefits — if managed properly
Access to different high‑performance cultures can sharpen a coach’s methods. Exposure to novel approaches in analysis, conditioning or decision‑making could translate into marginal gains for Scotland. But those potential upsides only matter if the SRU demonstrably controls the risks and ensures Scotland’s needs come first, always.
The optics problem is solvable
Even if the practical risks are contained, perception matters. Fans want to know their head coach’s full focus is on Scotland, particularly in the build‑up to major fixtures. The antidote is clarity: tell supporters what is allowed, when it’s allowed and why it helps. Silence invites suspicion; specifics build trust.
What this means for the national team
Ultimately, results will shape the verdict. If Scotland prepare well and perform consistently, the discussion will fade into the background. If standards slip, any side venture will be blamed, fairly or not. That is precisely why the SRU must own the framework, not let personalities carry the public burden for systemic decisions.
Conclusion: focus the accountability
Townsend accepting a second role is not, in itself, a betrayal of Scottish rugby. It is a professional pursuing development within the parameters set by his employer. If the arrangement is inappropriate, that is a governance failure, not an individual failing. The SRU must either provide the transparency and safeguards that make the role compatible with Scotland’s ambitions — or revise its policy. Don’t blame the coach for operating within the rules. Change the rules, or explain them better.
