Amateurism versus professionalism in late nineteenth century British rugby

Amateurism vs. Professionalism debate by looking at Rugby in late nineteenth century Britain

Amateurism vs. professionalism: 19th century Britain

One of the great ideals of 19th century British sport was that of the 'amateur' athlete, a man who played for the love of the game alone. While this concept may seem noble in theory, in reality it was often used in an exclusionary fashion, to define the purest pursuit of sport as an upper-class pastime, rather than one in which lower-class men could make the money they need to survive and pursue the sport they loved.

According to Allison Lincoln in her review of Amateurism in British Sport, an interesting distinction in 19th century Britain is notable between the sports of cricket and rugby. Cricket was almost entirely played by graduates of public (tuition-based) schools while rugby had mixed ranks of players. According to Lincoln "For a concept so central to the organization of sport for so long, amateurism was subject to a wide variety of definitions and interpretations. In cricket, for example, all players in the 'first class' game were known as professionals or amateurs, but there was no definition of the distinction…By contrast, the Rugby Union notoriously outlawed anybody who had ever played any sport for money."

Rugby, although it was played in the public schools, was a more violent, contact sport than cricket, and had many lower-class devotees. Sports where there was a heavily mixed audience of a variety of classes were the most careful about securing a close division between amateurs and professionals: "Nobody worried about a cricketer, footballer or rider who had competed professionally choosing to compete as an amateur at a later date, but this was absolutely forbidden in rugby and rowing."