October 3 marks the 35th anniversary of the commencement of the 1991 Rugby World Cup. To my mind, it is still the recent past but when it began, I was a week younger than my eldest son is now.
While England lost 18-12 to New Zealand at Twickenham, they bounced back to make it all the way to the final a month later, though there they also suffered an Antipodean defeat, going down 12-6 against Austalia
On the face of it, the parallels between England’s campaign in the competition and that of the Netherlands at Euro 88 don’t jump right out.
In one instance, a host country made it to the final but lost; in the other, a side that had previously gone close in major tournaments managed to go all the way – and in the country of a rival, no less.
Of course, our focus is on the garments worn rather than fully on the feats achieved by those wearing them and, to that end, there is a curious similarity, albeit for different reasons.
It’s largely forgotten now, given the cachet held by the Dutch design (an adidas template known as ‘Ipswich’) that the players did not like it and that view was not even swayed by silverware – and so, after the tournament, they reverted to their previous style.
In the case of the England rugby team, there was also a backwards step in terms of sartorial evolution, though it was down to a contract dispute.
Since the first international Test match, a 1-0 loss to Scotland in 1871 – the Scots scored two tries to England’s one, but such a score only permitted a ‘try’ at goal, which determined if they counted – the England kit had largely been constant.
White shirts with a red rose were joined with white shorts; initially, the practice was for players to wear their club socks, a tradition still maintained by the Barbarians, before navy sets with white tops were adopted as standard. However, the beauty of simplicity also meant the simplicity of reproduction and, so, by the early 1990s, the Rugby Football Union were missing out on commercial income as all manner of manufacturers were free to produce a white jersey with a rose on the left breast.
Umbro, who had previously provided match kit for the RFU, were among the firms with such an offering and so were Cotton Traders, a business set up by former England captains Fran Cotton (hence the name), Steve Smith and Tony Neary.
In the spring of 1991, Cotton Traders struck a deal to succeed Bukta as kit suppliers – but, in order to protect intellectual property as they sought to capitalise on the upcoming World Cup, it meant that the shirt style had to be jazzed up.
While Colin Price’s piece in the Daily Mirror on March 14, the day after the launch, was not critical of the design, it was in the vein of lamenting a piece of heritage as well having a kick at another footballing code – which, in comparison with nowadays, was quite staid in terms of changing strips.
“England have thrown a century of tradition out of the Twickenham window – to make a £2 million World Cup killing.
“Rugby chiefs have followed football’s lead by cutting their cloth to compete in the lucrative new world of sports gear fashion.
“The famous all-white strip with a proud red rose on the left breast has been booted into touch for the tournament starting in October.
“In its place comes a racy new design with red, white and blue markings for both the first-choice and change strips. The purists will be horrified – but the sell-out is going to rake in £2 million over four years to be spread throughout the game.
“In addition, the players have struck a separate deal, approved by the RFU, which will guarantee them a slice of the profits from a range of accompanying leisure wear.
“England have worn the same style shirt for more than 100 years and the switch won’t please those who believe rugby tradition is more important than hard cash.
“But the RFU has lost a fortune over recent years to pirate manufacturers who have found the England kit much too easy to copy.
“Former England captains Tony Neary, Fran Cotton and Steve Smith, who manufacture under the name Cotton Traders, came up with the new design just for the World Cup. England will continue to wear their all-white strip in the Five Nations – at least for the time being.
“Skipper Will Carling, Richard Hill, Brian Moore and Paul Ackford modelled the new kit for the first time at Twickenham yesterday.
“The main shirts have blue collars and cuffs, red and blue stripes on one arm and blue flashes on the shorts. And if England need to change to avoid a clash of colours, the B-strip is equally dramatic with blue tops and red and white hoops.
“Cotton Traders believe the market to be so vast they they expect to turn over around £6 million. Rugby jerseys have become highly fashionable, with more variations than soccer shirts which are broadly based on a single colour.
“Twickenham marketing manager Mike Coley promised that rugby has no intention of following the biggest rip-off in kids’ sports goods.
“Football kit manufacturers change their designs every year, knowing that no self-respecting youngster would want to be seen out in last season’s colours.
“But Coley promised: ‘We certainly won’t be a party to that. Our sole intention is to make sure England kit sold comes from a bona fide manufacturer.’”
Cotton Traders and the RFU did well out of the World Cup but, in the wake of the tournament, discord arose over the lifespan of the kit. The union believed that, as mentioned in the Mirror article, the classic look would return for the 1992 Five Nations Championship, whereas the kit-manufacturer thought that brave new world was now fully in train.
In December, it was reported that, after the RFU board voted to revert to plain shirts, Cotton Traders were considering suing the governing body for potential lost earnings. The difference of views pertained into the new year and right up to the week of the opening game of the competition, against Scotland in Edinburgh.
On the morning of the match, January 18, Harry Pincott reported in The Scotsman that the stand-off had been ended:
“After lengthy negotiations between the Rugby Football Union and lawyers representing Cotton Traders, who were pressing for their World Cup shirts to be used, the two parties finally agreed yesterday afternoon to a deal.
“England will revert to their traditional all-white strips this season, while Cotton Traders would design a new-look jersey for next season.”
The scaled-back kit was still produced by Cotton Traders and the replacements were able to wear branded tracksuits. The change didn’t affect form on field as the team won the grand slam.
In September, the new kit was launched, given a first outing in the autumn internationals against Canada and a South Africa side returning to the international fold.
Incidentally, Cotton Traders would sign the Springboks to their stable too and in 1995 they wore the company’s kits as they won the World Cup that they hosted – the first of four victories in strips made by four different producers.
The company’s branding would not appear on-pitch at that tournament – 1999 was the first tournament to allow a maker’s mark on jerseys. In any case, it remained off the England match shirts until the expiry of the deal in 1997.
While Nike were the last company to make the Italy football kit while never being able to display a logo on it during games, the American firm were the firm to be able to decorate the England rugby kit in such a way – and a few years later, the 1991 story came full circle.
During their tenure as the official technical partners, Cotton Traders had not sold a ‘classic England jersey’ but, once they lost the contract, they reverted to doing exactly that and in 2002, found themselves defending a High Court case brought by the RFU and Nike over what they termed was the sale of unauthorised merchandise.
The case proved that the rationale for the original move towards distinctive designs was a sound one as the court ruled that a white rugby-stye jersey with a red rose was representative of the country of England without infringing on the rights of the national rugby team.
