JAMES GORDON has strong reservations about the new fixture structure for the merged Championship competition that will play out in 2026.

THE release of the Championship fixture list ought to be an exciting date in the calendar.

But instead this year it brought more questions than answers.

Whether you agree or not with the decision to merge with League One and create a larger Championship division, that was the move made by clubs towards the end of last season and since then it has been about just how you can create a fixture format that fits 21 teams.

There still hasn’t been a formal announcement of just how the RFL have come up with the fixture list, which means each team faces 12 others home and away; meaning they’re in a league with eight other teams that they won’t see all season (apart from a potential play-off date).

But for an enlightening video released on Facebook by Barrow Chairman Steve Neale, fans would be none the wiser as to how the format was derived. All the RFL said in their statement releasing the fixtures was: “Ten of those fixtures will be determined by league positions from the 2025 season, while two opponents will be based on geographical location to ensure all clubs get to play against their local rivals.”

Even that is plainly not true. As an example, Widnes’ two ‘geographical location’ games are against London and North Wales, while they don’t play Rochdale or Swinton.

Hunslet face three trips to Cumbria, yet don’t play against Batley, based just seven miles away, Halifax, Doncaster or Goole. On almost every club’s fixture release post, there were gripes with the fixture list from the people who matter most, the fans.

Batley have withdrawn season tickets from sale in light of the situation surrounding Salford, who were liquidated barely 24 hours after the fixtures were released.

One of the arguments for the merger was to improve the finances for League One clubs, yet Rochdale don’t play Halifax, an obvious big-ticket game for them.

The format, in which teams have an easier fixture list depending on where they finished the previous season, doesn’t feel like it has longevity. Maybe it will take one of the sides with the easier fixture list, like Keighley or maybe even a York-assisted Newcastle, to finish very high up in the table to prove that.

While it appears that the RFL have always been confident of a Salford side, in one form or another, taking to the field in 2026, the average fan isn’t privy to that information and so when they see one of their opponents for the new season is liquidated, it makes them assume those fixtures won’t be taking place.

There doesn’t appear to be a contingency in place for if Salford don’t make it – or indeed if any others don’t, with worries surrounding Featherstone and a growing concern about North Wales Crusaders.

The format means if a team drops out, then 12 teams will be left with two fewer games to play than the other eight with no obvious way of resolving, aside from working the league table out using average points per game or simply giving those clubs two walkover victories.

As for Salford, the hope is that they take to the field. The RFL have copped criticism for not dealing with the situation earlier, but it is naive to think they could have forced the issue and withdrawn a licence from a club that owed HMRC a ton of money. That would have had significant implications for the RFL and other Rugby League clubs if the governing body is seen to be making that straight forward for clubs to avoid paying tax debt, whether you think it was obvious it wasn’t going to be paid or not.

Planning appears to have been going on for a Salford phoenix club to emerge, and while they’ll be behind the eight-ball with recruitment, face the toughest fixture list and presumably a points deduction, they’ll still be in the same league they were going to be in. For fans, it will be disappointing to face potentially a second successive ‘write-off’ season, though a top 10 play-off means they may stand a chance. It does raise the potential issue of clubs writing off debt in future and simply re-forming, knowing that other than a points deduction to be in the same league, there is no real consequence.

We don’t even know what teams are playing for. Will there be promotion to Super League on the table? You’d assume there must be some mechanism to get the Darren Lockyer-backed London Broncos back to the top-flight for 2027. Oldham will have designs on that too. Reports that the IMG scores will be more weighted to league position raise questions about the integrity of a system where some teams have it easier than others. Even the top 10 play-off format remains unconfirmed.

Yet these clubs, many of whom are struggling in the current climate, are still expected to sell season tickets and attract sponsors.

And that’s before we get to the elephant that’s always in the room – the inconsistency of home and away games, sometimes with huge gaps between. Impacted of course by the availability of some grounds due to sharing with football, and the need to re-seed in the summer, but still another turn-off for fans when the season starts in week one, and then your next home game isn’t until week six.

So, what’s the solution?

For me there are three – more teams, fewer teams or a regionalised format. I have been a champion for a few years of inviting Super League reserve sides to compete in League One and give them a meaningful competition to play in. It also stops another thing that irritates fans, dual-registration and the two-week (soon to become one-week) loans, which degrades appearing for a club far more than having to take on the second team of an elite club.

A Wigan reserves side playing against, say, Midlands, on a Sunday at 3pm would attract some fans of theirs, likewise the reverse fixture gives Midlands the chance to market playing a Wigan side. If you added seven Super League reserve sides to the current 21, you’d have two leagues of 14 with promotion and relegation in between. Perhaps two leagues of 12 would be better; but either way, you could use the resource of the Super League sides to address the geographical challenges that have faced League One in the past. The involvement of Super League reserve sides has been suggested in the past, though I understand it was widely rejected. That seems short-sighted.

Although fewer teams is listed as a solution, clearly that isn’t one anybody wants. To lose five clubs and go to 16 might create a better format; you could lose three clubs and push two more up to Super League and have two divisions of 16 in the professional game.

That leaves the regionalised format. Interestingly, the pools for the Challenge Cup draw point to what might be the answer. A Yorkshire-centric division of 10 teams, and then a North west and the rest division of 11; with a cross-over extended play-off series at the end. London going to Super League would make that more balanced too. Surely ensuring that local teams play each other is a priority – especially in semi-professional sport, both in terms of saving costs and making money.

One thing is for sure, this current 21-team Championship format isn’t for the long-term.