Ben contributed a number of articles to Newport match programmes including the following published in that for Newport v Llanelli on 26th April 2000 regarding the new age of professionalism in rugby and the uncertainties accompanying it. It is interesting to compare a players' concerns of 2000 with the game today:-
"A Players view..."
"Ben Breeze"
"Wing, Newport Rugby"
"When reading this article, please bear in mind this is merely a personal over-view of the game in general and does no way reflect this or any other club's or governing body's approach to the game of Rugby Union."
"In the summer preceding the 1996/97 season, an inevitable change occurred and the age of profes-sional rugby was upon us - surely no-one could have foreseen what turbulence the next four years were to hold in store."
"I am sure that few would disagree that professional rugby has radically changed their perspective on the game, and particularly its future. Primarily I feel this is due to a real inability at virtually every level to create a framework in which all concerned can constructively progress. This failure has created a feeling of confusion which, in turn, has bred the insecurity that rules Rugby Union today. It affects everyone at every level of the professional game . . . take the supporter as an example, the man who regularly attempts to justify paying the £20 (or so) per head just to pass the turnstile in order to watch a constantly changing (and 'mysteriously' inconsistent) team of players who may (or may not) be there at the end or the season - just ask any Richmond supporter!"
"Then there are the players, regularly dogged with the conflict of where their loyalties lie. Whose advice do you take - your agent's, the club's, your friends, your partner's, yourself? if you are a non-international player you may well find yourself in a situation where a three-month contract is the only security you can get - and believe me, I would not wish those three months on any man. However, if you have had a good season or are a player of particular repute, the club may want to offer you a longer term contract - but how long do you sign for? Sure, security is a comparatively stress-free zone, but if you commit for too long there may be any number of reasons why this may prove to be an unwise choice. Anything from injury to loss of form and even personality clashes can literally send a player tumbling into exile within a club, yet all 'true rugby players' want to do (and forgive me for making assumptions for I know there are exceptions) is play regular 1st XV rugby at as high a standard as their talent permits. Confused?. . . join the club."
"Then there is the club's owner - a man or woman who is pumping vast sums of money into a club that has no guaranteed or chartered future. I appreciate that this is a comparative study and some clubs require a lot more money to maintain them than others, but the fact remains - a person who may have little or no legal requirement to do so is investing (probably the wrong word) umm, allocating, large sums of money into what could quite easily be seen as a bottomless pit. So why do they do it? That is something I dare not discuss, but one thing is for sure - they did not get rich by 'throwing money away'. Regardless, as the club owner, there are three main channels of finance: gate receipts (obviously dependent on how many people come to watch you play), sponsorship and endorsements (again bound by your level of success) and lastly (but all too often), your own cheque book. The challenge is to bring your club into semi-viability using the gate receipts ana endorsements, with you 'topping up' the difference. Sounds straightforward? . . . unfortu-nately it is not that simple - if you do not have the slightest inkling into who your team will be playing against, and in what competition it makes the whole job of drumming up commercial financial support and coaxing in the ever-elusive 'latent fan base' all the more difficult. Again, it is plain to see how a lack of clarity at the very top of British rugby is, and will continue, corroding the chances of ever producing a marketable product."
"So who is in charge of these frighteningly big decisions? . . . Well each of the Home Unions have their own proposals which must be given counsel, yet for me a British League is by far the most beneficial for all concerned. I'm sure most, if not all, of you are aware of Mr. Walkingshaw's proposals for a British League. However, there are a number of major organisational stumbling blocks in his way . . . Which countries are involved in the British (possibly European) League? How many teams from each individual country are going to be involved? What criteria are being used in the selection process of those clubs? (For example, would it be success in the form of domestic league placement, or would guaranteed long(ish) term financial stability overrule?) On what format will the competition be based? Will there be an immediate relegation system and who/how qualifies for promotion? Add to this short list a few of your own queries and you can see just how precarious this whole episode is going to be. Unfortunately, what will be left domestically for the clubs not involved in this league is anyone's guess, and with the removal of Europe's top players their fate, although bleak, is yet to be decided. However, a British League would be a hugely bold and positive move for Rugby Union in the Northern Hemisphere and it's on innovation such as this that a real future for the professional game relies. One thing is for sure - sentiment can play no part in a game which prides itself on its decorum. Logistically, it would require a great deal of co-operation from a number of very influential people, but after nearly five years of 'fumbling around in the dark' surely rugby must take this leap into the unknown, for it may prove to be its very last chance."