Of all the lessons that emerged from the Barbarians’ eventful day out at Twickenham last week, one that rings among the loudest is that when it comes to balancing men’s and women’s rugby, actions still speak louder than words.

Thrashing an inexperienced South African side in front of a record crowd attendance for a standalone women’s rugby match and occupying a slot on BBC One on a busy Saturday afternoon of live sport, Barbarians Women proved the unlikely protagonists of what had been billed as a ‘historic’ double-header at the home of English rugby.

When the men’s team had to pull out of their fixture with Samoa after four players and two members of staff from the invitational side tested positive for Covid, with just 90 minutes’ notice communicated to fans attending the two matches, it was the women who stepped up and spared their blushes.

But the whole occasion felt somewhat bittersweet given the knee-jerk reaction from England Rugby and Barbarian FC, whose response seemed designed to appease fans of the men’s game only. “A full automatic refund will be made to all ticket holders,” read the statement issued just minutes later, “however, fans are encouraged to attend the Barbarians Women & Springbok Women’s XV.”

Their reasoning was simple. “Under the terms and conditions, tickets were sold for the men’s fixture with men’s tickets put on sale before the women’s fixture was confirmed,” England Rugby’s response said as to why fans would be entitled to a full compensation.

This savvy get-out-of-jail free card was confirmation of what organisers were desperately trying to conceal all along – that the added-on game was indeed nothing more than an add-on.

The men’s game, which was confirmed back in April, was always earmarked as the real money-spinner, the headline act. The women’s game meanwhile – which had been announced four months after the men’s – was a mere addition, being treated as a freebie to attract interested fans while failing to give the contest an equal billing. A commodity that only deserved to be bumped up to a historic, prime-time BBC One slot on a Saturday afternoon to fill a gap, for a fixture that otherwise would have been hidden away on a live stream in some inaccessible corner of the internet.

Jumping in Ubers to make a mad-dash to Twickenham for the original men’s 2.30pm kick-off, the adaptability of the women’s team was in direct contrast to the complacency shown by a select few of their male counterparts who had reportedly broken their Covid bubbles days before.

The 29,581-strong crowd who turned out for the game – whether they all intended to or not – was a milestone that was quickly jumped on by organisers, who duly bigged it up as a record attendance for a standalone women’s rugby match.

There is a sense that, while welcomed, it will always be framed within the day’s haphazard context. Would a similar number have stayed to watch the women’s game had normal proceedings occurred? In all likelihood, probably not. But then who can blame them when the majority are brainwashed from the start into believing that women are the inferior product in a ‘historic’ Twickenham blockbuster?

The forces at play here are nothing new. There are a growing number of examples to suggest that packaging female and male sporting spectacles together is more of a PR stunt than a feather in the cap for equality. Last July, the England Cricket Board vowed to reconsider its refund policy for The Hundred after more than 13,000 supporters were able to claim their money back when an Oval Invincibles men’s match was rained off. This came in spite of them witnessing the women’s team in action on the same day, at the same venue.  

More recently, the England and Wasps player Bryony Cleall called out Harlequins on social media after the men’s match only showed up on a ticketing website as part of the club’s festive ‘Big Game 13’ fixture next month, despite the event being a double-header.  

If this is the spirit of double headers – which are supposed to celebrate male and female athletes equally – then what point do they actually serve in the fight for greater parity within women’s sport?