Screw the ARU, let’s start our own comp
Roar Guru
By rugbyfuture, 5 Jan 2010 rugbyfuture is a Roar Guru
If the ARU doesn’t do something soon, there will be no turning back and we could suffer the same path that rugby took in post- war Germany. Rebuilding is much harder than renovating. So what can we do?
Spain have set up the Superiberica de Rugby (Iberian Super Rugby) independent from the Spanish Rugby Federation. The first competition was seen as a success and the Portuguese Rugby Federation are said to be setting up four teams to join in, with two other teams – one from Gibraltar and the other from Andorra – set to join in the future, too.
This competition was set up by enthusiastic investors, including the Real Madrid Football Club, rather than the Spanish Rugby Federation.
The question raised here is whether the same enthusiasm with large scale capital investors can be emulated in Australia, even with the close competition from the NRL, AFL and A-League.
The Gold Coast and Western Sydney rugby enthusiasts seem to point to such enthusiasm, with their bids for the fifteenth Super Rugby team.
Indeed, The Roar can help point the way towards Australian Rugby enlightenment, with the enthusiasm put behind a grassroots Rugby Australia, built from a single article.
One of the major flaws in the ARU is the money needed to establish and contain a competition until it can be independently viable. Many have also pointed out that private equity is the only way to go (although there seems to be fault with this when co-operating with the ARU).
Of course, this sort of drastic action can only be applied if the ARU fail to react to what the rugby community have been yearning for.
If, indeed, this were to happen, the competition could easily be re-admitted into the ARU playing and development structure.
It is the dream of the people to have this competition, so why shouldn’t the community act on this. With proper lobbying and administration, rugby in Australia could have hopes of retaining, in the first instance, players who were juniors in rugby but have since gone on to rugby league.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (7)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- ARU, Rugby Union, Spanish Rugby Federation, Superiberica de Rugby
rugbyfuture said | January 5th 2010 @ 2:10am | Report comment
be careful to avoid a Rugby League type situation though
Ken said | January 5th 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I was thinking a similar thing but maybe not for the same reasons. Obviously, you don’t want a Super League situation, RL is still rebuilding from this. Even if this is avoided though and the players can be simultaneously contracted to both your new comp and the ARU controlled comps (Super rugby, Wallabies) – another admin body has been created. This admin body will have it’s own priorities and concerns differing to the ARU’s (and the state unions). League’s experience will show that the relationship between the more bodies you have involved and the amount of work that gets done is inversely proportional due to the infighting and politics.
rugbyfuture said | January 5th 2010 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
the idea would be to have, as a long term goal, the aim to put the brand of the competition back under ARU ownership, im not sure the ARU would mind, as it would free it from any financial responsibility. also the body containing the competition would not have any effects on juniors, or the laws of the game, as these are governed by our world body.
Sam said | January 5th 2010 @ 6:36am | Report comment
I do think that Australia can support a third tier of rugby. To be successful however it would need to be able to survive without Wallabies squad members for large parts of the competition because of Super rugby’s expansion. In order to do this I think it would need the following:
* To consist of no more than 8 teams, playing out of cities that can be easily accessed (major airports, therefore cheaper travel).
* A squad of no more than 26 players, any players outside the squad would get a match-fee if they play or travel with the teams but that is it.
* The salary cap and player payments would have to be very low, I would say max 70-80K a year salary, average around 35K a year. That would be approx 900K a year for the squad of 26.
* Be over in 9 weeks; a full round-robin and semi-s and final.
* Need broadcasting money – crowd numbers would not be enough to pay for the competition.
I also think many of the teams would have to do what the less wealthy teams do in the New Zealand NPC – have players busing from place to place to save money, staying in motels rather than hotels. Even cooking their own food etc. Bay of Plenty in the NPC is a good example of a team that has been pretty successful while living off the smell of an oily rag.
I think it can be done, but it’ll be tough, and probably semi-professional / partially amateur rather than pro like the Super 14.
rugbyfuture said | January 5th 2010 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
i’d go 10 teams, but yes much of what you said was true
Roscoe said | January 5th 2010 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Sam,
spot on re being realistic on costs. Most players will come from non Test players plus Academies of Super 15 teams. The Aussie sevens players have shown they can step up and let’s not forget that guys like Alexander, Burgess, Mumm and Dennis had opportunities in the ARC to develop. Let’s say “why not” rather than “why” for a change.
I’d like to add the idea of an “FA Cup” type comp between these third tier teams and the NPC teams. Adds a bit of variety and the trans tasman rivalry is sure to give it a bit of spice.
sheek said | January 5th 2010 @ 9:24am | Report comment
RF,
This has been, & will continue to be discussed ad nauseum. I gather you’re a young guy about 20, give or take a year. I wonder if you’ll still be peddling a national comp in 30 years (just like me). I was smitten by the idea of a national comp in rugby about 30 years ago, & I was only 23 then!
In the mid-70s amateur era there was a national comp called the Wallaby Trophy. First division comprised Sydney, NSW Country, Queensland & Victoria. Second division comprised ACT, Qld Country, SA, WA & Tasmania. Sadly, it was abandoned as being too costly to run.
In the early 80s, QRU secretary Terry Doyle suggested a Trans-Tasman comp involving Queensland, Sydney or NSW, Auckland, Wellington, Canterbury & Otago. From this evolved the genesis of the super series -the South Pacific Championship (SPC) in 1986 – comprising Queensland, NSW, Auckland, canterbury, Wellington & Fiji.
This became the S10 in 1993; the S12 in 1996; the S14 in 2006 & will become the SR (S15) in 2011.
As for renovating versus rebuilding, technically & practically speaking, rebuilding from scratch is considered better. However, for financial reasons, renovating is more desirable. Germany & Japan, the defeated principle countries of WW2, became economic powers by the 1970s, largely because they were able to rebuild their national infrastructure from scratch.
Anyway, so much for that. As I’ve stressed several times recently, you won’t be able to implement a national comp unless the structure of the super series is changed. That is, from its current format to a Heineken Cup style structure.
IMHO, for the whole thing to work, national comp provinces (or clubs) need the carrot of qualifying for the super series (in a HC style format). Also bear in mind, from 2011, you’ll have 5 Australian provinces – NSW, Qld, ACT, WA & Vic – playing each other twice.
That’s 8 games per province, & 20 ‘local derbies’ in the whole season. Also, each province plays 18 super rugby (SR) matches in the season, followed by a super 6 finals series. the entire season will cover about 21-22 weeks.
Consequently, running a national comp alongside this is impractical for just about every reason imaginable. However, change the structure/format of SR (by truncating it), & you can then implement a national comp.
As Sam says, cost is a prohibitive factor. Since professionalism came in, about 95% of monies earned from TV revenue goes into paying players & coaching staff salaries, & structural costs. Very little is filtered down to the grassroots for development.
That said, change the playing & cost structures, allow private equity (up to 49%), & hopefully, we might start looking at something like you’ve suggested. If I had my “druthers” (would rather), & didn’t hve to worry about costs, I would implement an ARC of 12 teams, ech comprising a roster of 35 players, as follows:
Sydney (north shore) Waratahs (ex-NSW)
West Sydney Rams or Parramatta Blue Bulls
East Sydney Fleet or Randwick Galloping Greens
Central Coast Rays (personally suggest Harlequins)
Newcastle Wildfires or Cockatoos (rep. NSW Country)
Gold Coast Breakers
Brisbane Marauders (ex-Qld, still retain koala emblem)
North Qld Brolgas or Heelers (rep. Qld Country)
Perth Force (ex-WA)
Adelaide Falcons
Melbourne Rebels (ex-Vic)
Canberra Brumbies (ex-ACT)
Each club would play 12 games (6 home/6 away), playing each other once plus a double-up local derby. The local derbies would be: W.Sydney vs E.Sydney; Sydney vs Central Coast; Newcastle vs Gold Coast; Brisbane vs N.Qld; Perth vs Adelaide; Melbourne vs Canberra.
Top 4 would qualify for SR (S16), along with top 4 from NZ’s NPC; top 4 from SA’s Currie Cup & top 4 from Argentina’s Zona Campeonata.
The SR would comprise 4 pools of 4 teams (one team per country). The pools might look like this:
POOL A
AUS 1
NZL 2
ARG 3
RSA 4
POOL B
NZL 1
ARG 2
RSA 3
AUS 4
POOL C
ARG 1
RSA 2
AUS 3
NZL 4
POOL D
RSA 1
AUS 2
NZL 3
ARG 4
The top 2 from each pool would qualify for the quarters, followed by semis & the final. all teams play between 3-6 games. While the SR is being played, remaining teams from remaining domestic comps would play in knock-out style comps within each country.
SR would continue to be played at the beginning of each season. This means qualifiers are from previous year’s domestic comps. Domestic comps would continue to be played in the latter part of the season.
The 3N would now become the 4N with the addition of Argentina. Each country would only play 4 tests each in 4N. That is, play each other once, while 1 plays 2 & 3 plays 4, for the 4th match each. Inbound & outbound tours would still take place.
Like I said, providing cost wasn’t an issue, this is the kind of path I would be looking at implementing. And I believe it can be done with changes to domestic/international structures & also cost structures.
Sam said | January 5th 2010 @ 10:58am | Report comment
“you won’t be able to implement a national comp unless the structure of the super series is changed. That is, from its current format to a Heineken Cup style structure.” I don’t agree with that. Forgetting the money issue, the reason I proposed only 8 teams is to keep the competition at 9 weeks long. It would run concurrently with the NPC in NZ (12 weeks long), maybe having a couple of byes for big Tri-Nations matches or to avoid a round clashing with the NRL grand final or something like that. So you could have Test rugby, Super rugby and a third-tier like NZ does. The challenge would be raising enough money and keeping costs down. I don’t think investors are going to be too keen to throw lots of money at teams as some kind of charity, look a the problems the A-League is having with owners handing back licences. The question is whether one could get a broadcaster and whether this would cover the costs of the competition.
rugbyfuture said | January 5th 2010 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
i do admit i am as young as you say i am
however, i disagree in terms of not being able to run, in fact there is more likely a chance of the super rugby competition transforming into a H cup style format if australia developed a third tier , rather than simply reacting to a proposal of those sorts, it would be the catalyst.
i would start with ten teams in the initial comp, sunshine coast, brisbane, gold coast, central coast, western sydney, sydney, canberra, melbourne, adelaide and perth.
in terms of a southern hemisphere comp i say, top 4 from australia, SA and NZ each, 2 teams from pacific cup thingo, and two playoff spots.
klestical said | January 5th 2010 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
I’ve always thought of doing a qualifying process for super rugby as well..
regardless of whether australia gets a domestic comp up and running, why is it that new zealand and south africa have not used this method to ‘spice up’ their own domestic NPC and Currie Cup!
Corey said | January 5th 2010 @ 10:30am | Report comment
I think Rugby doesn’t need too much money from broadcasters, since there is a lot of willing investors, i.e. Gold Coast, and Sydney, but I do think broadcasting is needed.
sheek said | January 5th 2010 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Sam,
From an Aussie viewpoint, a national comp won’t have any significant point of difference from the SR starting in 2011. Consequently, there’s no place for it. Duplication of resources is a waste of money.
Unless of course the SR format is changed so that national comp teams have something to play for other than simply being national champ. The proposed SR (as does the current S14) will still provide the necessary function of developing new talent & fine-tuning current talent.
From 2011, there won’t ever be any ARC or similar, while the 5 Aussie sides can play 8 domestic matches against fellow Aussie sides, & 18 matches in total through the season, followed by a super 6 finals series.
Remember also, with the extended SR season, this will impact on the NPC (NZ) & Currie Cup (SA). The 3N is also being pushed back, meaning leading players will only be available for the latter half of NPC & CC matches.
In Australia, the all-powerful Sydney & Brisbane PR clubs will want their key players available during the climatic finals month of September.
There’s a finite number of quality first class professional rugby players in Australia. Whatever the comp they play in, they must be available for most of it, otherwise the comp will lack any credibility.
Of course, i would also love to see an all-Australia only national comp. But it can only happen with changes to current structures & formats.
Bay35Pablo said | January 5th 2010 @ 11:48am | Report comment
“with the extended SR season, this will impact on the NPC (NZ) & Currie Cup (SA). The 3N is also being pushed back, meaning leading players will only be available for the latter half of NPC & CC matches.”
The S15 will end by the first weekend of August. The CC and ANZC will then start. As such, it is as close to what we have now as you can get.
We need an equivalent to the ANZC and CC for the S15 non-Wallabies and also more, to expand the professional base. However, it would either require the clubseason to be shortened (as in NZ), or to lose them for the last part of the season. Which none of us can see the current club stick in the muds agreeing to.
sheek said | January 5th 2010 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
Bay/Sam,
Apologies in order…..
rugbyfuture said | January 5th 2010 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
the point of it all is to create that step were players can prove their worth without the need for representation., and move up to national interest through a club like style as club rugby cant provide good exposure for a player
sharminator said | January 10th 2010 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
with a new melbourne franchise for the super 15 there is no point having another level of rugby. With 5 super 15 teams … 30-35 players each in a squad … plus development contracts .. there is no need for another level above club rugby.
Standout club players from Sydney and Brisbane competitions, which have always been the base of aussie rugby, wil get contracts if they show they are good enough at club level … its an adequate level at which to show your worth and try to stand out.
For a population the size of australia’s … 150 contracted players at the top level seems about right.
Sam el Perro said | January 5th 2010 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Some very big problems with running a competition independently of the ARU.
Firstly, the ARU is an organisation that if it were a person would be described as “a control freak”. There is no way that it would countenance an independent competition. That would mean that, straight off the bat, no players contracted to the ARU could play in it. The attractiveness of a competition without any Wallabies or provincial players to broadcasters is already in the ARC territory. This leads to my second point.
Money. A competition without top line players, and which the organisers would have to pay to get broadcast (like the ARC) would be losing money hand over foot.
Thirdly, where are the players coming from? A minimum of eight teams would be necessary to run an alternative competition. Say, very very conservatively, that there are 25 players per squad. That’s 200 players. Australian rugby is already struggling to fill four professional teams. With that top level removed there simply aren’t a couple of hundred players of the calibre necessary to run a professional, televised competition. The romantics might like to think they are in clubland. They aren’t.
rugbyfuture said | January 5th 2010 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
counter to your argument, if there was a tier above the NRL you could say much the same thing about league, yet they have very good contest and players within their comp who arent big name Kangaroos or cane toads or cockroaches.
i do agree that the ARU are a control freak and would possibly restrict players, but i do think there are players within the club level, especially once the different state teams put into the capital city club comps
westy said | January 5th 2010 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
I follow juniors in both rugby union and rugby league. There is obviously some overlap. My observation is that distinct from behavioural issues there is a greater emphasis and expectation in attitude amongst elite junior rugby league representative players that they have to serve their time in the U/20′s, become use to the expectations of a professional club competition.and then if lucky enouygh to obtain a contract with an NRL senior side do their time and become use to the rigours and hardness of a professional competitive club competition.
This is not unique to rugby league in Australia and exists in attitude and reality in NZ and SA rugby. It does not exist with the same rigour in elite Australian junior rugby union. It is aconsequence of less quality depth in Australian rugby union and an obvious attitude problem compounded by a few elite a few private schooll teams who delight in reinforcing how special some of their junior players are so much so they forget they are only playing schoolboys.
If Beale could have played afew years in an ARC competition after coming out of Joeys i honestly think his defensive deficiencies ( and they were glaring)could have bee worked out. One only had to be at the Rams semi final to see his attacking flair but witness his abysmal defence next year he is in the waratahs. It is a lot different with grown men.
I see good elite juniors join academy squads and Super 14 squads when they should be playing week in week out good hard rugby union at a reasonable level. We do not have it.
Elite rugby juniors do not talk of making an U/20′s squad but an actual Super 14 squad often well before their time.
In all honesty O’Connor has much potential but he is basically a wallaby bench player on $600000 a year when the player managers i talk to said he wants to play WC at all costs. Why not keep him hungry. He was not going overseas.
There were about 6 reasonable teams in Shute shield last year in terms of quality rugby and consistency . I for one cannot see this continuing for much longer. Whist Melbourne can have 10 foreign players the other 20 or so will come from the strong Sydney and brisbane clubs . These competitions are in decline unless something is done.
There is an attitide amongst some elite junior rugby union juniors that the last thing you want to do in pursuing your rugby career is play club rugby.
Sam said | January 5th 2010 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
That is a good point. I think they could find the players. Australian Super 14 squads are quite big from memory (more than 30) but lets say 30. That will be 150 players, take out 30 wallabies and you have 120 players, probably need another 80 for 8 teams. Any good Wallabies coach will release Wallabies players that are not involved, so one could average 125 fully professional players in the competition. That is over 15 per team. I don’t think the quality would be that poor, and I think it would help develop depth. The NPC in NZ has 14 teams! Plus there seems to be a larger number of NZ players in Europe (and Japan) yet they still produce quality Test players. It’s because they have another tier between club and Super rugby.
You are right though Westy, a third tier competition would be great for the Super rugby teams because it would help develop players (you would rarely get players going from school-boy to Super 14 anymore) and grow the game. As for the ARU, as long as it doesn’t cost them money they wouldn’t care, the only prob would be the clubs – who would have to reorganise their season.
I also think it’s important not to have the same teams in Super rugby playing in a domestic comp. It gets stale quickly that way, and support bases can build up quite fast. The great thing about a domestic comp as well is that an Australian team is guaranteed to win!
Sam Taulelei said | January 5th 2010 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Australian Super squads currently number 30 but the ARU are canvassing the franchises the idea of reducing the squads to 28 which would be equal with SA and NZ. This would also release 8 professional players to be available for the Victorian team in 2011.
Trying to equate quality with numbers is a best guess exercise. There is disparity among the Australian regions with the depth of talent in their catchment areas as well as their overall development. On pure numbers Australia has sufficient players to fill an eight team competition but there are gaps between the quality of professional players in Super teams not to mention amateur players.
This is to be expected as you have to start from somewhere and over time the level of competition will make for a more level playing field so those gaps aren’t as acute. That is the main difference between Australia and their Tri Nations partners. NZ and SA don’t always have the best players but there isn’t as large a jump for their players to step up.
The incentives for junior rugby players nowadays is very different compared to our years of playing when the game was amateur. The dream of representing your country is still a strong one however many players are also more pragmatic and realistic of their chances and seek a more attainable goal of becoming a professional rugby player and earning a higher income overseas. This was never an option for players who worked fulltime and is a great challenge to overcome because if left unchecked will make a smaller talent pool even smaller not just for each region but also for Australia.
Bay35Pablo said | January 5th 2010 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
Sam T, I thought the squads had been reduced from 30 to 28 for this year, which did my head in given the need for extra players next year for the Rebels.
sheek said | January 5th 2010 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
Westy,
You make some disturbing observations. There must be 50 schools in NSW, & I’m being ultra, ultra-conservative, both private & public, that produce a 1st XV every year. That’s 750 quality players every year. Okay, maybe a third will be repeats, but that’s still 500 quality rugby players leaving school every year.
Where do they disappear to….. ?
And I haven’t even brought Qld & the other states into the equation.
I agree with what you say about Beale. One of the biggest mistakes made by the states is signing talented young players straight out of school, then ‘warehousing them in academies. This does precious little for their physical, mental & emotional development.
Then there is the problem with the premier rugby (PR) clubs. If they go belly-up, who will provide the battle-hardening arena for future provincial & international stars?
Done correctly, a talented & ambitious rugby player is introduced to rugby at the juniors, where he is taught the basics & the love of the game; he then moves onto high school where he is developed further in the basics & structures of rugby, plus some tactical awareness.
Then when he hits premier rugby, he is exposed for the first time to players much older & wiser. He learns by playing with & against them. If he has worked hard & has exceptional talent, he can expect to be signed up by a province. If still good enough, he can become a Wallaby.
This is not a bad career path is managed correctly. Even for those who are never going to be good enough to progress to provincial & beyond, there has to be something meaningful for them to continue playing PR.
Red Rooster said | January 5th 2010 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Hey Sam
If you reduce from 30 to 28 across the 4 teams that means there are 8 contracts for the melbourne team. Add the 10 foreign players and 2 marquee that Melbourne will have then there are in fact only 8 new contracts in Australian rugby in 2011. If the other provinces take up their foreign player allocation of 2 each (currently Tahs 2, Reds 1, WA 1, Brumbies 0) this would reduce the number available for new contracted players who are Australian eligible to 4
A big investment for developing 4 new players.
Of course if the Melbourne team does not take up its allocation of foreign players then this will eat into the other teams ctachments, who dont have the same opportunity to bring in foreign players – that is a debate for another day
Sam said | January 5th 2010 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
I was thinking that any players contracted to Australian Super 14 teams would play in the competition (bar if playing international matches). The only players this would be a prob for would be current All Blacks or South Africans and Argentinians – I just don’t see All Blacks or SA’s going to Melbourne, but maybe a few Argentinian internationals will. Therefore won’t be as bad as you say – remember this competition is outside the two IRB Test windows. So I don’t think depth will be as tested as say it is in the NZ NPC.
rugbyfuture said | January 5th 2010 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
the idea though is to attract victorian and more australian players into the game and therefore build and develop new players from scratch, also the number of expat players is going to be reduced, as i often say, long term investment, not short term. it is a big investment, but it is for the whole of australian rugby and is very much worth it
Bay35Pablo said | January 5th 2010 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
Do we need to set up the equivalent of the Toyota Cup in rugby, with U-19 or U-21 Colts teams? they could be built around the Academy sides. The wages would be less, given they are juniors. You could model it around the ARC. The only issue would be nowehere to go once you hit 22, given the limited number of S15 spots. However, it might be the basis to build into an all age ARC again.
JF said | January 5th 2010 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
A bit of a different idea, but I have always thought the academy function should be taken away from the provincial teams, leave them to concentrate on Super Rugby. IMO there should be 8 university based rugby academies competing in a national competiton.
I see several advantages in that it would provide meaningful, national competition for our young talent to develop. It would differentiate the rugby pathway from other professional football codes. It would provide a true domestic rugby competion. It has the potential to build on the much admired passion and purity of schoolboy rugby and create games of real meaning.
Rather than pluck young talent from school, the best of the school-leaving talent would compete against each other for a year or two before being offered a professional contract.
The obvious response to this idea is that is reinforcing rugby elitism, also the great damage it will do to club rugby. To this I say, not elitism, rather utilising rugby’s strengths – university is more accessible than ever, it is a chance for rugby to do something completely different from rival sporting competitions.
As for damaging club rugby, yes it will for sure, but if club rugby don’t want to lose young talent, they should think about a national club competition – they have had ample opportunity to do so.
Spencer said | January 11th 2010 @ 7:02pm | Report comment
JF – thats the model that NFL and basketball use in America, and it works very well. It may also knock some sense into the likes of Cooper & Beale, by giving them time to emotionally mature and share their efforts between sport and study.