Big changes in United States rugby

As an aussie who has lived in the states on 3 occassions I’m all over this issue: a. A major group of talent in the US is gridiron players from High School who did not get into College teams or College players who did not get into professional teams. There is basically no amateur gridiron in the states so if you miss out on College or professional, your playing days are over. There are a ton of great athletes who play their last game of footy at 18 or 21. b. The number of registered players in the US had grown to over 81,000, moving the US ahead of Wales and Scotland in terms of playing numbers. A 2010 survey by the National Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association ranked rugby as the fastest growing sport in the US. c. Rugby in the US is based on sevens and college – both of which are booming. Las Vegas and college sevens are now a big event. d. Rugby has been close to a professional national league for some time but as its strength is still in College, College sports requirements causes havoc with timetables.

I don'r know if RuggaMatrix is the most unbiased media to be listening to (or reading) regarding this shake-up of Super League. As stated above NYAC (and their long time coach Bruce McLean) are the club most strongly opposing disbanding Super League. McLean has also been a long serving member of the Ruggamatrix America crew as well. From all my previously listening he is an astute guy, who is very passionate, but can also get sidetracked with personal opinion and way too over the top with his passion getting the better of his logic. I imagine that this Super League stuff is far too caught up in politics and personal agenda to get a fair and unbiased assessement on RuggaMatrix (although I should find the time to listen to the latest episode first). Surely if geography and cost are the major hurdles to club rugby in the US, then creating more localised competitions is the right decision? Sticking to a competition with 8 teams spread the full length and width of the nation will never be cheap to run, just look at what it did to the ARC in Australia. How on earth could an amateur US Super League hope to achieve what the ARC blew $5M in one season (even with televised national coverage and measurable crowd figures). The Superleague was trying to emulate a pro comp but without any money. It was small teams pretending they were big fish, when the truth is they are still small fish but are in a very small pond. The new system, with the only long haul being for interleague finals, eliminates most of the travelling and with it the running costs. Teams can now build meaningful local club competitions where the best local team raises the bar of those in their area, not picking up its toys and playing with other kids. They will have to be patient. The base isn't large enough yet to provide the genuine demand for a pro rugby comp in America. The college game can be the flag bearer for now, with establised brands, rivalries, facilities and budgets. If this can be expanded and improved then you have a huge number of 18-25yo's playing semi-pro rugby which will also be on TV. But even this needs probably around 10years before it can be sufficient for producing talent. After that players will have to look overseas to further their careers as, I agree, Super Rugby is not the answer.

I listened recently to ruggamatrix america (podcast) where this new arrangement has been slammed by the people asked about it. More matches means more train and plane fares in a country where clubs struggle to stay afloat because of the cost of travel and where, according to this article, teams pulled out of the super league because of this burden. Just because there are two confernces doesn't mean that this will be cheaper. This arrangement was also designed without consultation and has rubbed many club coaches up the wrong way. Geography and the cost and time spent traveling seems to be the biggest obstacle to the growth of club rugby in the USA and there has yet to be a viable solution proposed. The Russian model of having a large city as a "hub" and a competition including clubs spread around it works to cut down travel costs but this model doesn't easily fit with the spread of rugby in the USA. The clubs need more money to take part in competitions and there is no indication of where this could come from. Talk of the USA having a super rugby team looks premature. They have some fine players but not necessarily a city with enough of a fan base, or the money to support a professional side. Remember that the national team there doesn't generate income the way it does in the top nine countries, on the contrary, membership fees to clubs subsidize it along with some help for the IRB. The union can't just fund a pro team for some years until it gets on it's feet. As playing numbers, fan base is growing hopefully in another ten years this will be possible.

hi tc, i have been waiting to reply, however it has been a big weekend! I think what myself and possibly a number of roarers would argue is that you can't simply insert a team into a new region, particularly one which is relatively new to the sport.The NFL is a fantastic example, as they have attempted to globalize their sport on a number of occasions, however have largely failed - look up 'NFL Europa'. Even with their almost unlimited amounts of money, they still cannot decide whether to put a professional franchise in London! Yes, Super Rugby might have the best rugby in the world, but is it the best competition? Sport goes beyond what is played on the pitch. Where almost every other sporting competition in the world has teams which have evolved from a clubs/city model - in Super Rugby, players are playing against artificially created franchises, which have largely ignored the game's historical roots. When there are consumers of Super Rugby that do not even enjoy their own competition, how is the American rugby public expected to enjoy it? Yes, rugby in the US is building from the bottom-up (and significantly) but I am hoping that this growth continues organically, rather than SANZAR coming in for an easy opportunity. It is already taking massive steps in the right direction. Already in its second year, NBC has televised the Collegiate Rugby Sevens, which pits the top colleges in the nation against each other. If you can, watch a couple of clips on YouTube and you will be able to see its potential. This will only get bigger, as rugby increasingly grows its presence across America's universities, with the result being that rugby will gradually become more ingrained in the American psyche.

I thought it would have most likely been NYAC who wouldn't be happy. Having dominated of late I guess that makes sense, but greater NY area certainly has some quality right from school level (Xavier) up through to NYAC, so hopefully all the effort and energy McLean etc have put into NYAC is channelled into creating a more competitive local competition. Granted that Visa's aren't easy, but they're also still not impossible for US players. It might well be that Australia could house a few up and coming American players. A guy like Ryan Roundy or Blaine Scully would more than hold his own at Super Rugby level. Possibly Japan could also prove a decent ally. Clever has done well there and blazed a trail so to speak. EIther way, there isn't enough concentration of experienced and skilled Rugby players in the US yet to create a viable level of domestic pro rugby. They might pull off a coup and create a genuine pro Sevens circuit, which is the only way they're going to have the 'best' rugby competition in any form world wide. Americans might get behind local club teams if it included the best Americans along side the worlds top Sevens specialists. Still a lot of dust to settle though first...

College is the future, the medium term, for Rugby in the states. The level of professionalism (irony intended) of American College Football is amazing. The top American College Football Conferences would have athletes running around that would walk into any rugby (union or league) side in the world if they had played the sport from age five (5). In the medium term, if the USA can produced first rate college program, with a centralised academy structure like what Argentina has for those that progress further, combined with a sprinkling of players from Europe, they will improve immensely. As for the suggestions of Super Conferences etc. Please God no. It's bad enough trying stay up and watch South African games. Super Rugby has gone as far as we need it to go with other countries. 18 teams, six per group is about it's maximum.

The problem is that there is no money in Spain currently. The country is up the creek without a paddle and the Catalan independence is gathering momentum (Catalunya is a key area for Spanish rugby. There was a big pro independence parade in Barca this week). The big football clubs will be in trouble when the Governments cut the money off from them.

They would have to get in bed with the Rebels. There is no chance of their being two Melbourne Super Rugby teams.

At the time though MVFC was the only A-league team in town, there was no SR team yet and the NBL was on it's knees. Unlike Carlton, Parra and Collingwood, which really was always going to fail due to there being significant nearby rival teams in the clubs main sports, there possibly may have been an opportunity for a relatively new set up at the time in Melbourne Victory to also expand it's brand in rugby and cross over fans between the two sports. It may have been that the whole town would be behind the Victory in both Rugby and Football, rather than each individual sport. Regardless it didn't happen but there is the opportunity to explore it in other one team cities such as Newcastle, Townsville or Adelaide.

Spain has the potential to become the next Georgia or Romania in terms of emerging nations. They have quite a few decent players based in the Pro leagues in france, already have nearly 30 000 registered players and are even being allowed to play in the Challenge cup!

It really is an interesting movement. In the Spanish context the La Liga clubs have been flirting with the idea of becoming associated with the game over the past few years. Real actually formed a partnership with the same CRC as in the article during now defunct Super Iberica De Rugby alongside Valencia. Could be interesting seeing what happens next. Personally, I think Spain is a bit of a dark horse in terms of potential European Leagues that could emerge in time.

Sheek and p.Tah, Cheers. Thanks for the comments.

Matt, NYAC won't be participating in the new structures at the moment. Their coach Bruce McClane has been very vocal against the move and must be smarting somewhat from the League's decision to dissolve. I've also heard that OPSB (Old Puget Sound Beach) may look for alternatives as their in a difficult position geographically. Exporting players to Europe really isn't an option for American players. Particularly England. Visa issues often put an end to many players ambitions to pursue a career in Europe.

I agree. Thanks again WCR

WCR, Always love reading your articles from the 'new frontiers'.

Those of you demanding USA inclusion in super rugby (& inclusion) - how seriously have you thought this through? Some of sound like those military generals pouring over a map.You think moving resources is as easy as moving a finger a short distance across a map. Have you given any thought to vast travel times, & the debilitating effect that has on the body over time?

Good article WCR. I like to see how things are going in the US, usually through the RugbMag.com site, but of late it's been hard to get clarity or conversation going on these rather major changes. I suppose no one really knows exactly what's happening. Just to be clear, as I'm still getting my head around it, is there now: Two conferences (West and East) 4 Leagues in each conference 8 teams in each League Double Round Robin in the League League winner plays conference Semi Conference Semi winner plays conference Final Conference Final winner plays national Final Seems like a good system, it's just a pity that not all teams are buying into it. I read on Rugbymag that 7 of the 8 teams are playing locally, but it didn't say which 7. My best guess is NYAC are doing their own thing, having a similar pedigree and mentality to Cal at College level. Overall it's really hard to know how far along the path (to a stable competition format) USA Rugby are right now. The college scene is likely to see more and more attention from the traditional 'big' schools and the level of high school and junior rugby will also provide a better quality and more experienced player to the institutions. It is also promising to see the forced link between Sevens and XV's, to really drive an allround calendar for the game there. As for the club game (and the non-existant professional level) where things will end is anyones guess. Eventually there will be more and more clubs created nationally as the increase in junior and college participation filters through to the top. It is highly likely that local club leagues will become more competitive and deeper in terms of grade levels. In this respect I think it's probably good that Super League has been disbanded. Hopefully these top level amateur club sides can now provide a higher benchmark for the local club competitions, so you have really strong local competitions for senior players not in college. Super League was never cheap to run and the fact that so many sides came and went showed that it was never going to work in it's amateur national format. No nation the size of the US could afford an amateur club competition from coast to coast. It's better to reduce the travel costs and aim to raise the level of club rugby in all local competitions. The question then is what to do to hone the elite level players, which is what Super League admirably tried to do. One option is to plonk a Super Rugby side in California or New York, but that is a very bold move and also a potentially costly one. The question remains whether there is a genuine audience anywhere in the US to watch a make-shift national team battling against teams no one has heard of. Certainly to do this for a 26 week season through Spring and Summer would be a tough ask. Another option would be to hold off on a pro scene in the US and follow the Argentina route. There is no reason when a sufficient amateur club and college system can't produce enough talent to export to Europe. There are already a handful of US players plying their trade abroad and in the next decade I'm sure that figure will rise dramatically. By the time the 2023 WC rolls around the US could be drawing from a foreign based pro talent pool of sizeable proportions. This would ensure a minimal cost from USA rugby perspective, as they wouldn't need to pay anyone below test.rep level whilst allowing foreign clubs to train their players and pay their wages. A higher ranked national team could then capture more attention from the public, more sponsorship income to go with it and enough of a fanbase to then look at launching a domestic league (possibly on a city or state representative basis).

FFA probably shut it down to the failure of Parramatta Power, Collingwood and Carlton who were tied to league and AFL clubs. Parramatta leagues being linked to Parramatta Rugby Club hasn't actually helped the Rugby club.

I like how more rugby clubs are becoming affiliated with the Big Football clubs. This is definitely the way to go about improving 2nd Tier rugby as these big clubs have enormous resources and the fans will get behind the Club rather than just the sport. This is why teams like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Panathanaikos etc are so successful at basketball. I wonder if this could ever happen in Australia, such as if Tinkler took Sporting Novacastria to a new level. I remember talk of MVFC exploring the possibility of also being involved in the NBL or even Super Rugby before the FFA shut it down.