Ever thought you wouldn’t mind jumping onto the ARU board and shaking things up a bit? Standing up for the grassroots and getting all Darryl Kerrigan on the ARU’s ass?
It’s a grand idea, the sort of idea that has fuelled a thousand bar debates and even one bar fight that I know of.
After all, if the Smokers Rights Party and the Bullet Train for Australia Party can contest the senate, why shouldn’t a group of aggrieved rugby supporters be able to form a ticket to get on the board of the Australian Rugby Union?
Sorry. Not going to happen.
If the ARU was a democratic government, it would have to have an election. Then maybe you could run, but it ain’t, so you can’t.
And if it was a public company, you’d be able to vote on director appointments as a shareholder. But you guessed it, it ain’t that either.
Getting nominated for the board and getting on it might technically look like an open process, but in practice it’s not. At least not for 95 per cent of us, and here’s why.
There are nine directors on the board and at least six of them have to be independent – that is, have no formal role with any rugby body. You can be interested in rugby, or even be an amateur player, but not hold a formal position – the idea being to promote independence. So far, so good.
These nine directors are voted in by voting members (the state unions and RUPA) and they have to get a two-thirds majority vote from members to get on. Once they’re on, a term is three years, and they can stay for up to three terms, so a popular director might stay for almost a decade.
The people with the power to hire and fire are the nine voting members of the ARU. There are more than nine votes though, because members get an extra vote for a Super franchise and another extra vote if they have more than 50,000 registered players.
So the members vote on the new candidate directors and re-election directors at the AGM each year.
There’s a little back door here. The directors have the right to appoint a director themselves at any time during the year, and that person can serve as a director until the AGM, where they will get voted on to stay, or voted off. You’d have to imagine that it would be pretty unlikely that they’d get voted off, so it is a way to sidestep the process a little and get entrenched before voting.
Now you’re probably wondering where do the director candidates come from in the first place? Well, here’s why it isn’t you, or anyone you know.
Director candidates are vetted and put forward by a nominations committee, which is a four-person gig. It’s the chairman (Michael Hawker) plus one external rep nominated by the board and two external reps nominated by the members. Recent members of this committee include the Hon Peter Heerey AM QC (Federal Court judge), Ms Josephine Sukkar (among other things a director of Opera Australia), and John Massey (member of the Board of Governors for the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia is just one role on his CV).
Now I don’t know about you, but CEDA and Opera Australia aren’t on my weekly dance-card, not to mention the Federal Court, so this is a crowd that probably aren’t too easy to impress.
In any case, to impress them you have to get in front of them, and that means getting on the radar.
What sort of people get on the radar? The sort of people who are on a first-name basis with headhunters, that’s who. High-end executive search firm Egon Zehnder are charged with tracking down the requisite corporate titans and it’s not too hard to find candidates. After all, despite being borderline insolvent, the ARU board is still a strong addition to a CV. It’s a bit like being on the SCG Trust – it’s a blue ribbon appointment.
And of course, from the ARU side, there’s a certain amount of ego involved in getting heavy hitters on the board, not to mention the obvious corporate nous and contacts that go with them.
As the ARU annual report says, “The board is committed to fostering an appointment process that reflects an appropriate level of cultural, geographic, age and gender diversity”, and unfortunately that’s where things go slightly awry.
The positive effect of diversity on boards is a bit like climate change – it is overwhelmingly agreed to be a valid concept, and only the crackpots think otherwise. Also like climate change, only the truly enlightened souls take action to do something about it – the vast majority just pay lip service.
Diversity, or lack thereof, explains a lot about the difficulties the ARU has in engaging the rugby public. Simply put, it’s because the rugby public are nothing like them.
This is not to say that the board isn’t smart people with good intentions. There’s no doubt that some of the smartest corporate brains in Australia are in the room (and incidentally, two of the smartest are women).
It’s not the smartness, it’s the sameness that’s the problem.
The phrase is ‘unconscious bias’ and it refers to an idea first floated by Nobel Prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, that human beings are not as rational as we might think. In fact, we don’t often make quality rational decisions. Our decisions are skewed by familiarity and also by situations which conform with our existing experience. These two biases are known as the familiarity heuristic and hindsight bias.
In board behaviour, this translates to an ongoing selection of ‘people like us’. When confronted with two candidates, the familiarity heuristic tells us that the one most like us is the obvious choice (it just feels right), and hindsight bias reinforces our decision, because we can easily recall other situations where we recruited a person like this. Add to this that the nominations committee is also made up of ‘people like us’ and it’s an uphill battle for an out-of-the-box candidate.
Don’t believe me? Check out the board members of the ARU for the last five years. In that time there have been 18 directors. 16 out of 18 have been men. 12 out of 18 went to private schools and 14 out of the 18 went to university. A staggering 17 out of 18 have been a company CEO, or sit on other boards, or both. Add in the nominations committee and that number climbs to 21 out of 22.
15 out of 18 were between 45 and 65 years old, with one being older. Interestingly, despite the prevailing stereotype, only 6 of 18 have been Wallabies – Hawker, John Eales, Paul McLean, Brett Robinson, George Gregan and Mark Connors, although Wallabies make up four out of nine current board spots.
And out of all directors in those five years, all ticked four or more of six criteria (male; private school/university; CEO/director; Wallaby; 45-65; Anglo).
What does this tell us? Simply that if you’re a private school and university educated Anglo man, with experience as a CEO and/or a director and you’re over 45, you’re a shoe-in for the ARU board. If you’re also a Wallaby, then the vote is a formality. Outside of this though – not much chance.
Even the female directors to whom most would point as an indicator of diversity – Nerolie Withnall, Ann Sherry and for the exercise include Josephine Sukkar on the nominations committee – only make up 11 per cent of directors, and they still conform largely to the stereotype. Their only differentiating factor is that they are women. Other than that – private school, university, director, CEO, Anglo, over 45… Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.
It’s amusing to note that by these criteria, one of the most radical board appointments has been George Gregan. He is at least African-Australian, slightly under 45 and not a CEO or director in the classic sense of the word. Although of course, he is one of the greatest all-time Wallabies, which pretty much trumps everything anyway.
The question that needs answering after all this analysis is: to what degree does this board reflect the mix of rugby people in Australia?
The answer has to be: hardly at all.
Perhaps we could then go on to ask: why does it need to reflect the mix? Isn’t board competency the key issue here?
The answer lies in the difference between ‘shareholder’ versus ‘stakeholder’. The ARU doesn’t have dispassionate shareholders, it has passionate stakeholders – the vast majority of whom are nothing like the board who are charged with directing the fortunes of the game.
While the organisation mightn’t belong to the stakeholders, the game certainly does, and the ARU are custodians however much they might like to think they are owners.
As custodians, they need to engage with the rugby public – a group which is largely under 40; which includes tradesmen, school leavers, students and shift workers; which draws from several races including Indigenous Australians, Pacific Islanders, Asians, Europeans and others; which overwhelmingly attended public schools; and which for the most part simply has jobs, not corporate careers.
The assumption that the backbone of Australian rugby – varying degrees of non-anglo, non-GPS, non-university, non-corporate – is incapable making valuable contributions at a board level is seriously misguided.
The ARU struggles to engage with the public largely because it is run by a small group of very similar people whose skill is attracting shareholders’ money to public companies by making profits.
It’s the wrong approach and the wrong skillset. Not-for-profits, like the ARU, make money by attracting and retaining a large stakeholder base, and stakeholders aren’t attracted by profits.
They’re attracted by shared values.
The ARU board is in desperate need of greater balance and diversity. It needs more members with skills in stakeholder and member service organisations, and who share the values and experience of the rugby grassroots.
As I’ve said before, it’s not necessarily the smartness that’s the problem. It’s the sameness.
Vive la différence.
RaymondReddington
Roar Rookie
Great article , answers a lot of questions and gives the hapless punter a better idea of why its not working . It seems that there is a disconnect in the make up of the board ..... They look to need board members with PASSION , FINANCIAL/COMMERCIAL ACUMEN and a VISION individually of where they see the game going say 3,5 and 10 years into the future . The game is a professional enterprise whether we like it or not but seems to have been run more like a "not for profit" since going pro .... you only need say 3 independent directors ( with no real links to Rugby) to keep the compliance and financial issues on track , the rest can come from varying backgrounds and disciplines and be prepared to be seen (share the load ...the lack of engagement hasn't worked) and transparent to the stakeholders including the public (We want to have a better feel for who are the stewards of this great game !) . A cursory look at the landscape of Australian Rugby looks to have an overlap in administration and duplication of roles , systems , advertising etc from the Wallabies to grass roots , What I am saying is there are more vested interests in Australian Rugby than the Middle East peace process . We should be looking outside the square where say the Board appoints a task force to look at how other sports overseas approach their methods and engagement with their stakeholders and the public ie. NBA , NFL , NBL ,NHL , PGA and possibly meet with Marquee Globally recognised Clubs ... Dallas Cowboys , Boca Juniors , Real Madrid , Man United , Rangers etc . The task force could also meet with some of the major global advertisers to get a better feel for what they are looking for their approach to sponsorship and branding (not a branch office in Australia). And if anyone is unsure , stakeholders includes grass roots ! If you consider the sport as a business it is already getting a massive lift from all the unpaid volunteers , parents etc for the love of the game .... that is a comparative advantage we cant afford to lose .
hack
Guest
Rugby is sport. The administration of rugby is a 'not for profit' entity whose primary job should be to promote the game. The aru's key performance criteria should to grow its support base so that it at least maintains its long term average % market share and participation rate against it competitors eg soccer. The aru is failing in this key area. They don't even have to make a huge profit, just breakeven after they have distributed dividends to their shareholders ie the clubs.
RobC
Roar Guru
Ah, back to our debate few months back ;)
AndyS
Guest
Albeit a problem for any alternative, given the inevitable loss-lead nature of change.
RobC
Roar Guru
the only thing about SR teams, is three are loss making :o
AndyS
Guest
Cheers Rob. Yeah, it went on a bit but I did mean to say that while looking to engage the otherwise unoccupied SR crowd, there would be definite elements of the old state teams/APC/ARS and it would be nice to reconnect with that. If an Adelaide team came into the NRC you'd definitely want to bring them in, and if there was appetite past that for an 'A' comp then we'd be succeeding past all expectation.
RobC
Roar Guru
Good one Andy. Five teams playing each other may not be enough in the long run. But its certainly an option. You could also add a few from NRC teams. Whatever it is, its an interstate comp. Bring on the hate! :D Ive been planning for some time to get a short piece out on this, this weekend.
AndyS
Guest
With so much focus on SR, it is useful to consider it as part of the whole. My thinking has flipped back and forward a few times on it, but I've ultimately come to the conclusion that SR and the NRC should be kept separate. If they are full competitions in parallel: - the standard of the NRC will be significantly lower than now, as the SR players will be unavailable. Effectively, it will only be SS standard anyway. - as such it would be the actual end of even amateur Premier rugby. I may not like where they are currently, but I certainly wouldn't wish it out of existence. Alternatively, if the ERCC model is envisaged: - a two speed competition is inevitable, just as has happened in SA, Eng and France. - the standard will be at the level of the NRC now, which will not help the Wallabies. It will have closed the standard gap between club and professional rugby, but only by widening the gap to the standards required for Test rugby. - the most likely outcome from that will be the cricket solution, where the Test team will train and play as a separate team year round to ensure standards. - between the lower standards, reduced number of top line/total games and an increased number of teams to pay, the financial issues currently seen in SR would only be worse. The gap to Europe would only widen, further aggravating player losses. In both cases the issue of what happens during the Tests would arise again. If the competition has finished, we are back to having no content with only one game a week for half the year. Alternatively, if the competition plays on it is just a rehash of the same match-ups robbed of the best players, finishing with a whimper just as the season should be peaking with a roar. Overall then, my feeling is that the least worst arrangement would be Super rugby much as is, followed by NRC. Depending on what happens with SR though, a more even balance between the two defined by the June window might be good. However, during the SR season, I'd also have an 'A' team competition similar to that spoken of by Pulver previously. This would: - only be between the SR clubs - coincide with the derbies - essentially be the best of the clubs and likely candidates for the NRC to come, along with whatever of the EPS/ETS hasn't been called up for injury cover...in essence, the same people who would be playing a parallel NRC. - only coinciding with derbies however, it would reduce the impact on the Premier Rugby as it wouldn't be every week. I'd also look at the clubs "co-hosting" games as a revenue raising event. - most importantly, they would be 80 minute games at the opposite location for each derby. By definition that is a crowd with no live match to attend that week, so look to engage them. Any way you look at it, any money they make will be more than would be made by a curtain raiser, which is more just a bonus for anyone who was already buying a ticket. Ultimately then you'd have SR building to Tests, 'A' comp building to NRC, and the NRC having half the players staying in the Wallabies frame while the other half are looking for SR contracts the following year. As always though, the key would be engaging people with that narrative and intelligent marketing.
RobC
Roar Guru
Let me restated it. There are already five or so comps in Australia, running domestically and concurrently with SR. Its time to plan for a change.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I'd hardly call Premier Grade a domestic competition. It's more of a suburban competition.
RobC
Roar Guru
There are already five or so domestic comps in Australia, running concurrent with SR. Its time to plan for a change.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Running concurrently with Super Rugby is a horrible idea. You'd be competing directly with yourself and splitting support in cases. Needs to be one or the other. NRC should expand (competition length) in the future though.
Ozee316
Guest
I have have also said that NRC should start in March and run concurrently with Super Rugby. More clubs can be added. It can eventually be a 14 team competiton that local supporters can really be proud of and support. Shute Shield can merge partially and become the third tier.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You have been paying Gow-Gates directly have you? This is completely contrary to everything that has been reported.
Kim Rickards
Guest
Train, I have personally been involved ion setting levies and payment structures for clubs for some years. They have been paying per team, no the players and certainly not ARU.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I'm almost certain that clubs have not (being involved in two separate clubs and therefore knowing what the breakdown of fees was). Any insurance fees, has just been labelled that as part of the paying of fees to the zone and state. Potentially zones have, which seems plausible and reasonable. But if that's the case, why has there not been a reduction in the zones' fees as they are no longer providing this service?
Kim Rickards
Guest
Dear Train without a station, You need to go back and find a station and get your facts right. Clubs and zones have paid their own insurance direct through Gow -Gates for some years. ARU wanted to have a per player levy introduced (instead of per team) and also have it paid through ARU first. No prizes for guessing there was a cash grab here!
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Who? Up until 2014, insurance and central admin was not charged. Is that correct? If so, how do you think the cost of these services was provided? From the ARU. They now no longer are doing this. You may think the admin costs are not much, but imagine running a national code with the bare minimum of information collection, etc.All other sports charge central fees. Hell, it costs $900 per team to play in an AFL 9's competition of 8 games. That's as much as $100 a player for a competition that has volunteer umpires, no ground hire, no lighting and you get no club gear with it. What's that $100 for? Admin and insurance. Takes a few people which is already a couple of hundred thousand in salary, office and admin costs.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Most of them are business men.
RobC
Roar Guru
Midf. Yes. I've read the sites you shared earlier. Its v good, thanks for sharing it. Check out the high-level framework for NZRU and RFU UK: - They're quite similar. - But both are implemented using vastly different models. - Irrespective, they have gone through their respective turmoil since professional. Turmoil and Football Oz: - went through turmoil and massive change. - If memory serves correct. It took decade, or two to get to this point? Oz Rugby is still going through it. SLOOOOOooooow: - eg It has taken 16 years post amateur era merely to remove the NSW hegemony on ARU. - Slowed, mainly due to WB success. Now there's no hiding. Im pretty sure, ARU and Co will eventually fix it. There's one thing we Australians do not tolerate well. That's elitism, especially sport.