In last Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald, Peter FitzSimons spoke about the ARU using a windfall from TV rights to finance a chase for the greatest player in rugby league, Greg Inglis.
Speaking of the money involved, FitzSimons spoke plainly “…that dosh should be put into the grass-roots of the game. Let a thousand flowers bloom in that muddy green grass heartland: Development officers. Coaches. Empowerment of volunteers, at last given funds to get things going.
“The Australian rugby community is jack of seeing millions squandered on the very pointy end of the pyramid, while the lower tiers are squeezed.
“As to the argument that the millions should all go to the players who generate the money in the first place, I note that the money comes not from the players, but from the wider rugby community who pay the subscription fees and it is only fair – and good marketing – that the money go towards ensuring that those grass-roots continue to grow.”
It was such a gratifying sentiment and so in keeping with my own thoughts, that I tweeted a photo of FitzSimon’s column with the line “Thanks @peter_fitz for maintaining the rage – it is the most important issue in Australian rugby”.
Now I wouldn’t say that this went viral. But my average retweet rate is close to nil, and my record is maybe three or four retweets. This tweet was retweeted 12 times and stats show that it reached about 40,000 Twitter accounts.
Again on Saturday, Wallaby great Matt Burke made exactly the same point in a story about Karmichael Hunt:
“Forget the iron pyrites of chasing the rugby league player with the inflated price tag and concentrate on development of the game. Nurture the kids in the grassroots areas and make sure those kids have heroes again at the national level.
“Just imagine what that pot of gold could do to grow infrastructure across the junior rugby community. More development officers for school visits to spread the work. Getting the players back out into the world where they become even more accessible.
“It’s all about getting the next generation on board. You have to hook the kids to make this game stand out again.”
Recently I posted an article on The Roar which noted the frustration that the grassroots clubs were venting upon the ARU over the participation levy. It quoted the Arbib report, “Rugby is more about ensuring the next crop of fans and supporters than it is about identifying future Wallabies. Without this loyal and committed base of support the professional teams are ultimately playing to empty stadiums.”
There was more reaction to this piece than any piece I have ever had published on the site. I had never previously had anything other than comments – this time I had several emails from as far afield as France, and four phone calls from people at various levels and places in the rugby hierarchy.
This is nothing to do with my limited profile as a writer, and everything to do with the level of interest in the grassroots issue. It’s so topical that Matthew Burke, one of the first generation of full-time pros, someone generally more focused on the pro game, is writing about it.
What we’re seeing is the end battle in the war of professionalism – the battle between the philosophies of ‘rugby as a pastime’ and ‘rugby as a business’ – the values mismatch that still divides the code.
As much as it would seem on the surface that the war was finally over in 1995, when open professionalism swept the rugby world, the reality is that the grassroots resistance was simply driven underground.
After all, the IRB and the national unions were dragged into the professional era only once it became clear that, if they continued their defiance, they would be left with nothing to administer. This was no carefully planned and considered strategy, but a last ditch plea-bargain.
The amateur game was given no say in the matter and so the friction between the amateur grassroots and the professional administration continues. This is not new conflict – it is rugby’s intrinsic DNA bubbling to the surface.
It is simply explained by the fact that practically no-one ever starts playing rugby for the money. Rugby has always been a leisure pursuit. 95 per cent will never make any money from rugby, and importantly, never expect to.
Contrast this with our professional cousin, rugby league, where the aim is to cement a paid career, right from the beginning. As league star Jarryd Hayne said recently, “My whole dream was to be a professional athlete and to buy my mum a house.” It’s a given that the game is played for money.
This is not a judgement. Neither is better than the other. The advent of rugby league was a practical and welcome solution to the intractable problem of broken time payments. It’s also a terrific spectacle.
But where league really has it over union is its top to bottom consistency about the role of money in the culture of the game. League was born out of a need for financial reward and everyone understands that it is an essential part of the machinery of the code. No-one ever goes to league expecting it to be anything other than professional, even at the grassroots. In rugby league it’s simple – you get paid to play.
This is what a strategist might call ‘alignment’ – the top and the bottom of the pyramid share the same outlook on the essential fabric of the game.
Australian rugby, on the other hand, continues a Jekyll and Hyde existence, driving towards ever more commercial state and national administrations, steeped in the values of professionalism, and all the while dragging behind them the amateur game, like a mother with a grizzly child in a supermarket. It’s like asking BHP to run the Salvation Army as a business unit.
The ARU and the franchises rightly pursue commercial success. This is their business – brand growth and profit through on-field success of elite professional teams – and they can’t be blamed for profit-based thinking.
But the amateur game is a simple beast. It’s all about participation and engagement. They just want to play.
So what’s the solution? It’s as obvious as it is confronting.
Cut the amateur game loose. Give it its head. Just like a child growing up and heading off to university, it’s time for the grassroots to do a little self-determination. There’s no reason why the professional bodies should be charged any longer with developing the amateur game. In any case, they’ve evolved too far from their origins to remain in touch and it’s unrealistic to ask them to administer effectively at both extremes of the spectrum.
That said, the relationship between the professionals and the amateurs is clearly symbiotic. Amateur participation drives ticket sales to the professional game, and professional success attracts new players to try out rugby with the amateurs. The best of the amateurs will enter the professional ranks supplying playing talent, and the professionals will obviously contribute money to the growth of the amateur game.
Like the clownfish and the anemone, neither can survive without the other. But they are two entirely different organisms. The clownfish can’t sting and the anemone can’t swim. Neither can do the other’s job.
A properly resourced national amateur body could drive a comprehensive national strategy for grassroots development and participation. There would be no internal conflict over the imperatives to support a professional game.
They would be free to secure their own sponsorship deals – what price a logo on 650,000 pairs of shorts for winter – and manage their own budgets. Importantly, they would be free to take some responsibility for their own affairs, rather than falling back on the old pastime of blaming the professional administration for all the ills of the amateur game.
For their part, the professionals would be mercifully free of the millstone of amateurism. There would be no more debate about whether money used to buy the Inglises of the world should be used to run development camps. They would simply remit the amateurs an annual grant for development and go back to being the best possible professional outfit they could be, spending as much money as they wanted on whatever they wanted within the professional sphere.
FitzSimons and Burke have it right – it’s time to focus on the development of rugby at the grassroots. An independent but aligned amateur body will ensure that the structure can support the sentiment.
AndyS
Guest
Which is actually how the whole thing is supposed to work. Historically the game isn't owned by the ARU and franchised out to the state Unions, the game was owned by them and the ARU was established to manage the Wallabies. It is a federal model, unfortunately everyone seems to have completely lost sight of that. Now everyone holds the ARU responsible for every aspect of the game, which is like complaining to your senate representative because your bins haven't been emptied for a week. Community rugby is affected by local issues and needs to be managed locally. The ARU should provide funding, but the state unions should manage their own patches right up to NRC level. The ARU focus should be on the professional game.
Ozee316
Guest
Another solution is to effectively devolve all the responsibility for the Amateur game away from the ARU. The responsibility can be handed back to the 5 Super Rugby Unions: Queensland RU NSWRU Melbourne RU Canberra RU Western Australia RU Also include South Australia NT and Tasmania These 8 regions should go about ndependently growing and developing club rugby in their regions and can form and independent Board made of a representative of each body that represents the club activities in eacg state. This can be completely separate from professional rugby but run under the IRB and benefit from revenues from local Super Rugby teams and sponsors. Everything should be kept local and sustainable and no debts uncurred and only the NRC and Super Rugby players snd Wallabies paid and contracted.
Harrys
Guest
Valid point but unfort rugby is run by news ltd , fox and papers etc where results are expected asap this is a medium which expects results now as it is monetary. Patience and waiting for five years for development dosent sell papers.
yankee_rob
Guest
I completely agree. The ARU needs to stop putting all their money into rugby league stars and start creating stars of their own. Put the money into a national non contact rugby program, schools program and the junior gold cup. This is going to help grow the game. Not continuing to spend thousands on the players like Folau or Inglis.
allblackfan
Guest
train, perhaps I overstated the ARS's importance in relation to the CC/NPC. Development means fostering the game/players. How does a premier grade team selection help the game/players in Darwin or Perth or Adelaide or Hobart? The ARS functioned very well in its own right. How would you know if these ARS players didn't have what it took? The players in these teams still had day jobs; they had to fit their rugby around their work commitments unlike these so-called "professionals". Did any club/provincial selectors attend games? As for commercial relevance, that's easy: it was a national competition that ran on the smell of an oily rag for eight years. How long did the ARC run for? One year? Wonder why!?
Bakkies
Guest
If it is so strong why is there a 70 page on green and gold about the issues. High school kids tied to schools which affects clubs as they can't play for them due to clashes or not being allowed, so clubs struggle to field teams.
Bakkies
Guest
Leinster split their pro and domestic operations and its worked for them. Dev officers are on call to assist with clubs if they need extra helped and they also go out to schools pushing tag.
Bakkies
Guest
Ben why don't they have under 6s as clubs have those squads? They only have to play tip or tag at that age The ARU did do it through the ed Rugby rollout but don't have as big a budget. Some sub unions are down to one or two dev officers. There's only so many school hours you can cover a day.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
That is true. The revenue stream for a grassroots organisation would be derived primarily from player fees. At present the grassroots receive $10m annually. If they went down this path if you take recentparticipation figure and half them (realistic numbers) and average it at around $180 per player they could draw a revenue of $27m to re-invest back into grassroots. As they grow the numbers that figure will grow and so on.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
They'd be very tenuous links. I was more referring to Owens questions on whether the NSWRU would choose the 12 Premier Clubs to fund or the 12,000 players that fall under their auspices. You'd like to think they'd choose the majority but considering that those beholden to the Premier Clubs seem to think Rugby begins and ends with them. We can never be too sure.
Nick Turnbull
Roar Guru
Mate I am not the ARU its up to them to fix the problem ultimately - that is the responsibility of office. - At the end of the day its actually up to them - not another body to run the game professional/ametuer in this country. I think they have a history of throwing money around - that is why they don't have much. I am signing off Mr Train. I have enjoyed that debate and like the moniker. enjoy the rugby and look forward to further discussions
PeterK
Roar Guru
hope so the premiers clubs have outlived their usefulness as semi pro clubs so they should be amateur and get no funding other than the same level as subbies clubs get.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
WCR, links yes. But my friends play for Colleagues which I assume is "linked" to Easts. They don't see anything at all from Easts and it appears their club is financially better off due to their own work.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
WCR we need to consider though, that the money AFL spends on the grassroots comes from revenue and profits. In a competitive market you need to spend money to grow.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
I'd bet that most of the NSWRU have links to the 12 clubs. So.......
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Nick, You still have not explained what the ARU should be doing. Just throwing money around isn't the answer. They don't have it to throw around.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
I can't wait for Shute Shield clubs to lose their funding. They have roughly $700k per year in revenues which means some of them make up to $1 million and others less than $500,000. The NSWRU needs to take a broader approach and spread this funding wider within it's region so the Shute shield clubs get less and junior players can pay lower fees to sign up and play. It is a balancing act that local unions need to do NOT the ARU. NSWRU needs to choose between 12 elite clubs or the other 12,000 players in in it's union. This will lead to a rise in value and prestige of the NRC where players sponsors and funding is drawn to the August-November competition. This is an excellent outcome. New teams can be added and this competition will only grow.
Nick Turnbull
Roar Guru
Lets look at it this way; The ARU hold the master franchise for the game of rugby in this country - they have a number of franchisee's state unions, sub unions all the way down to their clubs. The participants of the game are their customers. How many customers do you expect the business to have if the master franchisee only looks after himself and makes life hard for his customers? "Oh that's Ok they are only customers of a small store and our competitor has better stores in that area. we'll just let the market consume them - best of British lads!" How long do you expect a business to be successful if it is willing to give up customers and market share?
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
I actually believe the game needs to split its operations between the professional and amateur elements of the game. Some have mentioned that its the ARU's responsibility to run the grassroots element which in a perfect world is true. However, I think we can all agree that they are failing miserably on that front. They are solely focused on revenue and the professional game and its pathways. Which I have no actual issue with. Rugby is a professional sport after all. Unfortunately, this has lead to rather piecemeal efforts at expanding the games actual playing base. Not those who merely participate in a program or play a tournament of 7s but those who play week in and week out both in clubs and at schools. A body linked to but independent of the ARU is needed. One who's sole focus in the administration and development of the community game. Development would be vital for any organisation that's charged with the grassroots as its revenue stream would be driven by participation. The more people playing means more money to invest back into growing the game. Yes, it would likely need to be professionally administered but with a large volunteer element. As above it could look to establish sponsorship agreements for shorts or signage across every club and player to further supplement their operations. The ARU could then focus solely of elite pathways like the JGC, NRC, SR and the Wallabies. Resourcing and building commercial interest in those entities. I also think that conventional state championships run by the district clubs on age groups should be done away with. The JGC should assume the representative pathway with a U19s level established alongside the current U15/17s structure. It should also be re-aligned to run alongside the NRC. Such a structure would streamline talent identification for the Premier clubs and the NRC.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It's not f-all to do with them. But they cannot micro-manage every club. If they need to do this, the game is not sustainable. Likewise subsidizing areas. The ARU has continually posted losses, this is despite the top end funding the lower end (despite what many believe). How much more can they do? They need to live within their means. Unless they can throw a lot of money into a region (which they cannot afford), subsidizing would merely prolong the death and see no benefit and funds wasted. We don't have to absolve the ARU of any responsibility. We have to be realistic. If people running grassroots clubs in other codes are better at it than those doing so in rugby, it's not a fault of the ARU, it's just a harsh reality.