i dont think it does, The Brumbies could be merged with the Rebels in the future but that seems unlikely to me and if it really was best for Aus rugby could any rational person argue it shouldn’t be done?

it is a bit idealistic but there is plenty of economic theory and evidence around incentive structures that support their real-world efficacy. I wasn’t aware of Dick MArks but he and that program sound amazing, its sad to hear what we used to have.

your right we do need the right people, i just feel we need incentives fixed first

Hi Andy, putting RA in charge will open RA up to market forces, if RA owns the unions then the unions and RA both get exposed to the market. if the unions own RA then only RA gets exposed to the market.

I take your point about the 20s program on the chin, your right and i feel personally that centralizing won’t magically fix everything, but it is necessary to fix anything. There will be bad policies again in the future, but in my view fixing the incentive structure will allow bad policy to be corrected, currently bad policy just persists and our code suffers.

Fair enough CS. I suppose i see it differently, I don’t mean to be too dogmatic, i recognize that there are issues with centralizing and its not a silver bullet, i do believe there is a lot of evidence that it can work particularly in a relatively small sport like union. I am biased though i don’t like too many governments, i generally prefer to have 1 big one.

with the coach and the chairmen, i feel that they only hold partial responsibility. we have been through so many coaches and so many chairmen and the problems have persisted. i believe that is because our structure is broken so id prefer to see structural change before personal change.

thanks, Andy, i think i understand you but i may be wrong apologies if so. it does get complicated. I still feel the states are ultimately responsible for RA’s policies because they elect the board and chairmen, set policy ect.

when RA have opposed the state’s wishes the states have sacked RA staff. good example is David Nucifora and John Oneil who tried to bring in centralization 10 years ago, both effectively got sacked (asked to leave). nucifora went to irealnd BTw and set up the same system there – look how it went.

this is why i feel the states owing RA is the core issue. i know it is way more complex than this and RA has a lot to answer for but the above is why i think fixing the incentive structre is the number 1 priority

I don’t think the Brumbies should be removed from Super rugby or sacrificed. I’m making the case that they are opposing centralization and in doing so sacrificing the common good (a successful incentive structure) for their own gain. The Brumbies are by far the best on field story in aus rugby but not off the field. they are still protected from market forces like every other club which i see as a fundamental issue

my mistake!

no worries i tried to yesterday but it didn’t load properly! thanks for reading and commenting

Hi Frankly, your right it is confusing, the the article and tittle in particular were eddied and changed against my preference which i think adds to the confusion but alas. there is a level of further complexity regarding state control which is too detailed for the comments section but essentially QLD and NSW dominate the votes and so have disproportionate say. the voting structure can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_Australia.

in terms if Why does RA persist with super rugby when it makes no money and doesn’t engage fans? because the states make them. they get more money from a failing but large super rugby comp and a profitable wallabies than a smaller super rugby comp that’s more engaging and a profitable wallabies team. the broadcasters pay more for a bigger comp (similar to bbl in cricket) and the states want their cut.

in terms of your third point its quite interesting, i sit in the camp of people who want super rugby to be smaller and higher quality so im interested in what your saying. whatever the reform ends up being though it will require a fix of incentive structure to succeed. i’m quite hopeful that we may have turned a corner re centralisation and quite pessimistic if we haven’t.

hey elvis, exposing a loss making enterprise to market forces will do one of two things: 1 make it profitable, 2 make it cease to exist. I would predict some of the super clubs would be removed if RA centralised and the others would become profitable or near profitable, which is far better than the shit show we currently have.

I understand that they need doers, but the incentive structure needs to allow for doers to exist. David Nucifora was a doer and he got run out of RA by the state unions for trying to bring in centralisation of high performance! The current incentive structure prevents doers from doing!

my argument is that centralising fixes incentive structure, this creates the conditions necessary for reform. reform is therefore only possible once incentives are fixed. if centralising is how you fix the incentives then in my view it is a necessary condition of reform. it is to Australian rugby what a sail is to a ship! in my view it just has to happen or we are stuffed .

very fair! I mean yea quite possibly. It will be interesting to see how long McLennan survives i don’t think there would be too many in aus rugby who would mind if he got shanked. I certainly wouldn’t be too fussed, particularly if it means centralising happens.

hey Sheek! I understand your argument and I’m sympathetic to it. I think my argument is broader. that incentives matter more than people, and they are so fundamental that if we don’t get them right no significant change will occur. i wouldn’t personally mind if McLennan was sacked but i think it would change little ultimately. even if he was replaced with the best administrator in thew world that administrator would be constrained by the incentive structure, and reform would be hamstrung as it has been for the last 20 years

hey elvis, exposing a loss making enterprise to market forces will do one of two things: 1 make it profitable, 2 make it cease to exist. I would predict some of the super clubs would be removed if RA centralised and the others would become profitable or near profitable, which is far better than the shit show we currently have.

I understand that they need doers, but the incentive structure needs to allow for doers to exist. David Nucifora was a doer and he got run out of RA by the state unions for trying to bring in centralisation of high performance! The current incentive structure prevents doers from doing!

my argument is that centralising fixes incentive structure, this creates the conditions necessary for reform. reform is therefore only possible once incentives are fixed. if centralising is how you fix the incentives then in my view it is a necessary condition of reform. it is to Australian rugby what a sail is to a ship! in my view it just has to happen or we are stuffed.

hey CS, i know its counterintuitive but i think we need to take a bigger picture view. although the recent performance of RA and the wallabies has been poor the reason its been poor is because the system is broken. there are thousands of things that contribute to this but the most fundamental of all is the broken incentive structure. i don’t really think it matters who is chairmen or coach, who the players are what the strategy is, how much is spent on grassroots ect unless the incentives are right. without the right incentive structure, none of the reform can occur, without it everything else is doomed in my view.

Hi phil, i hear what your saying, I don’t mind the states running pathways and grassroots but i’m obviously opposed to them controlling anything financial. Aus rugby’s share of income spent on grassroots has declined to approximately 7%. this has happened at the same time that the state unions share of revenue has increased. i feel that for what your hoping for to be achieved, the states need to be controlled and owned by RA.

Hi Stu, look I am so on board with what your saying about super rugby its not funny. My point is that ultimately the reason super rugby has been allowed to get so broken is because the incentive structure makes this happen. if the states get paid regardless of performance then they will let performance slide. if they are owned by RA, then RA will be able to allocate resources in whatever way is best for the comp, they will be free to reform because they won’t have their hands tied by the states. this wont magically fix everything but it will give RA the opportunity to reform, which they don’t really have currently.

hi gus, Yea the article doesn’t have scope to spell out the specifics. I suppose my argument is that the specifics are irrelevant if the incentive structure is broken. incentives determine all decisions, all behaviour and so the specifics are determined by the incentive structure. fix the incentive structure and then the specifics will work themselves out

Cheers Olly!

Great article! experience certainly did seem to be king, which seems to fit into the cohesion narrative that is so popular at the moment. The Wallabies certainly missed it at this world cup, lets hope we have developed genuine experience by 2027

hmmm i have never thought about this before, but i don’t hate it, protecting funding for grassroots and armature rugby sounds lovely!

I see what you mean Andy but I would attribute this to the state’s unhealthy control over RA. The states with super teams have all the votes and so have all the influence. Voting break down is found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_Australia.

the states with super teams dominate the federation and in my view this allows them to take money that could be spent in SA or Tas. i know its always way more complicated than this but i do see the states thieving money off the national body to be a fundamental issue for our game,

yea that’s fair, but at the end of the day the brumbies should only exist it is best for Australian rugby for them to exist, i personally think they should exist, and the ACT gov should continue to fund them as long as they remain in the ACT. i still see their behaviour as sacrificing the good of AUS rugby for their own gain.

in terms of other examples, high performance is one. the reds have resisted strength and conditioning reform. Vunivalu was injured for two years cause the reds wouldn’t let him rest adequately, RA asked for Taniela Tupou to play reduced minutes over the last 2 years but the reds refused (he ended up doing a calf and a an Achillies)

in 2004 the states rejected a proposal to spend the RWC windfall on assets purchases and grassroots, and instead increased their own budgets

super rugby is the biggest example though, it was the states responsible for its over expansion, and the states who resist cutting teams. there are still a lot of people who believe super rugby can survive in its current format but i’m not one of them. the states are resisting super rugby reform to our detriment and it needs to change in my view

I mean fair point, they haven’t proven to be that competent! I believe that incentives matter most though, if they get incentives right then the right decisions will follow. this isn’t as baseless as it might seem, economically the incentive structure provides the signals the personal use to make decisions and run the game. I feel that by subjecting the entire rugby Australia system to market forces reform will be forced onto them, anyone who continues down the path of failure will be sacked, any poor policy abandoned. its worked in the nrl and afl as well as countless other examples i think its reasonable to assume it will work for us, but we need incentive reform in my view

The force got absolutely shafted there is no doubt about it, but i don’t think that’s adequate justification for QLD or ACT to oppose reform. in terms of why would they? well because if they don’t they will cease to exist, the cash cow that is thew wallabies is drying up, the states can’t continue to leech off its resources, they need to change to survive. NSW and the rebels have seen this i hope QLD and the ACT can too.

Hi Coker, Don’t disagree with you at all on monopolies! I feel that although they are decentralised that state unions are in effect monopolies (as they are protected from market forces) so although its counter intuitive centralising would in effect be breaking up these monopolies, as it would be exposing them to market forces.