Rugby union has a love affair with the phrase “not fit for purpose” but no one seems able to articulate what the actual purpose is, writes Scotty Stevenson.
Moreover, while the fanbase and many pundits are distracted by the ongoing governance situation, rugby’s real intentions are being put to the test in a wide-ranging review into pathways and competitions.
“The NZRU is incorporated for the purpose of promoting amateur rugby for the recreation or entertainment of the general public. The capacity of the NZRU to carry on any business or activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction, is restricted to any business, activity, act or transaction carried on, undertaken, done or entered into in accordance with, or seeking to achieve, this purpose.”
That’s a whole bunch of legalese for you, but it’s an important passage because it articulates the essence of New Zealand Rugby as it stands as an Incorporated Society. Because it is precisely that, it requires a constitution (most recently updated and adopted in 2020), from which this passage was taken, not to mention various other protections under law that prevent its officers and board members from making decisions that do not in any way advance the purpose.
In all the recent brouhaha over governance and who should be on the board, and who wrote what report and proffered what option, and who disagreed with the New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association, this is the phrase that feels largely forgotten. It’s one that should be embossed on a business card and handed to everyone who takes a pay cheque from the HQ payroll, or the sport in general. Too often, in the rather convoluted world of professional sport, this is the purpose that gets forgotten.
Which is why the current review into men’s pathways and competitions is a vastly more important piece of work than the governance restructure. For all the opinions out there – and we’ve all got one – the base of rugby’s pyramid is far more important right now than the top. New Zealand Rugby hasn’t gone bankrupt despite the fact its current board couldn’t agree on the time of day, and despite its private equity partner, which has no interest at all in the constitution of an Incorporated Society, becoming priority payee.
As it stands, the major focus will be on the shape of the National Provincial Championship – contested between 14 of the NZRU’s constituent 26 provincial unions. In certain corners, the current design and make up of that competition is seen as anachronistic to the current professional trajectory of the game. Others argue, it remains the best way to blood talent and to keep young players in the regions and engaged with the amateur clubs. Clearly, that tension will be at the heart of the debate around the future of that competition.
Add to this dilemma a reduced broadcast and fan appetite for matches – a position that prompted NZR CEO Mark Robinson to signal to the unions that there could be a reduced appetite for live coverage – and a desire within the Super Rugby clubs to secure the best talent within their own academy programmes (currently the five Super Rugby clubs and the 14 top flight provincial unions duplicate the academy responsibility) and it is clear this is complicated situation with many conflicting interests.
From a high performance and content point of view, there is a clear desire to look younger. NZRC – NZR’s commercial arm which is supposedly controlled by NZR but which could argue, given all revenue now flow through it, that it is calling the shots – has already made overtures to schools to put 1st XV content on its own streaming service which is, unsurprisingly, housed on Silver Lake company Endeavour’s platform and which has already cost NZRC millions of dollars in set up and content costs.
Though certain rugby union executives have recently bemoaned the aggressive talent capture strategy of rugby league, the truth is many within rugby union are seeking to do essentially the same.
The argument against this has been articulated by the Auckland 1A principals who refused broadcast coverage for fear of exposing their students to unwanted scrutiny at an age where enjoyment of the game should be the priority. That was not a universally popular stance, but it meant schoolboy rugby ceased to be a content commodity product. NZRC executives are now seeking to reverse that.
The problem with that is an inevitable rationalisation of the talent base, where any kid serious about a future in rugby will feel compelled to attend a ‘traditional’ rugby school from where he or she can be noticed. Instead of growing participation, it is feared this will further reduce it, as kids as young as 13 or 14 may feel they are not on the selection pathway and simply leave the game.
It is the same for the provinces. Some frontline provincial administrators are worried that reducing the role of the provincial unions in player development will simply drain players ever farther from their roots, eviscerating local club rugby and concentrating all player talent in the major centres. However, one experienced player representative says the current situation is simply too complex and there simply is no longer room for the NPC to be a fully fledged ‘professional’ competition. In other words, “it’s not fit for purpose”.
Of course, all of this comes down to one thing: Teams in Black, or TiBs as the acronym goes. That is of course what NZR, through NZRC, has to sell. And the value attached to those teams is business the New Zealand Rugby Union is in. And that business is supposed to support the amateur game.
So forget the board ructions, and look at the base of the game. By the end of this month we will have a clearer idea about just how broad that base is, and just how important those in charge of the business of rugby think it is.
For those at the amateur edge of the sport, they may be left to wonder whether they have a club game left to run, or whether a handful of schools servicing a select few players will now sit front and centre in rugby’s ‘fit for purpose’ future.
SHARE ME