Why should a national governing body encourage teams and athletes to aspire to elite levels of sport?
The obvious reason is to field better national teams. But does an organization such as USARFU also have an obligation to promote activities that are not in its direct interests? Does it have a practical stake in doing so?
Lee Smith, a renowned rugby thinker who has held posts with both the New Zealand union and the International Rugby Board, recently asserted that one adverse effect of professional rugby is the national union's (and franchise owner's) increased incentive to pursue only those progams which immediately benefit its financial health. In practice, this amounts to the scouting, selecting, training, and monetizing of national teams (or pro clubs).
Smith labels the condition that of a 'hollow frontier' because while the top (i.e., professional levels) look to be advancing, in fact the condition of the settlers -- the recreational clubs which supply players and coaches -- is unstable and may be deteriorating. Links between the top and bottom are severed, and yields diminish.
Smith is primarily thinking of leading unions like New Zealand, but as his experience includes time working in the Pacific Islands, his thoughts are applicable to the developing countries like the United States. The full paper is here. Below, a few of the more interesting passages:
§ Historically the game has been one that depends on mass participation and grassroots involvement. The pyramid goes something like this.
Schools and clubs do what they do best, but when there is a need to have a collective purpose they form a collective body called the local rugby union, to which they send representatives. When they find there are opportunities that they have a collective need for, the rugby unions form a co-operative for that purpose, the national union, and so on up to the world governing body. Each level has its own niche and is responsible for that niche. It is bottom up and not top down. When it is top down you lose support because there is no longer local input to the same degree.
The structure runs into difficulties when each level assumes a role that infringes on those below. In the professional game this has become prevalent especially when it comes to competitions. The effect is to channel money and time away from amateur rugby. This has resulted in the financially weak having less say. This is the vast majority of the people involved in rugby. The effect is to narrow the base of the pyramid making it unstable.
§ What we are looking for is a game for all that supports life-long involvement in a number of roles. It is not a sport with the best playing and the remainder watching. It is part of a healthy lifestyle in which all can find a niche for themselves in a variety of ways that is embedded into the fabric of society and not just one part of it as an entertainment.
§ Rugby has the dilemma of being morally obliged to levels of the game that are a financial cost to run. Some may see this as an investment in many ways. Rugby as part of an ongoing healthy lifestyle is one. With these levels of the game viewed as a cost, rugby has a problem but team owners do not. Their problems are solved by buying in the talent developed by others, frequently, with no return to those who did the developing.
§ [Traditionally] Players from lesser unions within the country could achieve international status. Each union had its niche and potential for a place in the sun. Each could be supported by amateur effort committed to the game as part of their way of life. The game could be measured in a quantifiable sense by the numbers playing but, more importantly, it could be measured by other criteria be they subjective. These criteria were community spirit, camaraderie, loyalty and a code of behavior and ethic that tied the unions together to create the game as part of the national identity.
Obviously the last observation is particularly apropos of the pending disbandment of the college all-star championship. The competition is inefficient and certainly lacks many features of the higher-level All American program. Yet its passing not only feels like narrowing opportunities for collegians at a time when their numbers are growing; but also as if the national union is eliminating one more connection with the folks who provide the players and foot much of the bill.
Smith has some high-level ideas about reconnecting local, regional, and national bodies. Are they applicable to USARFU's formative setup (geographic unions, college conferences, high school states)?
