NA4 falling short of lofty goals

The USA’s North American 4 program is fast becoming a significant cost center with unproven commercial and development value, a precarious position for the International Rugby Board-subsidized event.

Only about 400 watched Saturday’s match of unbeatens between the Falcons and Canada West – counting competitors in a concurrent high school invitational tourney – a figure well short of the 2,600 who viewed Cal and BYU in the previous weekend’s collegiate final.

At $10 a ticket, the income from such a meager NA4 gate would not have paid for event costs of the Wednesday and Saturday games, even before factoring in the bill for travel and lodging, food, kit and training supplies, per diems, and other expenditures surrounding the weeklong assembly of four teams. Losses could have reached $75,000 and higher, according to people familiar with the matter.

Only last year, executives said that two teams would be added in 2008 and the competition eventually would be professionalized as USA Rugby and Rugby Canada partnered with private investors. “Cities and private owners will take ownership of the franchises,” one official predicted.

But Palo Alto’s poor crowds and media coverage, coupled with sparse first-round turnout in San Diego, is discouraging because the San Francisco Bay Area and its southern California counterpart are two of American rugby’s hotbeds, with large playing populations, excellent facilities, and knowledgeable sports reporters.

Meanwhile, almost all of the 30-man Churchill Cup squad were on scene before 2007, pointing up that the NA4 is not being used to debut new players. While Canada fielded any number of youngsters with little to no prospect of reaching the 2007 World Cup, including two from its Under 19 squad, the American sides were full of front-line internationals.

Eagle coach Peter Thorburn has clearly stated his intent to use the NA4 to evaluate World Cup hopefuls. Only a handful of players not named in the initial February training camp were picked for this month’s games.

The IRB underwrites the cost of the tournament to the tune of £500,000 (a shade less than $1,000,000 at today’s exchange rate), as part of a worldwide development program. But Dublin has previously cooled to the idea of financing loss-making tournaments, having grown disenchanted with the Pacific Rim Championship earlier this decade.

Comments

[Jason]

Part of the problem is the fact almost all national events are held in California. People get complacent when they get too much of something. When they had the South Africa match in Houston the US had its largest gate ever. With the N4 in San Diego and Palo Alto, Uruguay, the collegiate championship, the men's national championship, and USA Sevens do we think people in the area are getting a little too much? Maybe spread the events out just a little more and they would get larger turnouts. To go to all these events someone would have to take six weekends not counting playing weekends on just rugby. I am fine with this but my wife is not. I know there have been failures in Ohio, and Hartford was no great success. I think Seattle would be a better location for the N4 or another venue close to a Canadian hot bed of rugby. I know this was the original location and they should have kept it there. There has to be another venue in the area that could have been used.

[Mike]

USA vs. Canada doesnt really get the blood flowing in any sport since there is no rivalry between the nations.

USA vs France would bring out a much broader spectrum of the public while bringing the rugby community together to see #1 play #xx.

[doug lyons]

Can someone provide the details of the original charter for the NA4.

It is continually inferred that the competition is not being used to "blood new layers" implying that the NA4 is some sort of training ground for future internationals.

It's my contention that the NA4 was developed as a bridge between club and international rugby similar to the Super 14 competition in the southern hemisphere.

The point is to get the best players more top level competition below the national team level.

Now, there is a dynamic at work that allows for the Canadians to field a more developmental squad than the US beause the Canucks have many more professional players. But that does not take away from what the NA4 is purported to be.

If someone could clarify that it would be great.

As for the commercial viability of the tournament .... whose kidding who? The NA4 was not nor will not ever make a dime. The WC isn't even being broadcast in a way to bring in new fans (no offnese to Setanta but that is a channel for dedicated fans, not a way to make new ones) to expect the NA4 to be anything but a sieve for money is just plain foolishness.

Anyhow, I would be very curious to see the original announcements regarding the NA4 to get clarity as to the purpose of the event. Maybe it's time to google away!

[JAEF]

I have always felt that these things should be rotated, with reoccuring fixtures in certain "hotbeds" of rugby.

Chicago is always a draw...
So is Houston.
Perhaps in NY near NYAC or Xavier H.S.

But if the NA4 was going to be used to showcase tomorrows stars, then a fixture in No. Cal is only logical. For some dumb reason USA rugby makes Stanford the only place to go see competitions, when in fact Stanford is too far south for the true hotbed of youth rugby which is from San Francisco, north. U.C Davis just opened a brand new 10,000 seat venue for it's DI-AA football team. Literally thousands of young ruggers are within 40-50 miles of there, and it WOULD draw a large contingent.

Stanford's pitch is overrated anyway, and there seating is a joke.

[Alan]

I think that it would generate a bit more interest if the teams were geographically split, more in the manner of Canada's East/West teams. It is a little tought to support one the Hawks or Falcons, when both teams have players from our area.

Maybe a New England Falcons, California Hawks, and Chicago Osprey kind of set-up would work better.

In a World Cup year, we need to get our WC team ready to go. Bleeding new fellows is not an option for our particular program.

[old beaver]

There is no reason for fans to allign themselves with any of the four teams. There is no "home" for any team, teams lack a "consistant" roster, there isn't any merchandise....list goes on.

NA 4 Rugby is at it's best an exibition. With all this talent brought in to run USA Rugby, you'd think that someone would have some idea how to promote a product.

Stanford is an overplayed venue, I agree. I volunteered at a USA "A" vs Scotland "A" match in Portland, Oregon in 2002, there were 1200-1500 people in attendance. Since then the high school and college rugby comunities have exploded in the NW states.

An opinion piece on which countries we should host and where to host them would be a hit. (ie Portugal in SF or Boston or Samoa in Salt Lake City)

[old beaver]

I like Alans idea.

[Michael]

I enjoyed watching the NA4 matches, but once again our (USA Rugby) events management staff did not drive the publicity machine outside of the existing rugby community.

There were no rugby player school visits, no complementary youth tickets w/ full price parent ticket deals, and no local print or electronic media coverage.

While not an ideal venue, the Eagle test matches at SF Boxer Stadium a decade earlier had more color, ambiance, and revenue. Hire Scott Compton back.

I think pairing the NA4 with the Pacific Coast Youth Tournament was a great idea, but the majority of specatators for NA4 were in the stands mainly to watch their kids play, not our high performance national team development players. I saw few fans in Palo Alto drawn to the Steuber Stadium for the USA Rugby/Irb event.

Stanford's a great venue for the players on the pitch...good turf and it's well maintained but it's not a spectator-oriented site for rugby matches.

[Paul]

A couple of hundred spectators, no fan services, zero media attention and bad rugby. I think USA Rugby must have lost closer to $100,000. This only works because its not our money, right?

Who believes that the irb will be throwing a half million dollars over their shoulder every year to fund what happened in Ohio last year and California this year. Who ? Because I have a bridge to sell them.

Kurt is right, this tournament is doomed because we haven't made anything out of it. These irb grants are meant to be a helping hand not permanent welfare.

Doug, it doesn't matter if this competition was intended to develop or bridge a gap, these are the same thing. The Canadians are using this competition to stay ahead of us with development and we are using it to fund our World Cup 07 preparation. My point is, the competition is going away at some point because it isn't substainable without the irb and we will have nothing to show for its existance. The Canadian on the other hand will at least have used the last couple of years getting their 2011 team ready.

[bbm]

with the help of somebody in the know we counted over 15 full time paychecks of USARFU in attendance at the na4. this is before the board members and other part time helpers.

we should expect more out of this amount of union personel.

if 15 people can only get 400 spectators, we should fire someone and raise the youth budget at the same time.

[Jonathon]

I have come to the defense of Peter Thorburn before on this site. It's unfair to not understand what a difficult stuation he walked into, with the Arnot problems and the IRB audit stating that USA Rugby board needed a overhaul.

I am still a supporter although its time for some results. Peter is quoted in the Churchill Cup release "we are definitely better prepared" and "we are excited to see how we measure up verse the likes of England"

Well this is good news because we need to show some progress heading to the World Cup. The WC qualifier match last year with Canada was a step in the wrong direction.

It now appears with the IRB assistance the team is ready and 'prepared' in Peter's words.

One thing to keep in mind is that we are not playing against England. BBC Sport is reporting that more than 30 of Englands top players are ruled out with club commitments and injuries. None of the Wasps, Leicester or Bath players are being considered, while another 10 players are injured.

Then, the real England gets to pick the next best 30 for their tour to South Africa, that 60 players in total.

The lot that the Eagles will play is players 61-75, England's 5th team.

Here's to you being right Peter.

[gary@DBRFC]

Thanks for holding USARugby accountable. You are the only US rugby site to question leadership decisions and plans for the World Cup.

I have always said that if you want the "best" Eagles squad, you take the Super League champs, drop the foreign players, add 10-15 of the best of the rest of the US and call them "our" Eagles.

They train and play together 365, have a game plan, good coaching (otherwise they would not have made it this far), and "local" fan support. They could sell out their local venue because they are representing the US.

We as players are paying way too much for so little. Why should we subsidize the players that are professionals in other countries? Stay in the US and play here.

My "two cents"...

[JAEF]

Interesting point Gary, but that last comment is totally flawed....

Would anyone in their right mind take the MLS champions and make that our national team? I think not! Would a Landan Donovan, playing against superior league-wide competition in Europe opposed to the MLS, not be welcome on the roster? Does England take the Premiership champs and put them on tour? NO!

By the way, Thornburn has announced the 1st XV for Friday against England: http://americanrugbynews.com/2007/05/16/eagle-team-to-face-saxons

I am intrigued with the back row, with the younger Stanfill at #6 and Clever at #7 and I like Vilojen in the game wherever (wing or fullback), but without experience in the tight five (No MacDonald at #1, no Gross at #4)and without Hercus at #10, and Emerick at #13 to give some juice in the backline I am pessimistic about bettering ourselves from the 2006 finish.

Can someone tell me why the internationals are not playing? I understand that Emerick is injured, but we have two guys in the tight five available that have over 80 caps between them. WHAT ARE WE DOING?!?

[M.O.]

JAEF:

I have to think that Thorburn is looking towards players that can and cannot compete in the World Cup.

The Eagles play two extremely tough matches against England and South Africa and two winable matches against Tonga and Samoa.

What does he decide to do with his lineup for each of those games? He can't play MacDonald, Gross, Parker, Hercus, et al in all four of the matches. What better way to find out who can handle the rigors of international rugby than give them the chance to prove it. This year's NA4 and Churchill Cup are not stand-alone competitions that we are strictly there to win at all costs. Rather, they have to be avenues to the end game, the World Cup.

[Flynn]

I admit, I'm biased. I played for SFGGRFC, and I grew up literally steps from Boxer Stadium. I used to walk to Balboa Park for games, and for internationals I used to help set up the field.

But you know what? Even an objective observer must concede that USA Rugby has had a hard time replicating the Balboa Park experience since they left it. Balboa Park used to regularly be full for games, and it provided BY FAR the best profit opportunity for USA Rugby. Rent is only $1,000 for the venue, and with volunteers setting up the field and manning the concessions (mostly SFGG and other Bay Area clubs), USA Rugby used to make a profit at the place, something they have very rarely done anywhere else.

OK, it was ad hoc, and a little amateurish at times. But USA Rugby is ad hoc and amateurish. It's simply the level we are at. We aren't capable of drawing several thousand people to watch even the Eagles play (I went to the Wales match in Hartford and the crowd was at least half travelling Welshmen).

For all the cries about how Boxer Stadium was amateur and dilapidated, Stanford isn't really better. The parking situation is pretty similar - it's located in basically a residential area and there aren't many parking spots close to Steuber Field. Importantly, there is little in the way of public transit to Steuber. CalTrain's Stanford station only opens during Football season. Meanwhile, Balboa Park BART station is two blocks from the stadium, and trust me, rugby fans used it. I had to run errands before Samoa played the USA in 2000 and the train was PACKED with fans on the way to the ground.

Lastly, what else are you going to do at Stanford on a weekend? The campus is pretty much closed, and Palo Alto's not the most exciting of towns. With Balboa Park, the opportunity of taking BART up to downtown for a night out was there.

If people want to move USA Rugby events to other areas, well, so be it. But I remain utterly unconvinced that Balboa Park is anything but the best venue for rugby in the Bay Area.

[WT Eff]

"But Palo Alto’s poor crowds and media coverage..."

What we see in that statement is a result of "the problem". I have recently moved to Denver area thinking and hoping that in the local newspaper I might find something in a wknd box scores page about rugby. Even dreaming that I could even find articles about rugby; local rugby, high school rugby, college rugby...anything. Alas and anon; what do I find? Rather every other frickin' sport under the sun including lacrosse. I am beginning to think the USARugby really doesn't care. Serious. How the heck are we ever going to get anybody outside of our ranks of players/fans interested in the game (that is the only way to grow it) if I CAN'T FIND A MOTHER-EFFING article about it in the LOCAL PAPER?!?! As far as I am concerned that bunch of "lame-ass can't cunts" at eff-ing USAR can eff-ing eat shite and piss off. Its gonna take high school coaches and youth clubs begging and pleading with the local rags for a few lines and box scores to get this thing going. So what if you have to beg/plead/pay for some lines. How else are you going to get anybody to notice, recognize and possibly even be curious enough to show up? We all have had guys show up at practice out of curiosity...some make it, some don't, but can you possibly imagine what would happen if USAR actually advertised? The only adverts. I have ever seen anywhere in my life are aimed at "me" in websites etc. that only "I" am ever going to visit. That is money wasted. Same thing as preaching to the choir. Spend the money and do the preaching somewhere else to reach an audience that has never thought about rugby. I guarantee that if those vaginas at USAR actually got off their lazy arses and tried to tap that crowd, the sport would explode.

[Apollo]

Bottom line is that USA Rugby is a bottom dweller in terms of American sports. Scraping to get by, trying to claw its way up from the bottom using any resources available, including handouts like the IRB grant.

The scary part is the success of NFL tix sales in England. if europeans take to gridiron rugby will suffer a further setback. pro sports is all about fanbase, more int'l gridiron fans further depletes the rugby fanbase.

so is a couple of bucks spent elsewhere, or a different NA4 format, or getting 2500 fans instead of 500 fans going to make or break rugby? NO.

what's the answer. only time will tell.

[Flynn]

I'm not worried about the spread of the NFL. There's a lot of British people who like to watch the odd game, but the fact tickets sold so fast doesn't mean much to me. I bet most of those people were already rugby fans. Certainly many British boards I have posted on had their fair share of people who watched the NFL.

MLB is thinking of playing a series at the Oval cricket ground in London, and they'll probably get a good crowd too. Enough expats starved for American games plus a small local fan base that will watch any example of the pros in the flesh no matter what team they are will equal a good crowd. I'll be moving to the UK in a few months and if MLB comes over while I'm there, I'll buy tickets whether it's my Red Sox or whether it's Pirates-Brewers. I'll be so starved I won't care.

[Flynn]

On the media: Scott Compton was very good at this, and before an international rugby match, the SF Chronicle would usually have a feature on local SFGG/Cal players selected for the Eagles, complete with photos. Scott's imprint on the article was obvious and a very good way to create local interest (crowds noticeably dropped when he moved on). I suppose that's why he now works for the All Blacks.

But I spoke to John Crumpacker, an ex-Cal grad who writes on the Olympics for the SF Chronicle (and therefore an obvious choice for rugby writing), and he said that he is simply not contacted by USA Rugby. June or July, when Tests are held, is usually a pretty dead time in US sports, and they would run stuff if someone came to them with an idea, or even a freelanced story with pictures. But no one does it.

[ruggerbee]

re Flynn's post:

SHAME ON YOU USA RUGBY! As far as I can tell there seems to be a bit of elitist mind set to expansion of the game in the US from the "leaders". They don't want the unwashed masses invited in. That sort of thinking comes about from fear and I have no idea what they could possibly fear unless it is loss of control of their little fiefdom. I have wondered if it isn't some sort of apatheid/racism mentality. A kind of let's keep the Arthur Ashe's out of the game because as soon as "they" are invited in it will expose us for what we are: small minded, in-bred, 2nd-rate wanna-be's.

There, I said it.