news analysis USA Rugby’s recent backing for a youth organization seeking autonomy from a local union may come to be seen as a milestone.
Last month’s formation of the Texas Youth Rugby Association appears to mark the first time the national body has interceded on behalf of a group distinctly at odds with the established hierarchy. Youth advocates, frustrated in the belief that there should be more high school teams in the Lone Star state, have seen themselves in a two-year conflict with the Texas Rugby Union.
The outcome raises the scenario of local unions losing substantial revenues. Youth and college players make up the lion’s share of dues payers, while senior and senior representative rugby often enjoy disproportionate spending. In 2004, approximately 60 percent of Texan teams were schoolboy or university level, according to Rugby Magazine.
“Our main obstacle now will be getting control of the youth dues and financials,” one person said after TYRA got underway.
So-called state-based youth bodies are in vogue because they have made good use of local volunteers to start new teams and increase the number of younger players, seen in Boulder and elsewhere as key to improving domestic rugby at any number of levels. But the state-based model, which draws on America’s traditional “athletic conferences,” also undermines the established hierarchy of local union-territory-national union.
A bona fide state-based body is a recognized 501(c)3 organization with an active board of directors; is run by an executive director; receives dues from its members; and manages all aspects of competition with the state, according to various people familiar with such organizations around the country. All of those functions obviate the local union if not the territory; most unions do not have a professional executive.
Counting Texas, USA Rugby supports 7 state-based bodies, according to youth director Peter Steinberg, and hopes to be working with 14 by year’s end. The figure does not Tennessee or Oregon, the two most vibrant state-based groups.
Virginia and Maryland are two such possibilities. In 2006, Boulder set (and missed) a goal of fostering nine state-based bodies.
Texas organizers have talked of tripling the number of high school teams, to 50.
Administrivia and governing bodies will not make or break a sport.
Wanna grow the sport? Build the expectation that the highest level players will coach the youngest players. This supplies HS and college squads with players who know the game, know the tradition, and set high standards for themselves. This also reduces the burden of parent coaches in a sport with a small number of qualified staff. For a model take a look at Munster, much more than 22 paid professionals. The 'Red Army' starts with U13, and as a result it is a community that numbers in the thousands and is easily marketed to sponsors regardless of win/loss. Money problem solved.
Posted by: Mike | 31 May 2007 at 08:28
Looks like this post got lost in the hoopla over another disappointing Eagle showing against Canada...
If you want high school kids to play then build a high school based competition. The path of least resistance is to build a system that parallels existing high school competitions and organization. None of that involves overlaying a European template over your efforts as a framework for development. Put together a competition that the kids (and parents) can relate to and then find you some strong leadership. It works and has worked everywhere it has been tried.
It really comes down to the old question of whether you want to create the best team or the most teams. Grassroots efforts that want more teams and more kids playing have seen the value of a state based organization - at least for the high school level competition.
State based organizations don't have to be 501c3 to be legit but rather need to simply have controlling authority over the high school competition in their state. Its been my experience that 501c3 organizations are best utilized at the local / regional level since that's where most of your fundraising dollars and organizational manpower resides - all politics is local (apologies to the late Tip O'Neill).
In most cases, LAUs and TUs are simply an unneeded layer of management (and in a few cases - bureaucracy).
The bottom line is that the path of least resistance to introduce our sport to the mainstream high school athlete is to build a competition structure that relies on the things that he/she knows – the honor of playing for their school and the possibility of winning a state championship. Yes, there are shining examples of teams that have achieved success as a community based team with a focus on the national tournament, but we should not only develop young players but also have a responsibility to create a whole new generation of rugby fans. And that means more kids playing (at an escalating earlier age)...
Build it and they will come...
Posted by: Marty Bradley | 04 June 2007 at 06:54
rouk zqsmxno kzmuocqhy ajzbdm ktfhvgnma zoilsyacx lqbfks
Posted by: uydx kmvxqob | 02 May 2008 at 21:53