2011 World Cup woes menace US plans

Widened loss estimates for the 2011 World Cup, by 20 percent to US$30 million, could expose strategic vulnerability in USARFU's approach to becoming a quarterfinalist.

The organizing committee's bleak projection may prompt the International Rugby Board, whose revenue overwhelmingly depends on the quadrennial world championship, to reduce the 'development' grants that have become indispensable to America's representative programs. Already, with the transformation of the North American 4 into the Americas Rugby Championship, Dublin's 'cross border' tournament allocation to the USA declined to $150,000 from $500,000.

Reaching the 2011 quarters requires winning two of three from Australia, Ireland, and Italy, a prospect which seems at least as distant now as in 2005, when the grants began arriving. But since USARFU's leadership has never articulated an alternative to Dublin's blueprint for achieving top 8 status, like any investor that has backed a business plan, the IRB might well conclude that the missing ingredient is domestic management and expertise, not the plan itself.

Even as funding may be under threat, Boulder's ability to evolve a new approach is limited. In addition to exercising tight control over grant spending, IRB staff and consultants administered the union in 2006 and 2007, so Dublin has deep understanding of America's business and accounting practices.

Earlier this summer, with cash running low and the 2009-10 dues cycle not yet underway, the union could not commit to the annual All-American tour until the USA 7s, a private party, stepped in. Even then, the team had to fall back asking players to pay some of their costs. The university route is a primary example of a distinctively American approach to improved international competitiveness.

While Dublin is guaranteed hundreds of millions from the New Zealand world championship, current grants stem from the unexpectedly profitable 2007 tournament in France. Grants to European and Southern hemisphere powers are many times the size of America's, but representatives of these 'Tier 1' nations primarily determine the allocations and know that their domestic unions also depend on IRB cash.

In addition to a common development mindset, USARFU's leadership also shares the IRB view that international rugby in America is an underperforming revenue engine. The US is hosting the Churchill Cup in 2010 and 2011 and the IRB's Under-20 world championship in 2011, and has said it will bid for future editions of the 7s and women's World Cup.

Last year it failed in a bid to host a match between Australia and New Zealand, which would have yielded a maximum of $200,000. In hosting the 2006 women's world championship, Canada lost C$1.05 million, according to the union's 2007 audit.

In 2007, USARFU chair Kevin Roberts estimated the American union would require annual turnover of $20 million to execute its quarterfinals vision. Boulder reported income of $7.1 million that year, the last for which records are publicly available.

Comments

[no financial public report is illegal.]

A few things we know about USAR's finances.

At the recent Board-Congress meeting the Board reported the budget would need to be further reduced by $2m.

We are a month from 2010 and USAR last publicly reported their financials in 2007. Legal for a non-profit to do this? Nope.

We know the IRB isn't happy with USAR and was unwilling to consider increasing the grant amount when exchange rates reduced the spending power of USAR's IRB grants.

While making annual USAR loses over the last three years, the CEO has made approximately $840,000 dollars.

USAR has been careful to disguise how they are spending CIPP membership dues, IRB grants and college sponsorship funds.

Tax incentives aside, USAR members are unwilling to donate to the union. Despite the fact the members are donating freely to their colleges and high school rugby clubs.

Finally, USAR has never had fewer actual sponsors or even prospective sponsors. Major sponsors are said to be extremely unhappy with the union.

[here we go again]

Kurt,

The best point in your story, is that USAR has never tabled an American plan for the IRB to consider.

This has resulted in millions of IRB grant dollars being completely wasted on failed projects like the NA4, ARC and other short term fixes aimed at winning international matches before our base is properly built.

If IRB grants are designed to lift tier two rugby unions like USAR into competition for RWC quarter-final spots then these funds have been wholly wasted on the USAR. Not only is a quarter-final spot further off, our record is poorer and international ranking lower. We are racing backward, throwing money out the window.

It is the failure of the USAR leadership that they haven't presented a plan of American design to the IRB and to the US rugby community. We know, Alan Sharpley and Congress are working on a strategic plan. God help us.

We enter the RWC cycle again now and USAR will throw every bit of funding and resources at trying to win a match. It makes no difference to the administration that such a victory is meaningless in the bigger picture and won't even be covered in the US press.

After the 2011 RWC we will start all over again, with a new coach and a new failed strategy aimed at Melville and Roberts winning international acclaim.

[EAGLES DOA]

Future IRB development funds are going to go to nations that have internal structures the IRB understands. Places like Russia, Georgia, Kenya and others that have national organizations to manage sports and their funding. This nations have Ministries of Sport that dictate if schools can teach a sport (most require that it be an Olympic sport) and then provide schools funding to facilitate the sports inclusion to the curriculum. Or the IRB will fund existing competitions that are seeking new members. The lack of comparable broadcast dollars is an issue with Argentina being in a new quad nations tournament, but IRB grants could make up these downfalls until the broadcast dollars meet SANZAR (South Africa, New Zealand and Australia Rugby) requirements. My point is that even if the revenue from the 2011 WC is reduced the IRB has plenty of better options than USA Rugby. We will be left to die on the vine.

[Skinner]

SO WHAT?

Why the hell does American Rugby need IRB money?

Time to get off that psuedo-government rugby tit and bootstrap the American rugby program.

The IRB will be tits-up after the New Zealand WC debacle.

.

[IRB has deep pockets]

IRB will be far from "tits-up" after 2011 WC. The 2015 and 2019 WCs are sure money makers for the IRB with the host nations paying tournament guarantee fee.

2015 - £80 million
2019 - £96 million

They may not be as flush with cash after 2011 as they were after 2007, but they are in good shape going forward.

[Gotcha]

I would trust that the last post has been written by a Pommie as our computer keyboards don't have a key for the Pound symbol. We Americans has computers which have a key the dollar sign $.

Here lies just another example of the differences between these foreign hotshots and those of us who bleed red, white, and blue.

[Skinner]

Why does USA Rugby need the IRB?

.

[JC]

Off topic question...

Why is Leonard Peters listed as an Aspen club member on the 7's roster? Does he live there, train there, what??? Why not Chicago as he came off the Bears practice squad? Just curious, thought maybe someone would know.

[the Dread Pirate Roberts]

Pommie or someone who has enough keyboard smarts to know that you hit 'alt' and type '0163' to get the '£' symbol...either way gets you the same result.

The nationalistic posts on this board are ridiculous...and probably just further strengthen those that believe there aren't any competent Americans to run USA Rugby. Please don't encourage the dolts that think that.

While I think most of Kurt's posts are unnecessarily negative, I don't see how many could disagree with this article. The ROI for the IRB on USA Rugby, right now, isn't nearly what any business model would suggest to keep the funds coming this way. The 7s team, hopefully, will continue to improve and get us into the top ten, and hopefully at least be considered a medal contender in the Olympics, and maybe generate a little interest in tv coverage.

If we're ever going to get there in 15s, and if we really wanted to put the high performance IV to good use, we'd need, in my opinion, to use that money to identify and fund a full side to play in either the Super 14, Magners, Premiership, etc. Have them based on the left or right coast, depending on the competition we sneak into. Treat all of USA Rugby as a region, like Ospreys, and make the players fully salaried. Get some continuity. BUT you'd have to limit it to the high performance funds the IRB earmarks for our men's national team.

Reinstate the NASC, or similar competition as the selection vehicle.

Get our boys playing together all year, doing nothing but rugby...that provides salary and insurance, instead of having them roof houses in between matches, and you'd get some return, maybe generate some revenue, and hopefully make them self-sufficient, leaving the CIPP dues, and any sponsorship monies left to developing the domestic game.

Yep, that's all a pipe dream (getting ito the competition, selecting the right players, etc.), I understand. But I think it's a model that could work, if the end we're really searching for is a competitive national 15s side...and I know there's plenty of debate, for good reason, about that.

[LOL]

DPR;

Here's where you are dead wrong. Make the top 35 players currently playing full time pros. Give them every bit of support the worlds top players get, to include the best coaches, hell, pay the coach another $250k. And you know what, we are still two-five places from where we are now at 17th in the world. A long way from the quarter finals.

This is why all these short term fixed are laughable. We aren't even playing with 3rd string scholarship athletes. Two things will never work, average athletes taking us to the quarters, even if they start playing as toddlers. And short term fixes aimed at top-down sport building.

The plan above is a different version of the same failed planning being used by the foreign jokers running USAR. One other thing, even if we won a few more matches even upset a major power, nothing changes in US rugby. There is no bump in participation, sponsorship, or media for being 10th best. To burn my point into your reality, we could be number one in the world, but if the sport isn't a real high school or college sport, you won't find it in your sport pages. BTW, we aren't going to be number one in the world, we aren't likely in your plan to climb out of our 17th place.

There is only one way forward for US rugby and its the American way. High School and college rugby. The varsity model.

DPR, tell your friends on the Board the advice is free, once they have departed in disgrace the varsity plan is what the next administration will do, which will cement this administration and their supporters as the dumbest leadership in the history of American sport.

[Praying for Change]

Well put LOL. Until true focus is put on building youth, high school, and college rugby there will not be any sustainable growth in the sport in the United States. This is the way sports operate in the United States and they all do pretty darn well at it. What, does the IRB (and USAR) not think the NFL is a successful enough model to emulate? Instead they continue to try to shove the commonwealth model down our throats. Just above DPR touts regionalizing the USA a la Wales. Yet more commonwealth thinking trying to fit the square peg in the round hole. Look where it has gotten us. The Eagles could win the next World Cup and it wouldn't make much of a difference in the growth of the game here in the USA. The Top Down approach taken by USAR has been a waste of money and time. Having funding pulled from USAR by the IRB may be a blessing in disguise.

[the Dread Pirate Roberts]

You're missing my point.

If the IRB wants to keep the IV drip running into us, let's use them for all it's worth, but focus all of our funds on domestic development.

They're not going to throw money into our high school and college programs, because they're short sighted, as many on here point out, and don't get that's where the money really is in the US...high school and collegiate parents.

High school and collegiate rugby, even for women, will not be varsity, on a broad scale, if we're targeting 15s. It's going to have to be 7s...and that will be a difficult pill for some to swallow.

Pick a season, fall or spring, and start touting that as the collegiate 7s season. Then play 15s in the "off" season.

I've made the mistake in past posts in trying to be an apologist for the administration...only because I understand what they're trying to do. That, unfortunately, translates into me being labeled as a supporter. Incorrect.

Are we overpaying the CEO and head coach? Absolutely. Do I think either are the best option out there? Nope. Do I think the Board will bring in some new sponsorship dollars? Yes. Is the current board model better than the old representative board? Yes. It's now business instead of parochial interest.

Can we clear something else up? Lots of posts revolve around misspending collegiate sponsorship dollars...there's a big difference between actual sponsorship dollars and "in-kind" dollars. The figure looks great, and it was nice to see clubs actually getting something for being a member, but that figure doesn't help the bottom line at all.

[college XV rugby]

dpr. 15s is rugby. why should we settle for 7s and call it a victory? im not on board with that at all. 15s in college and high school can sell itself if we can get the right people to bring it to the american public's door

[7s Fall - 15s Spring]

15s has to be the main game to be considered a varsity sport, especially in HS, because a team made up with speed as the primary required skill will not be considered attractive to HS sports administrators. Although the goal of varsity sports teams in HS is very much to win, it is also administered with the fact that it needs to be inclusive and aid in development of young boys and girls. Especially in Catholic HSs where your best shot at getting varsity rugby teams established. It is already on the way as there are a lot of Catholic HS rugby teams. Both on a school campus make sense with 7s as a fall sport and 15s a spring sport.

[Davy Crockett]

USAR sells youth rugby sponsorship to the National Guard for $3M and then spends $1M on jerseys and goal post pads while diverting the other $2M to high performance dreams.

That is misspending. Well, it is to most folks in the high school and collegiate rugby community, anyway.

If those aren't the correct numbers, then open the books and lets take a look. You should have access to them as a congress member. Or, heck just ask Melville for the numbers on the next TU presidents' conference call.

[Flynn Hagerty]

Get the IRB's money and use the majority of it to fund a quality college championship, organize the high school championships (both club and school), and the leftover for the All Americans.

Free money is free money, you don't turn it down, you just use it wisely.

[sorry DPR]

DPR,

We will never know if the IRB will support a well conceived American plan for building US rugby until we present them with one. It is in the IRB's best interest to enter the US sports market and the plan in current use is 0-3 (years that is). If the IRB won't support an American plan it's because no one working for USAR understands how it works and can present the plan.

Now why in the world would you say you have faith in the Board bringing in new sponsorship dollars? After three years of failure, now in the forth year you are confident? Well, sooner of later you'll have to be right. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

[Americans + Rugby = F A I L]

We don't have an American plan in place because the Americans (Arnott & Company) ran our union into the ground and the IRB had to bring in consultants (non-americans) and inject cast to keep the union solvent. Sorry to say it boys, but we lost our union because the Congress and hired administrators (all Americans) failed. They are paying and they can do what they want. Deal with it.

[armchairbomber]

"The university route is a primary example of a distinctively American approach to improved international competitiveness."

Kurt, are you trying to say the IRB grants (although getting smaller) would be better spent on university rugby?

"We aren't even playing with 3rd string scholarship athletes. Two things will never work, average athletes taking us to the quarters, even if they start playing as toddlers."

LOL, your comments are right on but a little confusing to my small brain. We can look at CAL, which is the best performing, best funded, best coached university program in the U.S. Other than McDonald, how many successful professional rugby players have they produced? Other notable products of U.S. rugby (Lyle, Hodges, Gross, Emerick, Clever) seem to point to athletic ability and work ethic winning out over playing in a storied, well funded program. As far as starting young I disagree slightly, being that the number of All Blacks relative to the NZ population shows that starting young in a rugby mad country is a huge advantage. On sheer numbers, the top 20 D1 football & bball washouts in the U.S. could hang athletically with the All Blacks but never in the mental and intstinctive parts that come from years of playing. Though not familiar with all their stories, I think Lyle & co., were all university age-ish and the Eagles were fortunate they found rugby.

On the next level - HS, how many competing in the HS / U19 national championships are true (D1/D2) scholarship athletes? The kid from Highland that now plays for the Ravens would look pretty stupid had he suffered a career affecting injury playing HS rugby. We need to remember that Tiger Woods caddy is still the highest paid sportsman in NZ - at least as of a few years back.

The pyramid from youth to HS to scholarship level is steep. The base of the pyramid will need to be built along with picking off as many Lyle-esqe players we can find in the meantime.

[ecm]

mr bomber, i think you're missing the point about Cal...it's never the 1 standout player, it's the 15 working together as a cohesive unit and that team first ethos that has led to the success of the past 30 years. don't get me wrong, there's been some goddamn great indiv rugby players at Cal, but it's never about how great that one player is, it's how good the team is collectively.

but i think you might be on to something national team wise if you were able to have a parallel national rugby academy running Cal's "system", better still if that academy was run by JC.

I for one would be more than happy if me or my kids CIP dues went towards a year round, national level rugby academy, especially if it was run by someone with a proven and exemplary track record. In this regards, if you were to clone Cal at the national level, I think we'd probably agree we'd see a positive increase in national team performance.

[anon]

Alot of conclusions with incorrect premises.

The only motivating factor for players, coaches etc in the USA is love of the game.

You give a HS players family a choice of paying to go to school for rugby or playing D3 football for a financial aid package (they are not allowed to give athletic scholarships) and even D3 football wins 99 out of 100 times.

To attract top athletes you need incentives.

A top tier athlete in high school is thinking of 2 things. 1 - which school is offering me the best package of academics/program/aid package. 2 - Can I play professionally, if so which school will prepare me the best to be a professional.

And remember this, when I say top tier athlete that means physically and mentally. There are a ton of guys with the measurables to play in the NBA/MLB/NFL. You need above all else the work ethic to prepare and the ability to perform at a high level under consistant pressure.

Guys that don't make a roster are going to lack at least one of those 2 things or be inferior physically.

Top Athletes in NZ, UK, SA where rugby is a proffessional sport are likely going to have all 3. Money creates competition and tremendous preparation.

The idea that NFL castoffs could win anything is a myth. That is a FACT. Sure they would be faster and hit harder than todays national team players but against top tier athletes from other nations they would fail.

If you truly want to compete on a world scale it's pretty simple.

1 - Scholarships. The only thing that will get kids playing and keep kids playing.

1A - A pathway to be a professional. This is cheaper than you think. There are some pretty good soccer players who play dev league for 15,000 and free rent/car. If we continue to place deserving players in pro setups and young players know it's at least possible to make the top level this is possible.

Without BOTH of these top tier athletes will take chances playing d3 golf above volunteering their time with Rugby.

[Flynn Hagerty]

We've climbed to 16th in the rankings. Hooray!

[armchairbomber]

Anon,

You hit it on the head! So how do we convince the IRB or whatever sugar daddy we need to that 20 - $15,000 / "rugby" scholarships at "approved" university programs will help make the U.S. more competitive and therefore more "marketable"? 300k a year. Serious D1 football / bball produces profits for the schools through ticket revenues, TV, sponsorship and merchandising. Knowing U.S. rugby cannot touch that, it has to take a "Texas swimming" or "Iowa wrestling" approach - being the best in a smaller pond of interest. This gives university officials something to brag about as well as generate positive PR stories, etc. How happy is CAL and their officials to know they dominate USC at something? This is essentially what CAL has done, but with a lesser pedigree of natural athlete than present in D1 mainstream sports.

Next level - how about 15 more Eagle player "stipends" of 20k so they are living and breathing more rugby. 300k again

Get some marketing expertise on board so we can tell the world about a Nevada Reno alum that is playing in the best competiton in the world instead of the local town rag reporting about 15 meathead, non athletes that are a "drinking team with a rugby problem" causing various negative spin stories.

[anon]

We have 300,000 in funding. I hate to be one of the ARC/NA4 monday morning QB's but we could fund alot of partial or full schoplarships with the money spent on those comps.

I don't even have a problem singling out 1 or 2 schools as national rugby academies. Life and Cal would work for me. (please no quablling about the Life undergrad program... it's just an example). Programs with resources and dedicated coaches that can be trusted to develop players.

One stipulation would be that these sides compete in the super league (or top domestic comp).

THAT would be money well spent.

And just to clear it up - player development is important. But the ultimate goal is to retain players. As long as they can ruck, scrum, tackle and pass I don't care who coaches them.

Nate Ebner was a star for the U20's but he gave up rugby his freshman year to Walk on for Ohio State Football... (he is going to letter in his first year BTW).