Grounding our clubs the right way

by Derek Sagehorn

England's Rugby Football Union stands to earn £15 million ($23 million) from the World Cup, a portion of which is earmarked for maintaining, expanding, and building facilities for its constituent clubs. Decisions about allocating the money will be far easier because the union has adopted a National Facilities Strategy.

Covering pitch and clubhouse standards, priorities like youth rugby and floodlit fields, and resources and capital for facility development, the NFS is a four-year plan through 2017. It identifies national lottery money and increased private investment as well as RWC 2015 profits as revenue streams. Maintenance and development projects are to be funded with interest-free loans and grants.

NFS establishes a competitive process for grants and scores projects based on criteria derived from union priorities. For example, projects that incorporate youth and women programs may rate higher than those that do not. In addition, there are best practices for entitlement acquisition, pitch maintenance, disability issues, and so on.

Overall, the RFU has created a thoughtful plan to guide clubs wanting better places to train and compete.

Unfortunately USA Rugby doesn't have a plan for facilities, at least not a public one. The member resources listed on the USARFU website are extensive, but there is no guidance on how to develop facilities or even maintain a pitch. The need is obvious. Earlier this year, a Pacific Rugby Premiership match at a middle school was abandoned after a serious injury prompted school officials to evict the host club mid-match.

Every match played with incorrect dimensions or on a lacrosse-lined field undermines the game with the mainstream public. Also, the proliferation of youth and club rugby played on narrow, gridiron fields retards player ball-handling skills, as they are rewarded for playing tight, 10-man rugby.

Obviously there are differences between RFU and USARFU in terms of players, resources, and political power. The latter lacks the capacity to underwrite land acquisition and grading for individual clubs. But Boulder could guide and inform individual clubs that wish to own their home or improve existing facilities.

Currently, purpose-built and even correctly lined rugby pitches are the exception rather the rule in America. Those clubs that have built facilities have worked hard and leveraged a diverse array of resources, including public investment, rentals and purchases of public or institutional land, and real estate gifts. Among non-university teams, Glendale Rugby sets the standard with Infinity Park. Charlotte Rugby Club's Skillbeck Athletic Grounds, the Pittsburgh Harlequins' Founders Field, the Chicago Lions' Hope Field, or San Francisco Golden Gate's Ray Sheeran Field may be a more achievable model.

Consideration must be given to the practical differences between locales and their attendant facilities strategies: building a rugby pitch in metro Philadelphia is a far different proposition from building one most anywhere in Indiana. A plan that identifies national standards, priorities, and best practices could help guide clubs to make that first step towards building dedicated facilities.

To be sure, USARFU is busy right now, evaluating the national team's World Cup performance, preparing for 7s at the Rio Olympics, and awaiting a domestic professional rugby competition. But long-term planning for its dues-paying member clubs is a low-cost, high-value endeavor. A national facilities strategy would ensure that clubs are well-positioned to reap the benefits of American rugby's growth.

Derek Sagehorn, a graduate of the University of California and University of San Francisco School of Law, works in housing development in Oakland. He coaches forwards at Alameda High School.

Comments

[DIY]

US rugby facilities are a problem, but let's not blame USA Rugby (again). Do the clubs really need USA Rugby's guidance on how to get access to improved facilities? Did Glendale or SFGG wait for USA Rugby guidance? No. Top clubs think strategically and take initiative. Poorly managed clubs point fingers at USA Rugby. Clubs need to take responsibility for the sorry state of rugby facilities and the poor quality of our player pool. All the information about field standards is public and on the internet. Glendale, SFGG and others would probably be happy to share their own experiences. Each club faces their own unique challenges in their own market. USA Rugby can add very little value. It is up to the clubs to develop longer term strategies that including growing their capital base and improving their facilities. USA Rugby will never have the funding or staffing to solve local facilities issues. Clubs should not be waiting to for USA Rugby, for anything. Clubs need to act now. Before complaining yet again about USA Rugby, turn a critical eye on your own club and regional management and work to improve the game through local action.

[Doug Lyons]

Currently, purpose-built and even correctly lined rugby pitches are the exception rather the rule in America."

In my line of work that is called a junk statement. Completely unsupported with any data.

[just sayin]

"One particularly savvy point Jones brought up about his team’s preparations though, is how aware they are of the dimensions of State College’s rugby pitch. “It’s not a regulation field. It’s a football field made slightly wider with lines painted for rugby,” he said. Considering that the width of the field this weekend is falling somewhere between 50 and 60 meters, instead of the regulation 70, Kutztown expects a forward dominated match."
While Derek may have used a "junk statement" in an attempt to illustrate a valid point, above is an example of a top college rugby program playing on a substandard pitch. This would be unacceptable in any other rugby playing nation yet can be found at many sites here in the US. Data forthcoming should a fundme site occur.