Rugby union’s a ball, pass it on
Our national game’s trying to shoot itself in the foot, again
Almost 30 years ago, New Zealand rugby was at an inflexion point. It was on the cusp of turning professional and Aussie media barons Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer were duking it out over rival competitions and the lucre attached to the TV rights for league and union.
Packer’s World Rugby Corporation had the upper hand, with 500 players across the globe on board, including most of the All Blacks, but Jock Hobbs and his tireless lobbying of players to stick with the Murdoch-backed Sanzar (South African, New Zealand, and Australian Rugby) ultimately won the day.
The signing of rising stars Jeff Wilson and Josh Kronfeld was seen as the lynchpin, leading to the thrilling competition that was the Super 12 in 1996.
Game of chicken
Hobbs was bafflingly ditched from the then New Zealand Rugby Union board, returning in the 2000s to play a key role in securing the 2011 hosting rights for the World Cup.
After the recent vote by the provincial unions on the future governance arrangements of the national body, you’ve got to ask yourself who will pick up the mantle and try to save rugby from destroying itself now?
At first blush, the provincial unions’ response to the very good review into rugby’s governance might not seem too bad.
After all, having three directors on a nine-person board who’ve done time on a provincial union doesn’t seem too rough, especially given the David Pilkington-led review recommended that independent New Zealand Rugby (NZR) directors should make time to experience the game at the local level.
However, inserting the proposed stakeholder council into the governance process by setting the skills and competencies framework for the NZR board undermines the entire point of stacking the national body with independent directors.
The Pilkington report envisaged the rugby stakeholders’ council as akin to the Fonterra Shareholders’ Council, which informs the dairy giant’s board on behalf of the owners but doesn’t get involved in the nittygritty of running a multinational.
After the vote, everyone should probably hang their heads in shame for ratcheting up the game of chicken.
What they’ve landed on won’t be for the good of the sport, with the internecine politicking in the game set to persist.
That will be tragic because the game, as it stands, is a turn-off.
Sure, it’s great fun to wander by a park on a Saturday morning and watch whatever local team is toughing it out, but the lack of broken play and the 1980s-style back-andforth in the professional men’s games is a far cry from the electrifying excitement Super Rugby and the NPC used to instil.
There’s a reason the Warriors pack out Go Media Stadium, and league participation numbers are on the rise — it’s a more attractive game to watch, much like it was in the early 90s.
That’s bad for the business side of rugby union and its $100 million broadcasting rights, $110m of sponsor and licence income and $30m of matchday takings.
Sky New Zealand and other international broadcasters must be rethinking the value of those rights, and the top-tier sponsors — Adidas, Altrad and Ineos — are probably scratching their heads about what’s going on, not to mention NZR’s private equity commercial partner, Silver Lake. That’s before you even start thinking about the shemozzle we’re seeing across the Tasman with the collapse of the Melbourne Rebels and what it means for Super Rugby Pacific.
If there’s a slump in national income, the provincial unions will face a much stiffer job than they currently do, and it’s a shame that the NZR ructions will slow any broader reform of smaller unions.
Because they are not in great shape.
Amalgamations
The sophistication of those entities is as diverse as you’d think.
Some provide excellent updates in their annual reports and regular sharing of news at their unions. Others have failed in their obligations to file financial statements and been dissolved, having to be re-registered.
To use a classic Kiwi rugby commentary call — that’s pretty average sports administration.
And while some unions certainly recognise the need to lift their governance game, there are major issues to fix, not least being the length of tenure of some chairs and directors.
Auckland appears to have taken its leadership role seriously, undertaking a wide-ranging review to improve not only its own governance, but to share those lessons with its clubs and committees, and several unions are looking for independent directors with the right set of skills. The problem is that there’s not a one-sizefits-all approach, with the challenges and opportunities facing them as different as Cape Re¯ inga is to Bluff.
In fact, it almost seems like the governance review missed an opportunity to delve more deeply into Rugby Inc and offer recommendations not only to reform the national body but also that of the member unions.
Given the state of the books of some provincial unions, I would be amazed if there weren’t more amalgamations, such as the creation of Tasman 18 years ago when Marlborough and Nelson Bays merged.
Even so, that’s no panacea, with Tasman’s latest annual report showing a greater acceptance of a community rugby strategic plan in Nelson, which has failed to gain traction in Marlborough.
So where to from here?
Well, the civil war touted in the headlines might not be as vicious as we’re making out, with Canterbury union chair Peter Winchester keen to bridge the gap and long-serving New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association boss Rob Nichol toning down the rhetoric over professionals breaking away, describing the process as more akin to setting up a tribunal to manage the collective agreement.
But that won’t address the Jonah Lomu-sized problem in the room that the game doesn’t bring the country together like it used to.
If the top-down approach that reforming NZR’s governance won’t bring about the fundamental change needed, then perhaps we need a grassroots approach — where each union gets the rule run over them and a plan put in place to address their individual concerns.
Hobbs targeted the young players who wanted more time in the black jersey — his spiritual successor will have a much bigger job on their hands.