Is International Rugby the dog's tail?

By this I meant, is focusing everything on International rugby a case of the tail wagging the dog? In my personal opinion (is there any other kind?) the purpose of a sporting governing body is two fold.

1) To ensure the game is played properly and safely (so managing refs, IRB law directives, discpline, etc)
2) Growing the game, increasing participation, making it 'bigger' in their sphere of influence.

Now as the IRB Regulation 9 specifies, one of the biggest drives for growing the game is international rugby. It's the big stage and draws interest. To have a good international rugby team require decent players, which is easier with a successful and well structured domestic game. so everything is tied together, but is having a good international team with poor following in the country a good thing (and I'm not talking about following at pro level, I'm talking all levels)? Is it better than having a good following but poorer international team?

Some of the comments recently have just made me think about it a little and then some of Mr Seabiscuit's comments made me think a bit more.

What is a unions purpose? Is it primarily to win international rugby games?

Rugby in any country should be hierarchical in structure from underage rugby up to international rugby. To say that international rugby is the most important or sole raison d'etre of any union doesnt tell the whole story as each level is important for the others to thrive however, I firmly believe that each level should prop up/support the levels above rather than in any way be in conflict with them.

If it is then the Heineken cup must be the dogs bollix   .

Nice Rodders. On the ball today.

It's the pinnacle of the game, isn't it. The very top level of the sport and it's also the economic driver of the sport with the money it attracts. Thats not to say that it's the only part of the sport that matters, but it's the money that is generated by the international game that nourishes the sport at lower level in all the amateur/semi-pro countries and the majority of countries which have professional rugby (everyone except England and France really, arguably could throw the stingy Welsh system in there).

What is a Union's purpose?

Why should it have to answer that question?  Union doesn't have a purpose as such - it's too old for that.  Purposes are for the beginnings of things.  Purposes come mostly when people are speaking of foundation stones and establishing rules and dimensions for a new product or sport.  Union is beyond that.  All it has now is a role, a function.

Unions are trademark owners.  They own the sporting code that's called Rugby Union.  

What's the purpose of the rugby Union game itself? That's a more pointed question - and obviously the sticking point one in the current climate.

Hammer asks the question, is it better to have a weak domestic game and a strong international team or a strong domestic game and a weak International side?  I say, confining ourselves to 'either' and 'or' is limiting and wrong.  It presumes conflicts of interest where ideally, and in an ideal structure, there should not be.  
What about New Zealand?  Strong domestic game providing the raw materials for one of the most dominant International teams in any sport in any time.

No the tail, the b$%^&*Ks.

Point is rugby in wales is as much about the fans as the players, while Lewis bangs on about the whole of rugby in Wales, the direction we all look is up at at the regions and national side. For Mr Average welshman the regions are the bread and butter and interest in wales stems from seeing your players move up to elite rugby, as its own entity elite rugby will squander that allegiance if it doesn't nurture the regions fan base.

Sam Warburton has made an error in my view and he has empowered the WRU and set a lethal precedent.

Empowered the WRU to do what, Scratch?  To begin a process that might see all four Regions fight much harder into the future both in their League (wherever that may be now! ) and in any new European contest?
The WRU want successful rugby in Wales?  Yes? Why would they want to humilate the players they'll be wanting to avail themselves of in the future by willfully damaging those regions that those players will be playing for?

Kids are inspired by heroes. NZ is full of kids from a young age emulating their heroes in the All Blacks. It's that process that leads to the players of tomorrow emerging from application of the enthusiasm.

If the international team is weak, kids will be inspired by other things - for example NZ's cricketing heroes who recently defeated India in the ODI series, or the plethora of Kiwi league players excelling in the ARL, or in the Tall Blacks or whatever.

If you international team goes through a lull, the spectators fade away (except for some reason in Wales) and the game loses relevance - look at Union's struggle in Australia.

To use the dog analogy, I think test rugby is the head, the four legs are the foundation necessary to a strong international team.

Development
Administration
Support
Finance

Biltong wrote:To use the dog analogy, I think test rugby is the head, the four legs are the foundation necessary to a strong international team.

Development
Administration
Support
Finance

Well w eknow which leg the Welsh rugby dog cocks when he wants to take a slash.

I'm so desperate to add to this analogy, but I will refrain.

http://blog.waggle.in/why-do-dogs-hump

NZ at it again

and before the likes of kia and ebop try and skew this with some mock outrage again, the dog has a black coat, the ABs a black shirt.

Hmmm...gloves off then?. Yes, I believe too that the great icons of rugby could be said to have formed parts of the anatomy of the game (dog) by their contribution to shaping its form.

Gatland might be the barking jowels giving the animal voice, the All Blacks the shiny coat, the showpiece of the sport if you will. Whereas some like SCW might have contributed a region just below the tail.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Hmmm...gloves off then?. Yes, I believe too that the great icons of rugby could be said to have formed parts of the anatomy of the game (dog) by their contribution to shaping its form.

Gatland might be the barking jowels giving the animal voice, the All Blacks the shiny coat, the showpiece of the sport if you will. Whereas some like SCW might have contributed a region just below the tail.

Which i think by my calculation makes you a flea that jumped off to another dog.   

Is International Rugby the dog's tail?   This is a very interesting question.  Not sure I get the full context, and I am sure the answer is very different for different people.  

Not having thought through this very deeply before, here is my off the top opinion.  I have always tended to think of International Rugby as a part of the larger picture.  A link in the chain which starts with local clubs and kids playing in the street or at home.  This goes all the way through the top clubs through Internationals to retirees, coaches, golden oldies and so on.  

Yes, the International game is the most visible in our sport and is a key driver for the growth.  In developed Rugby markets I am not sure the degree it contributes to growth as compared to the next level, which would be clubs, franchises, etc..  Both are critically necessary.  But growth everywhere still comes down to having Rugby accessible locally for someone to pick up a ball and run with it, or talk it, or watch it, or have a pint with it. Simply everything which makes Rugby special. And that, the ultimate foundation of Rugby, is the local club.  Otherwise it ends up a made for tv event.  

The purpose of the Unions should be easier to define, but as ever, in practice is clear as mud.  I believe the Unions should be the stewards of the game in each nation.  Impartially administering the sport at all levels, looking for growth opportunities, ensuring the sport is safe and well run.   Giving guidelines and rules for all to follow.  However, most of the Tier 1 unions make so much money from  Internationals they are no longer unbiased.  They are (or strive to be) profit machines, just like any company.  This skews any and all consideration by the Unions, and clearly invalidates any presumption of impartiality.  

Having said that, we all know the vast majority of people working for the Unions are hard working, dedicated people, mostly volunteers who simply want to give back to the sport they enjoy or that gave them something important in their lives.   And most Unions clearly support the lower levels and try to drive growth to significant degrees.  It is at the senior management level of the Unions who manage the money and really shape the direction of the Unions where decisions could be unduly or excessively biased towards the national team or simply to the benefit of the Unions.  Even here, I would presume many of the people involved see the best interest of the game to be consistent with their view from the best-for-the-Union point of view.  I suppose the point I am making, probably not too well, is at the Tier 1 level we have no unbiased or impartial organisations involved with Rugby, which is to the detriment of the sport.  And I am not sure whether it is possible in an international professional sport environment.   

But clearly the Unions are the only existing framework for guiding the sport. Therefore, they are the only structure which can shape the direction of Rugby and manage many aspects of the day to day. The answer is, as ever, governance, leadership, and people. We need the right relationships between the Unions and their stakeholders, both on paper and in action, and the right leaders. I think it is easy to see where things are not working, simply look at the newspapers or even here on 606. It is much harder at times to see successful organisations when people quietly go about their work.

Hammer, this is a great topic for discussion.  Thanks for putting this up. Really need to consider this in more detail.

Scratch wrote:http://blog.waggle.in/why-do-dogs-hump

NZ at it again

and before the likes of kia and ebop try and skew this with some mock outrage again, the dog has a black coat, the ABs a black shirt.

That's actually Australia, SA, and NZ humping a Welsh lamb. Before you respond with mock outrage, I was speaking in metaphorical rugby terms.

SecretFly wrote:What is a Union's purpose?

Why should it have to answer that question?  Union doesn't have a purpose as such - it's too old for that.  Purposes are for the beginnings of things.  Purposes come mostly when people are speaking of foundation stones and establishing rules and dimensions for a new product or sport.  Union is beyond that.  All it has now is a role, a function.

Then it's purpose is to carry out that function/role. Unless I have very different meanings of the word "purpose".

Unions are trademark owners.  They own the sporting code that's called Rugby Union.  

What's the purpose of the rugby Union game itself?  That's a more pointed question - and obviously the sticking point one in the current climate.

The purpose of the game itself isn't the question I'm asking but it is an interesting one.  To me the purpose of the game is be played. If people are interested they will pay to watch a match and enough interest/money will allow some people to be supported so they can play and train full time. That's it. Professionalism is an byproduct rather than an aim.

Hammer asks the question, is it better to have a weak domestic game and a strong international team or a strong domestic game and a weak International side?  I say, confining ourselves to 'either' and 'or' is limiting and wrong.  It presumes conflicts of interest where ideally, and in an ideal structure, there should not be.  
What about New Zealand?  Strong domestic game providing the raw materials for one of the most dominant International teams in any sport in any time.

I didn't bother asking whether people thought it was better have a strong domestic game and a strong international team, nor whether it was better to have a weak domestic game and a weak international game. In my personal opinion the whole point of having a strong international game is to generate interest and resources to strengthen the domestic game. If it's already strong then the goal is already achieved. Obviously if the international team is weak it suggests problems with the set-up (be it the top domestic level or national team coaching, etc), which can in turn lead to disatisfaction, reduced interest, weakening the domestic game. Now clearly in countries where the domestic game isn't strong one of the best ways to develop national interest is to have an 'good' international team. So there is no 'solution' or template for all.

EDIT: Just for clarification when I say "domestic" I mean all levels of domestic rugby not just professional.

No you miss my point.  The purpose of Coke?  Its purpose is back in the beginning - start a business based on a recipe that was meant firstly to be a medical tonic. Get a business up and running.

But its purpose is now irrelevant - all it has is a function - making profit, keeping shareholders happy, protecting its trademark.  In that regard it is no different to any other well established company and therefore it's 'purpose' - if we're to insist on demanding that it has one - is no different to the purpose of any other company - and why then should it be isolated and asked what it's purpose is?

Your initial inference, Hammer, led me to the belief that you assume Union must prove its purpose whilst other strands of rugby just happen - "Professionalism".  For me that's too neat a conclusion.


And you still make it sound like people are making choices between whether they want a strong domestic or a strong International side: "Now clearly in countries where the domestic game isn't strong one of the best ways to develop national interest is to have an 'good' international team. So there is no 'solution' or template for all."

It's not a choice to have a good International team, it's often a happy and fortunate set of circumstances.  And how many of these countries exist where their domestic rugby is bad or non-existent and yet they have a vibrant and competitive International side?  
Wales?  - Happy and fortunate set of circumstances, not the result of a decision to have a strong International side that counterbalances the disappointments of regions.  Most countries with a weak domestic game aren't so lucky, and certainly can't magic a super International team out of a hat simply because they need one.

Sorry, I must have mislead you. I don't see any difference between purpose and function. Change it to "What is a Union's function?" if that if clearer. Also I don't see professionalism as having a purpose or a function, it's a by-product. The game should not be sacrificed to professionalism.

As for the bold bit, I missed out a bit that I thought was clear (sorry again). One of the best ways to develop interest in the game is by having a 'good' international team. So it makes sense to put a lot of resources into the international team, to develop them as much as possible. So getting the 2nd tier of nations into world cups and IRB international competitions is key (ENC, PNC, etc). I didn't mean they make the decision "Shall we have a good rugby team?" "Yeah" SHAZAM! All Blacks.

HammerofThunor wrote:Sorry, I must have mislead you. I don't see any difference between purpose and function. Change it to "What is a Union's function?" if that if clearer. Also I don't see professionalism as having a purpose or a function, it's a by-product. The game should not be sacrificed to professionalism.

As for the bold bit, I missed out a bit that I thought was clear (sorry again). One of the best ways to develop interest in the game is by having a 'good' international team. So it makes sense to put a lot of resources into the international team, to develop them as much as possible. So getting the 2nd tier of nations into world cups and IRB international competitions is key (ENC, PNC, etc). I didn't mean they make the decision "Shall we have a good rugby team?" "Yeah" SHAZAM! All Blacks.

Understand you better now Hammer.  But I'd still claim Professionalism is not a by-product but an ideal/philosophy that is setting itself up as a counter-philosophy to the more 'traditional' Union approach.  
I don't feel Professionalism/private club culture has to run in opposition to Union but it seems there are many voices, both professional bodies and indeed many club-preference fans who seem to think the battle lines are natural - that one must defeat the other.  It's in this context that again I say if Union needs to prove its purpose to non-believers then too should Private Club Professionalism have to prove its purpose.  

I just can't buy the idea that Professionalism is simply a by-product.