Rugby World Cup 2019 Japan will be the Worst Wcup ever in history.

[nickdnz]

The IRB screwed up in awarding the RWC to Japan without significant changes in structure and outlook from the JRFU. Rugby in Japan is not growing like it is in its Tier 2 country peers like Canada, the US, Georgia and Romania. Japan had a higher rugby popularity to start with than these places, but it is going backwards due to a terrible attitude from the JRFU. Anyone trusting the JRFU and IRB to come through simply because they are large governing bodies is insane. Russia's RUR is another example of a terrible governing body and look what a disaster the RWC 7s was.

For anyone looking for countries that haven't hosted the RWC yet who would be good, I'd say Italy is the most obvious choice and Argentina would be good too. 10 years down the road, the US/North America would be good too. While the unions named here aren't perfect, they do a much better job and have a much more progressive outlook than the JRFU.

I'll believe that when North America gets a competitive professional league.

 

[norcalbuff]

I'll believe that when North America gets a competitive professional league.

You've entirely missed the point. For historical reasons, rugby is bigger in some places than others (nevermind that pro rugby in Japan is based on company's using it as a marketing tool rather than some organic interest in the game). That has nothing to do with how well a union is run.

Rugby has grown substantially in North America over the past 10 years, both in player numbers and in crowds. In Japan it has largely stagnated, and in some ways it has gone slightly backwards. This is because the JRFU is extremely resistant to change and is full of blazers who are happy with the status quo.

Anyway, Romania has a competitive professional league. Does that make their union automatically better run than USAR and Rugby Canada in your eyes?

By the way, MLS was created concurrently with the soccer World Cup being awarded to the US in 1994, with both being successful.

 

[General Tah]

You've entirely missed the point. For historical reasons, rugby is bigger in some places than others (nevermind that pro rugby in Japan is based on company's using it as a marketing tool rather than some organic interest in the game). That has nothing to do with how well a union is run.

Rugby has grown substantially in North America over the past 10 years, both in player numbers and in crowds. In Japan it has largely stagnated, and in some ways it has gone slightly backwards. This is because the JRFU is extremely resistant to change and is full of blazers who are happy with the status quo.

Anyway, Romania has a competitive professional league. Does that make their union automatically better run than USAR and Rugby Canada in your eyes?

By the way, MLS was created concurrently with the soccer World Cup being awarded to the US in 1994, with both being successful.

Yes. Having a professional league is a major development for any sport in any country.

Personally think that the Japanese will run a great world cup and it will be awesome to have one not at the usual places (including Oz, though would be nice for another one)

Thats not to say the Yanks couldnt run a great World Cup. But I do think at this stage that the Japanese as of now would run a more popular one.

 

[nickdnz]

You've entirely missed the point. For historical reasons, rugby is bigger in some places than others (nevermind that pro rugby in Japan is based on company's using it as a marketing tool rather than some organic interest in the game). That has nothing to do with how well a union is run.

Rugby has grown substantially in North America over the past 10 years, both in player numbers and in crowds. In Japan it has largely stagnated, and in some ways it has gone slightly backwards. This is because the JRFU is extremely resistant to change and is full of blazers who are happy with the status quo.

Anyway, Romania has a competitive professional league. Does that make their union automatically better run than USAR and Rugby Canada in your eyes?

By the way, MLS was created concurrently with the soccer World Cup being awarded to the US in 1994, with both being successful.

A professional league does in my opinion make Japan a better run union than either the United States or Canada. People make some big claims in regards to Japan losing interest, but I can find no figures which indicate that the game is on the decline, in fact they actually had the largest increase in playing numbers of any nation - with 122,500 registed players in 2010 comparred with the United States 81,600 (I'll point out that in terms of population Japan's numbers far excede USA). These figures come from the IRB's 2011 report so there may be some disparities - but I'd wager .

But then the fact that Japan has a professional league (and I don't really care how they are funded) which provides players (even ones which are employed by the companies) a regular competition with many different training facilities, top competition and genuine interest. People discuss only 5,000 people to a club game, but how many United States club games have higher attendances? In terms of organizing competitive international matches Japan has been far better than any second tier nation this year. In what single way has the United States shown that they are more promising than Japan? Because the 'fastest growing sport' ***le has been going for years and yet a professional league still seems to find no footing, which considering the niche sports in the United Sports that have gone professional, means that there is either not the interest or not competance in a governing body.

Do I wish the United States to succeed in rugby? Yes, of course. But there is clearly something very wrong when a professional league for a remotely popular sport can't gain traction in the United States.

 

[norcalbuff]

A professional league does in my opinion make Japan a better run union than either the United States or Canada. People make some big claims in regards to Japan losing interest, but I can find no figures which indicate that the game is on the decline, in fact they actually had the largest increase in playing numbers of any nation - with 122,500 registed players in 2010 comparred with the United States 81,600 (I'll point out that in terms of population Japan's numbers far excede USA). These figures come from the IRB's 2011 report so there may be some disparities - but I'd wager .

You'd wager incorrectly.

Japan has roughly 120,000 players total, not a growth of that much. http://www.irb.com/unions/union=11000010/index.html

Per the IRB's website, the US has 450,000. http://www.irb.com/unions/union=11000012/index.html

Rugby has grown substantially in the last 5 years in the US. Crowds are at all time highs for both 15s and 7s, with attendance records set each of the past two years. USA Rugby won the IRB's development award in 2011 for its Rookie Rugby program, which has introduced tons of kids to rugby. You sure won't see the JRFU winning any development awards.

But then the fact that Japan has a professional league (and I don't really care how they are funded) which provides players (even ones which are employed by the companies) a regular competition with many different training facilities, top competition and genuine interest. People discuss only 5,000 people to a club game, but how many United States club games have higher attendances?

You seem not to care that the Top League is going nowhere in its current state. Those crowds are full of people made to go by their company and they aren't growing. If the companies ever pull the plug, the league goes under.

In terms of organizing competitive international matches Japan has been far better than any second tier nation this year. In what single way has the United States shown that they are more promising than Japan?

Large growth in crowds in recent years. 5 years ago, a 10k crowd in the US would have been considered a resounding success. This year we had over 20,000 in attendance for Ireland and a sold out 18,500 stadium for the Maori. Again, Japan are largely stagnant on crowds.

Because the 'fastest growing sport' ***le has been going for years and yet a professional league still seems to find no footing, which considering the niche sports in the United Sports that have gone professional, means that there is either not the interest or not competance in a governing body.

Do I wish the United States to succeed in rugby? Yes, of course. But there is clearly something very wrong when a professional league for a remotely popular sport can't gain traction in the United States.

A pro league in the US is around the corner. No one wants to be the first to invest in a pro league because the first pro leagues usually fail, especially in the US where the travel distances are very large. The recent large crowds for Eagles matches are going to help expedite that process, though.

The "fastest growing" thing has not been going for years. It's been going for about 5 years now in terms of participation, with decent growth in the 5 years prior to that. And the crowds are more recent than that, coming mostly in the past 2 years.

 

[norcalbuff]

Yes. Having a professional league is a major development for any sport in any country.

Russia has a pro league too. I suppose you think the RUR is better run than USAR? While a pro league is a major development, using that as a sole argument for a union's competence and without any context is asinine.

Personally think that the Japanese will run a great world cup and it will be awesome to have one not at the usual places (including Oz, though would be nice for another one)

Thats not to say the Yanks couldnt run a great World Cup. But I do think at this stage that the Japanese as of now would run a more popular one.

As of today, neither country is fit to host a RWC. If the IRB wanted to take the RWC to a new country, Italy or Argentina would be far superior choices.

10-15 years from now the US will be fit to host while Japan will still be in the same spot, thanks to the JRFU's incompetence. 2019 is going to be a disaster, and I fear that it will cause the IRB to be far more conservative in its awarding of future RWCs as a result.

 

[nickdnz]

You'd wager incorrectly.

Japan has roughly 120,000 players total, not a growth of that much. http://www.irb.com/unions/union=11000010/index.html

Per the IRB's website, the US has 450,000. http://www.irb.com/unions/union=11000012/index.html

Rugby has grown substantially in the last 5 years in the US. Crowds are at all time highs for both 15s and 7s, with attendance records set each of the past two years. USA Rugby won the IRB's development award in 2011 for its Rookie Rugby program, which has introduced tons of kids to rugby. You sure won't see the JRFU winning any development awards.

You seem not to care that the Top League is going nowhere in its current state. Those crowds are full of people made to go by their company and they aren't growing. If the companies ever pull the plug, the league goes under.

Large growth in crowds in recent years. 5 years ago, a 10k crowd in the US would have been considered a resounding success. This year we had over 20,000 in attendance for Ireland and a sold out 18,500 stadium for the Maori. Again, Japan are largely stagnant on crowds.

A pro league in the US is around the corner. No one wants to be the first to invest in a pro league because the first pro leagues usually fail, especially in the US where the travel distances are very large. The recent large crowds for Eagles matches are going to help expedite that process, though.

The "fastest growing" thing has not been going for years. It's been going for about 5 years now in terms of participation, with decent growth in the 5 years prior to that. And the crowds are more recent than that, coming mostly in the past 2 years.

First of all great post. I remember reading high participation figures for the USA but when looking it up I found this http://www.irb.com/mm/Document/NewsMedia/MediaZone/02/04/22/88/2042288_PDF.pdf (from http://www.allblacks.com/news/15864/Rugby-growing-around-the-world-player-numbers-jump-by-20-percent). I can't work out the disparity in figures, but I'll assume yours is correct.

You say the Top League is going nowhere. I don't know where you want it to go. Having 5,000 as an average attendance isn't amazing but the Pro 12's average crowd attendance is only 9,000 and not so different from the ITM Cup. Japan just set three home field match attendance record for Japan rugby this year (all of which were over 20,000). You are comparing the national game to the club game...

'If the companies decided to pull the plug' would result in a scenario no different to the position USA are in. How are people in attendances 'made to go'?

I guess 5 years qualifies as 'years' to me. For all the potential USA may show, until their is a professional league it is just that, potential.

Russia has a pro league too. I suppose you think the RUR is better run than USAR? While a pro league is a major development, using that as a sole argument for a union's competence and without any context is asinine.

As of today, neither country is fit to host a RWC. If the IRB wanted to take the RWC to a new country, Italy or Argentina would be far superior choices.

10-15 years from now the US will be fit to host while Japan will still be in the same spot, thanks to the JRFU's incompetence. 2019 is going to be a disaster, and I fear that it will cause the IRB to be far more conservative in its awarding of future RWCs as a result.

Does Russia have a better run union than the USA?

Well in some respects yes. They have less resources and less interest and yet they can field several professional teams in worse conditions than the United States. You could argue that USAR is better run in terms of promoting rugby and gaining interest, but seem remarkably unable to benefit from it. If USA rugby has 450,000 active participants (more than New Zealand and Australia combined) and yet still haven't launched a pro league...

 

[malamute4rugby]

This is a joke since when japan has got into rugby at the level of Argentina or Italy to say the least? Italy has like two or three teams that are professional and if they want the league to grow they should host it in Italy. Now Argentina has the longest history in Rugby since the 1800's and has been competing for the longest time and has a rich culture of rugby and they dont host the world cup?!?! What is wrong with the IRB!? Bunch of idiots!

 

[smartcooky]

How are people in attendances 'made to go'?

I can answer that for you.

They are told, rather surreptitiously by company executives, that it would do their careers in the compoany a lot of good if they were seen to be in attendance at the company teams's home matches. I can vouch for the truth of this.

As I said earlier, it would be a big mistake to underestimate the importance of "face" in Japanese society. A company worker who was told the above would lose a tremendous amount of face if they did not show up to the game, and not make sure that other high-ups in the company noticed them. Failure to do so would be an indication to their superiors that they are not interested in advancement, and so they will very likely be overlooked for promotion. Think of it as a sort of semi-compulsory ass-kissing.

When I worked for Hanimex (NZ), who were eventually taken over by Fujifilm, I made a number of business trips to Japan, and saw first hand how they operate.

 

[Nielsch]

This is a joke since when japan has got into rugby at the level of Argentina or Italy to say the least? Italy has like two or three teams that are professional and if they want the league to grow they should host it in Italy. Now Argentina has the longest history in Rugby since the 1800's and has been competing for the longest time and has a rich culture of rugby and they dont host the world cup?!?! What is wrong with the IRB!? Bunch of idiots!

With all due respect, Argentina has never applied as a host candidate so no wonder they never hosted.

 

[General Tah]

Russia has a pro league too. I suppose you think the RUR is better run than USAR? While a pro league is a major development, using that as a sole argument for a union's competence and without any context is asinine.

As said above yes it does show that, Russia just cant seem to use it as a base to build on. When you look at the USA and the number of professional leagues for sports that are even moderately followed having professional leagues and yet they cant get a Rugby one up and going.

As of today, neither country is fit to host a RWC. If the IRB wanted to take the RWC to a new country, Italy or Argentina would be far superior choices.

10-15 years from now the US will be fit to host while Japan will still be in the same spot, thanks to the JRFU's incompetence. 2019 is going to be a disaster, and I fear that it will cause the IRB to be far more conservative in its awarding of future RWCs as a result.

How is it JRFU incompetence?? Its still 6 years away? You must win allot of Lottos with that ability

 

[General Tah]

Large growth in crowds in recent years. 5 years ago, a 10k crowd in the US would have been considered a resounding success. This year we had over 20,000 in attendance for Ireland and a sold out 18,500 stadium for the Maori. Again, Japan are largely stagnant on crowds..

Your comparing club games in Japan to international games in the States??? Bit unfair wouldnt you say? We get 5k to a state club game, but get 20k to a SR and 50-80k to a International game.

 

[norcalbuff]

First of all great post. I remember reading high participation figures for the USA but when looking it up I found this http://www.irb.com/mm/Document/NewsMedia/MediaZone/02/04/22/88/2042288_PDF.pdf (from http://www.allblacks.com/news/15864/Rugby-growing-around-the-world-player-numbers-jump-by-20-percent). I can't work out the disparity in figures, but I'll assume yours is correct.

You say the Top League is going nowhere. I don't know where you want it to go. Having 5,000 as an average attendance isn't amazing but the Pro 12's average crowd attendance is only 9,000 and not so different from the ITM Cup. Japan just set three home field match attendance record for Japan rugby this year (all of which were over 20,000). You are comparing the national game to the club game...

'If the companies decided to pull the plug' would result in a scenario no different to the position USA are in. How are people in attendances 'made to go'?

I guess 5 years qualifies as 'years' to me. For all the potential USA may show, until their is a professional league it is just that, potential.



Does Russia have a better run union than the USA?

Well in some respects yes. They have less resources and less interest and yet they can field several professional teams in worse conditions than the United States. You could argue that USAR is better run in terms of promoting rugby and gaining interest, but seem remarkably unable to benefit from it. If USA rugby has 450,000 active participants (more than New Zealand and Australia combined) and yet still haven't launched a pro league...

The large growth in rugby in the US that started around 2008-2009 was at the participation level. The increase in crowds for the national team has really only been in the past couple years as USA Rugby has learned how to turn this increase in participation into bigger crowds, along with doing better marketing than they were doing before. The increased crowds have led to an increase in rumors about pro leagues. None have come to fruition yet, but the crowds have only been there for a couple years now.

The Japanese situation is described well by SmartCooky. Japanese soccer (JFA) got away from the company model and have been far more progressive as an organization, and ultimately far more successful.

One other thing I should mention is that pro leagues are often the upshot of benefactors (whether this is a wealthy individual or a company) with little to do with the national union. I think it's a different mindset because in the SANZAR countries professional rugby is owned by and run by the national union. This is not the case in any of the countries mentioned.

 

[norcalbuff]

As said above yes it does show that, Russia just cant seem to use it as a base to build on. When you look at the USA and the number of professional leagues for sports that are even moderately followed having professional leagues and yet they cant get a Rugby one up and going.

See my response to TRF_nickdnz.

How is it JRFU incompetence?? Its still 6 years away? You must win allot of Lottos with that ability

You only need to follow Japanese rugby to know this. Do you find it strange that the OP who is Japanese said as much too?

Your comparing club games in Japan to international games in the States??? Bit unfair wouldnt you say? We get 5k to a state club game, but get 20k to a SR and 50-80k to a International game.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying rugby is growing significantly in crowds in the US and it's stagnant in Japanese rugby (at international and club level). That has nothing to do with the nominal crowd numbers.

 

[nickdnz]

One other thing I should mention is that pro leagues are often the upshot of benefactors (whether this is a wealthy individual or a company) with little to do with the national union. I think it's a different mindset because in the SANZAR countries professional rugby is owned by and run by the national union. This is not the case in any of the countries mentioned.

I agree this is often the case, however with 450,000 registed members - surely American rugby would be able adopt this model. At least in able to get the league off the ground. If USAR were clever they'd be doing exactly what NZ/Aus/SA does so they keep a controlling interest of rugby in USA rather than leave it to wealthy benefactors/companies (which is ironically what Japan is being criticized for).

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

I agree with norcalbuff on this one guys and he is the only one that is presenting factual numbers to back up his claims.

Fact is, Japanese rugby playing numbers have remained largely stagnant for the past 10 years and they are not trending upwards while other Tier-2 nations are seeing a significant rise in playing numbers. USA in particular has seen extensive growth in participation numbers over the past five years and here in Canada our playing numbers have doubled nearly doubled since 2003 to a point where we now have more registered players then Italy and almost as many as Wales.

What I would also like to point out is Canada and the USA have more players then either Wales or Italy in the key area of "teen male player" which is where the real ability to unlock rugby talent is held. You all need to stop talking about a professional league being important for unearthing rugby talent because the fact is, it isn't all that important. What is really important is the number of players playing the sport and that their development is tier'ed and designed to be progressive at every level.

I will use ice hockey development as an example because being Canadian it is what I know best. Just so you are aware, professional ice hockey has nothing to do with the development of ice hockey in either Canada or the USA, the development of players is entirely separate and Hockey Canada and USA Hockey have zero affiliation with the NHL or any Minor-Pro League in Canada or the USA.

So who really develops ice hockey players in Canada or the USA? It is the minor hockey associations and their competitive leagues which are tier'ed by age and skill level and mutually support each other with scouting and player development. This all begins at about the age of 11 and 12 (What we call the PeeWee level of hockey) when ice hockey begins to become competitive and players are streamed into different levels of skill level (Peewee C, B, A, AA and AAA) with AAA being the most competitive and skilled league. At this point players will usually self-identify with the league of their skill level and while their may be some movement between individual divisions (A players moving to AA or AA players moving to AAA) at this point it is accepted that most players aren't going to get that much better then they already are.

What then happens is they progress through the age groups of PeeWee and Bantam all the way to Midget which is where players are divided further. Once you get to Midget (Age 15 to 17) hockey in Canada or the USA, this is where you decide if you are going to make a push to try and break into competitive hockey as an adult or if you are going to leave the competitive game and just play for fun. Midget AAA hockey in Canada is highly competitive and costs big money for parents of players who are playing. Nowhere in this time is professional hockey even being considered for the kids playing Midget AAA. What they are looking at is breaking in to Adult competitive hockey through either two routes, NCAA University Hockey in the USA and the Canadian Hockey League in Canada (Major Junior Hockey).

Both the CHL and NCAA hockey are highly competitive leagues for guys that are looking to become professional hockey players but need more development. It is also the first level of hockey that is subsidized i.e. the players don't play to play. Once you have toiled for a few years in Major Junior or the NCAA now maybe a professional team may have a look at you.

To show you how this development model works here are some stats for you:

http://www.cumberlandminorhockey.ca/to_the_nhl/chances.htm

The Chances of "Making It" in Pro Hockey
The only accurate way to measure the chances of making the "pros" is to take an actual "birth year" as a sample category. Since hockey''''s competitive structure is based on the age of players, this approach is the only accurate way of taking a sample group.

In my research I utilized the birth year "1975" as a sample. This included all players active in minor and junior hockey in the province between the years 1988-1991. After collecting registration information from the Ontario Minor Hockey Association (OMHA), Northern Ontario Hockey Association (NOHA), Metro Toronto Hockey League (MTHL) and Hockey Development Centre for Ontario (HDCO), the approximate number of players active in Ontario in 1991 (born in 1975) was roughly 22,000!

This is the total number of players registered in programs from house league to Tier II/Jr.B. leagues for all "1975" players in the province. This same approach can be related to any other province in Canada ( Ontario has approximately 40% of the registered minor hockey players in Canada ).

The total of 22,000 doesn''''t include approximately 7,500 players who left the game through natural attrition (i.e. dropping out of the game at various levels) from Tyke to Bantam who were also born that year. The attrition rate in any given hockey year is about 8-10% annually.

Therefore, there were approximately 30,000 players who played minor hockey at one time or another in this province who had "1975" birth dates. That creates a sample group of approximately 30,000 players for which this study is based. The same total can be applied in an approximate fashion to any players' birth year (i.e. 1968, 1979 etc.) for Ontario .

For the players born in 1975 the Ontario Hockey League draft was held in 1991 (for underage Bantams born in 1975) and 1992 for their "open" Midget draft year.

The "1975" group of players was considered by many NHL Scouts as the strongest group of players the province has ever produced.

In the 1991 and 1992 OHL Drafts, there were 232 Ontario developed players selected by the 16 junior teams. The following breakdown shows how those 30,000 players active that year "progressed".

• Out of those 232 players drafted to the OHL, only 105 ever played one game in the OHL.
• Out of those 105 players, only 90 finished their full 3 or 4 years of eligibility in the OHL.
• Of those 30,000 players, only 42 played NCAA Division I hockey! Remember too that U.S. scholarships are not the large educational packages that have been offered by NCAA schools in the past (see more information below). The following "1975" players had either full or partial NCAA scholarships.
• There were 56 players from the "1975" age group that were either drafted or signed by a National Hockey League team (by far the most of any birth year Ontario has experienced!). Fourty-eight (48) of those 56 players were drafted by NHL teams!
• Of the 48 drafted players only 39 signed contracts with NHL teams. Eight players signed as free agents after going un-drafted as NCAA or major junior players.
• Of the 48 signed players, only 32 have seen action to date in an NHL game.
• Of the 32 players with NHL experience, only 15 have played more than one (1) full NHL season!
• Of these 32 players, only 21 were active in the NHL as of April 1, 2002 .
• Of those 32 who have played an NHL game to date, only 18-20 will earn a second contract with an NHL team. About half of those players earning second contracts will see them finish that second contract with an NHL team. The remainder of the 56 players will toil in the minor pros in the IHL, AHL, ECHL or Europe .
• Of the 32 players who have seen action in an NHL game, only six (6) have qualified for the NHL's Player Pension (minimum 400 games in the NHL!).

So with these numbers you can deduce the following ratios:

Out of 30,000 hockey players born in 1975 and playing hockey in the province of Ontario:

132/30,000 will become competitive hockey players at the highest level of amateur hockey (NCAA or CHL) = 4.4/1000
56/30,000 were looked at (drafted/signed) by NHL teams = 1.9/1000
32/30,000 saw action in an NHL Game = 1.1/1000
38/30,000 will spend their career playing minor pro hockey = 1.3/1000
18/30,000 will earn a second NHL contract = 0.6/1000
6/30,000 will play a minimum of 400 games in NHL (truly elite players) = 0.2/1000


Now the reason I used these numbers was because I believe the same logic applies to rugby. Ice Hockey in Canada and the USA has an amateur development model and the professional game plays little role in developing players. So why do players continue to play? Obviously it is because the players are interested in the sport and want to become professional players? How do they go about doing this though? They do this by participating as they age through the various levels of the sport at an amateur level.

It must also be noted that it takes roughly ten years to develop someone into a professional caliber athlete, their are exceptions to the rule but for the most part this hold true. As popularity of rugby in both Canada and the USA has only recently begun to surge, those players that have begun playing the game have not had their 10 years to develop yet but I reckon by 2019 you will start to see the skill level of our national teams increase dramatically.

We used to believe in Canada that having a professional league was necessary for our national teams development and early attempts were made at creating a professional competition to the detriment of grass-roots rugby. Needless to say we no longer believe this and people in Canadian rugby circles will now tell you that grass roots rugby and development of a strong amateur rugby scene is where our primary focus is.

So what has Rugby Canada done over the past 10 years in order to further develop our rugby in this country:

- Created 4 Regional high performance academies (Langford, Edmonton, Toronto, St John's)
- Created a National high performance academy (Based in Langford, BC)
- Re-invigorated the National Age Grade Championships (Based on provincial model at U-14, U-16, U-18 level (used as a rugby talent identifier))
- Created the Canadian Rugby Championship (In order to bridge the gap between club rugby and international rugby)
- Encouraged clubs to actively promote youth rugby within the community
- Dramatically improved coaching and refereeing standards within Canada (Coaching and Refereeing are at a whole other level from when I played youth rugby)
- Invested in High School rugby (Almost every high school in Canada now has an active rugby program)
- Leveraged Social Media to promote the sport
- Secured government funding for our elite athletes
- Secured additional funding for our age-grade programs and national teams
- Signed a national TV deal with a major broadcaster for our National Team games

*Note it is a stated policy of Rugby Canada's to get certain players into professional setups in Europe. We now have 22 rugby players playing high level rugby in Europe and the Southern Hemisphere. However, Rugby Canada will advise the player to not go if they think the player will be better served remaining with the national team at our high performance academy. Athlete's are subsidized when they are at the National Academy.

I believe the USA is a few years behind us in setting their structures right but I firmly believe both countries are well on their way to breaking into the top 10 of world rugby. We have invested heavily in grass roots rugby and I believe we will soon begin to reap the rewards; however, it will take time and players will need to go through the relevant stages of development as amateurs before they become professional players.

 

[norcalbuff]

Great post Canadian Rugger and good to hear a bit more about Rugby Canada's initiatives than I had previously. It's great to see the good crowds in Toronto this year and hopefully Rugby Canada can find a way to replicate that in Vancouver and elsewhere in the country. The increasing acceptance of artificial turf, and the improved technology for artificial turf, for high level rugby should help Canada with the stadiums that are available too.

I also think the time to develop a player depends on the position. For a position like flyhalf that requires a wide variety of skills in addition to reading the game, I'd say your 10 year rule (I think this is analogous to Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour rule) holds true. For a blindside flanker where the position is more tilted towards athleticism than skill when compared to a flyhalf, I think the time required is less. It's no surprise that our countries usually have had solid back rows but have either had subpar play from the flyhalf position or have had to rely on poaches. The only born and bred North American flyhalf who was any good was Gareth Rees and he was the son of a Welshman so would have played the game from a young age. So I'm most hopeful that the development work that has been done at the youth levels will eventually increase the standard of play in particular at positions like flyhalf and scrumhalf.

 

[norcalbuff]

I agree this is often the case, however with 450,000 registed members - surely American rugby would be able adopt this model. At least in able to get the league off the ground. If USAR were clever they'd be doing exactly what NZ/Aus/SA does so they keep a controlling interest of rugby in USA rather than leave it to wealthy benefactors/companies (which is ironically what Japan is being criticized for).

This is not the sporting model in the US. To my knowledge, the company model is unique to Japan.

USA Rugby doesn't have the money to do what the SANZAR countries do with rugby. Maybe we eventually can if crowds keep growing for Eagles matches and we get more home tests, but it's only been in the past couple years that USA Rugby has made any money off of test matches (estimates of around $500-600k each for the Ireland and Maori matches this year). Prior to that, test matches were largely a money losing venture. Because USA Rugby doesn't have the money to launch a pro rugby competition in the US, I favor the more organic approach I posted earlier in this thread.

 

[nickdnz]

The only born and bred North American flyhalf who was any good was Gareth Rees and he was the son of a Welshman so would have played the game from a young age. So I'm most hopeful that the development work that has been done at the youth levels will eventually increase the standard of play in particular at positions like flyhalf and scrumhalf.

Mike Hercus was good in my opinion (although he was raised in Australia).

This is not the sporting model in the US. To my knowledge, the company model is unique to Japan.

USA Rugby doesn't have the money to do what the SANZAR countries do with rugby. Maybe we eventually can if crowds keep growing for Eagles matches and we get more home tests, but it's only been in the past couple years that USA Rugby has made any money off of test matches (estimates of around $500-600k each for the Ireland and Maori matches this year). Prior to that, test matches were largely a money losing venture. Because USA Rugby doesn't have the money to launch a pro rugby competition in the US, I favor the more organic approach I posted earlier in this thread.

Well the company model has players all registered as employees of the club, which means they often have secondary jobs. But regardless the general model of having companies own teams is not unique at all - and I'd assume is what USAR rugby is waiting for, hoping companies essentially invest in the league.

I don't understand though how 450,000 players can be registed, presumably all paying fees, and USAR can't afford to run a professional league. Is there really such a shift from numbers playing rugby to people willing to pay to watch rugby? Or rather why is it than unions which are worse such as Romania/Russia are able to field professional teams?

 

[norcalbuff]

Mike Hercus was good in my opinion (although he was raised in Australia).

He was our best flyhalf ever and we've been lacking sorely at the position since he retired. But like you say, he learned his rugby in Australia.

Well the company model has players all registered as employees of the club, which means they often have secondary jobs. But regardless the general model of having companies own teams is not unique at all - and I'd assume is what USAR rugby is waiting for, hoping companies essentially invest in the league.

Could you provide some examples? I'd say a company like AEG owning a number of MLS soccer teams at one time is a lot different than the Japanese model.

I don't understand though how 450,000 players can be registed, presumably all paying fees, and USAR can't afford to run a professional league. Is there really such a shift from numbers playing rugby to people willing to pay to watch rugby? Or rather why is it than unions which are worse such as Romania/Russia are able to field professional teams?

There aren't 450,000 registered players. There are 450,000 players (note the IRB links for both the US and Japan say "registered+unregistered"). In my experience in American rugby, teams only register their players (CIPP) if they absolutely need to. Most teams I've played on don't bother registering guys who would never play for the firsts as you only get penalized for not registering players if they play in the playoffs/league matches. This is particularly true at the college and high school levels where "B-side" matches are largely informal affairs. Additionally, there are guys who go and play a couple 7s tournaments in the summer but never register with USA Rugby. But even in spite of that, starting a professional rugby competition in the US would require a massive investment. Let's say you go with a squad of 30 players and you have 8 teams and the average salary is a meager $40,000/year and the coaching staff is paid a combined $60,000/team. That's over $10 million in salaries alone, before you even start renting stadiums, paying for the necessary marketing and travel. And of course travel is expensive in the US because the country is so massive. Expecting USA Rugby, a union that had an operating budget of just over $10 million last year, to be able to foot that kind bill is just not realistic. Again, I'll refer you back to my plan which would slowly transition from amateur rugby to semi-pro rugby to professional rugby.

Romania's union has taken a turn for the better since the 2011 RWC and now have a number of excellent initiatives. Rugby in Romania has a long history and it also benefits from a low cost of living (players don't need to be paid as much) and the distances between the cities are nothing like the US. Russia is a more interesting case as it is a massive country and its teams are somewhat spread out (Krasnoyarsk to Moscow is quite a journey), but it's my understanding that the clubs there are at odds with the RUR and the RUR didn't have much to do with professional rugby happening.

By the way, you might be interested in this: http://usarugby.org/documentation/USA_Rugby_Strategic_Plan_2013-2015.pdf

Some of the goals are a little high, while others seem a little low but it has a lot of information you might find interesting.