Kiwi crisis highlights challenges for women’s rugby

Last month the Otago Rugby Football Union – one of Provincial Unions responsible for the game on New Zealand’s south island – went into administration owing over $NZ2,000,000. The causes of this financial are “many”, but principally seem to centre on the failure of the professional provincial (men’s) team, where overpaid, under-motivated and poorly managed players have been failing to either win games or attract crowds for some time.

One might at this point wonder what the heck a body charged with administering the game at a regional level was doing running a professional club team – or at least doing so without separating the professional team off into a separate limited company so that any loses did not fall on the main Union – but that might be better discussed in another forum. One that discusses stupidity and amateurism in sports management.

A more serious issue for this forum is the fallout from this. Rugby in one of New Zealand’s most important provinces – where the game has a history going back over 130 years – cannot stop, and indeed the local Dunedin council (who are owed much of the money) have stepped into keep the Union from total collapse. However, the financial commitments of the ORFU have obviously had to be cut back a bit.

So where do you think the main axe has fallen? The pro team that is the cause of it all? No – they need to them to carry on running, if only to put bums on seats in the new otherwise white elephant of a stadium that they play in and Dunedin Council own.

Other parts of the men’s elite representative structure? Well only partly. The “B” team and the oldest age-group sides have been combined to create a new Development team which, while restricting representative playing options for men will – due to the extra competition for places – presumably result in a higher level of rugby.

No – only one area of the ORFU’s responsibilities has been cut totally. The women’s team, whose Provincial Championship squad will no longer be supported by ORFU (thus saving $NZ20,000. Out of $NZ2.3 million).

You will note that not one single woman has been involved in causing this mess – indeed all the women have been doing is playing rugby – as amateurs – and producing players like Melodie Robinson, Farah Palmer and Carla Hohepa for the national team.

There are those who say that, while unfortunate, cuts have to be made and as there a fewer women players and only one women’s team, and that this is not a pro side that brings in spectator income, and as it does not contribute to the playing strength of the pro team, cuts will inevitably fall on the women and proportionally harder than anyone else. Much is made of the $NZ20,000 cost – that women’s rugby is a drain on the finances ORFU.

And, to be honest, its not a new argument or confined to rugby. In English pro soccer, when a club gets into trouble (say after being relegated from the top league) almost invariably the first thing that is cut is the (largely amateur) women’s team. Its a drain on funds, few spectators, etc. etc.

But just a minute here. Women – and all amateur players (including juniors) – do not play for free. They pay to play. University student players in the province pay about $NZ10 per month in registration, membership fees, etc. – which means $NZ120 per player, and the thick end of maybe $NZ3,000 for the University club as a whole. And players at adult club will pay more.  It is not clear how many registered (and registration paying) players there are, but the idea that they contribute nothing and instead just take $NZ20k is, frankly, nonsense. It is, in fact, quite likely that women contribute more to the ORFU than they take.

And that is before you get onto the sheer morality of removing the ladder of success from any part of the rugby community. Narrow it, maybe, but to kick it away altogether for just one section seems unreasonable in the extreme. Women players will obviously never play for the pro team, but neither will 99% of the junior boys who play the game – but opportunities for juniors are not being eliminated.

And anyway – and this is what I see as the crucial point – who cares about the pro game? Professional sport is part of the entertainment industry, where the aim is to make money. But non-pro sport is all about participation, about getting as many people to play sport as possible because playing sport is a Good Thing. ORFU’s job – any sports body’s job – should not confined to the narrow spotting of talent for professional teams, but getting as many people onto the sports field as possible. That includes giving talented players the chance to excel by playing for representative teams, but also an opportunity for anyone who wants to play to be able to play. Whether anyone turns up to watch, or whether or not they will eventually make a career in the sport should be irrelevant. As long as the Union breaks even financially all that matters. Non-pro sport should be all about getting feet on the field, not backsides on the bleachers.

The good news is that Farrah Palmer and others have started a campaign to raise funds independently for the women’s team to carry on the the National Provincial Championship – a campaign that has already gained support from local Members of Parliament – but the question is – in a nation proud of its equality heritage – why on earth should they need to?