1 / 28

Competition Review Desk research presentation, 23 November 2011

Competition Review Desk research presentation, 23 November 2011. Initial desk research. Competition structure:. Recruitment & retention:. Go Play evaluation, 2007 UNN MSc dissertation, 2009 RFU survey around drop-out, Mar 2010 RFU Club Matrix Survey, 2010-11

gilles
Download Presentation

Competition Review Desk research presentation, 23 November 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Competition Review Desk research presentation, 23 November 2011

  2. Initial desk research Competition structure: Recruitment & retention: Go Play evaluation, 2007 UNN MSc dissertation, 2009 RFU survey around drop-out, Mar 2010 RFU Club Matrix Survey, 2010-11 Sport England satisfaction surveys, June 2010 & July 2011 (WSFF survey, Sept 2010) • “Rugby Landscape” report, Oct 2008 • Tournaments & Competition Dept paper for GPP Cttee, Nov 2010 • RFU Club Matrix Survey, 2010-11 • Anecdotal content from, inter alia, www.rolling-maul.com

  3. “Rugby Landscape” • RFU Task Force deployed from June – October 2008 with support of CapGemini • Survey attracting >7500 responses from players, officials, etc., followed by stakeholder forum to discuss & validate results: • 97 per cent of respondents from Levels 3-7 • Highest response from Levels 6-9 • Lowest response from Levels 11 & 12

  4. High-level findings • Season is right length, in right time of year • No appetite to move away from Saturdays • Travel time & cost not a great issue • Regular leagues of 12 to 16 teams are required • Cup rugby is popular • Midweek / end-of-season TT7s is desirable; also tours • Tipping point at Level 5, where opinions start to change – and again at Level 7 • Further down the leagues there is: • Less desire for larger leagues and more games • More desire for a winter break • Less commitment to cups • More pressures from outside rugby, e.g., work, family commitments, fear of injury

  5. 13 x recommendations • End the two senior National Cup competitions • Maintain the existing league pyramid at Levels 3-6 • National Leagues to include Levels 3-5 • Level 3 / National 1 to be 16 teams, 30 matches • Level 4 / National 2 to be 16 teams, 30 matches • Levels 5 & 6 / National 3 & Divisional 1 to be 14 teams, 26 matches • Introduce National Championship Finals at Levels 4-6 • Introduce reserve leagues at Levels 3-5, with end-of-season finals • DOCs to investigate most appropriate models for Levels 7 and below • DOCs to consider County Cups as qualifying rounds for National Vase competitions • Length of season to be 35 weeks from 1 September – five-year structured season • RFU Competitions Cttee to manage Levels 3-4 • Implementation at end of season 2008-09

  6. “Rugby Landscape” • Layers of detail behind each of these recommendations • Additional review work still to do: • County Championship • Funding of competitions • Minimum standards requirements of each level • Improvement and standardisation of DOCs also required

  7. Since then ... • “Rugby Landscape” implemented in 2009-10, i.e., for two seasons now • Despite depth of research, some doubts cast about its delivery – especially: • Its coverage of issues at Level 7 and below • The validity of its conclusions around travel costs, and therefore club sustainability especially within National Leagues • The impact of retaining National Cup competitions • County Championship still not addressed • Changing landscape has also brought TT7s into the frame, and requiring competitive structures

  8. Club Matrix Survey 2010-11

  9. Club Matrix Survey 2010-11 By level By region

  10. The reasons for change • Travel distances • Travel costs • Need for off-weeks • A shorter season • Family commitments • Work commitments • Strong link to recruitment / retention

  11. Research into recruitment / retention • Go Play evaluation, 2007: • Online survey with 1640 responses • 38 per cent (623) current players, 37 per cent (607) former players • UNN MSc dissertation, 2009: • Localised focus groups with four Gateshead clubs • RFU survey, March 2010: • Online survey with 1509 responses • 83.6 per cent (1261) current players, 15.2 per cent (221) former players • (WSFF survey into drop-out among girls, Sept 2010)

  12. Go Play evaluation, 2007

  13. RFU survey, March 2010 – current players

  14. RFU survey, March 2010 – current players

  15. RFU survey, March 2010 – current players

  16. RFU survey, March 2010 – current players

  17. RFU survey, March 2010 – former players

  18. RFU survey, March 2010 – former players

  19. RFU survey, March 2010 – former players

  20. SE Satisfaction Survey – 2009 to 2011 • Across all sports satisfaction has fallen from 80.0 in 2009 to 79.7 in 2011. This is an increase of 3.2 from 2010 • Overall satisfaction in Rugby Union has fallen from 81.3 in 2009 to 79.8 in 2011 • General participant satisfaction in Rugby Union has fallen from 80.5 in 2009 to 78.5 in 2011 • Club member satisfaction in Rugby Union has fallen from 81.8 in 2009 to 80.5 in 2011 Overall General Participants Club Talent Base: Overall 995; General Participants 106; Club 818; Talent 66

  21. The factors most likely to drive satisfaction / retention / participation in Rugby Union Domains which have the most impact on overall satisfaction with Rugby Union People and staff Social aspects Exertion and fitness Ease of participating KEY Performance High impact areas Medium impact areas Value for money Low impact areas Officials Release and diversion Coaching Domains which have the least impact on overall satisfaction with Rugby Union Facilities and playing environment

  22. How satisfied were you ...?

  23. How important is it that ...?

  24. Frequency of participation in competitive games Q How satisfied are you with the frequency and quality of competitive games available to you at your club? Please answer on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is extremely dissatisfied and 10 is extremely satisfied. Satisfied (8-10) Neutral (5-7) Dissatisfied (1-4) All Participant Club member Talent pool Number of participants at each level: Rugby Union overall (976), General participants (99), affiliated club members (806), talent pool (66)

  25. Variants of the game Q. Which, if any, of these variants of the game have you competed in at your club this year? Participant All Club member Talent pool Number of participants at each level: Rugby Union overall (994), General participants (106), affiliated club members (817), talent pool (66)

  26. Summary • “Rugby Landscape” made evidence-based change especially to Levels 3-6 from 2009: • Levels 7 and below left to local discretion • Club Matrix Survey 2010, and anecdotal evidence, suggests further change is required: • Especially at Levels 7 and below • Especially in specific regions, e.g., London South, NE & Yorkshire • Especially due to travel time and work / family commitments • Retention / satisfaction surveys suggest that: • Competition formats are not critical to keeping people within the game • Creating a balance between competitive rugby and the time available is important – flexibility is key • In this, employment, family and academic commitments need to be respected • Marginal gains might be made by introducing alternative formats, and midweek TT7s

  27. Current climate – courtesy of rolling-maul.com! “Is the current rule that no more than two leagues can feed into a higher league the best way to organise the pyramid – would a wider taper work better?” “... The league structure is doing its job. The clubs that can compete get promoted. Those that cannot get relegated until they find a level” “Do we need to reduce the size of the leagues to allow space for cup competition?” “By all means review regionalisation at Levels 3-5, by all means review 2nd XV league representation, but don’t aim for wholesale changes cos they are neither needed nor wanted”

  28. Next steps • Comparator review: • Other team sports (cricket, hockey, Rugby League, soccer) • Other Rugby Unions • Market research: • Define the brief and desired process / timeline • Brief to gather as wide a data set as possible • Consultation: • Student and women’s games • Region by region, against an agreed template • Report to Steering Group on progress

More Related