Adult Competition Review Research Findings

1. Adult Competition ReviewResearch Findings

3. Project objectives and method • 1

4. Background and objectives • Towards the end of 2012, the RFU instigated a review of its adult competition structures for non-professional clubs, including females and university/college teams • This review and subsequent consultations with various stakeholders has led to the development of • a proposed ‘Straw Man’: a new structure for rugby at Levels 3 – 12 • a range of ‘Tweaks’ to elements of the current structure • This research study was concerned with gathering the views of players on • the current league structureand any desires for change • tweaks to the current structure • proposed Straw Man re-structuring

5. Where we are now • We have completed 21 groups, with players from 53 clubs • total of 73 players

6. Overview of findings • 3

7. Changed Introductory summary • Players enjoy playing and being involved in rugby • no strong latent dissatisfactions • biggest problems for players are the toll it takes on their bodies and the demands it makes of their non-rugby time • Mixed reactions to proposals • often dependent on type of player and level of rugby played • Straw Man • most (apart from the more enthusiastic and those in lesser populated lower leagues) welcome fewer league fixtures • and ‘outliers’ welcome relief from burden of constant long distance travel • more ambitious players, at higher levels, have major concerns over potential effect on competitiveness, quality, excitement and kudos of current ‘national league’ structures • resisted by clubs where regionalisation of leagues could create a diminution in quality of rugby, at all levels • Tweaks • most would welcome some change to Cup Rugby • less positive about proposals on Promotion/Relegation, Player Payments and introduction of Rolling Substitutions at higher levels

8. Context: player perspective on rugby

9. Reasons to play rugby … Team spirit Camaraderie Mutual support Personal challenge Love of the game Personal achievement in rugby But competing with a desire to play, are … Family (time) Work (time and money) Social life (young men) Body

10. Players have two slightly different foci … Team spirit Camaraderie Mutual support Personal challenge Love of the game Personal achievement in rugby Ambition Enjoyment Pitted against a third … Family (time) Work (time and money) Social life (young men) Body Life

11. Along a spectrum … • Players with different foci play the game for different reasons, and in different ways • the desire to be the best you can be • want to test themselves • ambition for self • including through success for the team • committed: train hard and play hard • rugby comes first, life has to fit in • aware they won’t ever be the best • want to play to a good standard • play games to win • want to do well for the team • but rugby doesn’t always come first • may have been more ambitious in the past… • … but now more room for compromise: rugby-life balance Ambition Enjoyment

12. Implications for response to proposals • In simple terms, and for the purposes of this project, one can say there are two player ‘types’ … • keen to ensure the rugby they play is always as competitive as possible • will resist / overcome / ignore external pressures (e.g. time, family) as much as possible • less ambitious for their own game, and feel more the external pressures • seek / more prepared to accept compromise between rugby and life • … driving different responses to the proposals, most noticeably Straw Man … Ambition Enjoyment

13. Views on current structure

14. Changed Views on current structure • Players are largely satisfied with the way their rugby is organised now • Some differences across the levels… • Levels 7 and below in particular have very little to grumble about the overall structure of the league • they’re mostly in it for the ‘enjoyment’ • Similarly, levels 5 and 6 also broadly happy • though can find some aspects difficult, or a little unsatisfactory • Levels 3 and 4, though broadly content do have a few more obvious areas of tension…

15. Views on current structure • In general, players appreciate … • proper league structure (vs. merit tables) • with promotion and relegation • ... which affords them (mostly) competitive rugby (although potential for dead rubbers in second half of season) • …and ensures the best, most consistently performing team wins • a degree of regionalisation which makes sense • But, if pressed, players would point to a few organisational and structural areas that could be improved: • devalued Cup competitions • too few subs (at higher levels) • At outlying clubs especially, travel time can be an issue, affecting those at Levels 3 and 4 : • too many early starts, or overnight stays put pressure on family / leisure time and necessitate time off work (financial issue) • (players can also see their clubs as victims here) • Other players may moan about travel time … • but mostly accept it as part of playing high level rugby • they only really make the occasional ‘long trip’, which if anything they might enjoy • some players at lower levels may be more sensitive, baulking at relatively short trips, or avoiding any away fixture (difficult to see how to address at this extreme!) • They like to have a moan about financial inequality, but see it as part of the game (as it is part of life) … • can be amused to see clubs yo-yo up and down leagues when they have / run out of money • like to have a crack at besting richer (most often southern) clubs

16. However, the amount of rugby they play can be an issue … • The number of fixtures played in a season is one of the most obvious complaints • most keenly felt by players in the upper levels (3 – 5), with more fixtures • but, a complaint often also voiced by those at the lower levels • The impact of number of fixtures being… • The effect being, players may drop levels, miss fixtures, or quit the game if demands become too great • Question for Straw Man: • to fix distance, though mainly a fix only really called for by outlying clubs? • or to reduce number of fixtures? • body doesn’t have time to recover and eventually gives up • lack of free weekends, for leisure pursuits , family time • fixture congestion at the end of the season, due to cancelled games, often leads to season extending into May - when pitches are hard (hurts!) and non-rugby summer activities beckon

17. Reactions to ‘Straw Man’

18. Straw Man: mixed reactions • Mixed reactions to Straw Man proposal • proposal itself greatly differs between Levels 3 & 4 (2 phase season) vs. Levels 5 and below • Straw man represents more significant change at Levels 3 & 4, with diminishing implications (vs. current structure) the further down the levels you play • Three key issues are most likely to influence responses • perceived benefit of reduced travel time • regionalisation of rugby • impact of fewer fixtures • (and for levels 3 & 4 a two phase season) • Support or resistance to Straw Man depends on how much players are willing to trade quality against manageability

19. Changed Straw Man: reactions in a nutshell • The impact of Straw Man is greater at upper levels of rugby • most obviously Levels 3 & 4 and to an extent 5 & 6: here views are mixed • Levels 7 & below are generally less impacted, but still views are mixed • The obvious benefit of Straw Man is that it can make rugby more manageable, appreciated more by players focussed on ‘enjoyment’ • fewer fixtures are welcomed by the majority • reduction in travel time times significant and tempting for players at outlying clubs • However, many fear reduction in the quality of rugby they will play, felt more keenly by those focussed on ‘ambition’, but also those in it for ‘enjoyment’ too • flattening the pyramid damages kudos of prestigious National leagues (they appreciated the introduction of National leagues 5 or 6 years back) • regionalisation removes the excitement and variety of playing clubs further afield and could lead to a diminution in standard at each level • games in Phase 2 of season (L3, L4) often seen as likely to lack edge and excitement • Mixed reactions to the proposals…

20. Levels 3 & 4: the most impacted by Straw Man • Very mixed reactions to Straw Man • Broadly, the most positive are • ‘enjoyment’ focussed players • players at outlying clubs • Most resistant are • ‘ambition’ focussed players • non-outlying club players

21. Levels 3 & 4: the key issues • Travel time • Principle of reduced travel time of interest • however, less enthusiasm for the proposal in detail… • Outlying clubs are more likely to acknowledge as a benefit • long journeys/ overnighters etc. are the norm and take their toll • most obviously for ‘enjoyment’ players • Majority of others in non-outlying clubs don’t see Straw Man as delivering a significant change • distance (/travel time) to most away fixtures seen as much the same as currently • for most away fixtures players commit to a day of rugby • And, players enjoy the occasional ‘big trip’ • excitement, novelty, builds team spirit • …getting drunk on the bus • Regionalisation • Raises issues… • Fears of ‘ambition’ focussed players • diminution of quality and standard of rugby • leading to a few ‘easy’ games in the season against lower standard clubs • exacerbates the South (stronger, richer teams)/ North (weaker, poorer teams) divide • lead to a talent drain down South • Northern league in particular may become less competitive nationally, if they play most of their games against other Northern clubs • monotony: playing fewer clubs, more often • NB players saw list of clubs that would be in their league under new structure: • for some, this meant playing clubs of a lower standard (most noticeable in first, transition season) • Fewer fixtures • Most appreciate, many benefits • more recovery time • ‘proper’ space for Cup rugby • space for rearranged fixtures • variety: more space for ad hoc fixtures - local derbies, open days, traditional ex-league rivalries, open days, trial days, etc. • A few of the more ‘ambitious’ players may be left chomping at the bit • like to play as much meaningful rugby as possible • see long league season as more testing

22. Changed Levels 3 & 4: two phase season • Need more work to convince players of the merits of two phase season • prevalent reactions are negative, or suspicious… • phase 2 looks weak, lacks competitiveness • Positives could be … • fixtures in Phase 2 put back some variety and challenge: • chance to play clubs further afield and outside your league • ability to test yourself against the best (from neighbouring league, or especially southern teams) • injects some life into second half of the season for clubs with no prospect of promotion and little fear of relegation • Most see only the negatives … • complicated, unfamiliar • dead rubbers: • temptation to rest players for Phase 2 in preparation for Play Offs (‘Phase 3’) • (exception being top tier Level 3: teams play for promotion in Phase 2) • similarly, some repetition of fixtures • does it really reduce number of fixtures • trophies likely to be of little or no value - need greater incentives, e.g. Twickenham finals, financial rewards • less of a marathon, the teams don’t need to play consistently well over the entire season to be top

23. Changed Below Levels 3 & 4 • Mixed views • Support for Straw Man is obvious below 3 & 4: • more likely to encounter players willing to trade quality for manageability as you progress down the levels: it’s the way their rugby is • basic principle of fewer fixtures and reduced travel time (to relevant outlying clubs) has appeal • However, still encounter ‘ambition’ and even ‘enjoyment’ focussed players further down the levels who resist • Regionalisation, and shrinking the field of teams played, is the biggest issue • there are some clubs/ regions for whom Straw Man would bring about a diminution in quality (standard and variety) of rugby • who are less willing to accept the rationality of a more manageable solution • and there are also concerns about the variety of rugby “would we by playing the same teams time and time again”

24. Changed Levels 5 & 6 • Mixed responses • Mixed views on the Straw Man proposals at these levels • Many are positive because of the singular benefit of the reduction in the number of fixtures • particularly those ‘enjoyment’ focussed (of which there are many at this level) • But, regionalisation has mixed impact • clubs in regions where standard of competitive rugby would be diluted by shrinking their region are resistant to the Straw Man (e.g. Cumbria) “we want to go to Manchester and beat the better teams” • those where standard of competitors would be less affected by shrinking of their region are less concerned (e.g. South Coast) “Sussex is a strong region, it would save us having to travel to Kent to play lesser quality teams”

25. Changed Levels 5 & 6 • Mixed responses • Similarly to upper levels, type of player can have a bearing on responses • the ‘ambitious’ players (may have aspirations to move up through the leagues) are again, concerned about the dilution of quality of rugby (regardless of the region they are in) • whereas, the more ‘enjoyment’ focussed players appreciate the benefit of reduction in number of fixtures this brings • Some are concerned about the diminution of variety of rugby they will play • “you’d just see the same old faces, season after season” • “we enjoy the trips out of the county” • Most are non-plussed about the apparent reduction in travel time • they already play fairly locally, so don’t immediately see any significant savings • Most are positive about the ‘promise’ of Cup rugby • particularly if ‘tweaks’ are applied and it is given a greater degree of importance / prominence in the season

26. Changed Levels 7 / 8 - 12 • We had less to show players at these levels because the Straw Man makes fewer fundamental changes to the structure of their season • and the precise workings of the structure is less formalised than the upper levels • Many players at these levels were positive about the Straw Man proposals • the key benefit to them being the reduction in the number of fixtures • Though some were concerned too • some currently play in leagues with small number of teams - they don’t want a further reduction • Reduction in travel time is less impactful • they rarely travel more than an hour to get to away games • Broadly positive

27. Changed Levels 7 / 8 - 12 • Regionalisation can be impactful and important • as with levels 5 & 6, some clubs/ regions could see a diminution in standard of the quality of rugby they are able to play with introduction of Straw Man e.g. Cumbria, and thus are resistant • others are less impacted i.e. those in stronger regions e.g. Gloucestershire • Positively, opportunities for more formalised Cup rugby are appreciated • Broadly positive

28. Reactions to ‘Tweaks’

29. Proposal to introduce rolling substitutions • Current system of rolling subs seems to satisfy at lower levels • opportunity for more to play (even if not 100% fit), and can increase speed of the game • Rolling subs resisted by players at higher levels • “amateur” (not like what they see at L2 and above) • takes away the endurance side of the game “winning is partly about having the players that will grind the opposition down in the last 20 minutes” • and potentially, the strategic nature “becomes less of a strategic game for the coach, deciding which players to use” • in danger of becoming NFL farce – players coming on and off continuously, special teams • Higher level players do want • more subs (which also would allow more specialist forward subs) and maybe help to prevent injuries • 5 instead of 3 (some would say 7 too many, but some issues: players wouldn’t get a game, clubs can’t afford it, and puts pressure on 2nd XV)

30. Proposed changes to Cup competitions • Consensus that Cups could be improved • plays second fiddle to league games • “it doesn’t have the kudos of league games” • “you just field the second teams, some years we don’t even enter” • an afterthought from the organisers • squeezed into congested second half of the season by clubs (& often why it plays second fiddle) • Players, especially at lower levels would like a more highly valued Cup competition • a chance to play against some of the ‘big’ teams • but, want it to be better organised, with proper space in the fixture list • with a prize worth playing for…Twickenham final, plus cash prize • In this context, Heineken style pools could work • although, no spontaneous gripes about being left with gaps in the fixture list having been dumped out of the cup early; and could negate benefits of fewer fixtures in a season

31. Proposal to restrict player payments • Currently, grumbles about player payments is an occasional sport • most just accept as “the way it is now” • All recognise an unequal distribution of wealth - richer clubs (mostly in the South) can pay to attract the better (occasionally ‘mercenary’) players and buy success • talent drain down South “players following the money” • demotivating to get beaten heavily and regularly by invincible London teams • and, yo-yoing teams can be disruptive in their flight up and down the leagues • On the whole though, not a huge call to restrict payments • little, if any, resentment of higher paid players • adds to the rich tapestry of rugby competition … the richer clubs don’t always win • and clubs buying short term success often suffer - diminution of team spirit, always get their come-uppance in the league • Even if considered, the reality is that restricting payments would, they think, be largely unenforceable • “they’d just return to the bad old days when a players wife gets paid £20k for cleaning the club house once a year”

32. Proposals for regulation of promotion and relegation • Overwhelming rejection of this proposal, if imposed from ‘above’ • Players don’t like the idea of having promotion blocked by RFU / authorities • players at all levels play to win and would love to come top • would be deeply frustrating if you are refused promotion • would affect focus and moral in the closing stages and damage chance of success • Having said that … • players recognise clubs may find it difficult to compete financially in a league above • players may be more comfortable in current league (esp. ‘social’ players) • don’t want to lose every game in a league that’s too strong for them • players may not wish to travel in a league that takes them out of their current geographical orbit (but see earlier discussion of distances) • in order to compete may need to jettison team mates and replace them with better players from outside • … so open to the idea of clubs themselves turning down promotion - as long as it was supported also by the players

33. Conclusions • 3

34. Changed Straw Man: Conclusions • Clear that it makes some players unhappy, whilst others welcome the changes to the current structure • at all levels Straw Man is well received, but is also met with valid resistance • The most obvious benefit, at all levels, is the reduction in number of fixtures • an almost universal benefit (save a few very ambitious players and those in leagues with smaller number of teams) • Reduction in travel time is less of a universal benefit • only the outlying clubs, and particularly those at levels 3 & 4 will benefit • The regionalisation of rugby appears to be the most universal issue with the proposed structure • some see no issue, preferring the benefits that come along with it • but, it also meets with great resistance • those at upper levels are concerned with loss of kudos of their ‘national’ status • and throughout the levels there are concerns about how it will effect the quality and potential for variety of rugby played

35. Changed Straw Man: Conclusions • Adoption of the Straw Man may depend on RFU strategic intentions , who do you want to keep happy/ who are your key targets?... • ‘ambitious’ vs. ‘enjoyment’ focussed? • upper vs. lower levels? • outlying vs. non-outlying clubs? • strong regions vs. weaker regions? • Further questions • can phase 2 (levels 3 & 4) of Straw Man be addressed, this could overcome some resistance? • is there a way to reduce number of fixtures, without regionalising?

36. Changed Further work, and/or different questions? • Potential to further extend the study • Interview face to face more Level 3 and 4 clubs (for whom Straw Man has greater implications) • mini-groups, or depth interviews (with new clubs and revisit those already approached and not taken part) • conducted at their clubs, to encourage participation • to include outlying and non-outlying clubs, for balance • Talk to a broader range of lower level clubs to increase number of clubs / players consulted • online and phone interviews • concentrating on tweaks, and more simple, more easily understood, implications of Straw Man

37. Changed Conclusions: The tweaks • Clearly merit in interrogating further the ‘tweaks’ • Rolling subs resisted, but enthusiasm for more subs on the bench • Very strong interest in ‘sorting out’ cup rugby • give it greater importance/ prominence in the season • Resistance to restriction of player payments • impossible to police and part and parcel of the modern game • Resistance to ‘imposition’ of declining promotion • some logic in clubs declining promotion, but needs to be a joint decision with players • …how feasible is this?

38. Thank you