KEY POINTS:
Between 2002 and 2007, Sports and Recreation New Zealand invested $895,000 in rugby league.
This was akin to tossing money down the drain, according to an independent review instigated by the government funding agency and chaired by Sir John Anderson. It found a "broken" game thanks to a culture at the New Zealand Rugby League that neither respected, valued nor pursued excellence and high standards. For Sparc, enough was enough.
It has moved to ensure the governance, management, financial sustainability and planning shortcomings identified by the review are addressed. But in doing so, it has overstepped the mark.
Effectively, Sparc has taken over the running of rugby league. The directors who will hold sway on the new seven-member NZRL board will be appointed at its behest.
This will be achieved by the agency appointing two people (including a chairman with the casting vote) to a four-strong appointment committee, whose job is to identify suitable candidates and invite them to join the board. The new board chair will also be appointed by that committee for a two-year period.
Sparc says it has taken this power because of its expertise in sports governance. Obviously, it also wants to protect the $425,000 bailout that it will provide to the NZRL this year and potential six-figure funding into the future.
In certain circumstances, where taxpayer funding is at risk, this may be a sensible approach. Commissioners are appointed to schools that the Education Review Office deems not to be running well.
But there is some distance between that and a privately run sport.
This intrusiveness also creates the danger of an unwanted homogeneity pervading the running of sport in this country. Sparc should, by all means, act as an adviser to sporting bodies and be prepared to withdraw funding if bad practices continue. But league's problems should have been left to league to sort out.
This is especially so because there is a desire within the game for an abandonment of the old culture.
The independent review notes "a strong mood for change and a strong desire for the review to provide the mandate for this, and for the rugby league community to embrace the necessary change". League has seen the writing on the wall.
Already, the NZRL has lost the support of key funders and sponsors, who have made it clear they will not reinvest in the game until there is clarity of direction and robust sustainable governance in place.
If there is no change, says the review, league will ultimately be reduced to a regional participation sport with dwindling numbers.
Even now, just 16,700 play the game, fewer than half the number playing hockey.
The league community understands the many problems, whether it be the poor representation in schools, the lack of a national competition structure, or the absence of a pathway from the juniors to a test jersey.
The board appointed last year has, according to the review, "made significant progress in starting to stabilise the position and reputation of the game".
With the aid of this review, it should have been left to make further progress in both culture and structure.
For further guidance, it need only look across the Tasman to see what can be achieved by a professionally run league organisation boasting strong management and a unanimity of vision.
Only dramatic change will deliver a local equivalent of the Australian Rugby League.
Both the NZRL and the league community accept as much.
There is a willingness to strive for a culture that is the norm in other sports.
This will come with a special league signature. Heavy-handed intervention must not undermine that uniqueness.
