Gregor Paul: Why school principals are so sceptical of New Zealand Rugby plan

Hamilton Boys High School run out during the Boys Final. Photo / Photosport.co.nz

OPINION:

There's scepticism among principals about why New Zealand Rugby really wants to be the sole governing body of the sport in schools.

Past interaction between the schools and the national body hasn't done much to foster trust and goodwill.

There was dismay and anger in 2017 when, without consultation, NZR determined that the Top 4 First XV finals series would subject participants to random drug testing.

In Auckland there is still disbelief that an NZR sub-committee, to specifically look at the wider issue of low participation rates in the city, met with principals of the 1A schools in 2018 and told them they had to merge their competition with North Harbour's.

The principals were collectively flabbergasted not just by how little the idea made sense, but also by the tone and nature of the meeting, where NZR assumed they owned something they didn't and that the school representatives were the hired help to be ordered around.

Then there was the recruitment scandal at St Kentigern College later that same year which saw the South Auckland boarding school bring in six players from outside the city to circumnavigate local bylaws.

It was such an egregious move that the other 1A schools effectively kicked St Kents out of the competition and drafted a code of conduct that all participating schools had to sign, or face being boycotted.

Hamilton Boys High School line up during the Boys Final. Photo / Photosport.co.nz

Suspicion has never abated among the 1A principals that NZR, while it had no jurisdiction to prevent or facilitate St Kents doing what they did, was quietly supportive of the strategy as it exposed a handful of promising elite players to the sorts of coaching that would fast-track their development and readiness to join an academy programme when they left school.

A year later and NZR commissioned a report which concluded that one of the barriers to keeping male teenagers playing was the confusing governance of the school's game and that it would be best if one body took over. The report said NZR was the preferred single controlling entity, yet many of the schools with the strongest and best-run rugby programmes say their opinion was never canvassed.

Trust, or lack of, is why, having heard NZR's recent pitch to take over the running of the game in schools, principals are resistant to the idea.

Many believe NZR is offering a Trojan Horse, saying it wants to be in charge so it can drive participation, focus on finding ways to adapt the delivery of the game to attract and keep new teenage players, but really, it just wants to be more directly involved in controlling the pipeline of elite talent to ensure more of it graduates from school to professional rugby without the NRL getting its hands on so much of it.

Those principals who believe this support their argument by saying that if NZR was serious about driving participation, it could do so now without taking over the governance.

There is nothing stopping the national body running clinics and providing coaching support – as well as balls and other equipment – to schools which don't offer rugby.
NZR could do plenty without enforcing a governance takeover and it is almost certainly never going to win the hearts and minds of principals in its quest to take over the running of game in schools, because what sits at the heart of the distrust is not so much the negative interactions of the past, but the lack of cultural alignment.

Christchurch head coach Jamie Livingstone high fives the girls team. Photo / Photosport.co.nz

Schools are charged by their communities to deliver on the four key pillars of academia, arts and culture, service, and sport to provide the next generation with a holistic education.

NZR is now a commercial, corporate entity with an operational need to return cash to an external shareholder. It continues to argue that it still has a significant not-for-profit obligation to drive the community game, but it is curious that it began its charm offensive to sell its governance vision to schools at about the same time that new equity partner Silver Lake's first $100m was safely deposited.

The concern with the lack of cultural alignment isn't so much that NZR will look to heavily commercialise schools rugby if it gets its hands on it, it's more that a corporation in Wellington with a singular focus on one sport couldn't possibly understand the wider needs of individual institutions as they pertain to exams, other extra-curricular activities and student commitments.

Even if the previous report was right about the need for a single governing body to run the sport at secondary school level, it would still be relevant to question whether NZR is the right choice as its history combined with its commercial imperatives certainly don't engender confidence that it would be an appropriate custodian.