Schools argue the move could compromise students’ education and volunteer support for First XVrugby.
NZR says the change will increase inclusivity and align with international standards, despite schools’ concerns.
In the case of New Zealand’s leading rugby schools against New Zealand Rugby over the latter’s proposed introduction of a national Under-18 team, the jury could quite easily find both parties are right.
New Zealand Rugby’s (NZR) argument for changing 40-plus years of history and traditionis, at face value at least, founded on the principle of inclusion.
The national body is planning to depower the long-standing New Zealand Secondary Schools (NZSS) team, by creating a national U18 team that it will run and operate as the premium representative entity of that age-grade. By doing so, they would effectively notify the country’s leading 17-year-old and 18-year-old players that they are on a pathway towards becoming professionals.
NZR says that around 30% of the country’s elite U18 talent is either no longer in secondary education or is at schools that don’t have sufficient numbers to field a First XV.
A U18 team, therefore, says NZR, is a fairer and more appropriate vehicle by which to ensure the best age-grade players are given an opportunity to play for the country’s highest ranked representative side.
NZR is not disbanding the NZSS team – it is repositioning it as one of four feeder teams that will compete for places in the U18 team – and it says, that in all likelihood, the bulk of players who are selected to the national side, will likely be from the NZSS team.
Its final point – the kicker to its argument, if you like – is that it runs rugby in this country and it should be deemed only fair and reasonable that it has the chance to work with elite teenage talent, given it runs the professional system that many of these athletes will be entering upon leaving school.
Sacred Heart fullback Cohen Norrie in action against St Kentigern in 2023. Photo / Andrew Cornaga, Photosport
On the strength of this argument, it is easy to see the schools as unduly conservative – change resistant and clinging to tradition to protect their place in a modern and evolving world.
But that would be unfair, and inaccurate, too. The schools who are resistant to this idea – and there are 40-plus who have objected – are protective not of tradition, but of the young men they are empowered and entrusted to educate.
There is a subtle but significant difference to being picked for the NZSS team as compared with being picked for the New Zealand U18s. The former is seen, by the principals, as a reward for playing well. It is an acknowledgement of consistent excellence on the rugby field as part of a holistic education.
Shifting to a national U18 team, run by NZR, would suggest to those selected that they are now on a pathway to being professional rugby players – this in an era where best-practice thinking is leaning towards pushing back, not pulling forward, the age at which children are asked to specialise in one sport.
It is not a reward as such but a sign that a professional career is a possibility and with that comes different and greater expectations, most notably the promotion of rugby to a position of inflated importance ahead of academic success.
Built into this concern is the lack of trust principals hold about national sports bodies high-performance programmes generally, and NZR specifically.
There is an evidence base to say that sports bodies who have relationships with school pupils tend to put pressure on them to prioritise training over studying; attending events over attending exams and to pressure them generally to make sacrifices for their sport.
NZR says it will not compromise anyone’s education by running a U18 programme, but principals are disinclined to believe it, partly because it is inevitable that training camps and trials will fall outside the school holidays in the coming years, and partly because the national body failed to communicate its intentions to depower the NZSS team prior to making them public.
As a final rebuff, and perhaps the most compelling point of all that the principals make, is that the New Zealand Barbarians team already suffices as a national age-grade team open to those who have left school or at a school without a First XV, and that last year this side played an international fixture against the Australia U18s.
St Kents' Sam Jancys against Mt Albert Grammar. Photo / Photosport
To NZR’s contention that it does not have the funds to guarantee the provision of fixtures for the Barbarians, the question of why it did a private equity deal with US fund manager Silver Lake must be raised.
There is $60 million ring-fenced in a legacy fund that was borrowed at enormous cost and is not being used, and given the importance of keeping teenagers in the game – both elite and non-elite – it seems a valid argument to suggest some of this money should be released to bolster what could be argued to be both a community and high-performance initiative.
And so, in this case of New Zealand’s leading rugby schools against New Zealand Rugby, the jury should be directed to find in favour of the former and for the NZSS team to be retained as the country’s premium age-grade side.
But this is on the proviso, however, that in arguing for themselves to be considered as the best custodians of young rugby players, the schools need to work harder at de-professionalising their First XV programmes and ensuring fair play across their various competitions.
To that end, there needs to be greater attempts made to outlaw the selection of Year 14 boys; renewed and stiffened codes of conduct to stamp out player poaching and a nationwide agreement that no schools will broadcast any First XV games.
