High Performance Funding and The Pacific Islands (1)

With the IRB not just providing development grants, but also high-performance grants to unions that are not executive council members there is the potential to challenge in post-pool play at the Rugby World Cup.

While unions may be close to being first world rugby nations, this does not mean that they have first world economies. The unions that fall under the first world economy group are Japan, USA, Canada and Portugal. Here funding doesn’t go as far because of the high costs of living and the costs of competing against other sports especially football.

Those in the less than first world economies category are Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Georgia and Romania.

The cost of living in these countries means that the funding goes so much further but there are difficulties of accountability. Also the programme is bound to produce players for export as the talented can pick up contracts offshore that enables them to repatriate money to support the extended family back home.

I often feel that the best and only high performance programme that will work is one in which an umbrella organisation supervises the relationship between the union, the agents and the rugby franchise hosting the player. The player’s welfare is looked after, as is their development in a first world rugby/ economic environment.

In these unions, especially in the Pacific Islands, the per capita income is around €2500 per annum and this hides the extremes that do exist, as unemployment is high. Thank goodness for the extended family.

What annoyed me greatly about this high performance initiative was not being asked for my views after 8 years as Director of Coaching for New Zealand and 6 years as Development Manager with the IRB.

Based on Australian advice from “experts” with little or no rugby background we ended up with a “one method fits all” model with no account being taken of the unions’ character. All the unions mentioned above were assumed to be the same from a rugby point of view and from the point of view of the criteria needed to set up a high performance unit in. There were 145 criteria all assumed to be common to all unions. I wasn’t asked and the unions were not asked.

Maybe we are all mini-Australia’s? Maybe AIS methodology s applicable to all situations.

I remember providing the total documentation used by the NZRU for a similar exercise to the appointees to Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, all Australians. Just to offer an option. This was never used nor was the advice of the Australia RU who, in Brian O’Shea, had an expert in setting up high performance academies.

Added to this is the lack of accountability that creates real problems when the amount of funding increases ten fold. Temptation increases by a similar proportion.

What these unions could end up with is both the funding and changes to Regulation 8 – access to internationals past their “sell-buy date” – resulting in the best of both worlds. What has occurred is that the money has had to be spent on accountability and the lack of attention to detail as to the union’s individual needs shows, once again, the weaknesses of top down decision making.

Ex-pat coaches to the Pacific Islands unions universally agree that the best form of high performance development is recruitment to an offshore professional club. It would save a lot of heartache and save money.

The Pacific Islands

In the Pacific the three major unions and the small countries that have a large proportion of Polynesians have a natural aptitude for rugby. The long migrations to the islands from parts of Asia by canoe ensured that natural selection took toll on the weaker paddlers. A healthy traditional diet and communal living in a stable social structure has resulted in the population being physical specimens well suited to rugby.

While colonisation and contact with the West has offered health and economic benefits it has created a loss of concern for the total population by the royalty and the aristocrats and a neglect of the greater good. It has also led to obesity and related illnesses as takeaways have not replaced the traditional diet they have been added to it.

The islands have deviated from the benefits of the Pacific Way, of communal living for the greater good and it has been replaced by self-interest and the accumulation of individual wealth. The patriarchal and matriarchal concern by those with the wealth for those without it has been replaced by selfishness. It is ironic that the castigated regime in Fiji is vilified while at the same time aiming to redress the imbalance. Rectifying the problem has been at the heart of Fiji’s domestic policies during the period of military rule and much has been done.

Some cannot afford democracy, democracy can be abused and the country run by a plutocracy and a benevolent dictatorship can work so long as it retains its benevolency. In time most tend to not to as power intoxicates.

The royalty of Tonga has sole rights to the Pacific satellite the revenue from which is $US6million annually that goes into their private bank account. The royalty had so much money to themselves, from the tax take, that they attracted an offshore financial adviser. He had them put the money into reverse mortgages only to find that the mortgagee’s lived longer than anticipated and the scheme fell over taking the countries wealth with it.

Beyond the most basic standard of living these countries have had to depend on repatriated funds from emigrants and grants from international benefactors. Those in charge are past masters at filling in funding applications from international agencies and at producing strategic plans that justify the expenditure.

Funding, once it arrives, maybe used for its intended purpose, but more often than not, it isn’t, it just disappears. When checks are made and funding cannot be accounted for, funding is stopped, but there is still plenty on the list of benefactors to tap into.

This is further compromised by the hierarchical society protecting those at the top of the social order especially if it is deemed that the miss-used funding helps the extended family, village, church and community. In these countries there is a superficial democracy. Also be aware that there are informal structures within these societies that go back for hundreds of years and nothing will move without their say so.

Organisations such as the IRB have had to put in place systems to ensure accountability. One answer is to put in your own staff, but living in the society, implementing what you want but not what the locals want, can mean that these individuals become isolated and lonely. They can become politically involved to solve the petty corruption, petty by Hanover and Enron standards. This means they take sides. This can be fatal especially if the parent organisation is more sensitive to the opinions of the union establishment than to the job their employee is doing.

The other thing that happens is that their work ethic results in them getting not only their work done but being overloaded with the work of many others. I assume you have found that if you reliably reply to emails you generate more through your “in” box and you then get more work. Even though the work doesn’t fall within the job description other staff are happy to hand it over. With this goes responsibility and this can create further problems if it suits a local, rugby politician to raise the issue and use the job description as a disciplinary tool.

Travelling to the islands from New Zealand and being used to the different standards, standards that ensure accountability, I was frequently in shock horror about what I found. What I didn’t realise is that where I came from was the international anomaly as the two books on the Olympics “The Lords of the Rings” and “The Great Olympic Swindle” made clear.

Tonga

Rugby in Tonga reflects what the royalty and aristocracy assume is their right to do unto themselves and to no others. They run their rugby union with this in mind.

This has led to growing conflict and IRB dissatisfaction with the union.

At the 1995 RWC the Tonga management sold match tickets that were for the players and pocketed the money.

Tonga played Korea in a Rugby World Cup qualifier in Seoul and their next game was a Pan Pacific game against Japan in Tokyo. They went from Seoul to Tokyo and charged the IRB for travel from Seoul to Nuku’alofa to Tokyo pocketing the difference. This was followed by a game in San Francisco against the USA to which they sent 16 players and the union executive and their wives.

The union’s development grant was cut in half as a disciplinary measure. We knew we were in trouble when the then CEO resigned only to become Minister of Police.

The criteria set out at the time for development funding was flawed as it was based on the assumption that all unions had infrastructure. My fault and they don’t. Recommendations were made to audit, but these were not taken seriously until high-performance funding was made available.

The deputy chairman of the IRB visited the union, and at last we had a policy of allowing unions to identify their own needs and to be accountable to them. But even then it has been hard going as, since this time, local autonomy has been used by self-interested groups to undermine any efforts to deliver a high performance programme.

Difficulties have remained with Tonga and a recent twist has been the division of the union into two groups vying to run not just the union but also the country, the current regime and those advocating “democracy”. I have put democracy in quotes because this group is really a group of aristocrats by a different name.

This latter group’s solution to the development of rugby is to use all funding as prize money for tournaments around the country in Sevens and Fifteens,

What must be realised is that loyalty starts with the immediate family and progresses from there to the extended family, village, religion and school. Loyalty to the group is more important than any political philosophy. Each of these groups is led by an oligarchy and there is no social promotion. The voters vote for their traditional leaders. The democratic movement is part of this hierarchy. Prize money to the group meets this criterion.

Constant monitoring has created accountability to a greater degree but it sops up funding as it has a cost and uses funding that would be nice to use for rugby. The governance situation continues to be a problem but there is now an independent statutory trust to control finance.

This is to take anything away from the performance of the national team. They are the team any New Zealand coach would like to coach so long as the situation can be separated from politics. The forwards are tough. As with Samoa and Fiji the players can hold down professional positions offshore. The training they receive there equips them well for the national team.

When I was first in Tonga for Fiji versus Tonga, I met Mac McCallion, who was coaching Fiji at the time. He was new also and was in a state of shock because his players were seen to be walking around Nuku’alofa holding hands. The reason – Tongan intimidation.

Politics and poor administration can undermine team performance. The 2007 RWC proved that reliable player payments, a well-organised campaign and sound coaching is all the Tongan’s need to perform with a chance of threatening post-pool play. Have a look at their game versus South Africa.

At the 2011 RWC prior to the teams arrival in New Zealand things were not good but the reception they received from the Tongan community in New Zealand created enough stimulus to result in their win against France.

To make post-pool play they need to add fitness. The Tongan forwards are a handful for anyone for up to 60 minutes depending on the opposition and it is not hit-and-run stuff. They’ll take you on up front.

The senior pros in the team are happy with this and are happy with the assumption that this is the only way they can play. This is false. To catch a Fiji wing, who intercepted on his own line, on the Tongan 22 m line shows that speed is not an issue. Now that they have a sound decision making pairing at #9 and #10 and with discipline from the coaching staff the team is in a position to play with more than one string to its bow as the recent performances on the end of year tour have shown.

But I should add that when the team realises they are getting a poor deal and things are poorly organised the payback is an indifferent performance. This is a given, especially when the best talent playing professionally offshore is merit selected along with a coach who is used to professional standards even though he is living back home. The comparison between their club environment and what they find as members of the national team can be a further deterrent.

Appointments

It is not always the Tongans who have difficulty. Most of the offshore coaching and managerial talent do a good job, but an indifferent method of selection to these positions can lead to appointments on mate’s rates.

The mate’s rates appointment that was most flawed was a New Zealander who was appointed manager for 2003 Rugby World Cup along with the New Zealand coach and entourage. The manager’s credibility was based on family links with Tongan royalty.

Prior to the Rugby World Cup, the Japanese had negotiated a tour for the Tongans all expenses paid for, for Rugby World Cup preparation.

I was warned about what was happening by Ross Cooper and we met the Japanese CEO Koji Takamasu, who was touring New Zealand with the Japanese “A” team, the Tongan CEO and the manager. The guts of the situation was that preparations for the tour had gone past the point of no return, assisted by the Japanese being people whose word is their bond.

The tour was only weeks away and suddenly the Tongans were demanding excessive amounts of training equipment, training gear and apparel. The training gear was to be new at each training venue and from there shipped back to Tonga. In addition, they wanted apparel for each season of the year. The tour was in the summer – fleece tracksuits were not really required. The Japanese were shell shocked, having never struck such a blatant, excessive and dishonourable attitude.

The Tonga team manager’s attitude was “take it or leave it”, no compromise. The tour went ahead, but what the manager didn’t realise was that Japanese memories are long. Maybe he didn’t care, he would be long gone.

I was the judiciary at the Tonga Vs. Ireland game in which a Tongan forward played “halleluiah” on Eric Miller’s head. The officials sent the wrong player off, as the video showed. Equally the video didn’t show who the real culprit was. The judiciary had to go ahead with player who was sent off. He was exonerated. The attitude of the management was that we had disgraced not just the player but his family, the team, the union and so on. They seemed to miss the point that they had a head kicker in their team. I asked them to take internal action by dropping the player for the next game. You know what happened.

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »