They are clearly raising funds, but it's so they can reduce the subsidy to community rugby.
Our major problem is that every level of rugby costs more to run than it generates, except for the Wallabies.(and I mean in aggregate here, there will be clubs etc who can individually keep afloat)
The dollars flow downhill. That's fine, but it means the very lowest level is dependent on the very highest for funding, and there's an awful lot of people who want their cut of the pie before it cascades down to the base.
When the elite aren't going well, then the $$$ for the bottom dry up.
I am not convinced that the dollars flow down hill, and I think its a given that most amateur sports cost more than they generate as we are all aware of the need to fund-raise and the necessity of government (at all levels) assistance. That's a given.
There is significant evidence and merit in arguing that some sports with higher participation rates than rugby at a junior level are financially more stable than rugby without having a national side. So with out a "Wallabies" equivalent, how does basketball, tennis, softball, baseball, junior soccer and junior athletics all manage to survive and have higher participation rates than rugby?
Basketball is the best exponent to examine here. The NBL is a mess, and has struggled from one failure to another. But as its separate to the junior associations it doesn't drag down the grass roots. Matter of fact the junior associations support the national teams, but not the NBL.
So, without the equivalent Wallaby TV dollars, or even the Super Rugby dollars (so not elite$$), how does junior basketball maintain one of the highest participation rates at the grass roots level?
If memory serves, the ARU will collect around $3m from the new levies this year - and the QRU around half that.
This money alone would go a long way to operate an independent Junior ARU, that protects grass roots, and would mean the funding support from Governments for grass roots would not be diverted to support the elite.
Its a hypothetical argument, but worth considering. The next part of this thinking would lead to the question about where the super teams sit, and if the ARU is actually cashing in on the coattails of the super teams and clubs, operated independently of the ARU, but are the key to the SANZAR TV $$$.
Further, its arguable that the super teams are the ones administering the respective grass roots in some states / territories.
So if you draw the line in the sand at what's domestic, and what's international, you may find that the ARU are left with just the Wallabies, and a significantly lower cut of the TV $$$, with the domestic side of things, including grass roots ending up with more $$$ and more control.
Just a thought.
