USNAFU

USA Rugby fired three people last week. No notice. No discussions about job performance beforehand. Nothing that would indicate that the organization takes itself seriously as an employer. The terminations were guised as a layoff, but when was the last time an employer hands each employee a cardboard box and walks them out of the building in a layoff. Layoffs generally include some form of transitional strategy, with an admission that there is just not enough cash in the coffers and that reductions in costs are necessary for the long term viability of the organization.

While the point of this story could well turn into one about how employers should treat their employees, and that is a valid thread, the punchline here is that USA Rugby is still the same dysfunctional organization that it always has been. It is run on the agenda of a small scale fiefdom where personalities and the ability to kiss the correct buttock at the right time are the measures of merit.

Two years ago, the organization fired two of the better known and certainly more accomplished players ever to play for the national side. If nothing else, these two were ambassadors to the sport with international recognition. At least a handful of other employees at various levels were also let go. A new management team was brought in, including a funny-talker CEO, and everything was supposed to get better. I was told that we should give the new leadership a chance to let their model prove itself. Well, it didn't take long for the new administration to show that nothing had changed. USA Rugby was, is, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be the same small scale fiefdom that it always has been.

The basic problem with the organization is that it is the national governing body of a sport that nobody cares about, except for those of us who play the game and our relatives. Because nobody cares, there is little support at the national or local level. Since I started playing the game about 12 years ago, the US national team was ranked somewhere between 19 and 22 in the world, depending on the time of year. Today, the Eagles are ranked #20 in the world, despite new sponsors, a boatload of money from the International Rugby Board, a fundamental restructuring of the club level divisions, and a few palace coups at the national office. While soccer and lacrosse have both proven that building from the ground up with youth programs is an effective model, USA Rugby continues to pump money and resources into the top levels. The end result is that the sport has not increased the base of support, and the US is still an easy W for the opposing club in international competition.

When there is no performance to point to as a metric of success or failure, politics and bullsh*t become the basis for decision making. In a way it's a shame, because the whole effort is misguided. If you asked anyone who plays the game whether it was more important in the near-to-mid future to introduce the game to more youth or to actually win a match in the World Cup (let's face it, that in itself is a stretch goal), 95% of the respondents would vote for expanding the sport through the youth. We are after all the US of A. I can't think of a single silver medalist with an endorsement deal, so why waste the resources on a national side until we can actually compete?


The fly of the day is the Blond Wulff courtesy of the nice people at Fly Anglers Online




Tight lines,

Dave