The Future Of Amateur Rugby Coaching? Division!!

If there was a version of the Level 4, the highest level of rugby coaching award available, which was aimed specifically at the amateur game and not the elite game, what would it look like?

In part two of this series, I asked is ‘meritocracy’ the right word to describe the process of how we assess coaching / coach development today and are we creating opportunities for all coaches at attain opportunities equally.

Is the time upon us where we need to formally rethink the coaching of the game with amateur game self-interest as a driver?

 Meritocracy first gained a foothold in 1958 with British sociologist Michael Young and is generally accepted that a merit-based system is required to find the very best people, for whatever role, in our society. What started as a noble idea has today resulted in a societal pivot where the richest and most influential in society often ensure those in their charge have a proverbial foot up the merit ladder. That could apply to the children of the wealthy being privately educated, the Russell Group university educated or even, rugby unions most powerful teams.

 To state that there is an advantageous path to the top not available to all of society is not an unusual statement and this imbalance is often reflected in all forms of modern life even in our television choices. In the TV show ‘SUITS’, can you remember what the very basic requirement needed to work at Pearson-Hardman? All employees had to be Harvard Law graduates – being a good lawyer with good academic results was not enough. This was not some fantastical premise invented by creator Aaron Korsh but a reality for some senior organisations around the world. It was an uncomfortable reality for the audience as we were viewers of a world we would never be a part of…however entertaining the series was to watch. I suppose the irony is that the people working in these organisations have never seen an episode of Suits as the return for being employed by these originations is full ownership of your time.

Although the qualification of coaches looks the same on a curriculum vitae from one coach to another, elite coach development opportunities for the highest placed in the game and its equivalent for amateur coaches differ in almost every imaginable way. On the surface, that should be the case but if the access to elite development opportunities is being secreted away for those that are already at the top of the game, then how do we create a structure that finds the very best coaches as opposed to the very best potential coaches already known? Merit, as it was originally envisaged was designed to open the world of the elite to the lower and middle classes through a structured approach but today, for a variety of reasons, merit and opportunity are two very different things when they should be always hand in hand for those that show some potential.

 Maybe possessing a Level 3 or 4 qualification is now an old-fashioned approach to finding the best in a modern coaching world.

 Let me digress for a moment

 If we were to analyse the 3rd level academic entrants, would the brightest lights at the most famous universities have similar background stories – their parents be rich, they attended a private school or a limited number of state schools. (Look up the Harvard’s Z-List debate). Parents who live in the higher echelons in British society want the very best for their children (as we all do) and we could learn a lot by looking at the lengths these parents go to ensuring their children do not end up in anything that even remotely looks like a middle-class lifestyle. Leaving aside the difficulty of those of lesser financial means gaining an education that aids their entry into the best universities, the replacement of grants with loans has meant that most prestigious graduates of our finest red brick institutions are not looking towards the middle class for their futures because they see that a chance at living in a middle class is slowly disappearing…. ‘middle’ living is falling away everywhere. They want to use their degrees to start life among society’s top earners and stay there. That is reflective of every segment of influential society where the idea of creating a world of senior managers and reduce the middle managers is reflected in how CEOs earn huge amounts of money based on maximising shareholder dividend by reducing the numbers of those who make that wealth possible in the ‘middle’ by keeping the lowest skilled (and lowest paid) workers and filling any gaps with technology. 

 So why would rugby be any different? Just because it’s a sport with a significant volunteer workforce doesn’t make it immune to societal financial pressures. If you had a life at the top of the game, wouldn’t you take any significant advantage to stay at the top of the game as you transitioned to a life as a coach?

 There are members of rugby that possess inherited intellectual wealth that allows them to move freely among the elite as a new coach leaving the rest to seek out an opportunity to gain some form of upward mobility. Who possesses this inherited wealth is an interesting thought experiment but while you’re in a thinking mood, is there such a thing as a hereditary international coach? Judging by some coaching appointments, there must be some divine presence appointing roles that allow some ill-defined form of ‘potential’ to be the winner as opposed to allowing some form of meritocracy to occur.

 Which leads me back to the start of this article… Is coaching in the rugby union game now breaking in two – a battle between the amateur and professional coach for development opportunities? The professional utilising their inherited wealth of resources and IP to attain a place on higher level coaching courses versus the amateur coach trying to overcome their unique challenges to be their best selves.

 Over the last twenty tears or so, much has changed in the academic world of coaching and alongside that change, has been the adjustment and reimagining of national governing body coaching courses. Off the top of my head, the England Rugby coaching courses have changed names four times both to integrate, and move away from, a standardised coaching model for all sports instigated by HM Government several years ago. This is a positive as adjusting to new thoughts and new research is a step in the right direction and prevents processes becoming unchallengeable by a core few people in authority. Well, that’s the hope.

 Is social media helping?

 My favourite pastime now is to watch academics arguing about coaching on social media. Its Dr this vs Professor that and its eminently fascinating. Some look at coaching from a theoretical point of view and despite many studies and years of published research, if you ask them to post a film to highlight a recent example of their theory in action, almost all of them never share films of what they stringently defend as best practice. Some, to their credit, can back up what they say but very few experts are week in / week out amateur coaches where the vagaries of the human condition often challenge the various best practices we wish to imbue onto our athletes. At professional level, a coach may have some control over the process due to the reasonable stability of numbers in their teams and the expertise to hand at an organisation. However, due to the challenges facing amateur coaches, a differing approach is required to the best practice approach given by experts and it is this differentiation that is often not catered for in coach development work for amateur volunteers – the majority of the game’s coaches in truth.

 The lack of support from the governing bodies to the more experienced coaches in the amateur game allows these coaches to disengage with the national union as they believe they are better placed to judge what the future of the game looks like as they must fill any vacuum of knowledge by seeking out sources themselves based on their experiences over many years. It is a dangerous path to let coaches ignore the best practices of people who have spent many hours challenging the status quo but the unions must realise that this is happening more and more.

 The answer to all our problems should be merit based promotions where a mix of both academic and practical experience would allow the very best coaches to attain status and opportunity showing us all that if we wish to be successful at coaching, there is a ready group of significant role models at the top of the game that we can all aspire to be with hard work.

Just hard work?

 Qualifications sure but is there a meritocratic pathway for amateur coaches currently in existence that would allow them, irrespective of their background, an opportunity to becomes the very best in their field? As Daniel Markovits points out, ‘meritocracy’s promise of equality—the theory that anyone can succeed simply by excelling, … proves false in practice’. Michael Sandel in The Tyranny of Merit (2020) presents an equally uncompromising message. For him, ‘meritocracy says to those at the bottom of the pile that they deserve their fate, thereby diminishing them as human beings”.

 I heard someone once say that it isn’t that there is no ladder where you can jump onto as a grass roots coach that leads to being a professional coach at the highest levels, it’s just that over the years, the gaps between the rungs have become larger and harder to reach. Today, a person’s odds of reaching higher rungs can depend on the rung at which they started their coaching journey on – that inherited wealth I was talking about earlier.

 I once had a dinner with an ex-international player and as part of a wide-ranging conversation (English rugby, card games, best type of steak, etc) was a discussion about coaching at the highest level. He said the game is now so complex that its almost becoming too difficult for anyone but ex-players to coach it. I then asked him when he retired, he should only have been able work within a professional rugby club as the world is now so complex that you shouldn’t be able to catch up as you’ve been 10 years out of the work force. He smiled at me and saw my point - I asked why he felt that way. He said it had more to do with the players not believing anyone who hasn’t been where they are. They possess what Pierre Bourdieu called ‘cultural capital’; a ‘currency’ held by a certain few who then define the rules that ensures continued dominance.

 If, as my dinner friend suggested, that merit is determined on IP from playing the game at the highest level, then we have already allowed two separate worlds which disadvantages those who still believe hard work and dedication will get you an opportunity at the highest levels as a coach. What we have allowed to be created is a superordinate group (represents a superior order within a system of classification) to emerge where they have redefined merit that has little relation to our current thoughts on it as amateur coaches.

 This idea of a system stacked in favour of an elite few is nothing new. Opening coaching courses to all based on experience gained many years ago was the great leveller when it came to judging merit but now, it’s redefinition is stifling upwards mobility for those who never had the ability to play at the highest levels but find they may have a talent as a coach… if someone would just give them a chance.

 The biggest fear that I can see hanging over World Rugby is that the professional game will pull away from the amateur game and set up its own entity. Very similar in type to the way the English Premier League football did in the early 1990s but even they didn’t go as far as pulling completely away from the Football Association. In truth they need each other. The top of the game needs the bottom to produce the game’s most valuable assets, the players, and the bottom of the game needs to be enthused by seeing their country/teams being the very best. It is a symbiotic relationship that although fractured at times, continues to survive based on what they believe is mutual assured destruction if they move away to a newer model. Its why there was such a furore about the European Super League in football some years ago.

 Sadly, I suspect this split is inevitable as rugby today is beginning to create two worlds and in England especially, there is now a black hole appearing in coaching where good coaches can play significant parts in the game but maybe not enough to earn a living from it. The gap between the top and bottom of the game is getting wider and wider in relation to opportunity, and we should all recognise this.

 There are a few enlightened clubs here in England that have a brilliant mix of amateur and ex-professional players as coaches in their academies but then the next big step is, how many of those from an amateur background get an opportunity to coach later in the senior professional XV? The odds are already stacked against any coach making it to the highest levels of the game but if you haven’t played professionally, that next step looks a long way up and its getting more difficult by the year. Its why many of our finest amateur coaches end up going overseas to developing nations where their abilities are being recognised – Blaine Mckenna wrote a book about its effect in football.

 So, considering there is no alternative pathway available in some other rugby union organisation (we just have the one), we are kind of stuck with two options

 1)    Fight a pyrrhic war in the hope of changing the current system no one at the top sees a problem with or

2)    Rethink amateur rugby coaching

 Am I hinting at a future where there are two branches of rugby union with each should look after their own affairs? 

Yes, emphatically yes.

 Rugby Union in its current state cannot effectively look after the needs of the amateur and professional game without significant conflicts of interest occurring. If amateur coaches and professional coaches are seen as two different beings, then so be it but what should then occur is a dividing line where the amateur game takes charge of certain national pathways and the professional game handles the rest.

 The biggest black hole in coaching is slowly emerging as the aging possessors Level 3 qualifications. Every year, large numbers of coaches return to the game with this qualification and do sterling work for the amateur / semi-professional game until they become proficient in their craft enough to seek out the next challenge. Then many often hit a brick wall when it comes to development opportunities. Level 3 coaches are often left to their own devices where seeking out opportunities to grow and develop at the highest levels of the game are nigh on impossible to find. Of course, if you meet the criteria, you could pay (in England) £3200 to complete a Level 4 which, upon reading the course content is murky as to whether it’s of benefit to you as an amateur coach under its present format.

 However, what would a Level 4 for amateur coaches look like and what are the alternatives for coaches to grow and develop if it isn’t aligned to a NGB coaching level? Can you have an elite amateur coach as a role model?

 You could pay hundreds of pounds out of your own pocket (unless you have a rich club benefactor) where you can travel the globe seeking out courses that can help you grow as a coach, keeping your interest in a sport in a country that helps with access not found in your own country. It’s a costly exercise and depending on what level you are working at, depends on whether a club will support that ambition. If you are a hired gun so to speak at a higher ranked side, will they be willing to spend a couple of thousand pounds for you to develop yourself when they believe your development should be your own business - even if you are only coaching for a stipend. If you are at a club where you have some gravitas, they may well chip in and pay for you to travel but will the info you have gained directly benefit the club you are at?

 Often, funding can be found to assist coaches with Level 1 and 2 courses but once you wish to progress, that funding is not available to you which isn’t as dramatic as it sounds as these committees must help as many as possible with the funds they have available but it highlights where the funding streams are aimed at in the game today at amateur level which unintentionally allows the knowledge gap to grow bigger by the year unless you are able to self-fund your development.

Is it time for means testing for amateur coach development?

I’m not sure any union does this currently but if there was to be a version of ‘positive action’ towards the growth of the amateur game, maybe this idea is worthy of consideration. Parts of a country where the game is struggling to grow can be targeted with talented amateur coaches being funded under a national scheme by the amateur game but sadly, we are still focusing on keeping the ‘one game’ idea afloat. The necessary enforcement of a tackle line in amateur rugby but not in the professional game put paid to the idea of one-game for all last season.

Could a rugby entity whose sole function is to grow the amateur be more effective than what we currently have in place?

Some years ago, the knowledge gap for experienced coaches at amateur levels was being addressed and with a little push, it could return with a little rebranding as to its purpose. For many years, rugby unions held annual conferences to allow the coaches from mostly amateur backgrounds to spend one weekend a year listening to expert coaches and to network about the affairs of the game in a convivial atmosphere. By the late 2000s, the conferences were deemed too expensive for the attendees and the unions to continue with leading to the conferences falling away, much to the distress of the rugby community. It wasn’t the great ‘cure for all ills’ in the amateur game but it was important.

If I was asked to put my finger on what the single biggest body blow to amateur rugby coaching was in the last twenty years, it was the stopping of these conferences. The unions, by solely focusing on the bottom line led to the demise of engagement with coaches throughout the country and led to a lack of collective enthusiasm that used to exist prior to the stopping of these conferences. The opportunities to grow as coaches that came from these conferences was extraordinary and as a side effect, it allowed coaches to see that the professional coaches were real people who had worked their way into that role through hard work. It allowed unions to see who their best coaches REALLY were, engage with them about their knowledge of the game and to judge who could take the next step up the representative ladder at either age grade or senior level.

In a modern faceless world of online education, there is still a place for face-face moments – remember, the newer generation of coaches may not know that these conferences even existed. I’m not sure the old structure would work completely but if a little thought was put into them, we could modernise them for a more sophisticated audience with exchanges with nations around the world being part of the development processes available to coaches with ambition. All of this could occur without the desire to be a professional full-time coach at the highest level – leaving the professional game to run their own show as they see fit. As an aside, I always found that professional coaches who presented at these conferences often sat in the back of other lectures taking even more notes than the amateur coaches as they were seeing things that even they weren’t getting in their development circles.

The unions always subsidised these events but the fatal error was seeing them as an add on, a perk if you will, that when proved expensive could be dropped and a cheaper alternative way could be found utilising the emerging online spaces. This mindset was a fatal error of judgment. They were expensive, yes, they were hard to organise, very much so, and finding of sponsors for the event became very difficult indeed but the unions missed the key reason for their existence.….

... THEY WERE AN INVESTMENT IN THE VOLUNTEER WORKFORCE!!!

Without having a workable solution to hand, the unions became what William Deresiewicz called ‘excellent sheep’ where they believed they were making correct decisions based on flawed thinking as it related to coach engagement. Instead of making coaches more informed with the online world, they became less engaged with the game overall allowing coaches to seek out corners of the internet as their primary source of information about the game.

 It has left the unions in a strange place where they have now become the last place people go to for coaching development – an ongoing fight to regain authority can be won with an easy fix. Today, once attendance at coaching courses occur, the unions are often seen as an inconsequence whereas in the days of the conferences, they were the gatekeepers to the game and brought some of the finest minds into our community from outside to fashion thoughts that would allow coaches to bring a local voice to any national ambition.

 Its isn’t all negative though. Some unions are starting to reinstate the conference model with some success, especially in Scotland, but many places are still focused on letting individual clubs run mini conferences of coaching days which are often superb, and organisers deserve huge praise for putting them together but how does all this blend into a national coaching initiative?

 Where is the tide that lifts all boats?  

 This is why the amateur game needs a body specifically aimed at developing them …. all of it… not just the bits that concern development of youth which seems to be getting the lion’s share of the attention. Yes, most coaches work within the mini and youth age group at amateur level but the adult game, which as I have mentioned has a significant amount of L3 and L4 coaches hanging around sometimes seeing their development outlook looking like something settlers had to overcome travelling to the Wild West. They do fine without the unions help but is that the message that the unions want to promote? Ninety nine percent of these experienced coaches have no interest in coaching for a living but continue to invest time into the game and deserve better opportunities to grow and network.

 As a result of conferences being stopped and any number of development courses that looked after the higher-level amateur coaches disappearing, the bridge between professional and amateur coaching was removed killing off one of the last places where professional and amateur coaches could engage in meaningful conversation. Today, without those discussion forums, the game has reinvented itself with a form of aristocracy – a system where the social order accepts that certain people are entitled to a certain treatment because of who they are rather than what they had achieved. With varying degrees, the professional game, and in England that is at best 20 clubs, have ringfenced the opportunities for coaching progression and decided that the players within those twenty teams, once retired are the best hope for keeping the elite games growth alive. Instead, the professional game, with all its wonderful coaching opportunities imprisons imagination as with rare exceptions, most professional teams play in a similar manner. You may read this and say that I am overreacting but even the professional game now realises that the way the game is being played currently needs to change.

 Shouldn’t the professional clubs be more involved in the amateur game?

 Well, ideally, sure, but they are a professional business so why should they invest significantly in things when there is already an organisation doing that for the game? I would love to see big clubs spend large amounts of time running masterclasses but if it isn’t a reality now in the age of profit margins and salary caps, I’m not holding my breath for it to change anytime soon. They are a business and if you want them to develop you, they will charge you a lot of money to do so. Again, why should they. Moral obligation? No.

It is not the job of professional clubs to develop amateur coaches irrespective that it would be easy for them to do so as they already have good coaches working in their development programs already. They don’t need to recruit and develop their own coaches; they seemingly have a ready supply of those already. Law firms don’t hire 18-year-olds and turn them into lawyers. Universities do that and then they pick the best. The amateur coaches, irrespective of my view that the professional game are missing huge swathes of great coaches from the amateur game, it is not their job to make you better. That’s a job for you and the rugby unions that oversee our game.

The pathway for amateur coaches into the professional game is pretty much gone now so the amateur game should plan for a future where great coaches can have a future that matches their ambitions.

The amateur game must progress and look after its own needs.

Therefore, rather than trying to change the game as it is, is to simply bring forward its inevitable destination – two separate games, with two separate bodies where one looks after the needs and demands of the amateur game much better than it does now. Each entity, professional and amateur handles their own processes and finances where the elite game gets the international money, but the amateur game gets the subscriptions of the 90% of the game and is run as a going concern looking after the greatest assets in the game. – the youth.

If the professional game then wishes to take the players into a professional environment, they do so in a manner that benefits all sides of the agreement.

-       The professional clubs get a potentially unique talent,

-       The player can chase their dream of playing at the highest levels as a waged employee and

-       The amateur clubs can also be reimbursed for the development costs of that player before they were recognised as a potential asset to the professional game.

 Seems like a fair deal to me. There’s a lot to discuss here but that’s for another day but you understand my train of thought.

The amateur game can then set up and run their own youth national teams, development centres for coaches and players and senior teams can compete internationally with other amateur teams / developing nations allowing coaches who aren’t full time professionals to represent their country.

To utilise a famous science fiction quote, we need to move away from the needs of the few being more important than the needs of the many.

The future of amateur rugby coaching….is division.