All teams break even

The past few years have seen the rise of commercial endeavors by collegiate rugby teams. More teams are embracing a professional approach and more schools are embracing those teams, if not creating them in the first place. The result is a more competitive environment not only on the field but off of it. “Branding” and “product” are preached as much as tackling and set pieces. Sustained success at the Division 1 level requires as much acumen in business as rugby itself. The goals of television exposure leach focus from the traditional goals of player development and has begun to pervert what success means, co-opting what was originally determined on the field into something scored in contracts and ticket sales.

This is often where programs hit their ceiling. Practicing three times a week in matching kit meant you were Top 20 five years ago. Now, more high schoolers play. More collegiate varsity teams exist. More tickets are being sold. More games are on TV. USA Rugby’s D1A gets $250,000 a year. The Varsity Cup was formed with commercial intent. The Collegiate Rugby Championship airs on NBC. Rugby is in the Olympics. Teams stop to evaluate exposure and cost when deciding to attend a national championship.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The NCAA published a report a few years ago that said 22 athletic departments turned a profit. And that was 8 more than the previous year. Millions of dollars from football tickets, TV contracts, and apparel licenses and 22 can get in the black. The report went on to say that 50-60% of FBS football and men’s basketball programs, 4-5% of FCS football and men’s basketball programs, and 9-10% of non-football Division 1 men’s basketball programs made money. The only other sport mentioned was women’s basketball with 1% of institutions generating net positive revenue. The rest of the teams in any sport at any size institution spend more than they create.

Plain and simply: A financially positive rugby team won’t happen without cutting standard benefits of the average varsity sport. Scholarships, coaches, salaries, travel. What remains is the team. And the players. And the love of the game. Coaches can enhance this. Proper gear and nice travel can enhance this. Television and big stadiums can enhance this. Their enhancement is why they happen. Money exits the system in the form of player experience.

Television is a means not a goal. It generates interest and can highlight your investment plan. It can help a team engage alumni to help pay for a coach or a field. But a plan for covering basic player needs should be in place whether you are on TV or not. And it should be realistic. TV doesn’t solve any problems by itself. Nor does it teach tackling or pick teammates up. Money matters none on the field. The goal is player experience as all teams break even.

This entry was posted in Thinking Out Loud. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Posted June 14, 2013 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    Why no mention of the fact that running a top men’s rugby program comes with a noticeably lower level of overhead than basketball and dramatically lower overhead than with football?

    I agree that waiting for it to become a cash cow is naive but the reduced overheads make getting these programs off the ground far easier. The universities also benefit hugely in a very real, very financial way by hosting top-flight sports programs.

  2. Matt Trenary
    Posted June 14, 2013 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the comment.

    The comparison should be made with other sports that have low overhead like soccer. They exist at a varsity level and lose money. As would rugby if provided all of the same benefits. The reason current rugby programs can provide “very real, very financial” benefit is because the coach salaries or scholarships are cut in comparison to similar varsity sports.

    Don’t get me wrong, these programs are great for the rugby community. Small schools do make money by boosting enrollment through rugby. But the money is not coming from television and we shouldn’t expect anything more than what would go to cover the aforementioned missing benefits.

  • Mission

    We at encourage an open and positive discourse about rugby, and the people who are making our game better every day. We hope you will use this forum to keep an open conversation, share ideas, or express and reflect upon your concerns. Rude or offensive comments do not encourage free dialogue and may be deleted.

    If you would like to contact us directly or have an idea for a story, feel free to send an email to