Rugby, our pre-eminent sport, was first out of the blocks, followed later by the rest. All, it seems, have adopted the same "flawed business plan", developed on the promise that greater public exposure would automatically open the way to great riches and expansion of the respective codes.
True, in a manner, for the promoters, who, I note, play a background role. Who are these people?
Try Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer for starters. They both were heavily invested in the future of "Pay TV" and they readily saw that the main growth was to come from the "proletariate", not the intellectuals.
Sport was where the answer lay. They already had the example of the northern hemisphere football code to go by.
Never mind that in Australia and New Zealand combined, there was never going to be the population to sustain a comparable operation.
The tyranny of distance was also a major hurdle. If Sky TV and Channel 9 were going to be profitable, they had to coat tail on the free venues essential for the promotion of their plans. So, it had to be packaged as a deal that would enhance and enrich the respective codes, and promote the "star personality". Capture the public euphoria.
This requires sumptuous surroundings, establishment of elitism, make the event an experience. Sell the "sizzle", never mind the sausage. This has been done, and the media people have done very well out of it.
The hapless people operating the codes, the NZRU for example, were converted and undertook to provide the necessary product in return for what they saw as a financial bonanza for their business.
Promotional contracts saw money, the likes of which had never been seen, flowing in. But the cash was flowing out the other door as these people got way out of their league, running a business which was totally dependent on spectator support, or "bums on seats". These had, unfortunately been filched by the self-same promoters, TV, as intended.
The game was blinded by the ever-increasing number of events, in the thought that the answer lay in volume. Again, that played into the hands of the promoters. Expenses increased and budgets blew out.
The community was inveigled into buying into the ruse. Here in Dunedin we, the community, have provided a $250 million to $300 million stadium, fully debt funded by the citizens, in the belief that this was to be the mecca of social activity for all citizens.
Did the professional promoters invest?
Not a cent.
Now, after just 15 years, the code of professional rugby is technically bankrupt, and calling for help from all quarters. The grass-roots people are disenchanted, the citizens are staying away in droves. The public bodies are in deep financial trouble, and there is no way out.
The smart thing to do would be to pull the plug now and hope the game can survive and rebuild on the basis of a peoples' sport.
Can't happen yet. Why?
Because it is not in the nature of the "leaders" to admit that they were wrong.
Worse, it would mean that they were duped by the original promoters, who will by then have moved on to some other profitable ventures.
We will be left savaged by debt, to work it out over who knows how many years.
It is a global phenomenon, repeated everywhere. Just look at the Olympic Games: four-yearly extravaganzas which have whole nations scrambling over each other for the glory of spending themselves into penury.
And who gains?
Some athletes get the glory and the riches, the rest get quickly forgotten and the hosting societies are left with the burden of paying for it all.
So why do we do it?
I do not know. Must be a genetic frailty, more pronounced in public office-seeking people than in others. When spending other people's monies, nothing is a bother.
Just look at our council and the Government over the recent Rugby World Cup. A huge ego trip for the nation but a national financial disaster. And now we are down to the local scene, broke, facing a sport which may never recover. For what?
In answer to the question: "Has money ruined sport?" - indubitably, yes.
