Sports England - Active People survey

[Bedford Roughyed]

http://www.sportengland.org/research/who-plays-sport/by-sport/

 

Looks like an increase for RL from the last survey.

 

(I would guess the increase is within margins of error, etc.  So nothing to right home about but better than a decrease obviously).

[Defender1]

http://www.sportengland.org/research/who-plays-sport/by-sport/

Looks like an increase for RL from the last survey.

(I would guess the increase is within margins of error, etc. So nothing to right home about but better than a decrease obviously).

It actually says there is a Decrease despite the figures being slightly up??

I would like a breakdown to where the 100k for 14+ and 70k for 16+

Notice the figures are for Oct 14 to Sept 15 taking in all the Winter and Summer registrations, so with all the change to playing season, the game saviour with Primary RL, Masters, , Armed Forces, Wheelchair, Tag, Touch and anything else the RFL can register. (We have 4 armed forces lads registered for our A team and they play for the Army, my lad plays NCL and A team winter how many registrations is it

Please note Rugby Union has shown a healthy increase

[Guest]

Am I correct in thinking that there is a payment from sport england to the RFL to help develop 14 + players and 70k for 17+

[Bedford Roughyed]

It actually says there is a Decrease despite the figures being slightly up??

I would like a breakdown to where the 100k for 14+ and 70k for 16+

Notice the figures are for Oct 14 to Sept 15 taking in all the Winter and Summer registrations, so with all the change to playing season, the game saviour with Primary RL, Masters, , Armed Forces, Wheelchair, Tag, Touch and anything else the RFL can register. (We have 4 armed forces lads registered for our A team and they play for the Army, my lad plays NCL and A team winter how many registrations is it

Please note Rugby Union has shown a healthy increase

 

Sports England measure their 'increase/decrease' from either APS1 (Oct 2006 to Oct 2007) for 16+ or APS7 for 14+.  It doesn't relate to the year before.  So we have increased since last year, but are still showing a decrease in the long term.

 

The figures are done at the same time every year.  They are NOT based on registrations (something I have to say every time these figures come out).  The RFL could of registered a million people and the APS would still show 72,700 for 14+.

 

RU has shown an increase.  Shows what you can do with more money, more clubs, more development officers, a joined up season, 1 ruling body, a complete pyramid from bottom to top, regions playing the same rules, embracing touch and sevens, no hang ups over paying players, allow dual registration...

[TaxiEgg]

And don't they play in the season we used to numbers up etc etc where are they getting these new players from I wonder ?

[mmp]

And don't they play in the season we used to numbers up etc etc where are they getting these new players from I wonder ?

 

The data covers the whole of England whereas RL is played in relatively few districts in two regions. If you think this data implies a switch from RL to RU = that increase in RU you are massively over-estimating the numbers playing RL in the first place and the statistical significance of the two regions. 

 

FWIW, Sport England release regional and district level stats: worryingly, they do suggest less playing of sport in the NW and Yorks (and given RL being a small sport overall, even in those areas, that decrease cannot be attributed to RL).

[mmp]

 

RU has shown an increase.  Shows what you can do with more money, more clubs, more development officers, a joined up season, 1 ruling body, a complete pyramid from bottom to top, regions playing the same rules, embracing touch and sevens, no hang ups over paying players, allow dual registration...

 

Absolutely! (except for the development officer point as i don't think such make a big difference to regular participation personally but I'd add merit leagues to your list)

 

Imagine if we lost the hang-ups and pettiness and actually sought to encourage the playing of summer RL by people of other sports in all areas of England...! 

[mmp]

Am I correct in thinking that there is a payment from sport england to the RFL to help develop 14 + players and 70k for 17+

 

I don't know specifics about RL but my understanding is Sport England 'prioritise' (which equates to spend more money on...) encouraging participation for people aged 14+. The logic, I think, is that sports participation overall is deemed OK amongst kids up to that age but then drops off so the 'priority' is to keep people playing from 14....

 

Personally, i think its wrong. if the Sport England money was targeted at 7/8/9 yr olds the numbers in those groups might be bigger....

 

....and in 5/6/7yrs time, the numbers at 14+ would start to grow too.

 

but politicians don't like waiting 5yrs!!!!

 

It places all sports (including the RFL) in a bit of an awkward place. As a sport (and governing body) you might want to target the younger age groups, but Sport England doesn't target such so doesn't provide money for such.

 

It's why, personally, i don't blame the RFL for getting what funds it can for 14+ participation and why i have some sympathy when it is restricted from spending more on the youngest. it's not a choice the RFL has as the funding restriction is set by the funder, not the sport. As a population and sport we need to lobby Govt to re-prioritise its monies to the youngest age groups because I absolutely agree with people like TaxiEgg - its there the money should go...

[TaxiEgg]

The RFL don't need any extra funding to grow the game from the bottom up , the community clubs do that at their own expense .

What we need is to be left alone on what works and the game will look after itself .

We have to find a answer as to why we lose participants 14 years up .

In the Nw we had in 2012 12 teams operating at u7 this season that has now grown to 63 teams with over a 1000 kids registered you would think our governing body would be waxing lyrical think again .

[Defender1]

Funny thing is the RFL websites say a 9,900 increase in participation, SE say a decrease from when records begin and say 500 extra players

Last year YML said an 80% completion rate, this year nothing I know it did not reach this figure

The RFL say a 7% more game completion rate

Sorry to say it's all B......s

[Bedford Roughyed]

Once a month participation (14+)

 

13/14 = 89,700

14/15 = 100,900

Year Change = +11,200 6mth change = 500

 

Once a month participation (16+)

 

13/14 = 61700

14/15 = 71900

Year Change = +10200 6mth change = 800

 

Once a week participation (14+)

 

13/14 = 50700

14/15 = 72700

Year Change = +22000 6mth change = 9000

 

Once a week participation (16+)

 

13/14 = 32500

14/15 = 49700

Year Change = +17200 6mth change = 9900

 

The RFL have quoted the increase since the last set of figures from 6 months ago, which at 16+ (once a week) is 9900.  You have quoted the 6 month figures for 14+ (once a month) which is 500.  Both are correct.  The RFL are free to quote the better figures just as you are to quote the worst.

 

The RFL do their own figures for completion.  They maybe BS, who knows.  

[Defender1]

Thanks BR, you have been able to see a better break down than me I only saw the SE figures

The issue I have we all know it's not right, there is never a break down of where the players are, who is registered more than once, I have asked before my son last year filled a form for NCL, A team, College and U18s is that one vote or 4

If players are playing they should be training once a week or playing once a week so why 28,200 difference at 14+ playing weekly-monthly

If players are playing they should be training once a week or playing once a week so why 22,200 difference at 16+ playing weekly-monthly

The difference between the 14+ and 16+ figure is 29,000 so 29,000 14 and 15 year olds playing the game once a month

So at 14&15 year old we say each team has 20 players on average that's 1450 teams

With the monthly figure of 14+ At 100900 participating monthly this means at ages 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and open age if they all had an average squad of say 25 this gives us approx 4036 teams

I would love this to be true but where are they? I work in a job where I am paid on figures that are correct

[Bedford Roughyed]

Again, it makes no difference if a player is registered at more than one club or school.  The SE figures have nothing to do with registrations.

 

These figures look at participation only.  Not what teams they play for.  

 

These figures are good enough for SE to hand out millions of pounds.  They use the same methodology year on year.  They can not be fiddled by the NGB.  They are the best, most consistent, independent figures we have.   .  

[Defender1]

Again, it makes no difference if a player is registered at more than one club or school.  The SE figures have nothing to do with registrations.

 

These figures look at participation only.  Not what teams they play for.  

 

These figures are good enough for SE to hand out millions of pounds.  They use the same methodology year on year.  They can not be fiddled by the NGB.  They are the best, most consistent, independent figures we have.   .

Again I do understand and if that is how they base the figures then so be it, when the RFL paper over the cracks and when most teams are struggling and you have the same players playing in different competitions the actual figure actually playing will be significantly less which is why I said its B.....S

[mmp]

Again I do understand and if that is how they base the figures then so be it, when the RFL paper over the cracks and when most teams are struggling and you have the same players playing in different competitions the actual figure actually playing will be significantly less which is why I said its B.....S

 

How many times...it's a survey and the method and process has NOTHING to do with the RFL or with registrations!

 

When asked the question, a proportion of those surveyed stated that they had participated in RL in the last month and based on that, Sport England have a figure of 100,900 people aged 14+ participating monthly. The SAME methodology is used each time (allowing comparisons over time) and the SAME methodology is applied to each sport (allowing comparison between sports).

 

 

 

If a player was surveyed who was registered with multiple teams (say a Uni Team and a Club team) they still answer 'yes' to playing - and they count ONCE in the survey.  They could have played in 10 different competitions but the answer is still yes and the answer is still yes ONCE.  The method does not allow for a double count.  

 

Based on the method - a Government endorsed method outside any Governing Body (such as RFL) influence and now having been used year on year for a number of years - there were 100,900 participants and there could not be less than that due to any registration practices.  So, whether you believe it or not there ARE 100,900 regular participants in RL as far as Sport England, Government, and any other body is concerned. 

[Defender1]

How many times...it's a survey and the method and process has NOTHING to do with the RFL or with registrations!

 

When asked the question, a proportion of those surveyed stated that they had participated in RL in the last month and based on that, Sport England have a figure of 100,900 people aged 14+ participating monthly. The SAME methodology is used each time (allowing comparisons over time) and the SAME methodology is applied to each sport (allowing comparison between sports).

 

 

 

If a player was surveyed who was registered with multiple teams (say a Uni Team and a Club team) they still answer 'yes' to playing - and they count ONCE in the survey.  They could have played in 10 different competitions but the answer is still yes and the answer is still yes ONCE.  The method does not allow for a double count.  

 

Based on the method - a Government endorsed method outside any Governing Body (such as RFL) influence and now having been used year on year for a number of years - there were 100,900 participants and there could not be less than that due to any registration practices.  So, whether you believe it or not there ARE 100,900 regular participants in RL as far as Sport England, Government, and any other body is concerned.

Like I keep saying I am not disagreeing but WHERE ARE THEY?

As I keep saying look at the fixtures from this you get game after game off for lack of players, if we have 100,000+ giving us 4000+ teams at 14+ GREAT but they can't be turning up to play. Note also in the survey 26+ and wheelchair RL not enough to create any statistics, we also have the Cubs under 7 to under 13 this would give us another what? Possible 200,000 playing RL in total but all I ask is where are they?

[Defender1]

This is why I ask where the players are? The below was from a post earlier this year concerning Yorkshire Mens League, NWC Mens, NWC 16-18 there were no 17 or 18 matches in Yorkshire very little activity around the country but we have 100,000+ playing all I ask is where are they?? (Broken Record springs to mind)

 

I know some games were off already but there were 26 matches listed in the YML 10 went ahead meaning 16 didn't (62% off)

I know some games were off already but there were 25 matches listed in the NWC 14 went ahead meaning 11 didn't (44% off)

In the NWC 16-18 only 9 matches went ahead, looking at the league tables there are 57 teams meaning 39 teams went without a game, surprisingly this is similar to last year, why do we just seem to be accepting this and why do the RFL still seem to think everything is ok?

One of the points of the YML and NWC was to run A teams, bring players through and keep them match fit so they could support their NCL teams, yesterday only 8 NCL "A" teams turned out, there are nearly 50 NCL teams, Oulton travelled with 14 men and put out an "A" at home

It appears very little else going on around the country especially at Youth where the matches going ahead must worry someone or does it? 

[mmp]

Like I keep saying I am not disagreeing but WHERE ARE THEY?

As I keep saying look at the fixtures from this you get game after game off for lack of players, if we have 100,000+ giving us 4000+ teams 

 

 

but it doesn't result in 4000 teams.

 

like it or not, the world is changing and the demand for regular league based sport of the type advocated on here often as the be all and end all of our sport is reducing - its the same for cricket, RU, and RL and even football. 

 

20/20 cricket, casual RU and RU 7s, 5 aside footy etc. are all examples of where a sport adapts to suit the people who might want to play. even badminton has made changes to suit the changing world! RL is obsessed it seems in trying to do it the other way round and tries making people adapt to what the traditionalists want - and guess what, as your own stats show, people aren't that keen...

 

All sports need to adapt - if 100,000 want to participate then we have to provide the opportunities to participate in whatever form best suits them and their circumstances. If you get that right, the 100,000 will increase, pretend otherwise, and the sport has a real problem in the future!

 

I'm not saying competitive league based sport doesn't have its place and I'd personally agree it should be the pinnacle of any sports offer. But less people can commit to it these days and the sport needs to recognise it and start moving on by offering alternatives too.

[TaxiEgg]

Figures should be based on 13 a side contact sport to get a true reflection on the strength of the game , it's ok using hybrids to top up the numbers but like Defender says that papers over cracks .

The whole aim to drive up participation is the ultimate aim to become the best nation in the world of RL .

The last ten years has seen a drop off in youth and OA rugby .

What is being done to address that ?

Touch rugby is more of a social benefit does it enhance the sport how many play touch and also full contact ?

My biggest concern is the drive to re invent the game of RL and taking it away from its origin .

[Defender1]

Figures should be based on 13 a side contact sport to get a true reflection on the strength of the game , it's ok using hybrids to top up the numbers but like Defender says that papers over cracks .

The whole aim to drive up participation is the ultimate aim to become the best nation in the world of RL .

The last ten years has seen a drop off in youth and OA rugby .

What is being done to address that ?

Touch rugby is more of a social benefit does it enhance the sport how many play touch and also full contact ?

My biggest concern is the drive to re invent the game of RL and taking it away from its origin .

Taxi is right I understand the need to create other forms of the game but in my view without the 13 a side contact side of the game you won't have a game, the other forms should be the icing on the cake, apart from 5 a side at football and 7s RU which are both contact you don't see them saying the 11 and 15 a side form of the game is not seen as the pinnicle of their game

Taxi says the game has been in demise for 10 years and what has been done, well change to summer, change the primary rules, embedded the pathway, Sky try investment and we still struggle at 13 a side. Don't forget the main reason to change to summer was to increase participation "You will have that many players you won't know what to do with them" that was done to increase players at the 13 a side game other forms would hopefully get carried along with the momentum.

In London they said they had 300+ touch rugby teams but struggle to put a league together at the 13 a side game, this in my view is not the way the game should but be heading but I am a traditionalist

[mmp]

Figures should be based on 13 a side contact sport to get a true reflection on the strength of the game , it's ok using hybrids to top up the numbers but like Defender says that papers over cracks .

The whole aim to drive up participation is the ultimate aim to become the best nation in the world of RL .

The last ten years has seen a drop off in youth and OA rugby .

What is being done to address that ?

Touch rugby is more of a social benefit does it enhance the sport how many play touch and also full contact ?

My biggest concern is the drive to re invent the game of RL and taking it away from its origin .

 

But what if that drop off is inevitable as a result of a changing society? 

 

You can't turn back that change - you have to adapt. Yes, 13 aside contact RL has to remain a pinnacle but the game shoots itself in the foot if it thinks it can survive by burying its head in the sand when the world around it changes. 

 

We have to keep full contact 13 aside RL as a pinnacle aim, but at the same time recognise that more and more people will want access to different forms of the game. We're not big enough to turn such people away.

[Bedford Roughyed]

13 aside is the pinnacle?  No one has ever said different.

[Defender1]

13 aside is the pinnacle?  No one has ever said different.

 

I agree but all I keep asking is where these people are, what part of the game are they or do they want to be involved with, where in the country are they as this is relevant. If we have ???? people wanting to participate you would think there is a break down, if we have 50,000 registrations and 100,900 on sports England where are these other 50,000. I know you don't have to be registered to play Touch but details are taken so a rough idea would be fine. The RFL went to print and said there are 300+ touch teams in London do they play with 1 or 10 players, the London league is struggling if there were 3000 playing touch and these were approached a few may give the 13 a side game ago

 

How many Playing, wanting too or showing an interest

13 a side OA?

13 a side Junior and primary?

College?

University?

Schooll?

Armed Forces?

Touch?

Tag?

Wheel Chair?

Any other form??

 

Nobody either wants too or can answer this question, if it is not available it is not available, a few years ago the RFL did a break down you would think somebody except myself would want to see this, in Hull we have 16 teams playing winter at OA, each team can register 30 players but this can be changed, team sheets are filled in, some will play every week, some when they are called on so this could be 500 players, there are about 46 NCL teams the average is say 35 players registered so this is 1600 players, my club runs junior teams at 8-16 we are allowed 22 players, some come and go some teams don't have 22 but we could have 200 players at the club.

So as I say you could have 50,000 registered but the other 50,900 want to be involved where are they so the game can contact them.

[Guest]

^{Personally think the main problem is the people at the top of the RFL, they cant keep good staff long enough for them to make a difference in what ever department they have been employed to work in,}  

[TaxiEgg]

But what if that drop off is inevitable as a result of a changing society?

You can't turn back that change - you have to adapt. Yes, 13 aside contact RL has to remain a pinnacle but the game shoots itself in the foot if it thinks it can survive by burying its head in the sand when the world around it changes.

We have to keep full contact 13 aside RL as a pinnacle aim, but at the same time recognise that more and more people will want access to different forms of the game. We're not big enough to turn such people away.

Who is saying that Hybrids of the full game should not be utilised to build the game ?

My point is does the use of hybrid formats enhance the full game other than possibly putting more bums on seats at pro games ?

There has to be a value for the whole game solution ?