Right of Reply

From a disgruntled Auckland fan (the person who wrote this knows what I mean, assuming it is who I think it is):

Your post reminds me of people who study economics for too long. They forget the notion of "telos" or the good. What good is there in maximizing GDP if you produce more homeless and destitute? What purpose is rugby supposed to serve. In the NZ context, it is our national glue/identity, which helps us define who we are. We may not be as well funded or arrogant as Australia or South AFrica, but when we put our minds to it, we can compete and beat them. A lot of us put in, creating local competitions that keep our kids healthy, and provide places for old people to tell their stories. These local competitions lead on to provincial comps, where anyone can win the shield (ask Taranaki), and you may (if you're lucky) win the first division. That at least was the theory until the advent of Professionalism. Now we have a product we can sit and watch every Friday Saturday and Sunday. We have faced up to commercial reality. Now we have H's peice about adopting more (dare we call them) reforms to resolve the problems with rugby. Is there another pill to take (rather than swallowing the one that makes you ill)? Or maybe I've missed the point. I'm from Mangere. In the park behind where we used to live, every weekend a bunch of people came out to play footy. I didn't even know what they were doing, as they didn't have lineouts, and their jerseys had Vs on the necks. I didn't know what I was watching because poor people play league. And rich people get on TV. So maybe it is just that union has turned into (or will soon be) a boring elitist sport which noone wants to watch. Maybe we've only just realised that how rugby used to be was kinda like race relations. A collective day dream.