At the USPA Annual Meeting in The Plains, Virginia in 2008, the USPA Board of Governors approved several changes to the USPA Rules and Rules Interpretation, changes that are not without some controversy and concern, applauded as long overdue by others. Beginning January 2010, all teams
entering United States Polo Association (USPA) events will be required by USPA Rule to check the citizenship status of team members to determine if the team is meeting the requirements as specified in USPA Rule 1. TEAMS that states:
| I think it is a very good rule for the young Americans to get a chance to be in a high-goal organization. The rule is modeled around the English rule, more or less. I think the English are very progressive in terms of home-boy player development. Someone from the USPA should talk to their committee to see what works and what doesn’t. —Owen Rinehart, 7 goals |
|
1. TEAMS
f. Effective January 1, 2010 each Team
in a USPA event with an upper handicap
limit of 22 goals or less shall, excluding the
sponsor, have a minimum of one
Registered Player Member as defined in
the Association By-laws.
1. TEAMS f. INTERPRETATION: The
definition of “sponsor” refers to the
individual responsible for the team. The
designation of the team “sponsor” is left to
the Club Tournament Committee and all
such designations should be made before
the start of the event. In the event of a
dispute of the committee’s decision, any
aggrieved team or player has recourse to
the Protest procedure in the Association’s
By-law 12.
| |
I’m very excited to see how the new rule will work out. I’ve been playing professionally now for two years and with the current economy the job market is much tighter in polo. I understand a similar rule was very successful in England. Young American pros should really benefit from this kind of regulation. —Trevor Allen, 2 goals |
A team sponsored by a Registered Player
Member (i.e. U. S. citizen) must have at
least one additional Registered Player
Member.
A team sponsored by an Affiliate
Member must have at least one Registered
Player Member.
It is the Team’s burden to convince the
Club Committee and, in the event of a
protest, the USPA Hearing Committee,
that the individual designated as a
“sponsor” is responsible for the team and
meets the commonly accepted definition of
“sponsor.”
In terms of the American rule, I have some mixed feelings about it. I do believe that it is important to help American players; however, I am not convinced that
this rule is the mechanism to do so. I am not sure that it
truly accomplishes what it is set out to do. In addition, I
believe that is contra to a fundamental element in polo,
the handicap system. This very basic element in polo is
how I, as a 0-goal female player, have the opportunity
and privilege to play with and against a 10-goal male
player. This is what sets polo apart from other sports.
And, if I am “sponsoring” a polo team, I should be able
to select my team members. Maybe the best combination
of players does not include an American or maybe the
whole team is American; however, the choice should be
the team captain’s not a governing body’s. I think a
variation of the rule could be that teams without American players could be
charged a “fee” or a “charitable contribution” towards the “American National
Team” or the “Team USA” agenda. This would provide an incentive to hire
American but not take away other options. It would also provide a resource for
American players.
Last summer when Sam Morton interviewed me and other players for the
International Polo Club magazine he asked, “What would you do if you were
chairman of the USPA?” I, as well as the majority of those interviewed, answered
help American players and especially young American players. So clearly, this is
on the minds of many USPA members, whether they are a professional or a team
sponsor. Thus, we have a common goal or a mission for the USPA; although, the
implementation of this mission is a different story.
After realizing that something needs to be done to give young Americans the
opportunities to advance and develop, I began to ask people their ideas and how
things were in the past. I found a common thread from all those who responded;
intra-circuit tournaments. Somewhere, somehow over the years we have lost
something—the cross fertilization of clubs playing against each other across the
country or regionally. For example, in England, there are many more teams
competing in low and medium goal, and therefore there are more opportunities to
develop players.
In addition, in England, Pony Club is a wonderful resource to
recruit and attract new players.
I am committed to finding ways to help American players and I believe that we
can learn a lot from what we did in the past. I think intra-circuit tournaments
should be encouraged. Organizations should look to have up-and-coming
Americans included in them. And, I feel strongly that the international venue is a
crucial aspect to the advancement of the American polo player.
—Melissa Ganzi, A rated |
|
In the event of multiple sponsors, one
shall be designated as the “primary
sponsor” and there shall be at least one Registered Player Member in addition to
this individual.
Should a team be supported by a nonplaying
“sponsor” one player shall be
designated as the “sponsor” and there
must be at least one additional Registered
Player Member.
This rule change has acquired the
moniker “The American Rule” indicating
that it is an attempt to provide playing
opportunities for “American” players—or
more exactly, to provide playing
opportunities on teams in USPA events for
those players defined as U.S. citizens.
According to USPA By-Laws, Registered
Player Members are members who are U.S.
citizens and Affiliates Player Members can
be from any country, other than the United
States. Proofs of U.S. citizenship have been
defined as a: USA Passport, Certificate of
Citizenship or USA Birth Certificate.
After several years of review and some
debate, the USPA Board of Governors
decided there was a precipitous decline in
the number of higher-goal players that
claimed the United States as their home.
More and more of the higher-goal players
competing in the United States were
foreign born and raised, and most of those
imported players were from Argentina—a
country where polo players are born, raised
and developed through a multitude of opportunities to play from a young age
through adulthood. These opportunities to
practice and compete at all levels of polo
have given the Argentine player a virtual
monopoly on high-goal polo participation,
particularly by high-goal Argentine
professional players.
Meanwhile, back in the United States,
opportunities for young players to develop
into high-goal players has diminished for a
several reasons. One, there are fewer places
where young players can learn to ride, play
and then compete from low- to high-goal
polo. Second, keeping a string of polo
ponies and all the related logistical
overhead in the United States is getting to
the point where only a few, fortunate
people can ever hope to compete, let alone
advance up the handicap scale by securing
more and better horses. As horse prices for
high-goal horses rise into six figure
numbers, how can an aspiring young polo
player ever hope to compete? Third, as
more and more foreign players take
positions on the higher-goal teams, there
has become a virtual monopoly of foreign players, team managers, barn managers,
horse trainers and grooms that occupy
team positions from the high-goal down to
the lower-goal levels, thereby making it
extremely tough for U.S. players to find
their way on a team or into a job in polo.
Another factor in all the discussion
about creating opportunities for Registered
Players, particularly for developing highgoal
talent in the United States, is that of
professionalism. It seems that over the past
20 or so years, players who advance in
handicap generally expect to, and have
been able to, be paid to play. This era of
professionalism is worldwide and all polo
these days seems to revolve around
professional players who are controlling
who plays when and where in just about
every level of polo in just about every
country in the world.
| |
The American rule, as written, will not help American players or American polo. At the 20- or 22-goal level it will greatly reduce the number of teams, especially in the summer. With high goal polo on both the East and West coast and maybe an American high goal player in England and two American high goalers on the same team, there simply aren’t enough to go around as most sponsors are zero or 1 goal. That said, everyone recognizes that we often have a problem getting Americans on teams where the controlling professional is Argentine. They understandably want to bring up their friend or cousin from Argentina who is very eager to get a job playing in the U.S. The American rule is designed to solve this problem, but will have the unintended consequence of reducing competition, raising costs of a sport that is already too expensive and putting out of work the numerous South African, Canadian, Mexican, English, Australian and New Zealand 4- to 6-goal players who are critical in putting together much of our 12- to 20-goal polo. Less teams mean less opportunities for U.S. players. It is easy to identify the flaws in a rule but not so easy to come up with a better way to solve the problem it addresses. One solution is to permit three foreign players on a team but mandate a substantially higher entry fee to be paid to the USPA for a fund to support opportunities for American players. Another solution might be to limit the maximum number of Argentines on a team to two as they seem to be creating the issue that has caused the rule. Part of this problem also has been caused by the compression of handicaps at the 0- to 2-goal level. Where American amateurs used to put together teams to play in low-goal circuit tournaments, now at least one pro is required for even the lowest goal events. The result is virtually every player is a patron or professional. The requirement of professionals for even the lowest-goal tournaments has exacerbated the lack of opportunity for American amateurs. This rule is designed to solve a very real problem. However, in its present form it is a “bag of worms.” It needs to be revisited and improved rather than its present knee-jerk response. —Steven Orthwein, 4 goals |
The USPA Board of Governors is quick
to point out that the 2010 changes to Rule
1. TEAMS is intended to create playing
opportunities for young, developing
Registered Players—those hailing from the
U.S—and the change to the rule is not
intended to create jobs for professional
players; however, in an important way these
rule changes are just that—a way to create
jobs on polo teams at all levels for
Registered “professional” Players.
The rule change is not, as some critics
have opined, all about creating (some say
forcing or mandating by rule) high-goal
opportunities for U.S. professionals. The
change to the rule is more fundamental
than that because the changes affect polo
competition from the 22-goal level and
below—the type of polo that is the training
and proving grounds for developing and
aspiring polo players of all ages and
nationalities. As a matter of fact, it was
determined by the USPA Board of
Governors that there were not enough U.S.
citizen, higher-goal players (6-goal
handicap and above) to fill out the team
citizenship requirements for team rosters in 26-goal competition for 2010. Many
point to just that fact as appalling and one
of the main reason these changes were put
into effect. There are so few Registered
Players competing in 26-goal events in the
United States or anywhere else in the world.
It was hoped that over the next few years
the rule change would create opportunities
to develop higher-goal Registered Players
that would eventually be able to compete at
all levels of the sport, particularly at the 26-
goal level and beyond into competitive,
national teams in international polo events
such as the Cup of the Americas, the
Westchester Cup and the Camacho Cup.
As noted above, some opponents
complain that the changes are nothing
more than restrictions based on nationality
and that these types of restrictions will do
little to make any real difference in
increasing the number of higher-goal
Registered Players. Critics of the impending
rule change cite other factors for the
decline of higher-goal Registered players,
mainly that Argentina and other countries
have maintained an equine culture that
naturally spawns many new players and
horse-care people. In addition, say the
critics, many young people born and raised
in the United States have little affinity to
the equine lifestyle with few opportunities
to grow up on or to live near a horse farm
or ranch.
I understand the USPA’s side, but what makes
Canadians different is Canada is the only other
country that relies on the USPA for its rules and
handicap system. We don’t have our own set of rules
and handicaps. We’ve had Canadians that were, and
still are, members of the board of governors and
other USPA officials. Canadian clubs require
members to be USPA members. I became a member
in 1993 but didn’t play, didn’t step foot in the U.S.
until ‘95. There is no reason Canadians should be excluded.
I understand the Olympic rules, but it is pretty simple. When it comes to a
national team, show a passport. I shouldn’t have to [show a passport] to
play in a 16- or 20-goal at International Polo Club or anywhere. For me
personally, I’ve paid taxes in the U.S., married an American, own a home in
the U.S., all my ties are in the U.S. but only hold a canadian passport.
There are only four Canadian players that play professionally in the U.S.:
Steve Dalton, Todd Offen, myself, and now Rob Stenzel. [Aside from
Stenzel] we have played the last 10 to 20 years in the U.S. It’s not like there
is a flood of us playing here. I’m in my 13th year playing in the U.S.
The rule itself, I think it will help. I don’t think it is a bad rule. I can see it
helping, definitely. Like all new USPA rules, someone can always find a
back door to it, but it is a start. [A similar] rule was in effect in ‘95, and that
is what helped me get a job. Got my start because of that rule. Canadians
were considered Americans and White Birch needed an American player. I
don’t know if it will encourage young players but will offer more
opportunities. Americans can be the laziest things there are, especially in the
last five years. If they don’t get a high-goal playing job they don’t want to
muck out. It will create more opportunities. It is opening doors, but you have
to find the right kids to go through those doors. In their defense, you have to
come mounted, have eight good horses and it is impossible to get going
unless they can get help.
—Brandon Phillips, 5 goals |
|
Few want to work seven days a week at a
risky and tenuous business that offers but a
few the chances to advance up the handicap
scale with hopes of secured employment, let
alone making a decent living. As always in
this sport, it is nearly impossible (though
there are some exceptions) for any player to
become a higher-handicapped player in the
United States without some kind of family
support network, funding assistance and an
understanding of the pursuit of a highergoal
handicap, either as an amateur or a
professional.
Player or team restrictions in USPA
sanctioned polo are not new. The 1993
USPA Blue Book stated for the first time in
bold, black font indicating a change to the
USPA Rules, under Rule 2. PLAYERS:
2.f. No foreign player who is sponsored
and under 6 goals will be allowed to play in
a tournament with an upper limit of 20
goals or above. Foreign players are
individuals who are not U.S. Citizens.
Canadian citizens handicapped by the
USPA will be considered U.S. Citizens for
the purpose of this rule. Questions
regarding whether a player is sponsored or
not for purposes of this rule will be decided
by the USPA Chairman or his deputy. On
occasion invited foreign teams may be
exempted from this rule by the USPA
Chairman. Exception to this rule for
individuals may be granted upon written
request to the USPA Chairman and
Chairman of the National Handicap
Committee, who in their joint discretion,
may grant such exception.
Criteria to be considered for individual
exception included length of USPA
membership; length of residency in the
U.S.; extent and amount of play in United
States polo.
One of the main reasons for the 1993
change to USPA Rule 2. PLAYERS (later to
be known as the “Player Exemption Rule”)
was to help keep better track of foreign
players who were largely unknown to the
USPA Handicap Committee. Unknown
foreign ringers was the primary issue as
many high-goal teams would “hide” a
player either by registering foreign players
close to the beginning of a tournament,
thereby giving little chance for the official
USPA handicappers to evaluate and assign
a valid handicap; or, by “hiding” the
abilities of an unknown player in lower-goal
levels of competition in the United States.
This so called “hidden ringer” would be
registered and perhaps asked to play at a reduced, somewhat diminished level, until
his handicap was secured from the USPA.
In some cases, these “sleeper” players
suddenly became better players (“ringers”)
when placed on high-goal teams. These
type of under-handicapped players spurred
the USPA to “do something” about this
ringer or unknown player phenomena, and
came up with the change to Rule 2.
| |
I am for the American Rule, but it should be for all levels,
including 26-goal. Here is why: First, in general, there are no new
up-and-coming American polo players, except maybe a handful.
Soon there won’t be a single American player on any team in the
U.S., especially in high goal.
Outside of the U.S. there are zero American professionals playing
at any level. There are many american players right now that do no get enough
opportunity to play. Second, the very few young players seem to have difficulty
getting on the field and playing tournaments, especially 14-goals or above.
Why? [They are] not good enough, not sharp enough? The only way to really
improve is to play tournaments. The higher the handicap the better.
For an american player, or one with a promising future,
to get better and be competitive (compared to an Argentine of the same
handicap), he must play high goal or at the highest level possible.
In Argentina, up-and-coming players get exposure playing tons of high-goal
tournaments and/or they get opportunities to play with a high-goal player who
will teach him and help improve his game. Also, there are a lot more
opportunities to play medium goal and up.
For the American player, the only chance to play 26 goal is at International
Polo Club two months out of the year. The rest will be 20 goal. Again, when a
player has played a higher level of polo at any handicap and pretty much all
year round and/or with high goal players (teaching them), they will have the
experience needed to outshine and perform better than a player without the
exposure or experience, like the American player.
In a few years it will create more top American players than we can imagine.
There are many American players that with a little opportunity, exposure and
sponsorship will go up in handicap rather quickly and shine at any level.
—Luis Escobar, 7 goals |
One of the unintended consequences of
the 1993 change to Rule 2 (some say not so
unintended) was the fact that many U.S.
born and raised players were provided
additional opportunities to play in highergoal
events. Many medium and high-goal
U.S. players have stated emphatically that
this Exemption Rule allowed them many
years of opportunity to play better polo and
without playing better, high-goal polo, they
would not have been able to advance into
the higher-handicap levels.
Opposition gradually grew to the socalled
“player exemption” rule, based
mainly on apparent inconsistencies in the
application of the rule (i.e. that perhaps too many exemptions were granted without
comprehensive, consistent guidelines as to
who was to be exempted and why) as well as
questionable legal arguments that the
USPA could not make a rule prohibiting
teams from selecting players, as long as
those players were USPA members in good
standing. The exemption opponents view
influenced the USPA Board of Governors
enough so that in 2002, there was another
change to Rule 2. PLAYERS, replacing the
1993 2.f. language stated above with the
following: 2.f. No players handicapped with
a “T” handicap at 6 goals or less will be
allowed to play in a tournament with an
upper limit of 16 goals or above.
It was thought by some, that by applying
a “T” (denoting “temporary”) to handicaps
of unknown or foreign players who had not
been adequately reviewed by USPA officials
for handicapping purposes would help
address the unknown, potential ringer
problem of under-handicapped players.
Most say the assigning of a “T” handicap
to unknown players did little to solve the
ringer problem mainly because it is
difficult to adequately observe new players
for valid handicap evaluation, a problem
that may have been more appropriately
addressed by a twice a year handicapping process currently in use. Many, particularly
professional players who may have
benefited from the player restriction rule,
have declared that the 2002 change to Rule
2 ceased providing ample opportunities for
players from the United States to
participate in high-goal events.
Before the 2010 rule changes were
approved by the USPA Board of Governors, a legal opinion was obtained concerning
the “legality” of team or player restrictions.
Craig Galle, an attorney from Wellington,
Florida summed up the findings of the
legal research in a letter to the USPA. It
reads, in part:
Americans need to take advantage of this opportunity. Take it seriously and use it as a stepping-stone. In this day and age, [the rule] may be necessary. It may help some of these guys get jobs. I think it will help. Young American players should watch American players that have been successful and see how they’ve done it. They will have to step up to the plate. —Joey Casey, 5 goals |
|
“... a challenge to the proposed Rule
change would be unsuccessful for the
reasons set forth below.
First, as a private, voluntary association,
the USPA is free to set its own internal
rules and guidelines. ... If a member is
unhappy with the USPA’s Rules or By-laws,
they may resign. Similarly, if a prospective
member does not agree with the language
of the USPA’s Rules or By-laws, it is their
choice whether they wish to join or not.
| |
I feel that this is long overdue. We need to support our own young players as they try to improve in this sport. Unfortunately, there never seems to be a lack of Argentine cousins, etc. that will be hired by their friends and family. They seem to be more reluctant to hire the American players than the Americans feel about hiring the Argentines. I can’t see a downside for the American players. Why limit the rule to 22-goal and under? Why should we exclude the U.S. Open from this rule? There will not be any good American players in a few years if the USPA doesn’t do something. It’s about time we show some patriotism, we are the only country that doesn’t support our own. —John Gobin, 5 goals |
Second, assuming that a member or
prospective member were to argue that the
proposed USPA Rule change is
“unconstitutional” because it
discriminates based upon race, nationality
or origin, such an argument would likely be
unsuccessful. Private associations and
clubs are free to discriminate based upon race, nationality or origin provided that
there is no “state action.” In general
terms, state action is only implicated
where a company, club or association
receives governmental funding. ...
In sum, the proposed USPA Rule
change is legally supportable.”
Even though the USPA Board of
Governors overwhelming approved the
2010 change to Rule 1, the change is not
without its opponents. Several Canadian
professionals have requested that the rule
change exclude Canadian Affiliate Player
Members, arguing that by virtue of being
former USPA Registered Players, the
Canadian players should be
“grandfathered” in and be considered the
same as a U.S. Citizen for purposes of this
rule. Others have felt that the use of the
term “sponsor” in the rule is the first time
in history that the USPA rules makes a
distinction between a “sponsor” as
opposed to all members being labeled
“players” and that denoting team
sponsorship also implies to some, that by
default, this rule was intended to promote
job creation rather than polo playing opportunities for registered players.
In addition, the USPA Board of
Governors did consider a potential
downside to the rule changes,
noting that some teams and clubs
would prefer to not play in USPA
sanctioned events to “get around”
the changes to Rule 1 in 2010.
Many teams at many clubs at
many handicap levels have begun to
prepare for polo competition in
2010. Most understand the USPA
intends to stand by its convictions
that in the long term, these rule
changes will help create playing
opportunities for aspiring
Registered Players.
Team sponsors, team managers
and club managers have been
asking the USPA for lists of
Registered and Affiliate Player
Members. In addition, Affiliate
Players have been asked to confirm
if they are properly classified as
Affiliates or to provide proof of a
claim of being a Register Player. If
there are any questions about this
rule, contact the USPA for more
detailed information.
I read in POLO Players’ Edition of the decision by the USPA
that one of the players in USPA-sanctioned tournaments must
be American. I am amazed that in the United States, a country
renowned for open competition, that a policy which has been
proven a failure for 40 years by the British would be adopted. It
is admirable that the Association is trying to provide jobs and
training for native Americans but this is a proven incorrect
policy. An active ladder of progressively higher rated
tournaments on a broad basis is the only method of giving native
Americans the experience required to move up to the highest
levels. They then can go to Argentina or Europe to complete their
experience and hone their skills.
My personal experience with this rule in the UK is totally
negative. In 1993 we had on our team young Oliver Hipwood. In
the second game of the season he was knocked down by a player
who had never played polo above a low-level (8-goal). Oliver was
injured and out of the tournament as was the unsafe low goal
player who caused the accident. As Oliver was our designated UK
player I was under great pressure to replace him with another UK
player. There was not one qualified who had played at the 22 goal
[level] of the Queens Cup and who had a 3-goal rating handicap.
I refused to put a player on the team who was not safe because
they had not worked up to a 22-handicap level polo. I told the
HPA Secretary that if an injury occurred to one of my players as
a result of being forced to use an unsafe player, the liability would
be on the HPA and wrote a letter accordingly. The rule was
waived in that case and we got another non-UK experienced 22-
goal level player. At a meting of the patrons, (there were 11 teams
but only one sponsored by a UK resident), all of the sponsors
(including the UK sponsor) of the high goal teams agreed that we
should not be forced to utilize unsafe players. What will be the
USPA answer to this problem?
The USPA has, in effect, been trying to disenfranchise
Canadian and Mexican clubs, which have been part of the USPA
for a long time. In as much as our members in these two
countries are USPA members, are they considered American for
purposes of this rule? In 1993 with the attempts to stop ringers,
Canadians were considered American for purposes of this rule.
It is also notable that the USPA schedules tournaments and
some of its higher-goal clubs schedule tournaments, which
preclude good players from going to play in Argentina in
September to January. This is a key area for up-and-coming
young players to increase their skills and raise their ratings. The
case in point is the club in Santa Barbara where the Pacific Coast
Open tournament runs into September. It is notable that the
highest-rated Americans generally played in the Argentine
[season] to achieve their highest ratings. Tommy Wayman, Joe
Barry and both Gracidas are cases in point.
The USPA needs to emphasize across the country the
intermediate polo that leads to high-goal and also provide the
opportunity for American pros who must make a living during
the summer months the ability to go to Argentina to perfect their
play. The concentration of all high-goal polo in one site, Florida,
means that the ability of many pros who can’t travel is limited.
The USPA should consider moving the highest levels of polo
around the country to attract the attention and interest of
patrons and pros and promote the prestige and importance of
14-, 16-, 18- and 20-goal polo.
—Fred Mannix
Calgary, Alberta, Canada |
