Scatter-gun or clustering – where is the logical location for Australian rugby’s fifth Super franchise?
By Bruce Ross, 9 Mar 2009 Bruce Ross is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Australian rugby, Australian Rugby Union, Force, Gold Coast, John ONeill, New Zealand, rugby, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby, Tahs, Waratahs, Western Force
In considering locations for a fifth Australian Super franchise, the Australian Rugby Union appears to be neglecting the option of basing it in the heartland of Australian rugby – the inner city suburbs of Sydney. Both the ARL and AFL have the majority of their clubs located in the city in which their game developed.
Given that this week’s SANZAR board meeting was held in Dubai one should not expect too much respect to be paid to location theory in determining the next site for expanding the Super 14 competition.
Australian Rugby Union supremo John O’Neill has justifiably argued strongly for the fifteenth franchise to be granted to Australia, but where should such a team be based? Perhaps an examination of the location of professional teams in other football codes in Australia might be illuminating.
The National Rugby League has sixteen Premiership clubs. Nine of these (56%) are located in Sydney; four (25%) in other traditional rugby league areas; and three (19%) in what might be classed as expansion areas, namely Melbourne, New Zealand and the Gold Coast.
The Australian Football League also has sixteen Premiership clubs. Nine of these (56%) are located in Melbourne; five (31%) in other traditional Australian Rules areas; and two (13%) in expansion areas, namely Sydney and Brisbane.
It can be seen that in both of the major codes with which rugby competes the majority of teams are located in the city in which their game developed. By contrast Australian rugby has just four professional teams; one in Sydney where the game has its Australian roots (25%); one in Brisbane, a traditional rugby area(25%); and two in expansion areas, namely Canberra and Perth(50%).
John O’Neill has been quoted as saying that in choosing a location for the additional team “the Gold Coast, Melbourne and West Sydney boasted the necessary prerequisites, while also mentioning Gosford and Newcastle.”
Let’s look at the logic of these five sites.
Starting with Gosford, its main attraction would appear to be that it has an underutilised stadium, apparently constructed by John Singleton in “Field of Dreams” mode. Well he built it but they didn’t come. The area lacks critical population mass, is devoid of major corporations to provide sponsorship support, and lacks an underlying club competition of anything remotely like an appropriate standard.
Newcastle would also seem to be deficient in terms of population, business support and strength of its club competition. In fact, a Newcastle team competed in the Sydney Club Premiership competition for a few seasons in the late 1990s but folded due to lack of support from the Newcastle public.
Placing a team in Melbourne would create many of the same problems faced by the Western Force, namely being in a city where the overwhelming majority of the population have no interest in rugby and don’t really know the difference between rugby and rugby league, and not having an underpinning club competition of anywhere near acceptable standard.
Giving a franchise to the Gold Coast, an area that supports just one team in the Brisbane Premiership club competition, means that the South-East Queensland conurbation, essentially Greater Brisbane, would have two Super 15 clubs while Sydney would have only one. Giving their relative populations, strength of their club football competitions and business clout, this does not make sense.
So that just leaves West Sydney – or does it? John O’Neill has, if I recall correctly, mentioned both Blacktown and Parramatta as possible locations, but where is rugby’s heartland in Sydney? It has always been in the inner city suburbs, basically clustered around the harbour.
Of the last fifty Sydney First Grade Premierships, twenty-three have been won by Randwick and ten by Sydney University. If we then add in those won by other harbour-side clubs―Norths, Gordon, Manly and Easts―45 of the last 50 Premierships or 90% have been won by rugby-heartland clubs. Only five or 10% have been won by clubs which could be regarded as part of West Sydney―three by Eastwood and two by Parramatta.
In addition, the great bulk of the wealthy private schools which have been the major nursery for Australian rugby players are located in the heartland suburbs.
Club rugby has always struggled in West Sydney, and even the club which has enjoyed success in recent years, Eastwood, is facing a financial crisis partly due to a rapidly changing demographic unfavourable to rugby.
If we had a central Sydney team in addition to the NSW Waratahs where would it play? The obvious answer is the Sydney Football Stadium. Very few professional football teams own their own grounds; it makes much better economic sense to hire an existing facility.
Would there be sufficient support to sustain two teams in the one city? Apart from the obvious examples from the ARL and the AFL, English cities such as Liverpool and Manchester, both much smaller than Sydney, have dual soccer clubs as well as numerous other clubs clustered nearby. The proximity of rivals seems to promote fierce tribalism and increased interest in the sport.
In discussing a new Australian franchise John O’Neill spoke about the possibility of a “hybrid team including Pacific Islanders, Australia expats and league converts.” Ignoring the wisdom or otherwise of sourcing players in this way, why might there be a deficiency of professional standard rugby players in Australia? Precisely because there are so few opportunities for rugby players to ply their trade in their own country.
As mentioned above, there are sixteen fully professional clubs in both the NRL and the AFL. By contrast, there are only four Australian Super 14 clubs. In broad terms this means that there are four times as many opportunities for rugby league and Australian football players to play professionally here as there are in rugby.
Given time, the additional demand for players created by a fifth franchise will produce the necessary supply. That process will take much longer than it should because, with a few notable exceptions, player development has been grossly neglected by the administrators of rugby in Australia.
Recommend this story.
Jim Beam Devil's Cut
As bourbon ages, a portion of liquid is lost from the barrel due to evaporation. This is known as the Angel's Share. When the bourbon is taken from the barrel, a certain amount is left trapped within the wood. It's that extracted liquid, and the rich flavours from deep within the barrel that are in Jim Beam's Devil's Cut.
Click here to learn more about Jim Beam's wicked new bourbon.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Reds back in contention, but Waratahs need a cleanout (287)
- What Hansen’s first squad means for the Wallabies (191)
- ‘Campo’ too generous: Lord’s dream XV contains just two current Wallabies (161)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- Who should partner Horwill in the second row? (111)
- ARU boss O’Neill defends Aussie conference (25)
- Reds diplomatic over Hooper reprieve (6)
- Horwill backs Cooper for Wallabies (3)
- CAMPO: Waratahs bore again, as South Africans thrive (64)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (139)
- When should a game plan change and who makes the call? (4)
- Six lessons Robbie Deans must learn (Part 1) (23)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (139)
- When should a game plan change and who makes the call? (4)
- Six lessons Robbie Deans must learn (Part 1) (23)
- Great clubs don’t decline so Munster will be back (2)
- Can the Brumbies win Super Rugby? (24)
- Reviewing the Super Rugby action from round 13 (6)
- Why Cooper must be left out of Wallabies (109)
- Explore:
- Australian rugby, Australian Rugby Union, Force, Gold Coast, John ONeill, New Zealand, rugby, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby, Tahs, Waratahs, Western Force

March 9th 2009 @ 7:38am
RickG said | March 9th 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
You make a good argument Bruce, but I can’t see any way that the ARU would place another team in central sydney, in direct competition with the waratahs. Who would support the new team? Most of the fans from the heartland you mention are waratahs fans – even if they were lured away the ARU wouldn’t allow it as that would white-ant the tahs, ie destabilise the biggest province in Aust. West syd is all about expansion and tapping into the huge population. If they go that way it would take a while to build up, but I think it would pay off in the long run.
Personally, I have a feeling they’ll go with Melbourne or the OS-based team before west sydney.
March 9th 2009 @ 7:56am
Lindommer said | March 9th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Let’s make rugby an even more boutique sport than it is. For a start, how about the new Sydney Super side not recruit ANY player who didn’t attend one of the “wealthy private schools”…”located in the heartland suburbs”. Let’s ignore the great number of young blokes out west who’d love to play rugby at such well-resourced clubs as Randwick, Eastern Suburbs or Sydney University. In fact, to give these young blokes a taste of what it’s like to enjoy rugby in the “heartland suburbs”, let’s start a new premier club somewhere between Randwick and Woollahra and give one of those clubs with a “rapidly changing demographic unfavourable to rugby” the boot.
This sort of “I’m OK, bugger the rest of you” attitude is exactly what’s stopping rugby from developing into a major sport in this country. If the junior rugby competitions Penrith conduct didn’t die through lack of support and funds when blokes reach their mid teens to be picked up by league, the Emus would wipe the floor with Randwick and Uni.
If the proposal the author suggests is adopted rugby will disappear up its own fundament.
March 9th 2009 @ 7:58am
True Tah said | March 9th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Bruce
you’re article is well written, but I have to agree with RickG.
I think Melbourne is the logical choice for the next team, you say that many Melbournites would not give rugby a go, I reckon they would get out and support their side, and get at least as much support as the Storm do, and there are plenty of Saffas, Kiwis, Poms and Islanders who may get on board as well down there. The Victorian State Govt is prepared to chip in half a million to base the side at the new stadium, which is going to be impressive.
March 9th 2009 @ 8:10am
anopinion said | March 9th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Bruce,
Spot on. Creating a two team city increases animosity between factions leading to rivalry and crowd numbers. That local derby would pull great numbers after a few years and a few unsavoury incidents between the two. RickG, you ask who would support the team? Everyone living in Sydney who hates the Waratahs. Those Kiwis, Saffas and Queenslanders who go along to games just to cheer on the opposition. That however gets tedious, cheering a new side each week. Having your own side makes you go week in week out. The Waratahs may be forced to work harder to get the allegiance of the private school boys and that can only be good for rugby. Perhaps the team could be called the “Sydney Clubs”. Having a club like the cavemen used as its logo, but in fact being a very clever play on words as a team that is representative of the local rugby clubs and their players. The Waratahs can fill their side with as many hopeless league recruits as they like. My team would be rugby to the bone. Go the clubbies.
March 9th 2009 @ 8:12am
RickG said | March 9th 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Lindommer, now I’ve had my morning coffee and had a better think about it I reckon you’ve summed it up far better than i did!
Bruce, if you’re serious then the game really will disappear up its own proverbial. Playing to your strenghths is fine but if in modern-day, professional sport you’re not moving forward then you’re going backwards.
As a Woodies supporter I think it’s worth pointing out that the club does an enourmous amount to develop the game in the greater north-west, not just the immediate area. You seem to suggest off-handedly that it’ll go down due to changing demographics and, perhaps, in your opinion should be allowed to: they’ve only won 3 of the last 50 premierships after all!
March 9th 2009 @ 8:15am
Bruce Ross said | March 9th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Thanks for the comments. With respect to the fans from the heartland already being Waratahs fans you could equally argue that rugby fans in West Sydney are already Waratahs fans; so basing the franchise there would also destabilise the existing franchise.
My main worry is the eternal pursuit of geographical expansion, indulged in not just by Rugby administrators but also those from Rugby League and the AFL. On the surface the Melbourne Storm is a very successful franchise, but is this because they are based in Melbourne? Or is it because they have astute management and a brilliant coach. The people of Melbourne take very little interest in the team and the local media refuse to promote the team.
The AFL has spent a fortune on establishing teams in Sydney and Brisbane, admittedly using much better logic than the League people. They were thinning out the over-clustering of clubs in Melbourne by inducing some of them to relocate rather than building a franchise from scratch. And consider the massive amounts of money that the AFL are pouring into having their code played in schools in NSW and Queensland. The return on that investment seems poor indeed if measured in terms of players emerging who are good enough for the national draft.
The real reason for Rugby administrators wanting to expand is the pursuit of television income. Read John O’Neill’s pronouncements on Super expansion or on playing Tests around the world. It’s all about increasing the flow of dollars. It’s about time we got away from thinking about Rugby as a business and got back to focussing on it as a sport.
March 9th 2009 @ 8:15am
Clarky said | March 9th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
It is worth noting the following from the annals of the ARU website:
Super Rugby commenced in 1996, with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa forming SANZAR (South African, New Zealand and Australian Rugby) to administer an annual PROVINCIAL 12 team competition ….
Super 14 is primarily a provincial competition. Both NZ and SA have national competitions and the game is supported and played at a high-level in all parts of each country. Australia is not so blessed with the key player depth in NSW and QLD.
ACT may have been seen as an expansion team, however, they are a true rugby nursery and have a strong list of players who have gone on to represent the Wallabies.
The Melbourne Rebels (ARC) took a similar approach to the Brumbies in that they seemed to target fringe players and those not wanted by other teams, and were highly successful.
There is no other solution to a fifth team than to play out of Melbourne. Sure, the club competition may be lacking, and the Mexicans might not fully understand the difference between League and Union, but there is strong corporate support, a huge number of ex-pat supporters and most importantly a superb ground in Docklands (with a roof) that would allow for spectacular rugby games.
Melbournians support all sports, and I cannot see any other location performing to a level like a Melbourne team.
How do we support growth areas like West Sydney? Simple. The ACT Brumbies catchment area is now ACT and Southern NSW. Why not align West Sydney with a Melbourne franchise, and allow the new team to help develop players both in Melbourne and Western Sydney? There are plenty of posts on this site suggesting the Waratahs are the East Sydney Waratahs, so why not go down that road through affiliation of premier clubs and juniors?
March 9th 2009 @ 8:21am
True Tah said | March 9th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Clarky
the Tahs have already lost southern NSW to the Brumbies, what next, Qld will take control of northern NSW Country, now you’re talking about giving Western Sydney to Melbourne? Talk about restricting the Tahs options. If the Tahs made more of an effort to develop the game in the Western suburbs of Sydney, then they would have much wider appeal, maybe play a game at Parramatta or Penrith, they’re playing the Saders at ANZ, although the way the Crusaders are going now, they may not draw a big crowd, but I was hoping for around the 35K to 40K mark, maybe this is being a bit optimistic?
I reckon the Victorian Rebels would be a good moniker for the side, a white jersey with a navy V (based on the old Victorian SOO jersey).
March 9th 2009 @ 8:39am
Rickety Knees said | March 9th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Good idea Clarky – perhaps your suggestion could be taken one step further with Western Sydney being the designated feeder zone for Melbourne with Melbourne agressively promoting Rugby in the area. Melbourne could play one of its home games at Parramatta Stadium.
March 9th 2009 @ 8:46am
Midfielder said | March 9th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
WS team or a combined Newcastle / CC team… perhaps even combine all 3……You have strong player numbers and an already existing base of support.
Melbourne IMO is the wrong move…. the Swans still do not rate in Sydney and I doubt watching a Sydney team adds rating for the AFL….. Melbourne no media, no one would care … a very dangerous option that could very easily fail.
Sheek go west or north young man.