David Pocock of the Western Force faces his opponent, Gerhard Mostert of the Lions in their Super 14s match at Subiaco Oval, Perth, Australia, Friday April 24, 2009. (AP Photo)
The South African threat to set up their own alternative Super Rugby tournament to replace the Super 14 is a big bluff. There are no provincial teams available in the rest of the rugby world to replace the Australian and New Zealand provinces.
Any tournament put together by South African rugby would not be worth a fraction of what Super Rugby is to South Africa.
The problem with this bluff, though, is that the South Africans might believe their own bullishness on their ‘go it alone’ policy and the best provincial tournament in world rugby, the Super 14, could go under.
On 15 March, the Afrikaans Sunday newspaper ‘Sondag’ reported that a special meeting of the five SA Super 14 franchises, SA Rugby, the SA Rugby Players Association and the broadcaster Supersport (which has signed lucrative rights from 2011 to 2015 for the Currie Cup tournament) had agreed not to accept any Super Rugby proposal that waters down the Currie Cup in any manner.
Also agreed was that South Africa would ‘aggressively’ try to ensure that the East Cape franchise is the 15th Super Rugby team, if the Super 14 is expanded to a Super 15 in 2011.
The response of South African Rugby to the ARU’s and NZRU’s fall-back Pacific Competition involving Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Pacific Islands, Sondag reported, would be a South African sponsored tournament involving teams from South African, Argentina, the USA, Scotland and Ireland.
The newspaper also claimed that 65 per cent of the broadcasting fees for Super Rugby were generated in South Africa and that any withdrawal by South Africa would be ‘catastrophic’ for Australia and New Zealand.
On May 1, the ARU and the NZRU issued a joint statement saying that it wanted the new Super 15 Rugby tournament to continue through June with Tests between the SANZAR nations and European teams to be played mid-week, an approach that is used in European rugby.
The ARU and the NZRU stated that they opposed the South African preference to start the new, enlarged Super 15 in mid-February. The two unions wanted a March kick-off.
They rejected a SA Rugby proposal to put the two preferred versions of the Super 15 before the broadcasters to decide.
They reaffirmed that ‘talks would continue’ on their alternative plan if Australia and New Zealand separated from South Africa. This alternative might be described as the Asia-Pacific solution.
It was emphasised that the Tri-Nations, with the possible inclusion of Argentina, would not be affected by the impasse.
The CEO of the NZRU Steve Tew acknowledged to journalists that South African rugby, at this time, won’t budge. That replacing South Africa’s economic advantage was ‘massive’, but replacing those dollars was ‘possibly not as scary as initially thought.’
The CEO of the ARU John O’Neill confirmed that the Pacific-Asia solution was a ‘functional option’ that broadcasters ‘find quite attractive.’
It is clear from all of this that the NZRU and ARU are confronting South Africa Rugby’s bluff . And they are undoubtedly correct to do this.
Why do I call the proposals put forward by South Africa Rugby a bluff? Let me count the ways.
First, the money issue is furphy. The South African portion of the broadcasting payments from Super Rugby are already significantly higher than the payments made to Australia or New Zealand. This is right because the market is bigger in South Africa.
But, with no Australian and New Zealand teams there is no world class tournament to generate the television interest and sponsorship interest in Super Rugby that fills the coffers of South African rugby.
If you generate a 65 per cent profit of nothing, you actually generate no profit. This simple arithmetical equation must surely be obvious even to the South African rugby administrators.
Similarly, the drive to have the East Cape franchise as the sixth South African Super Rugby side is ludicrous. This franchise is essentially a black and coloured franchise. The team is extremely weak. It is being promoted on PC ‘rainbow nation’ grounds. It has been given the first match of the tour against the British and Irish Lions which promises to be the only easy match of the tour for the visitors. It will be years, if ever, before this franchise is ready for Super Rugby.
Anyway, the way to get the team into Super Rugby is for it to win its way up through a promotion and relegation system applied to the South African provinces.
There is the additional fact, too, about the claim for a sixth South African side that South Africa hardly warrants having five Super Rugby sides, let alone six. One South African side has won only one Super Rugby tournament. Every year some South African sides clog up the bottom of the table. This season, for instance, three of the five bottom teams are certain to be South African sides.
But the most important ingredient of the bluff is that unlike Australia and New Zealand, there is no alternative set of provinces across several countries to form a tournament that broadcasters would want to pay money for and spectators would want to watch.
Provincial rugby in the USA (with virtually no professional players) and Argentina (which has about 30 part-professional players in Argentina) is so weak that the East Cape team would easily win matches against sides from Argentina and the USA.
What about a tournament with Scottish and Irish teams, then? The time zone is fine, with South Africa being just two hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time. What is not fine is the availability of teams from Scotland and Ireland to play in a South Africa-Celtic (without Wales apparently) tournament.
To understand all of this, we need to look at the structure of the South African rugby year.
At present, the SA rugby year starts in late February going through to late May with the Super 14 tournament.
On 10 July through to 31 October there is the Currie Cup, with 55 matches in all.
There are the June-July Tests against mainly European nations.
This is followed by the July-August-September Tri-Nations
And the season ends with the November – December European tour by the Springboks.
It will be obvious from this that the Currie Cup is already significantly ‘watered down’ with the home Tests schedule.
It is equally obvious that the present Super Rugby slot can’t be filled with a tournament involving South African, Irish and Scottish sides. Why?
Because the major Celtic rugby tournament, the Magners League, which consists of four Irish provinces (Leinster, Munster, Connacht and Ulster): four Welsh regions (Cardiff Blues, Newport Gwent Dragons, Ospreys and Scarlets: and two Scottish sides (Glasgow and Edinburgh) has a season that starts in September and ends at the end of May.
The Magners League season, therefore, starts when the Currie Cup is reaching its finals crescendo and ends around about the same time as the present Super 14 season when the South African replacement of Super Rugby should end.
Another problem is that recently the Magners League announced that it was considering expanding to include two Italian sides.
Where would five South African provincial sides fit into all of this? Or perhaps an even better question: Where are the Scottish and Irish sides that would be prepared to go into a tournament with the South African provinces?
One final point: the Magners League is used by Ireland to confirm their two teams to take part in the lucrative Heineken Cup tournament. Would teams like Leinster (a finalist this year after their splendid win over Ulster over the weekend) give up their chance to compete in the Heineken Cup for what is likely to be an inferior tournament with six South African sides?
The plain fact is that there are no spare provincial sides in Europe that would want to play in a South African tournament in the Super Rugby space.
My guess is that if the ARU and the NZRU present a Super 15 schedule (with Melbourne as the fifth Australian province) that ends before the Currie Cup tournament begins, South Africa Rugby really has no option but to accept that its bluff has been called, and beaten.
This presumes, of course, that the administrators running South African rugby are competent officials.
Some would say, including a number of South African journalists, that this is – unfortunately – an heroic presumption.
Recommend this story.
May 4th 2009 @ 10:17am
Lion Red said | May 4th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Just some food for thought. Since the inception of Super 14 in 2006 to 2008 here are the placings of the bottom 3 teams for each year 2006: Reds, Lions, Force 2007: Lions, Waratahs, Reds 2008: Reds, Cheetahs, Lions. With the last 3 bottom placings going to Australia four times and South Africa five times, wouldn’t an extra team in the Super Rugby franchise from either country just water down Super Rugby.
Spiro points out the obvious weaknesses in having a 6th Super team from SA and is correct in his analysis but I would like to question on how strong would a Melbourne based Super Rugby franchise be? With the way the current Super 14 competition is going and only two more rounds there looks likely to be no Australian team in the top four and playoffs this year. With the introduction of a Melbourne based Super team would this only further spread the current limited playing stocks and erode the playing strengths of the current Australian Super Franchises.
There are suggestions from Mr O’Neil that Pacific Island players and NRL U/20′s Toyota Cup players could fill this void which I find seriously concerning. Wouldn’t it better to introduce a Pacific Island franchise to play in the Australian conference instead of poaching Pacific Island players? And how quickly can you develop Toyota Cup players to be competitive in Super Rugby when recent converts like Timana Tahu struggling to get a starting spot. I guess there is always pillaging NZ playing stocks with the recent signing of Tim Fairbrother is anything to go by. Just some food for thought.
May 4th 2009 @ 10:37am
KF said | May 4th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Hi
Good analysis, (except that Leinster has beaten Munster). One more point why not Super 16 – include both SA and 5th Aus side (possibly from Melbourne) ensuring that Cheetahs, Reds and Lions will move up the ladder. Even Super 20 with additional Japanese/Asian side (HK), at least one Pacific Islander side, played in few conferences and final series.
Kind regards
KF
May 4th 2009 @ 10:40am
LeftArmSpinner said | May 4th 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Call the bluff, and then provide the players with teams to play in a Pacific comp. Base them in Japan and Australia. We dont need the SA politics or attitude. We just need the players and hence the TV audience. that will also savage the Currie cup if they dont have the players.
Look long tem. This behaviour is not going to change. Make the cut now and build a tournament that welcomes players from around the world and which is based in a smaller time zone. Aust, Japan, NZ and Pacific Islands and with some free to air content. Just look at what the women have done with netball.
May 4th 2009 @ 10:47am
pothale said | May 4th 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
LAS – if you’re saying call SA’s bluff, do you mean that Aus/NZ should go ahead and actually form the Trans-Tasmanian Alternative and move ahead without SA?
I would have thought that calling their bluff means the SA are forced to show their cards – which are worthless – and are forced to hand victory to O’Neill – which is what I am arguing will happen and I think Spiro is as well. Therefore S15 goes ahead with another Australian franchise to drain the competition further (the latter is my view).
May 4th 2009 @ 10:59am
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | May 4th 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
LAS – “Call the bluff”. Love it!
However with the exciting and seemingly endless fresh ideas possible from operating in the same time zone, we actually want Sth Africa to dawdle off to Europe or where ever else they like ……….don’t we? Pull the rug I say.
May 4th 2009 @ 11:03am
stillmissit said | May 4th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Blinky Bill – Yes it’s scary stuff but lets build something rather than patch it up with the SA’s.
Will be exciting but I would still miss them in the comp, they bring that big forward battle that I love.
Cummon! SA either get your finger out of the political bowl or take your balls elsewhere.
May 4th 2009 @ 11:18am
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | May 4th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
stillmissit – Got to agree with you about Sth African teams and their confrontational forwards. Great stuff!
You know the great pity in all of this is that we in Australia has been exposed for not getting our own comp up and running. If we had something with a proud heritage, such as the Currie Cup, would be equally inflexible as the Saffas? I expect we would. The choices are so much easier for us aren’t they?
Hey what am I saying? No Sth African worth his salt would want sympathy from an Aussie. Bugger them I say!
May 4th 2009 @ 11:24am
Sam Taulelei said | May 4th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Lion Red
Solid argument and one that I also subscribe to, adding a fifth Australian franchise will dilute Australia’s local resources and all they will achieve is eating their own to maintain or strengthen their existence. The same arguments were made prior to the current expansion and the same solutions for recruiting additional players were also offered namely – expats playing in Europe and Japan, imports from the Pacific Islands and targeting NZ players following the relaxation of eligibility regulations.
None of that came to fruition when the Western Force was launced but still insanity prevails and people expect to get a different result this time round.
With the latest defections from the Force to the Brumbies and Waratahs the future doesn’t look so bright for them or the Reds who suffered the most at the hands of the Force. However there are more people in favour of Melbourne becoming Australia’s 5th Super 14 team – one hopes that all the support for Melbourne that exists now doesn’t dissipate if they’re participation is confirmed and they begin to raid the playing rosters of other Aussie teams.
May 4th 2009 @ 12:06pm
Dimebag said | May 4th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Yep, get rid of them. By the way, can we stop calling them franchises?
May 4th 2009 @ 12:12pm
sheek said | May 4th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Guys,
Having a 5th Aussie province will stretch & dilute our resources, no doubt about it. But we have to accept short-term pain for long-term benefit.
At present, Australian rugby union offers only 4 professional teams compared to – 8 for soccer; 15 for rugby league & 16 for Australian football.
Logic states that unless rugby union addresses this massive imbalance, rugby union might, might I say, be lost to the world.
Now, as much as Kiwis, Saffies & the rest might enjoy putting the boot into Australian rugby from time to time, I’m sure such a scenario (an Aussie-less rugby world) would be unpalatable to you!
Basically, Australian rugby is facing a “populate or perish” crisis.