Where should the new Super Rugby teams come from?
Roar Rookie By Fragglerocker, 27 May 2009 Fragglerocker is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- ARU, Australian Rugby league, NSW Rugby Union, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super 15, Super Rugby, Super Rugby 2011, Tri Nations
So it’s been decided. From 2011 the Super Rugby competition will consist of fifteen teams, with the extra team being placed in the Australian conference.
From either 2013 or 2015, the competition may even expand to a Super 18, with an extra team in each conference.
How the competition is run and how some countries are disadvantaged by having more quality teams in their conference is obviously a subject of some debate.
But not this one.
The questions I’m asking here are where should the extra team come from for the Super 15 (Australian conference) and where should the extra three teams (one in each conference) come from for the Super 18?
Let’s look at the options:
Melbourne
This appears to be the front runner. The financial potential of having a team based in Australia’s second largest city are too big to ignore. However, there is still a question mark. ‘Financial potential’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘financial certainty’.
Player numbers in Victoria have grown slightly in the last ten years, but the AFL still casts a very, very long shadow. However, there are some reports that at least a verbal guarantee was given to Victoria after they were denied entry into the Super 14 behind the Western Force.
Supporters of a Melbourne Super 15 franchise have more to fear from Japan than the other Australian options.
There is also the possibility of fielding a Pacific Islands team based in Melbourne. But that opens up a whole new set of questions as to Wallaby selection, and harm to the Pacific Islands national teams.
Pros – Big cash potential and potential growth of the sport
Cons – Uphill battle against the official state religion of AFL
Chances of Super 15 entry 75%
Chances of Super 18 entry 100%
Gold Coast
How many teams can the Gold Coast support?
Just over ten years ago, the Gold Coast Chargers were launched in the Australian Rugby league. They folded a year later having failed to gain significant local support. Now, in the space of three years, the Gold Coast has gone from having nothing to having an NRL team, an A-League team starting in the 2009-2010 season, and a provisional franchise licence to enter a team in the AFL from 2011.
Are they already near saturation point?
The Gold Coast option is probably the least likely expansion option for the ARU. Not only has the Gold Coast yet to demonstrate that it can support AFL, NRL and A-League competitions at the same time, they are also facing opposition from the QRU who would see the franchise as a direct competitor to the Reds.
Pros – Excellent stadium
Cons – No guarantee of support from the public and no support from the QRU
Chance of Super 15 entry 5%
Chance of Super 18 entry 5%
Western Sydney
The ARU wants to see rugby player numbers and supporter numbers grow in the massive population of Western Sydney, and so does the NSW Rugby Union. This is the main reason why the Waratahs are not as hostile to perceived competition from Western Sydney as the QRU is to the Gold Coast.
A bid for a franchise in the area would also have financial backing of some private sector interests, but the ARU would be wary of relying on this kind of backing after the woes of the firepower affair with the Western Force.
Third party backing was the flavour of the month three years ago. It is a different story now.
Another obvious question would be, where does support for New South Wales end and Western Sydney begin?
Last time I checked, Western Sydney was in NSW.
The ARU has tried for years to remove the regional names from Super 15 teams. Did you know that the Brumbies actually represent the ACT and Southern NSW? That’s why their ground announcer always refers to them as the CA Brumbies after their sponsor – ala HSBC Waratahs.
Unfortunately for the ARU, rugby fans haven’t fallen for it, and the ARU may not want to bet good money on them falling for it in Western Sydney.
Pros – Large potential fan base, good stadiums
Cons – Fan base lodged firmly in NSW Waratahs territory
Chance of Super 15 entry 7%
Chance of Super 18 entry 10%
Pacific Islands
The IRB has long made it clear that they want to support the growth of Pacific Islands rugby. They haven’t always made it clear whether they actually were supporting Pacific Islands rugby.
The region has continually lost players to European clubs, New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, Australia. Unfortunately for PIR, a decision on future Super Rugby franchises will be based on the best interests of SANZAR, and it could be argued, rightly so.
One other factor going against them is political stability – and it’s a big factor.
Add to that the lack of playing facilities, and a financially viable supporter base, and the case for a PIR side in Super rugby is even weaker.
Having players playing in a potential Melbourne side wouldn’t really mean the PIR was represented. But the one glimmer of hope would be a PIR side in the New Zealand conference – based in New Zealand.
That would at least hold open the possibility of the occasional match being played in the Islands. And, of course, the NZRU would never take advantage of the situation to fill the ranks of the All Blacks while preventing players from representing their home countries. Oh wait.
Pros – Quality player pool. Crowd favourite on tour
Cons – No possibility of actually being based in the Pacific Islands
Chance of Super 15 entry 0%
Chance of Super 18 entry 40% (NZ based in NZ conference)
South Eastern Cape (South Africa)
A sports writer could fill an entire book on the pros and cons of an extra South African team and where in South Africa it should be based. As a page filler you could simply publish the court transcripts of hearings arguing that very topic.
Barring UN intervention, the extra slot in the South African Conference in an expanded Super 18 is a given. What more needs to be said.
Pros – Irrelevant
Cons – Irrelevant
Chance of Super 15 entry 0%
Chance of Super 18 entry 100% (RSA Conference)
Japan
The potential financial returns from tapping the Japanese market are massive.
There is already a lucrative national competition in place, and a large television following, although crowd numbers are low. Travel times are a worry, but no more than travel to South Africa.
TV time zones are friendly to Australia and New Zealand, and the desire of the IRB and the ARU to curry favour with the Japanese market is well documented. The only question would really be – one team or two?
Pros – Money, population, TV, potential
Cons – Travel
Chance of Super 15 entry 13%
Chance of Super 18 entry 85% (1st team in Aust. Conference)
Chance of Super 18 entry 40% (2nd team in NZ Conference)
Argentina
Following the 2007 Rugby World Cup, there was a lot of talk about getting Argentina involved in major competitions. Unfortunately, that’s all it was – talk.
There is currently no professional domestic rugby in Argentina and all of their professionals ply their trade in Europe.
Their inclusion in Super Rugby would be a natural progression towards inclusion in the Tri-Nations (or Tetra-Nations) but they would have to beat off challenges from Japan and an NZRU-backed Pacific Islands to sneak into the New Zealand conference in the Super 18.
Their inclusion in the Australian Conference is logistically impossible, which rules them out of the Super 15, and inclusion in the South African conference at the expense of the South Eastern Cape could lead to anything in South Africa.
South African rugby politics can be hilarious at times.
Pros – A professional option in Argentina, and inclusion in a major competition
Cons – Travel, there can only be 18 teams in the Super 18
Chance of Super 15 entry 0%
Chance of Super 18 entry 20% (NZ Conference)
Recommend this story.
May 27th 2009 @ 6:59am
sheek said | May 27th 2009 @ 6:59am | Report comment
1. Melbourne.
2. Melbourne.
3. Melbourne.
4. Melbourne.
5. Melbourne.
Etc, etc, etc……
May 27th 2009 @ 7:16am
sheek said | May 27th 2009 @ 7:16am | Report comment
For S18 – Southern Kings in SA conference; Japan In Aussie conference; Pacific Islands in NZ conference.
Believe it when I see it!
May 27th 2009 @ 9:12am
Shocks said | May 27th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Hong Kong (Australasian conference).
Now before you shoot me down listen to the arguments. Firstly Australia needs to get its own house in order before trying to build a new team in Melbourne (filled with mungos), not one team in the final 4, the Force and Qld haemorrhaging players (Qld just being a basket case in general from poor management and player identification / retention) other teams stockpiling players… not mentioning the name of any wild horses here. Added to this is the fact that just having a team in Melbourne isn’t a guarantee that the money will simply roll in or that supporters will turn up to the games in droves.
Reasons for having the team in Hong Kong, a large ready made supporters base (namely a huge western ex-pat community), facilities are already there as well as a steadily growing interest in the game by the locals thanks to the 7′s tournament and something sure to get the ARU and SANZAR bean counters excited… lots of corporate money a lot more than Melbourne can compete with (or any other city in SANZAR for that matter, yes Sydney that includes you), sponsorship money, staggering amounts paid by corporate types that attend the 7′s every year while they have their “conferences” ect. which could be spread out to watch a bit of S15 as well. More than enough to support a S15 franchise and provide the players comparitable “compensation” to what their mates are earning playing in Japan or Europe and they’d still be eligible for national duties.
Defiantly worth a look in my opinion.
May 27th 2009 @ 9:27am
Yikes said | May 27th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Great article! Interesting to see thinking about S18.
May 27th 2009 @ 10:01am
Skip said | May 27th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
The Brumbies should become the Southern Brumbies and paly out of ACT and VIC.
A PI side should be located in Western Sydney or GC.
The ACT Brumbies make no commercial sense.
May 27th 2009 @ 10:22am
Brett McKay said | May 27th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
OK, I have a few questions about all this Fragglerocker. Firstly, these “chances of inclusion” percentages, they’re just your humble opinion (or outright guesses) right?? Becuase that’s how I’m reading them. Please describe the mathematical formula used if I’m wrong here.
Up front, I think your SA/Aus/NZ S18 predictions of Eastern Cape-Japan-Pacific Islands is pretty sound. Don’t think you’ll get much disagreement in principle there. The Japanese TV market has been discussed on The Roar previously, and may not be as lucrative or strong as we think, but it could still work. There would be the issue of playing in their summer though (although we already play in our summer as it is, so maybe no biggy). The Hong Kong alterntive of Shocks has some merit though.
A few points to pick you up on though:
- The Gold Coast Chargers didn’t fold, nor did they fail to gain significant local support. They were an unfortunate victim of the News/ARL truce, and were excluded from the NRL when it was formed. At the time, they were completely financial, and several years later, still had something like $1-2M in the bank. Of all the early guises on the Gold Coast, they were by far the most successful.
- The Brumbies are referred to as the ‘CA Brumbies’ becuase CA (Computer Associates) is the naming rights sponsor (a la the ‘HSBC Waratahs’ as you point out, and the sacreligious ‘QANTAS Wallabies’), and therefore have paid for the right to be referred as thus. The Southern Inland and South Coast RUs affiliated themselves with the ACTRU in 2004 or ’05, and while still therotically referred to as ACT & Southern NSW Rugby Union, the region and organisation is known as Brumbies Rugby, and that was the reason for ‘ACT’ being dropped.
Not criticsms, by the way, just a straightening of some of your comments…
May 27th 2009 @ 12:35pm
mitzter said | May 27th 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
yes naming rights suck – get rid of them asap. They make them sound like a company team or something ala Japan. You can say ‘the ACT Brumbies brought to you by CA’ or ‘the Wallabie brought to you by QANTAS’ but not the QANTAS Wallabies – i always cring when i fear this by ch 7 broadcasters
May 27th 2009 @ 12:43pm
Simon said | May 27th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Good article. Although I’m not sure how the percentages were worked out, I think I found myself agreeing with most of them.
For any team to be based on the GC or in WS, it would have to be a foreign team (e.g. JAP or PI), or I rather think, these sort of locations (also include Central Coast) will be home to teams in another comp akin to the old ARC, if that ever takes off again.
Did I not hear correctly? I thought I heard on Fox that the ARU was pushing for the geographical names to be reattached to the teams. This would be good. Then all teams can be held more accountable to capture the heart of their whole province, and develop rugby on a wider scope. Obviously some teams in AUS do a better job of this than others.
I suspect that if a S18 were to eventuate, the two new teams (besides the new SA team) would be from JAP (one in AUS, one in NZ). But what’s the probability of all teams opening the door to 3-4 overseas players (out of 30 players) specifically from the PI’s and ARG, whilst allowing them to still play for their own national teams at the appropriate time? Does anyone have any info on this?
May 27th 2009 @ 12:47pm
Brett McKay said | May 27th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
mitzter, I don’t so much mind naming rights per se, you just get used to reading the corporatisations on the official websites, and hearing them over ground PA systems. You’re certainly hard-pressed to by a jersey without the sponsor logos nowadays. I guess that’s a part of modern, professional sport.
But yeah, when it starts creeping into the media, that’s when it starts crossing the line for me. I can’t for the life of me work out why the Ch9 commentators seem to have a fascination with the “Jetstar Titans”, when they just refer to other clubs as Souths, or Parramatta, or the Broncos. Do we have another cash-for-comment situation here??
(and yes, I realise I’m crossing my own line by discussing this further in a public forum. If only it was cash for irony..) Slightly off topic Fraggle, apologies…
May 27th 2009 @ 1:22pm
AndyS said | May 27th 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Passing thought – wouldn’t inclusion of either Japan of the PI at this time require renegotiation of SANZAR itself and the split of revenues? Certainly I would expect they would want their share, and I can’t imagine either party would be happy with the ARU speaking for them.