By rugbyfuture -
December 23rd 2009 @ 3:25am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Can ARU piggyback on the 2011 World Cup?
The steal of the 2003 World Cup from New Zealand, at least partially, was a major coup for the Australian rugby community.
However, the revenue and game’s popularity at the time were unfortunately not capitalised on and the momentum has arguably come to a halt.
Even rolling back a bit.
The question here is, can the Australian Rugby community benefit the same from our brothers in New Zealand?
The games will be broadcast on free to air television, close to our time zone, and will feature a possible re-emergence of the Wallabies, as people have pointed out.
Although the atmosphere created by the 2003 World Cup won’t be replicated, some national stations and clever marketing by both the NZRU and ARU could be possible.
I say the NZRU because they have a major stake in having the Australian population involved. If they don’t get an inflow of Australians, then it could prove to be a less than viable event.
The NZRU must also be worried at the sphere of influence with the demise of rugby union in Australia possibly affecting the New Zealand rugby community.
This World Cup is the closest thing to a festival to capitalise on until 2023, and as New Zealand rugby gets ready for the biggest event in 2011, we should too.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(32)
bever fever said | December 23rd 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
MO is that the 2011 cup will create some momentum for rugby but will transpire after the tournament, which has seemingly been the case in the past.
Australia is not NZ or SA and the probable reality is that the code will stay at 3 or 4 in the footballing pecking order, a interesting point was made in another thread stating that once a footballing order is started (historically) it tends to stay that way.
I can’t think of another country where one football code has replaced another, of course that is not to say that rugby cannot grow.
rugbyfuture said | December 23rd 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
all the football codes got into their place somehow
and thats what im syaing, is the ARU needs to capitalise on the momentum created by them
San Jorge said | December 23rd 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
BF, except that 5-10 years ago rugby was number three at professional level, ahead of soccer
King of the Gorganites said | December 23rd 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
you rasied a good point rugbyfuture.
the strength of rugby is its international sphere. compared to AFL (non-existant) RL (minimal) rugby has a massive global presence and is continuing to grow.
this is rugby’s chance to get back up with the other codes. remember 2003? that could be 2011 all over again. plenty of aussies will head over the ditch for the games. should be a great festival of rugby. i cant wait.
Bay35Pablo said | December 23rd 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
If the ARU dropped the ball in 2003, what’s different now?
And we didn’t steal the 2003 RWC from the Kiwis, they dropped it by not being able to ensure clean signage at stadiums.
rugbyfuture said | December 23rd 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
genuine desire, less certainty, and a past experience in the same thing
zhenry said | December 24th 2009 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
“The NZRU must also be worried at the sphere of influence with the demise of rugby union in Australia possibly affecting the New Zealand rugby community.” How will this happen exactly: Sphere of influence? How could the demise of ARU affect the NZ RU public? Any affect would only be that the Wallabies would revert to the historical case of being second rank, compared to SA.
What worries NZ (I make the presumption of representing a good number of NZ’ers) is the antics of the Australian owned NZ media, Tew, the Super 15 Melbourne fiasco and NZ cutting off its 14 team NPC. Tew should have supported SA ahead of Australia. Instead of being O’Neill’s lapdog Tew should have initiated dumping completely the Super Comp and established a combined national and international 14 NZ NPC with their SA and Australian counterparts. Apart from the wad of money for Melbourne Tew either trivialised or was not aware of the consequences of his actions. He even conceded to SA (who were more intelligent in their approach) the shortening of the NZ NPC time frame in deference to an extension of the SA Currie Cup time frame. Egged on by the Australian owned media. It’s NZ’s fault for selling off its media to foreign interests (and don’t give me that crap about globalisation and sound financial management), unfortunately many NZ’ers still don’t get it.
Quite frankly, in many respects, the demise of Australian RU would be welcome. We have not yet experienced the wholesale poaching of NZ players for your darling ‘Rebels without a Cause’. NZ’ers remain supremely naive while Australia attempts to beat the All Blacks, if not on the field, then in the board rooms and broadsheets.
rugbyfuture said | December 24th 2009 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
it is common cultural and political theory that there are major regional powers which have a sphere of influence over surrounding nations, the fact is that part of the popularity of anything for new zealand and australia is that their is a high amount of competition between the two. look it up.
if the wallabies become a 2nd tier team then there would be little resistance for new zealand and the game would gain a bit, until an ultimate demise.
also even a bunch of south africans agreed that melbourne deserved the team more and the New Zealand authority are obviously aware of this, the spears had no place even with being established for a year and the team would have to have played most of its games in australia anyway. SARU knew when they agreed to the terms of the new super rugby tournament that it was practically a no hoper for a 6th new zealand team and it was just them sucking up to their government, Smarter? i think not as now the are liable in the millions. it seems you understand Rugby in new zealand from a standpoint of for the all blacks rather than for the game.
i would think, a s anew zealander you would be all for poaching, as many islanders are for the New Zealand teams.
the super rugby competition is considered the best competition in the world. so you are wrong about dumping it, it brings in huge amounts of money for all the unions involved and the NPC will continue in your country, if there are so many stubborn unintelligible supporters like you.
ohtani's jacket said | December 24th 2009 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
I don’t think too many New Zealanders would welcome the demise of Australian rugby, but the ARU has to sink or swim on its own.
Jerry said | December 24th 2009 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
“Unintelligible” – now there’s some irony.
rugbyfuture said | December 25th 2009 @ 12:09am | Report comment
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unintelligible
for you maybe
Jerry said | December 25th 2009 @ 5:07am | Report comment
I know the word and I know what it means, but it didn’t really make much sense in that context – that was the irony.
Whether you agree with zhenry’s post or not, its intent and meaning are perfectly clear.
Sam said | December 26th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
I think you overstate the importance of Australian rugby to NZ. The ARU certainly does not have a sphere of influence, if anything, the NZRU is much more powerful (the All Blacks are the reason they can play Bledisloe Cup matches in Tokyo). Don’t confuse what zhenry is saying about the Super rugby expansion with an inference that the Melbourne bid wasn’t better than the SA one – his point, and something that is getting more and more support in NZ, is that expansion of Super rugby should not happen at all! The NPC evokes much more passion in NZ than Super rugby because fans outside the ‘big 5′ centres feel a closer connection to it. The only reason Super rugby exists is money, and most of that comes from the broadcasting value of the competition in SA.
As for the poaching comment – that doesn’t deserve much of a reply – especially with the number of Wallabies that could get (or already have) a NZ passport.
I think sometimes the ARU takes for granted the support they get from the NZRU.
John Ryan said | December 24th 2009 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
If super Rugby is considered the Best Rugby Competition in the world why does it struggle to beat the under 20s Toyota cup RL on Pay and get well beaten when both major AFL, NRL competitions start.
And if its such a wonderful event why is it not on FTA in OZ,answer no one apart from the fanatics on here cares that much,and its owned lock stock and barrel by NEWS LTD,which with a bit of luck the NRL wont be very shortly.
Then you can all pray the Murdock lives to 100,cause when he goes it will be the devil take the hindmost.
The fight over the corpse will be something to see,that is if NEWs LTD decides to let us know hes dead,they have a funny habit of not saying anything about Murdock.
rugbyfuture said | December 24th 2009 @ 7:31pm | Report comment
im not interested in arguments tonight but the reason it struggles is because it faces top competition in australia, it does well in south africa, new zealand and even sometimes in europe. it comes down to the national preference which is towards league for football codes within our country.
and also its not owned by news limited like the NRL is, its run by SANZAR and the teams are owned by the local unions or a private equity model seperate from the News ltd ownership model, then the rights to broadcasting it are sold to news ltd in australia and new zealand only, however its broadcast by a seperate partner in south africa, also in every country a different brand sponsors the event such as rebel sport in new zealand, investec in australia and Vodacom in South africa
i’d like to hear though why it is owned by murdoch, if you have a real argument
Merry Christmas
Nick said | December 24th 2009 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
John Ryan please wake up and try to imagine a world outside of australia. ohhh and here is a little secrect South Africas domestic rugby competition the currie cup blows away the NRL by live crowd attendances and tv audinces, super 14 televises to 3 countries that play in it. how many teams are outside of 2 states in oz???
zhenry said | December 24th 2009 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
The Super Comp in NZ is in decline. There is moderate interest overall in the later part of the comp. as I have written before Super saps player fitness and exhausts crowd enthusiasm. The NPC is our engine room and should be our main focus. The whole Super stuff is erected for Murdoch advertising revenue; it’s his baby, his comp. It’s irrelevant to him who owns the teams. He throws money at Tew his mates write up and Tew jumps.
Before you turn NZ into an ‘Island feeder service’ for your pompous CBD mascots and place your delicate head upon yon Santa’s pillow have a probing thought for the fact that before 2015 the world is going to need 2 more Saudi Arabia’s to keep up with the oil demand. Check out your political theories and spheres of influence. I’ll be surprised if the Super 15 ever happens, the focus will be fairly and squarely on national competitions.
Have a Merry Christmas while you can.
rugbyfuture said | December 25th 2009 @ 12:06am | Report comment
murdoch didnt come up with it at all, it was an evolution of the south pacific comp the eventual super 6 , 10, 12, 14 and 15. as for leeching new zealanders, i think you’d find there isn’t a want to take your players and make them ours, just like NZ doll feeders. our pompous cbd mascots are exactly what we are trying to overcome and is a part of what this article is about so don’t get onto that.
and as for fossil fuels you would realise of course, in your almighty wisdom, that the transfer of clean energy technology is coming at a huge rate and that might be depending on saudi arabias output rather than reserves. as they hold back their reserves in order to generate demand.
you didn’t actually comment on political and cultural spheres of influence, you just said there name, which doesnt quite make sense.
and national competitions should be the focus, but the super 15 also needs to exist. you seem to have veered from your original point that australia dissappearing in rugby would be a benefit or have no effect.
i dont quite get the “while you can” comment either. according to you im so pompous money or anything won’t have an effect on me.
sheek said | December 24th 2009 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
Rugbyfuture,
As Pablo said, we didn’t steal the 2003 RWC, the Kiwis totally stuffed up their end of the deal.
The 2011 RWC is wholly in NZ, so any TV interest across the Tasman is of only marginal interest to them. I don’t what/if any benefit NZ receives from overseas interest. As for any benefit to us, well, that depends on both the success of the Wallabies & quality of games.
At present, rugby is struggling to define itself. We really don’t know collectively, what we want from the game at the moment.
Rugby union currently sucks in Australia. It’s dysfunctional on so many levels. Equally, any attempt at bragging rights by league is also futile. Rugby league has virtually nothing to recommend itself outside the East Coast of Australia, Northern Counties of England & the Auckland/Central Districts of New Zealand.
Which is why union & league will come together in Australia, either as an equal partnership or more likely, takeover by union. Neither code is good enough by itself. Their only hope is the sum of the whole will be greater than the individual parts.
I also agree there is a better structure available for the future of super rugby, which gives centre stage to the various national comps, & changes the SR (S15, etc) to a Heineken Cup style format. But SANZAR has yet to figure that out for itself.
zhenry said | December 25th 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
What do you know its Christmas Day and Merry Christmas to the idea of a combined national and international comp. Unfortunately Australia’s dysfunctional RU is dragging down NZ and to a lesser degree SA. I have to agree with ‘dysfunctional’ because Super Hero O’Neill’s idea of tacking on wallpaper coverage to a comp that is already turning off viewers is not the answer for a required Aus Nat Comp. NZ and SA have much more in common than Australia. My guess is that it is NZ which is holding back that SA co-operation. The NZRU need an influx of personnel that can think beyond the Aus owned media and the ideologues of the present body. The NZRU is spineless and Australian interests will endeavour to keep it that way.
I do not write lightly about peak oil issues and they are very relevant to SANZAR. Technology is very important but it is not magic. Check out Colin Campbell Peak Oil, The Oil Drum and Deconstructing Dinner. Peak oil is very real and spraying rhetoric around the issue does not help the huge human and resource issues of a future with expensive energy.
John Ryan said | December 25th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
OK how long would super Rugby last if Murdock dumped it,I cant see many TV stations in OZ lining up to take it SA, NZ,I dont they would have the money,I dont care what South Africa does, the amount of rat runners in Perth only proves that as the whites flee so will Rugby decline in SA and Football (soccer) take over
rugbyfuture said | December 26th 2009 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
football is the most popular game everywhere so dont give me this stuff about football taking over, how long would league last once its finally sold out of the empires possesion in its current form all you leagueys should be asking
ohtani's jacket said | December 25th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
The problem with the Super 14 is that unlike the NRL or ARL it’s not the highest form of the sport; it’s the stuff you have to sit through to get to the Test matches.
Rugby in the Southern Hemisphere would be better off with three domestic comps and a HC style tournament, but the Aussies can’t help us there. Whatever people of the Super 14, it served its purpose in the beginning (helping to usher in professionalism and prevent an exodus of players) and was exciting while it was new, but it needs a major overhaul. My guess is that in time players will be eligible to play for their country no matter which Super rugby side they play for and SANZAR will spice things up by having a truly professional style comp.
zhenry said | December 25th 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Not sure what you mean by “SANZAR will spice things up by having a truly professional style comp”. Just PR for what suites Aust: Great to get paid by a network mate to bring in overseas players to fill in your TV wallpaper, its just not the grassroots style that NZ and SA are capable of and want. If the Aussies cant do the grassroots then NZ and SA should completely leave you out. Australia is on a different path and I will be optimistic and count on NZ intelligence letting you go your own way. Remember in the next 2 years peak oil will hit (my educated opinion) and international games will disappear or be severely curtailed. Here is to a grassroots New Year.
ohtani's jacket said | December 25th 2009 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
It’s not a professional comp unless players can move from one side to another i.e. Crusaders to Brumbies. I’m not saying I like the idea; I just think it’s the way things will go.
Who is “you” anyway? I’m from New Zealand.
Bruce of Otago said | December 25th 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
What a pathetic, patronising, piffle-ridden article.
“The atmosphere created by the 2003 World Cup won’t be replicated”? WRONG! New Zealand is more in love with rugby than Australia ever will be. Neither nation is great at singing and general bonhomie but the idea that the Aussies have something over the Kiwis in this respect is just pure nonsense.
“The NZRU must also be worried at the sphere of influence with the demise of rugby union in Australia possibly affecting the New Zealand rugby community”? WRONG! The All Blacks make their money from juicy off-shore ties against whoever wants to play them. If the Wallabies return to amateur la la land, then the ABs will find someone else to play, no problem bro.
“I say the NZRU because they have a major stake in having the Australian population involved. If they don’t get an inflow of Australians, then it could prove to be a less than viable event.” WRONG! Most of the fans will come from the Mother Country and we’ll welcome them with open arms. The proportion of Aussie fans is irrelevant.
Yet another rubbish, Kiwi-baiting article on the Roar. Shame on you!
rugbyfuture said | December 26th 2009 @ 6:04pm | Report comment
i was talking in respect to within australia, as in, this article was talking about building the excitement in australia using new zealanders excitement.
sphere of influence in respect to league v union.
its a bit sad that you still call england the mother country. and the australian tourism influx obviously counts otherwise the government wouldnt be spending such money on ad campaigns.
allblackfan said | December 25th 2009 @ 9:15pm | Report comment
RF, this is a rugby WORLD cup.
I’m sure that even if NO Australians decidied to visit NZ for RWC, there will still be plenty of visitors from other countries. After all, this is a WORLD cup, not a Bedisloe Cup!
Bruce, I think RF is talking about how the RWC is viewed in Australia.
RF, of course, the atmosphere can’t be beaten if you’re hosting the event — that goes without saying!
allblackfan said | December 25th 2009 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
Does anyone know what will happen to the Air NZ Cup games during the RWC?
ohtani's jacket said | December 25th 2009 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
IIRC, it’s running at the same time. They’re hoping the tourists will attend NPC games as well as the WC.
damo said | December 26th 2009 @ 7:33am | Report comment
Hey steady on bro’s – it’s only a world cup. Maybe the tension of hospitality on your side of the ditch is getting to you guys.
Relax, put on the kettle.
I’m sure we’ll ALL have a great world cup -whoever wins and if the Wallabies don’t -most of us will be barracking for the team from New Zealand
Norm said | March 13th 2010 @ 9:40am (2 weeks ago) | Report comment
Don’t know about the ARU but it looks like Australian hotels might.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26842604-5013519,00.html