A single, national competition for rugby union is an idea which could boost the standing of the game if done properly.
The A-League was right in the way it went about establishing teams. Go to all and sundry saying that there will be eight licenses, and make the process open for all, especially non-traditional rugby union areas.
Of course a proper national league needs teams in the major markets of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. But teams can be successful in areas other than those already covered in the current Super Rugby setup.
Central Coast, Gold Coast, Newcastle and Adelaide are all markets with the stadia and sporting public that would back a team if marketed correctly.
It needs to be treated as a proper national competition in the same vein as AFL, NRL and A-League. Not a nationalised version of the Shute Shield, which in many respects was how the old ARC was run.
Play the teams at the best stadia possible and try to get a pay TV deal, because it seems that unless it’s the Wallabies, the free-to-air channels aren’t interested.
I think if professionally run and marketed, a competition like this could very well complement the Super Rugby comp, and not undermine club rugby. It would help build our conveyor belt of talent, which seems lacking at times.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Australian rugby, Rugby Union
December 19th 2011 @ 8:04am
BigAl said | December 19th 2011 @ 8:04am | Report comment
now why hasn’t anybody thought of this before ?
December 19th 2011 @ 8:31am
Steve said | December 19th 2011 @ 8:31am | Report comment
How come nobody has thought about writing an article about this on the roar before.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
December 19th 2011 @ 9:40am
mikeylives said | December 19th 2011 @ 9:40am | Report comment
I gather BigAl and Steve are being sarcastic. However, Adam214′s idea of using the A-league model is a fresh idea and painting the ARC as a beefed up shute shield is a valid point. Good article.
December 19th 2011 @ 9:50am
sheek said | December 19th 2011 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Mikey,
Hardly an original idea at all. I’ve suggested it myself (A-League option) many times, among about a dozen different scenarios.
And yes, BigAl & Steve are being sarcastic. For Roar long-timers, this might actually be the 214th suggestion of a national comp in rugby…..
December 19th 2011 @ 2:05pm
Brett McKay said | December 19th 2011 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Sheek, it’s WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY beyond 214….
December 19th 2011 @ 4:18pm
AndyS said | December 19th 2011 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
He was talking about in the last 12 months perhaps..?
December 21st 2011 @ 1:54pm
Bay35Pablo said | December 21st 2011 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Sheek, my stock standard reply to these articles is rapidly becoming “Read Sheek’s multiple articles and comments on this topic, and the ensuing debates, and then submit your article”. Because it’s all been covered before. Can Zac and Zoltan put some filter on article submission where they have to swear at law they have read them all and are adding something new before it will be published …
Clearly I have been reading this site for too long. I probably should’t expect the newer Roarers to have trolled through all the garbage we have spouted on this topic.
One answer – Money, money, money. There ain’t none to fund a national comp!!!!
December 19th 2011 @ 8:35am
Axel said | December 19th 2011 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Hmmm. No Canberra team mentioned despite a local composite team winning both Sydney and Brisbane comps over several years. They were then unable to enter a team presumably for being too successful and not local.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
December 19th 2011 @ 9:26am
The Cattery said | December 19th 2011 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Over a period of 10 years or more, first the Kookaburras, then the Vikings, offered the Brisbane and Sydney competitions a glimpse of what was possible with an expanded competition covering the whole of Eastern Australia – but their reward for doing so was to be treated with utter contempt.
Now it’s the AFL developing the NEAFL, into its second year, with games stretching from Wagga through Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Darwin and Alice Springs.
It is to the eternal shame of the ARU, QRU and NSWRU that they were never able to get something similar going years before the AFL, in what is essentially their turf.
December 19th 2011 @ 12:54pm
formeropenside said | December 19th 2011 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Or maybe no one really cares about Canberra?
December 19th 2011 @ 1:03pm
Jay said | December 19th 2011 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
You are right – let’s just ignore the third strongest Rugby province in Australia. Genius.
December 19th 2011 @ 1:14pm
The Cattery said | December 19th 2011 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
It’s certainly true that many sports are keen to ignore Canberra (and that’s across the board), but as Jay suggests, especially at the time that the Kookaburras and Vikings were winning the Sydney and Brisbane comps, rugby in Canberra was going well, and the Vikings were financially strong (probably still are), and could have funded their own entry into whatever the respective boards wanted to set up.
The point is that it didn’t necessarily need to be a full blown national club comp, Qld/NSW/ACT would have been a good stepping stone to something bigger down the track, and the Canberra clubs proved it was possible and viable (putting up their own money to be involved).
It’s the QRU and NSWRU that held it back, who weren’t intersted in progress, and it just goes to show that there are times when it’s good to have something like the AFL acting like a quasi-facist regime.
The exact same thing happened with the cricket. The Canberra Comets were allowed to compete for two seasons in the one day comp with the big boys, but ultimately they were thrown out, not because of lack of support (the Comets’ crowds were quite good), but because the smaller capital cities feared losing international cricket matches to Canberra.
As one former PM once said: always back self-interest…at least you know it’s trying.
December 19th 2011 @ 2:06pm
Brett McKay said | December 19th 2011 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
How’s that wall around Queensland coming along, FOS??
December 19th 2011 @ 2:59pm
Mike G said | December 19th 2011 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
The appropriate response to such a silly comment, Brett…But where was the dig about Banjo playing?? hahaha
December 20th 2011 @ 9:59am
gatesy said | December 20th 2011 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Mate, at least the old “let’s move the Brumbies to Melbourne” theme no longer gets a run!!
December 21st 2011 @ 6:16pm
Crazy Horse said | December 21st 2011 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
They still need a team in Adelaide!
December 19th 2011 @ 8:36am
Yikes said | December 19th 2011 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Yes adam214. We all agree there should be a comp, of whatever structure. It’s just that we can’t afford it.
December 19th 2011 @ 9:18am
The Grafter said | December 19th 2011 @ 9:18am | Report comment
It has to happen, but not down the same path as the ‘national club competition’.
I have often thought Australia needed a second tier comp based on the following
Sydney
West Sydney
Brisbane
Melbourne
Perth
NSW Country
Qld Country
ACT
Eght teams is enough to start a comp. NZ’s former NPC used to only have this number.
Why country teams? Both are stronghold rugby areas, and include the likes of Newcastle, Wollongong, Tamworth etc, and Gold Coast Nth Q, and West Qland.
Australian rugby comes to a halt after the Super comp, and lets face it, theres a big step up from club to Super.
NZ and SA have the strongest competitions in the world, and it shows with their production lines of top class players.
December 19th 2011 @ 1:42pm
sheek said | December 19th 2011 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Grafter,
I’ve pointed this out so many times before – by their very nature NSW Country & Qld Country are multi- based operations. You can’t have a Harlem Globetrotters team operating in a national comp. They need a regular base from which to build.
If you settle NSW Country in either Newcastle, Gosford or Wollongong, they will eventually become known as Newcastle-Hunter, Central Coast or Illawarra. If you settle Qld Country in Townsville, Rockhampton or Toowoomba, they will eventually become known as North, Central or South Qld.
NSW Country & Qld Country both have their role in Australian rugby, but NOT in a top-tier national comp. I would keep them in a ARS style comp along with the likes of Tasmania & NT.
Also, rugby-wise, geographically speaking, Sydney is broken into 3 broad areas, not 2 – South-East, North Harbour & Greater West. The previous 2007 ARC model failed to recognise this, it being one of its contributing downfalls.
December 20th 2011 @ 5:59am
The Grafter said | December 20th 2011 @ 5:59am | Report comment
And your attitude Sheek is exactly why it hasnt been looked at.
To much of the ‘old boy’ perhaps?
You have made a comparrison with basketball. Were you tied up with the national ‘club’ comp in 07? That was never going to work for a number of reasons.
Perhaps an article should be written on the origins of all Australian Super rugby players over say the past ten years.
The idea of a 2nd tier comp is to spread the game, lift the game, and provide future internationals/Super players the stepping stone that is needed, AND to get some media spotlight on the game (which in this country is POOR) outside Super rugby, tests and Sydney/Brisbane club finals.
December 20th 2011 @ 8:12am
sheek said | December 20th 2011 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Grafter, play the ball not the man.
No-one is more passionate about a national comp than me. Something you would realise if you’d dropped in on The Roar before last month.
I’m merely pointing out some realities to you.
December 19th 2011 @ 9:40am
Atawhai Drive said | December 19th 2011 @ 9:40am | Report comment
We seem to have been down this road before on The Roar.
Acronymically speaking, it’s a case of RIP the ARC. The ARU, scared off by the GFC, will never exhume that competition, or throw money it doesn’t have at some other kind of national domestic tournament.
The Wallabies didn’t win the World Cup but they’re still ranked No 2 in the world.
We’ll just have to keep trying to make the best of what we have.
December 19th 2011 @ 2:24pm
adam214 said | December 19th 2011 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
You don’t throw money at the comp you convince other to do so. It worked in the A-league ALL the clubs are privately owned now and almost all of them are on their way to a profit or really don’t need one because of the deep pockets of its owners (e.g gold coast united). In this model ARU gets license money revenue from television which would distributed amongst the clubs and itself. The GFC never really hit Australia in the same way as it did in Europe and USA.
December 19th 2011 @ 2:54pm
Atawhai Drive said | December 19th 2011 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
The first GFC didn’t hit very hard, the real meltdown is happening now. Be very afraid of what’s coming in 2012, folks.
Revenue from television? The ARC had to pay the ABC to televise it in 2008.
And even with the Fox Sports money, the A-League clubs are not travelling all that well, particularly the Mariners.
A single national comp is an interesting discussion topic, but moot; it will never happen.
December 19th 2011 @ 10:06am
Damo said | December 19th 2011 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Like we won’t keep trying Attawhai?
Australian rugby is screaming out for cultural/structural change.
If soccer could do it. If AFL cold do it in non ping pong areas then it’s at least theoretically possible.
But as Sheek and others have pointed out while it is possible it looks almost as difficult ATM as peace in the Middle East.
The genius (or geniuses) who sort it will get Order of Australia, if not a Nobel Prize.
December 19th 2011 @ 10:39am
Football United said | December 19th 2011 @ 10:39am | Report comment
would rather scrap super rugby and extend on the current teams we have to make a national comp by bringing the state teams down to a big club/province level. Play the Saffers, Kiwis, Argies and japanese in a champions league so they can have their own comp like they want. Teams are privately owned with no affiliation to the state associations and should have full responsibility for developing their own players from 14 years old.
Waratahs
Rebels
Reds
Force
Brumbies
Plus
Newcastle
West Sydney
Gold Coast
Adelaide
Gosford
December 19th 2011 @ 2:25pm
Brett McKay said | December 19th 2011 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Footy Utd, drop Newcastle and Adelaide and you’re left with the ARC teams essentially…
December 19th 2011 @ 5:34pm
Football United said | December 19th 2011 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
nothing particularly wrong with that. The major markets would already be behind their current super rugby team so their is less start up rubbish like in the ARC
December 19th 2011 @ 5:34pm
Football United said | December 19th 2011 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
nothing particularly wrong with that. The major markets would already be behind their current super rugby team so their is less start up rubbish like in the ARC
December 20th 2011 @ 6:01am
The Grafter said | December 20th 2011 @ 6:01am | Report comment
Super rugby has been good for Australia, far better than for NZers, and Saffers. They were strong internally pre-96, Australia wasnt.
Would professional rugby survive in Australia without Super rugby? It would, but would Australia be a force? I doubt it, and back to the bad days of future top liners going across to the dark side.
December 20th 2011 @ 1:44pm
Football United said | December 20th 2011 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
How would things change for the worse though though if you changed the structure? you have the same current teams with the same facilities, players and staff plus new teams in new areas which brings in new fans to spend their money on rugby. The money that comes in is still similar because it is the new top tier in Australia so you don’t lose there. Crowds go up because even now crowds mainly only peak for australian derby games, this way the fans consistently have an opponent they would relate to. This also provides more squad spots for young talent to take rather than being pushed into league as well as more teams to develop new local talent from young ages. Plus a Heineken cup/champions league would provide the big glamour games and media coverage that currently only finals or a reds/crusaders game brings.
December 20th 2011 @ 3:01pm
Mike said | December 20th 2011 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
To answer that, you have to answer why the real ARC didn’t work. The fact is that it didn’t, and S15 is working, whether we like that or not.
December 20th 2011 @ 4:33pm
Football United said | December 20th 2011 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
yet the arc was not the top tier and it was full of teams with no history or prior connection.
December 20th 2011 @ 4:44pm
Mike said | December 20th 2011 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
That is a very good point. Its so easy to ignore heritage and tradition on the basis that “they don’t pay bills”, but they are important. The more tradition and heritage you have got (or can harness), the easier it is for fans to find a basis for on-going loyalty.
The first game of league State of Origin is a case in point. It had no history, but the long-standing rivalry between the states was waiting to be harnessed, and when Beetson tore into his club teammates wearing blue, it was harnessed in a radical and powerful way.
If an ARC is to work, the ARC teams have to be prepared to find innovative ways to harness local tradition and loyalties.
December 20th 2011 @ 9:40pm
Spikhaza said | December 20th 2011 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
Fantastic comment Football United, I love the idea of Super Rugby eventually becoming the Champions league of the four big southern hemisphere rugby nations. This would stop all the bs that comes out of NZ and SA in particular about Super Rugby screwing their domestic league over – they can have their player roster back and have all the pride back in their national comps, and with just a champions league you would get an all-star competition that would really be something to fuss over. This kills all the “who cares?” games in SupeRugby i.e. Lions v Force. The only problem is that there is too much variety in the level of quality of that model, i.e. the Reds, with their 20000 and counting members before March, getting 40000 people to every single game with a team capable of beating some very strong international ones, versus say, Gosford of Adelaide. You would get too many 80 – 0 scorelines that remove interest.
December 19th 2011 @ 11:04am
kingplaymaker said | December 19th 2011 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Perhaps one point to think of in the mid-long term is, which order should the next Super Franchises be in?
This is probably the closest there is going to be to a national competition.
Western Sydney would seem to be the biggest most obvious choice, then the Gold Coast so as to add another team in Queensland (for those who say the GC is full of teams already, where else in Queesland could another team be?).
Then surely Adelaide, the final market necessary for a completely NATIONAL coverage, and a large one at that, almost two million.
These are the three critically absent teams. Once these three are filled in, there is a doubling of the squad places in NSW and Queensland, and with Adelaide the game is completely national.
Beyond those three? Probably another team for 4.5 million Sydney, and then theoretically Newcastle as the only large city left without a team. However, this would mean 4 teams in NSW and only 2 in Queensland, which would not please the latter. So maybe then a THIRD team would be added in Queensland, perhaps another in Brisbane as northern queensland has a population almost 10 times smaller than Brisbane.
So we now have: Western Sydney, Gold Coast, Adelaide as the most important phase.
Then, much further down the line probably, another Sydney team, a second Brisbane team, and Newcastle.
Then, finally, the central coast and maybe north queensland. Tasmania?
However, it is really the first three, Western Sydney, Gold Coast and Adelaide, that are essential for the health and breadth of coverage of the game.
December 19th 2011 @ 2:37pm
Brett McKay said | December 19th 2011 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
KPM, I’ve thought about this long and hard, and I just can’t see more SR teams. As it stands now, South Africa and New Zealand have way too much to lose by allowing Australia to continue down the current path. Our SANZAR partners can’t be forever giving up ground on their long-established traditional comps, and nor should we expect them to.
If Australia wants more professional teams, then the ARU needs to bite the bullet (or bitter pill) and establish a national comp, not push Super Rugby beyond it’s already bulging limits..
December 19th 2011 @ 5:35pm
Football United said | December 19th 2011 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
THIS x10000000000
You’ve made a new friend brett
December 21st 2011 @ 11:18am
kingplaymaker said | December 21st 2011 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Super expansion doesn’t mean moving the Currie Cup and ITM seasons (although that’s desirable anyway). Not every team plays every other team now, and if there were more Super teams it wouldn’t have to mean more fixtures and a longer season. It would simply mean that each team would play a slightly smaller spread of other teams.
So long as their domestic competitions aren’t moved, there’s no reason NZ and SA have anything to lose by there being more Australian teams. I also think that any addition of teams should take place with a new one in each country at the same time, to prevent arguments over who is getting a new team.
I’m not remotely or in any way at all against a national competition, but it is possible to have both/and instead of either/or, both a national competition AND more Super teams.
Adelaide is the final large market uncovered and the final market necessary for Super rugby to cover the entire country.
1 team is preposterous for Sydney and NSW, and bad enough for Queensland. So adding Adelaide, Western Sydney and Gold Coast is critical for the game and should be phased in over the next few years, at the same time adding South Auckland, North Harbour and Bay of plenty, plus Southern Kings, and two others from SA. Fixtures can be rejigged so that teams play a smaller spread and so that the number of games stays the same, should SA and NZ be unwilling to move their national competitions.
And at the same time an Australian national competition!
December 31st 2011 @ 8:03pm
Charcoal said | December 31st 2011 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
Whilst I agree with you Brett, I think that from an Australian perspective, we need to have one more Super Rugby team in Adelaide to complete a national coverage. To get NZ and SA onside, they would also have to have an additional team each, creating a Super 18 comp. But that should be the limit.
Having said that, I also agree that we need a national comp as the 2nd tier and after going over and over again ad infinitum on this blog about a national comp, it all keeps coming back to to the original concept of the ARC being the best model. The problem was that the way the teams were based, particularly in Sydney and Brisbane, it was bound to fail.
Before Super Rugby, for those of us old enough to remember, the annual North Harbour v South Harbour matches played before large crowds at North Sydney Oval were a highlight of the representative calendar, leading up to the NSW v Queensland interstate clashes and later Wallaby representation. These North v South contests were fiercely fought and full of traditional rivalries. It would be a logical extension in the present day to include a team from Western Sydney in this inter-regional rivalry.
But no, the organisers of the ARC stuffed it up by basing what was essentially the North Harbour team at Gosford and the South Harbour team at North Sydney, totally alienating their respective supporter bases. At least they partly got it right for the Western Sydney Rams, although I think it would have been better if they had been based at Concord or Olympic Park instead of Parramatta. The same failings applied to the two Brisbane teams. It’s little wonder the competition structure failed to capture the interest of the predominant Rugby markets in Sydney and Brisbane. But it deserves another chance.
However, nothing is likely to happen until at least the post JON era.
December 19th 2011 @ 1:18pm
Johnno said | December 19th 2011 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
I think a national comp but like AFL.NRL lines actual clubs not just names like westsydney or east sydney.
Collingwood and Parramatta and Hawthorn are actual suburbs.
Gordon,Randwick,Manly, actually have history so keep them in a national comp.
1 issue i see for a national comp is stadium standards many of these clubs in sydney and brisbane have poor stadiums.