Expansion in Super Rugby?
By Emric, 15 May 2012 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Super Rugby news
- Melbourne Rebels news
- Southern Kings news
- 2013 Wallabies squad news
The Southern Kings want in on Super Rugby, which would expand the South African conference from five teams to six.
Currently the New Zealand Rugby Union and the Australian Rugby Union are very much against the idea, they argue that there can be no expansion until the end of the next five year TV deal in 2016.
I believe there are models which can be invented, or copied from other organisations, or are even already in use e.g. the Rebels, which could allow expansion to happen before the 2016 dead line.
I believe that SANZAR should not only allow the Southern Kings into the competition but also allow Taranaki to be involved, along with another team to be created in Australia expanding the current competition from 15 to 18 teams.
Reasons for expansion
There are several reasons for expanding the Super Rugby competition, including building Argentinian rugby and keeping South Africa happy.
Argentina as of this year is joining the rugby championship. They have guaranteed the IRB and SANZAR that they will have their top players available for the competition. However, most of their players are still located in Europe and the European clubs are now going to start thinking twice about paying lots of money for Argentinian players who have to spend a considerable amount of time out of the early part of the European competition while they satisfy international duties.
Currently it is these clubs which have allowed the Argentinian players to be fully paid professionals which has kept Argentinian rugby strong, however if these players are kept out of the Euro-competitions and room within SANZAR’s 15 Super rugby competition can not be found, and its going to take time for Argentinas teams to form their own conference system.
Anyway if SANZAR are true to their word then this couldn’t happen before 2015 at the earliest. They have left a gaping hole which is going to have to be filled – the Rebels can’t take the entire Argentinian team and plus it would weaken Australian rugby if they did.
On the Rebels, I believe that they have done far more good for Australian Rugby then they have bad. I do not buy into the theory that less teams of condensed talent is better then more teams where some teams are weaker.
This is because not all the talent is defined or located from one or two sources and talent is not always identified by the same individuals. I believe that the more teams you have the more cracks you can cover and the less talent which can slip through those gaps before being identified and moved onto higher honours.
The Rebels do not need to be competitive and beat the Crusaders, Reds and Stormers week in and week out. Its my belief that if they cause a few upsets like their games against the Crusaders and uncover players who could make it into the Wallabies, they have served their true purpose.
Their job is to assist Australian rugby with growth and slow the drainage of top players to other codes. From this perspective they are doing a great job.
Aside from this, they also have done pretty good with their attendance figures as well.
Considering the success of the Rebels in achieving these aims, its time now for the Australian Rugby Union to consider another round of expansion in another state. Currently we have Queensland, NSW, VIC and WA.
Perhaps teams in SA or Tasmania should be considered? Or as some Roarers believe, another team in New South Wales or Queensland. Either way expansion can only continue to strengthen Australian Rugby with their core role of identifying and promoting talent into the top team
Taranaki want in Super Rugby almost as much as the Kings do, the only difference is the SARU is supporting its existing franchise. The New Zealand Rugby Union is leaving one of its iconic provinces out in the cold.
The New Zealand Rugby Union have ignored their requests for entry into the competition for far to long, as they believe it will destroy the ITM Cup. Well, sorry to break it to you, but Super Rugby has already broken the back of the ITM Cup.
Super Rugby’s conference format has to be the main priority and it its time for the New Zealand Rugby Union to allow more provinces to buy their way into Super Rugby.
Then, there’s TV ratings. I’ve been tracking the TV ratings across Sky and Fox and from my view this is one of the best reasons for expansion of the competition. We must include another three teams, meaning more home derbies. This has been the catch cry of SANZAR since the Rebels joined and the conference system was created.
In 2010, after 14 rounds of Super Rugby played on Australian TVs, the combined figure coming from Fox was 3,550,000. Under the conference format the ratings have passed 3,500,000 in 10 rounds with the Australian V Australian team ratings normally out doing the Aus V New Zealand and New Zealand V New Zealand games.
This is how its meant to work and it works very very well. If you add another team from the Australian conference, you will see the competition grow a little bit more in Australia and thus have the further advantage of allowing more talent to be identified along with more local games and higher TV ratings
The case for a new team in New Zealand is pretty obvious. Another team will assist Sky in further expanding their reach into the New Zealand population. Believe it or not, there are some New Zealanders still holding out on getting Sky because of the Super Rugby format and how it does not fully represent their province.
New Zealanders are very loyal about their provinces and will support the inclusion of the Naki. I believe it will build their market share to 85 percent.
As for South Africa, I always feel like the Saffas get the short end of the stick. They provide the best attendance figures and the best TV ratings. Adding two Super games a week by adding a additional team will grow their TV ratings substantially.
To put it into perspective, from my understanding SA TV ratings are at about the same level as NZ/Aus combined.
The current total of the combined TV ratings across Aus/NZ is 11,081,247 is up to the end of round 11. With only the top rating programs making the score each week, South Africa is reaching about the same with only two viewing games a week in their time zone. If anything, the Kings should be added purely to give our South African friends more TV room in their time zone, because they are the ones who are truly sacrificing for the success of Super Rugby.
They provide the bulk of the cash, viewing numbers and game attendance ratings. They have done their part and carried the bulk of weight of Southern Hemisphere rugby. Without them our rugby talent would have been taken by rugby league and the European clubs, because New Zealand is too small to stand on its own and rugby in Australia is too weak to go through the A-League style of rebuild / collapse / rebuild.
I’m not saying we should just give in to the South Africans every time they throw a tantrum but we should consider all the facts before decisions are made.
I believe there is plenty of room for and arguments in the positive to justify expansion
Problems/Issues
The biggest issue of course is money. Grand ideas are great but unless the capital is available to make them workable, then they are nothing but grand ideas.
How can SANZAR resolve the issue of cash flow? The obvious answer is to use the Melbourne Rebels as their primary model. I know that both the Kings and Naki are leaning towards this line for their funding so once again it surprises me that the New Zealand Rugby Union is rejecting the idea, while the SARU is doing everything it can to get the Kings in the door. The idea in itself is workable and can be used to expand in all three countries at the same time.
Australia has more problems with both funding and a player shortage. I believe the player shortage can be resolved by allowing more players from South America into the competition, which goes a long way to resolving the Argentinian problem and helping Australia’s issues.
Also they can source players from New Zealand as required to fill gaps in their own player shortage if players from Argentina are not available, or not good enough to fill the gap.
The final issue with expansion is the length of the season and the problems caused, but this is a no brainer. There will be less crossover rounds and more home games. The number of weeks does not need to increase.
SANZAR has many issues to face over the next five years starting with not having enough places in the competition to accommodate the arriving Argentinian cohort and reconciling the demands from South African Rugby. However I believe the issues can be solved by following the process above.
Expansion at this point to an 18 team competition can only be good for the game. SANZAR are being far too conservative in their reach even though they have grand ideas about the USA and Japan.
It is my opinion that Japan and the USA are not going to be interested unless they also are able to be involved in the Rugby Championship, which means they will also want a equal share of the profits.
If we expand to six teams per conference we are building a competition to rival those in Europe.
We currently have a window to advance our sport. The question is will SANZAR move before the window closes.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- SPIRO: Beale and Folau brilliant, Mogg subbed (278)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (241)
- I was dead-set wrong about Folau (236)
- What gives with Israel Folau? (184)
- Deans promises ball in hand rugby for Wallabies against Lions (183)
- Quade shouldn’t be fly half against the Lions (180)
- Folau the star in Waratahs rugby rampage (170)
- Waratahs vs Brumbies: Super Rugby live scores, blog (487)
- Chiefs beat Hurricanes to go top (35)
- Smith, Hooper battle for Wallabies jumper (34)
- Waratahs captain backing Folau (7)
- It’s State of Origin Super Rugby (18)
- Rebels score Super win over Stormers (68)
- Sharks down Force 23-13 in Super Rugby (4)
- Waratahs vs Brumbies: Super Rugby live scores, blog (487)
- Wallaby backline options (62)
- An exciting weekend in Australian rugby (0)
- Western Force vs Sharks: Super Rugby live scores, blog (114)
- Rebels vs Stormers – Super Rugby live scores, blog (359)
- Hurricanes vs Chiefs – Super Rugby live scores (47)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (242)
Recommend this story.



May 15th 2012 @ 4:11am
Johnno said | May 15th 2012 @ 4:11am | Report comment
We should do it, and get a 2nd team in west sydney would be much stronger brand than the tahs, who have no idea who they represent in sydney anymore or what demographic. Also Parramatta stadium or homebush right next to trains very easy for west sydney fans to get too unlike SFS which is a nightmare to get too especially on a friday or saturday night, traffic and not a train line right on your doorstep which homebush or parra offers. Form parra just a 5 minute express bus. Heck i’d even be open to a north shore team have them play at north sydney oval
They don’t in reality represent the state anymore, super 15 is city based teams in reality not provinces for most of them, even Otago i think but not 100% are have ditched the name Otago Highlanders and just the Highlanders.
If not Adealide, Gold Coast, or a 2nd Melbourne or 2nd Brisbane team is needed.
Adelaide 1.2 million huge population when you think Canberra survives, or get tinklier on board in Newcastle. Or Clive Palmer on the gold Coast , or even a team in Nth QLD Cairns or Townsville. The A-league had a team in Townsville .
So yes a 6th team would expand tv rights $$$$, and have unlimited imports and unlimited pacific islander rule, and unlimited argentina rule too.
May 15th 2012 @ 11:11am
stevvington said | May 15th 2012 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Canberra survives because it has rugby fans/schools and has produced Wallabies. Not sure that the same could be said for Adelaide?
May 15th 2012 @ 11:16am
kingplaymaker said | May 15th 2012 @ 11:16am | Report comment
stevvington it doesn’t matter, Southern Australia is over 6 times the size of Canberra and so would easily support a team.
May 15th 2012 @ 11:19am
stevvington said | May 15th 2012 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Ok then. I don’t know much about rugby regions – what’s the following like in western Sydney or Townsville-Cairns region?
May 15th 2012 @ 11:25am
kingplaymaker said | May 15th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
stevvington the great unspoken secret in rugby is that there are endless areas that could support teams in terms of crowds. If you divided Sydney in 3, remembering that this is the absolute heartland of the game, you would have 1.5 million per team. Then although not a rugby heartland SA is 1.7 million, the Gold Coast and Newcastle are 600,000 plus with strong rugby traditions, and then there are smaller but substantial areas such as Ilawara, the central coast, sunshine coast, northern QLD which could all support teams although they would come after the bigger areas. In terms of crowds alone you have 14 areas that could support teams, although in Sydney really you could have more than 3, possibly more than 1 in Brisbane.
May 15th 2012 @ 1:07pm
Markus said | May 15th 2012 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
There is no secret, you are just going on the assumption that the percentage of rugby fans within one population base will be consistent across all population bases in Australia, and it just isn’t true.
South Australia is not just ‘not a rugby heartland’, there is no almost zero rugby following there.
Adelaide cannot even support two AFL teams. A Super Rugby franchise would be a financial black hole.
May 15th 2012 @ 4:50am
kingplaymaker said | May 15th 2012 @ 4:50am | Report comment
Great article. SANZAR are like a suicide squad with their drunken snail-slow approach to the development of the game.
It’s amazing there’s so much dilly-dallying about expansion not just because of the huge advantages in playing numbers, growth of the game, spectators, but also because of money. Massive new markets and more matches (not an extended season, think about it), mean bigger TV deals and more money for expanding the game and paying more young players. All the new markets mentioned would yield tons of dollars that would allow the game to race back into contention with other codes, keep its players and maximise player development.
All three countries would benefit enormously.
Greg Peters, the SANZAR chief, says that they hired a private firm to work out how the Kings could fit in but that as the numbers in the conferences would be different it wouldn’t work, failing dismally to point out that they way the numbers would be kept even would be by adding the same number of teams in the other two conferences. With leadership like this, it’s not suprising SANZAR is being slowly destroyed by the NRL. No, make that quickly destroyed.
May 15th 2012 @ 4:59am
King of the Gorgonites said | May 15th 2012 @ 4:59am | Report comment
Totally agree about rebels being good for Aussie rugby.
If you taranaki in, won’t the over provinces expect to enter?
I have no issues in getting the kings in and the argies
May 15th 2012 @ 6:58am
Emric said | May 15th 2012 @ 6:58am | Report comment
KOG
Yes they will but the whole idea of the conference system is to allow unlimited expansion at least that’s how SANZAR have sold the concept to us which is why they speak of new teams in the USA and Japan.
The NPC should be incorporated into Super Rugby and so should the Curry Cup along with new Aus teams
May 15th 2012 @ 8:23am
allblackfan said | May 15th 2012 @ 8:23am | Report comment
bad call on that last point, Emric. One of the best things about the NPC/Currie Cup is that its not owned by the TV broadcaster.
This is why you can’t get Super rugby live on FTA in any of the three countries; Foxtel doesn’t want it. This is why NZ games are always played at night and the governing bodies lack the flexibility to adapt innovative ways of running the game.
The NZRU gets bagged often over issues like Taranaki’s Super bid but having just studied the NZRU 2010 AGM report, I have been impressed by the fact that they secured a five-year TV rights deal with Sky in which every year they get paid 28% more over the previous year; an upwardly sliding scale, if you will!
This means that (and perhaps someone from SA can brief us on their domestic happenings), a lot more domestic rugby on NZ TV this year. The women’s NPC gets off the ground and will extend to schools; Sky is showing a lot more of the schoolboy competition and the revamped ITM Cup format can help Aust rugby to the extent that there will be live, attractive games on Fox during most of the week (esp Tuesdays to Thursday period) which can help promote the code in Aust. It’s already made an impact among some RL fans I’ve met and its worth noting that AFL has Thursday games this year while the NRL is also considering it. (And let’s not forget that 24-hr rugby channel)
Then there’s Sevens …
Let’s not forget that Aust teams are already calling up NZ players and that NZ franchises, at least, will be able to sign two Argentinians each.
May 15th 2012 @ 9:11am
Jarmen said | May 15th 2012 @ 9:11am | Report comment
The NZRU has not made it clear why the TRFU have been cold shouldered over there bid to be included in a expanded super competition.
Taranaki has the backing of ex pat multi millionaire Stephen Jennings the NZRU would have little financial responsibility for the team. However it would gain from players having more top flight exposure.
The only reason I could possibly see for their lack of interest is the small population base of just over 100,000 people in the province, however this is a moot point as the Taranaki Board has pointed out that they have the financial backing to make it a viable and credible team.
Anyhow I digress the NPC is just over 30 years old and is very much an NZ institution and as Allblackfan has said the revenue the NZRU is now getting has helped stimulate the reintroduction of the womens NPC greater exposure of schoolboy rugby and a much needed boost in interest to the ITM cup. I as a fan would be very disappointed to see the ITM and Currie Cups done away with to accomodate more Super rugby.
May 15th 2012 @ 11:14am
kingplaymaker said | May 15th 2012 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Jarmen I would imagine Taranaki would combine with a nearby province, no that they would need to with the backer.
May 15th 2012 @ 1:57pm
Lippy said | May 15th 2012 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Possibly KPM but as far as I’m aware they want to go it alone.
Jarmen may be able to fill us in.
May 16th 2012 @ 8:48am
Jarmen said | May 16th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
From all sources that I have seen and heard Taranakis bid and its backer Mr Jennings is for a stand alone franchise they do not want to combine with other provinces.
I personally think if they combined with Hawkes Bay it would give them a little more street cred in the talent department, however Taranakis bid is very strong and has ticked all the boxes everytime.
The NZRU is as yet to give a solid reason as to why they can not be included they are keeping very mum on the issue.
Like I said above the only thing working against Taranaki at the moment is their population base.
May 15th 2012 @ 8:35am
The Bush said | May 15th 2012 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Some other benefits of having an eighteen (18) team competition;
1. Removing the bizarre, but necessary, bye weeks that alternatve between one (1) team and three (3) teams. You would then only have bye weeks for deliberate rest reasons (presumably nly one per season like under the old format).
2. You could establish it that every conference only has two (2) guaranteed finalists and then two (2) “wild-cards” to make a quarter final system, followed by semis, followed by a final. Same length as the current set up, but more teams and no byes into the finals.
May 15th 2012 @ 9:15am
Emric said | May 15th 2012 @ 9:15am | Report comment
I was thinking along the same lines TB
May 15th 2012 @ 9:40am
Tigranes said | May 15th 2012 @ 9:40am | Report comment
The only benefit to Australian teams is that an extra NZ and South African side might dulute existing sides and weaken the competition for the likes of the Force and Rebels. I cant see where an extra Australian side would be based.
However overall this is a good idea.
South Africa has the support base and players to maintain an extra team. Plenty of South Africans playing in France and UK who would be tempted back.
NZ has the players, but the fact is that they might not have the support for an extra side.
May 15th 2012 @ 9:44am
kingplaymaker said | May 15th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Tigranes there are vast areas of population that could support teams. Look at Johnno’s post.
May 15th 2012 @ 11:10am
Dasher said | May 15th 2012 @ 11:10am | Report comment
The conferences will grow to a point where the current competition system will become unfeasible. What we will be left with is several domestic tournaments with a brand new Super Rugby tournament between the best of those domestic tournaments. The current finals system is the stepping stone towards this.
May 15th 2012 @ 11:15am
kingplaymaker said | May 15th 2012 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Dasher but what timescale do you put on that growth when at the moment they only add one team in one conference once in every five years?
May 15th 2012 @ 11:16am
stevvington said | May 15th 2012 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Can anyone tell me what the overall takeup rate of pay tv is like in NZ? Are there extremely basic/rugby specific packages?
Just curious given that it would actually be illegal under Aussie anti-siphoning laws for certain sports (apparently super 15 doesn’t count) to only be shown on pay tv.
Do Kiwis without pay tv just watch matches on TV at the pub? Or does the pay tv factor make them more likely to attend matches?
May 15th 2012 @ 11:45am
Emric said | May 15th 2012 @ 11:45am | Report comment
NZ’s population is 4.5. There is a estimated 2,200,000 tv’s in New Zealand homes.
approx 40% of all New Zealand homes have Sky – of that 860,000 an All Black test will score about 300,000 (low figure) to 700,000 depending on the game interest and if the wife demands you take her shopping. Those who do not have sky can watch All Black tests on delay on prime once again obtaining ratings between 150,000 and 300,000 depending on the game.
ITM Cup games average around 100,000 per game with highs of 150,000 to 200,000 and lows of about 50,000
Super Rugby Average approx 115,000 per game with highs of about 300,000 and lows of about 20,000
There are no anti-siphoning laws in New Zealand if Sky wants to buy it then they are welcome to pay what its worth.
For SkyTV Sport (basic package + Sky-sport) =72.46 + Rugby Channel = 15$ extra. The Rugby Channel is believed to have about a 10% subscription rate = approx 86,000 owners or makes sky 15,480,000 a year.
May 15th 2012 @ 11:49am
stevvington said | May 15th 2012 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Thanks for the stats!
May 15th 2012 @ 11:26am
sheek said | May 15th 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
I’ve argued my position before on this. There is a limit beyond which SANZAR cannot & should not expand. The SR is not a free for all to join.
I believe the SR should be like the Heineken Cup, & capped presently at 16 teams. This could expand to 20. Maybe.
What I believe the immediate future should see is the Currie Cup (SA), NPC )NZ), ZPC or ARC (AUS) & Campeonato Argentino (ARG) take domestic centre stage, with the top 4 from each country each year qualifying for SR. Just (similar to) like HC.
If we wish to expand the game to Asia & North America, then we might look at a 20 team SR, with top two qualifiers each from Asia/Pacific & USA/Canada.
But what we can’t have, or shouldn’t have, is a SR that blows out to 20, 24, 32 teams with teams spread across the South Pacific, South Atlantic & Indian oceans up to the North Pacific ocean bordering both Asia & North America.
To me, this would be plain crazy…..