The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Super Rugby's new format was never going to be perfect

2nd May, 2014
Advertisement
Kurtley Beale in Waratahs colours. (Credit: SNPA / David Rowland)
Expert
2nd May, 2014
81
1805 Reads

There’s been plenty of debate and speculation over the last few months regarding the proposed new structure for Super Rugby and now we that know the answer, the debate has intensified.

When the story broke that there would be four conferences from 2016 onwards my initial reaction was negative.

Many have argued, and will continue to do so, that expansion is not a positive and the competition should contract rather than expand further. It is crucial to maintain the quality of the games.

But the SANZAR partners all want more revenue from broadcasters, and they know that the only way to achieve this is to expand. Offering the broadcasters more content is imperative to this, so expansion was always going to happen. We also can’t discount even further expansion in the future.

Once the SANZAR partners decided expansion was the way to proceed, it simply came down to the question of how that could be achieved.

The proposals for a new structure were complicated by the differing priorities for each of the three countries involved.

Australia wanted to maintain as many local derbies as possible; New Zealand wanted to reduce the number of local derbies and continue to play teams from South Africa; South Africa insisted on the inclusion of a sixth team so the Kings could become a permanent fixture in the competition.

Many were of the view that if expansion was to occur it should not be driven by the non-negotiable inclusion of the Kings, and if that were to occur it would be better for Australia to walk away from Super Rugby and attempt to form a new competition with New Zealand.

Advertisement

There are two issues with this view – New Zealand made it very clear they wanted to include South Africa in their plans; and the involvement of South African teams generates more revenue for SANZAR than either Australia or New Zealand.

So much like the new NRC competition announced by the ARU, the new Super Rugby structure was never going to please everyone.

The negatives in the initial proposal revolved around a potential loss of revenue for the Australian franchises due to a lower number of derbies each season and one less home match every second year for Australian teams.

Like them or not, local derbies in Australia draw more crowds to the stadiums and attract more television viewers. They are the revenue drivers in Australia.

At a time when none of the Australian franchises are producing strong profits (even the Reds profit can’t be called strong although it’s substantially better than any other franchise) and the ARU is in a very weak financial position, anything that further reduces revenue has to be avoided.

The Australian franchises cannot keep collectively bleeding money like they have in the past, and there are only two ways to solve the financial issues – increase revenue or cut costs further.

Cutting costs further will probably lead to more players leaving our shores for the riches on offer in Europe. This means less money available to put into off-field resources like coaching staff. Neither of those outcomes will advance the quality of Australian rugby or the competitiveness of the Wallabies.

Advertisement

I was also concerned about the potential for a maximum of only one Australian team in the finals which would reduce opportunities for franchises to host a final. Finals are a nice little earner for any host.

I based my view on less chance of finals participation on an assumption that only the four conference winners would proceed to semi-finals.

Then news broke that the Australian franchises had agreed to the proposed new structure without any real objection. I had expected the franchises to want to take their time to agree, but the fact that they agreed so quickly and then started making positive statements should tell us something about the proposal – that it includes a substantial increase in revenue.

I keep saying ‘proposed’ new structure because it is still to be approved by whichever broadcasters win the tender for the rights and how much they will pay for the rights. I imagine that the approval of the franchises is conditional on the revenue increase being confirmed.

Then the tables showing the finals structure were released and my concerns about the plan eased considerably.

A finals series featuring eight teams – three from the African conferences and five from the Australasian conferences offers more opportunities for Australian teams to compete in the finals.

There is also no guaranteed grand final spot for any conference, so the two teams that play in the decider are much more likely to be the two best teams.

Advertisement

Yes, home ground advantage and the travel for the opposition may impact on which teams make the grand final, but that’s exactly what happens with the existing structure anyway.

While there will be two less derbies for Australian franchises to play each season, the inclusion of another match against a New Zealand franchise is a positive. Australian fans are much more interested in seeing contests between Australian and New Zealand teams, and they occur in a viewer-friendly time slot.

I can see positives in the new proposal, and if the new plan increases revenue I can overlook other shortcomings. It’s not perfect but let’s be realistic: there is no perfect solution.

Super Rugby Competition StructureAUS1

Super Rugby Competition Structure (dragged)AUS2

Super Rugby Competition Structure (dragged) AUS3

close