The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

THE OUTSIDER: Why Japan is not so Super

7th October, 2014
Advertisement
Japan may be the only Asian nation represented at the Rugby World Cup, but does that mean they should automatically receive a Super Rugby side? (Historian / Wiki Commons)
Expert
7th October, 2014
157
2841 Reads

So, where is the Asian Super Rugby team going to go? It’s indicative of the level of indecision that even the timeline on when the decision will be made is confusing.

It depends on which reports you read.

Given that all three SANZAR heads are in Singapore attending an IRB meeting this week, there’s a fair chance that a conclusion is imminent. But then again, maybe not.

After all, the New Zealand press had the decision out last week, while Australia’s Daily Telegraph didn’t offer a definitive announcement date, just that the team was definitely Japan’s.

Yet across the Indian Ocean, the South African press reported a decision on hold, potentially until mid-November, saying concerns were mounting around the detail of the Japanese bid.

The caution being exercised is well advised. The chairmen and chief executives of the South African, Australian and New Zealand unions need to be certain they are taking the right option.

To get it wrong would be calamitous, and if they opt for Japan, they will get it wrong.

Imagine the Western Force agreeing to play half of its home games in Auckland, a mere 5,358 kilometres away from Perth. Sound fanciful? Of course it is, yet an almost identical proposal is at the core of the Japanese bid!

Advertisement

The Japanese, who would enter one of the South African leagues under the new three-way conference system that has been designed to cut down on travel, have said they will play up to half of their home games in Singapore in order to reduce the air miles required of visiting teams.

This is undoubtedly targeted at South Africa, whose teams the Asian side plays home and away during the regular season.

The trouble is, at 5,311 kilometres, Singapore is only 47 kilometres closer to Tokyo than Perth is to Auckland. And there is simply no way a New Zealand, Australian or South African team would ever consider such a scenario, as it would seriously compromise their competitiveness in a tournament that has a strong results bias towards home sides.

A predominantly Japanese team pitched in under these conditions would be lambs to the slaughter. And where is the value to Super Rugby and SANZAR in that?

That’s one of the big issues around the Japanese option, but it is not the only one.

There are serious questions about the Japan Rugby Football Union’s financial ability to embark on such an undertaking. The chatter in Japan is that it simply doesn’t have the money.

That the Australian Rugby Union, in particular, could even be considering Japan in these circumstances, given the experience of the Melbourne Rebels sucking its financial coffers dry, is absolutely mind-boggling.

Advertisement

With so many playing contacts up in Japan, it wasn’t hard for The Outsider to gain a strong picture of what the JRFU bid offers – or in actual fact, doesn’t.

Because it has neither the money nor the contracted players, the JRFU couldn’t put a Super Rugby team together without the full backing of the Japanese clubs. But despite reports that the clubs – who operate totally independently – are fully behind the bid, and will hand over their players to the Super Rugby team for nothing, there are major doubts that this is really the case.

Having experienced Japanese society during a stint up there, I learnt that to lose face is arguably the biggest sin in the land.

Given that the national union is driving the Super Rugby bid, the clubs won’t fail to support it officially. To do otherwise would be a major loss of face for Japanese rugby as a whole. But there’s saying and there’s doing.

The clubs might say that they are supportive, but once the bid is over the line, will they really act on these words? Will they hand over all of their players?

Then there’s the issue of the playing staff itself.

Even if the clubs are prepared to sanction their participation, will the foreign players – many of whom opt for Japan because the rugby is softer and the season shorter, thereby prolonging their careers – really want to play for a Japanese Super Rugby team?

Advertisement

Would they really want to be on the road for three-quarters of the season?

History suggests that those who still want to play Super Rugby after playing in Japan, and are still at the level where they can, return to their home teams to do it. Think George Smith, or more recently Jerome Kaino.

Then there is the ‘proposed’ change to the Japanese season.

Currently it runs from early September to early February. The top league is made up entirely of company teams, with the players all employees of the companies themselves.

The JRFU is proposing shortening the league to just over three months in order to accommodate SANZAR requirements. How does that benefit Japanese rugby?

As with the player release, why would the clubs agree to it? There is very little in it for them.

The other argument that has been pushed as to why a JRFU-sponsored team would be a vastly superior option than an independently owned and run Asian franchise, based out of Singapore, is tradition.

Advertisement

Japan has a rugby heritage, so the story goes. Nowhere else in Asia does. If the game is to be grown in the region, it can only be done from Japan.

This argument is flawed.

Japan has been Asia’s exclusive representative at the Rugby World Cup since it started, yet it has it done very little for the development of the game in the greater Asian area in the 27 years since.

Not only has it not been proactive, rugby in Asia has actually grown through this time despite of Japan, rather than because of it.

Promoters of the Japanese option cite the country’s hosting of the 2019 World Cup, and the need to ‘boost’ that tournament, as a reason why the International Rugby Board supports its bid.

That in itself should be a red flag: if the game in Japan is so strong already, why does its World Cup need the ‘lift’ getting Super Rugby entry would supply?

It’s also a short-term and irresponsible argument, if that is indeed the IRB position, as the regional participation rates suggest Super Rugby in South-East Asia could lift the game like never before.

Advertisement

As in the case of Japan, the game was brought to the likes of Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Sri Lanka (yep, that’s in Asia too) by the British.

Judged on the latest IRB participation rates, the scope for growth in these countries is enormous.

Between them, Malaysia (75,400), Sri Lanka (58,480), Hong Kong (21,585) and Singapore (12,430) have 167,895 registered rugby players. Not only is that more than Japan’s 119,598, it also tops New Zealand’s 149,978. And that’s without the nations or region in question having any professional structure in place, or any flagship team in a professional competition.

Obviously the playing standard is way lower, but the enthusiasm for the game is undoubtedly there. That will manifest itself over time, initially in support for ‘their’ representative in Super Rugby, but also in more numbers playing the game and improving playing standards, as the benefits of the high-performance structures of a professional rugby club within the region trickle down.

It’s such a huge opportunity – both for the game and for SANZAR.

Placing an independent Super Rugby franchise, which has no peripheral political issues to deal with and can recruit players from all over the globe, in this region could be the game’s biggest advancement since the competition started.

It would be like, albeit on a smaller scale, inserting an English Premier League club in the middle of the world’s most populous and economically powerful region.

Advertisement

600 million people in South-East Asia, and 1.5 billion in China, suddenly with a fully professional representative in the highest profile annual competition the game has, and right on their doorstep? Even the time zone works for broadcasting purposes.

Singapore provides a perfect bridge for the natural flow of live television. It fills the current void in timing between the Perth and South African kick offs.

I know that many of you reading this don’t want it, but expansion is unstoppable. For the game’s financial future, it’s necessary.

While the ARU and its five Super Rugby teams are all crying poor, the Premier League’s current TV deal is worth £5.5 billion over three years. Media outlets covering Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia paid £650 million of this between them.

So powerful is the televised product that the EPL has become, last year 98 per cent of all games were available to viewers outside of England. North Korea and Albania were the only territories not to have some form of rights agreement in place.

Even if it will be slight by comparison, rugby has got to get a piece of that action.

For the growth of the game in Asia, the commercial opportunities for SANZAR, the much-needed precedent of bringing private ownership and big corporate dollars into the competition, the travel logistics and the sheer value it would add to Super Rugby, the decision on where to put the new team is a no-brainer.

Advertisement

SANZAR must go with the private ownership model based, at least initially, out of Singapore.

Forget Japan. There are too many red lights with that bid, too much that is uncertain.

It’s just not worth the risk.

close