So it’s been decided. From 2011 the Super Rugby competition will consist of fifteen teams, with the extra team being placed in the Australian conference.
From either 2013 or 2015, the competition may even expand to a Super 18, with an extra team in each conference.
How the competition is run and how some countries are disadvantaged by having more quality teams in their conference is obviously a subject of some debate.
But not this one.
The questions I’m asking here are where should the extra team come from for the Super 15 (Australian conference) and where should the extra three teams (one in each conference) come from for the Super 18?
Let’s look at the options:
Melbourne
This appears to be the front runner. The financial potential of having a team based in Australia’s second largest city are too big to ignore. However, there is still a question mark. ‘Financial potential’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘financial certainty’.
Player numbers in Victoria have grown slightly in the last ten years, but the AFL still casts a very, very long shadow. However, there are some reports that at least a verbal guarantee was given to Victoria after they were denied entry into the Super 14 behind the Western Force.
Supporters of a Melbourne Super 15 franchise have more to fear from Japan than the other Australian options.
There is also the possibility of fielding a Pacific Islands team based in Melbourne. But that opens up a whole new set of questions as to Wallaby selection, and harm to the Pacific Islands national teams.
Pros – Big cash potential and potential growth of the sport
Cons – Uphill battle against the official state religion of AFL
Chances of Super 15 entry 75%
Chances of Super 18 entry 100%
Gold Coast
How many teams can the Gold Coast support?
Just over ten years ago, the Gold Coast Chargers were launched in the Australian Rugby league. They folded a year later having failed to gain significant local support. Now, in the space of three years, the Gold Coast has gone from having nothing to having an NRL team, an A-League team starting in the 2009-2010 season, and a provisional franchise licence to enter a team in the AFL from 2011.
Are they already near saturation point?
The Gold Coast option is probably the least likely expansion option for the ARU. Not only has the Gold Coast yet to demonstrate that it can support AFL, NRL and A-League competitions at the same time, they are also facing opposition from the QRU who would see the franchise as a direct competitor to the Reds.
Pros – Excellent stadium
Cons – No guarantee of support from the public and no support from the QRU
Chance of Super 15 entry 5%
Chance of Super 18 entry 5%
Western Sydney
The ARU wants to see rugby player numbers and supporter numbers grow in the massive population of Western Sydney, and so does the NSW Rugby Union. This is the main reason why the Waratahs are not as hostile to perceived competition from Western Sydney as the QRU is to the Gold Coast.
A bid for a franchise in the area would also have financial backing of some private sector interests, but the ARU would be wary of relying on this kind of backing after the woes of the firepower affair with the Western Force.
Third party backing was the flavour of the month three years ago. It is a different story now.
Another obvious question would be, where does support for New South Wales end and Western Sydney begin?
Last time I checked, Western Sydney was in NSW.
The ARU has tried for years to remove the regional names from Super 15 teams. Did you know that the Brumbies actually represent the ACT and Southern NSW? That’s why their ground announcer always refers to them as the CA Brumbies after their sponsor – ala HSBC Waratahs.
Unfortunately for the ARU, rugby fans haven’t fallen for it, and the ARU may not want to bet good money on them falling for it in Western Sydney.
Pros – Large potential fan base, good stadiums
Cons – Fan base lodged firmly in NSW Waratahs territory
Chance of Super 15 entry 7%
Chance of Super 18 entry 10%
Pacific Islands
The IRB has long made it clear that they want to support the growth of Pacific Islands rugby. They haven’t always made it clear whether they actually were supporting Pacific Islands rugby.
The region has continually lost players to European clubs, New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, Australia. Unfortunately for PIR, a decision on future Super Rugby franchises will be based on the best interests of SANZAR, and it could be argued, rightly so.
One other factor going against them is political stability – and it’s a big factor.
Add to that the lack of playing facilities, and a financially viable supporter base, and the case for a PIR side in Super rugby is even weaker.
Having players playing in a potential Melbourne side wouldn’t really mean the PIR was represented. But the one glimmer of hope would be a PIR side in the New Zealand conference – based in New Zealand.
That would at least hold open the possibility of the occasional match being played in the Islands. And, of course, the NZRU would never take advantage of the situation to fill the ranks of the All Blacks while preventing players from representing their home countries. Oh wait.
Pros – Quality player pool. Crowd favourite on tour
Cons – No possibility of actually being based in the Pacific Islands
Chance of Super 15 entry 0%
Chance of Super 18 entry 40% (NZ based in NZ conference)
South Eastern Cape (South Africa)
A sports writer could fill an entire book on the pros and cons of an extra South African team and where in South Africa it should be based. As a page filler you could simply publish the court transcripts of hearings arguing that very topic.
Barring UN intervention, the extra slot in the South African Conference in an expanded Super 18 is a given. What more needs to be said.
Pros – Irrelevant
Cons – Irrelevant
Chance of Super 15 entry 0%
Chance of Super 18 entry 100% (RSA Conference)
Japan
The potential financial returns from tapping the Japanese market are massive.
There is already a lucrative national competition in place, and a large television following, although crowd numbers are low. Travel times are a worry, but no more than travel to South Africa.
TV time zones are friendly to Australia and New Zealand, and the desire of the IRB and the ARU to curry favour with the Japanese market is well documented. The only question would really be – one team or two?
Pros – Money, population, TV, potential
Cons – Travel
Chance of Super 15 entry 13%
Chance of Super 18 entry 85% (1st team in Aust. Conference)
Chance of Super 18 entry 40% (2nd team in NZ Conference)
Argentina
Following the 2007 Rugby World Cup, there was a lot of talk about getting Argentina involved in major competitions. Unfortunately, that’s all it was – talk.
There is currently no professional domestic rugby in Argentina and all of their professionals ply their trade in Europe.
Their inclusion in Super Rugby would be a natural progression towards inclusion in the Tri-Nations (or Tetra-Nations) but they would have to beat off challenges from Japan and an NZRU-backed Pacific Islands to sneak into the New Zealand conference in the Super 18.
Their inclusion in the Australian Conference is logistically impossible, which rules them out of the Super 15, and inclusion in the South African conference at the expense of the South Eastern Cape could lead to anything in South Africa.
South African rugby politics can be hilarious at times.
Pros – A professional option in Argentina, and inclusion in a major competition
Cons – Travel, there can only be 18 teams in the Super 18
Chance of Super 15 entry 0%
Chance of Super 18 entry 20% (NZ Conference)
clubrugbyman
Guest
western sydney bring back the rams k.b. turner tahu tuqiri parra stadium get the boys back and in the s14
DELL
Guest
Go Victoria VALOUR!!!!!! - - works in nicely with the Weary Dunlop factor already established in Melbourne - Victoria cross for bravery etc.. strong,brave courageous - what about the headlines... How about this for a name?
Nick
Guest
The team can only come from Melbourne, if you divide the loyalties of Queensland and Brisbane, it's unlikely they'll survive... at least Brisbane anyway. And it must be a team made up of mainly Australians. People aren't going to turn up and see a foreign team claiming to be from their city. There are over forty Australian's playing in the top flight leagues of Europe, and god knows how many playing in the lesser leagues and Japan... bring them home. Combine that with five players from the existing franchines, five of the top club players on the fringe and the ever present pair of leagies up the back and two marquee players and you have a competitive team. It's not rocket science its just about money. More importantly with this Super 15 and then 18... How are all these 'derby's' going to work with only five teams per conference, that sounds like a lot of byes, plus bye's during the round-robit stage (odd number of teams in total) and the three bye weeks for internationals. That sounds like the Reds will play 16 games over 22 rounds... a bye every three games? That's hard to sell to an Australian market founded on week in week out competition. And as for the Super 18... is bigger better? It sounds like it'll involve more games in a bad time zone against teams from distant regions I care little about. Cross border tournaments are fun in football for the novelty factor, you play a handful a year, not week in week out against Tokyo, Hong Kong, Suva, Wellington, Pretoria and Cordoba...
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Fragglerocker I actually found out about it on the Sydney Morining Herald site intially and have found other links about it since.
ilikedahoodoogurusingha
Guest
Just a point to a couple of the posters here, the Brumbies do not just represent the ACT, and they haven't since 2004. They represent the ACT and Southern NSW....from the Brumbies Website: "The 2004 off-season delivered major news and a change in the structure of the ACT Rugby Union. A constitutional reform was passed to expand the territory of the ACT Rugby Union to incorporate the Far South Coast and Southern Inland Unions. The ACT Rugby Union was renamed the ‘ACT and Southern NSW Rugby Union from November 2004. The team name ‘ACT Brumbies’ was changed to ‘Brumbies Rugby’ and a new identity was launched to reflect the expanded region of the Brumbies."
Fragglerocker
Roar Rookie
Midfielder - I don't know how much support the Waratahs have in western Sydney but I gather you are implying that the Waratahs don't have much. If this is the case then there's no-one to blame but the NSWRU. As someone who grew up playing rugby on the south coast all I can say to that idea is - "The NSWRU focusing on inner Sydney and ignoring the rest of NSW - NEVER" Spot the subtle bit of sarcasm. As for Melbourne, shouldn't we start referring to them as VICTORIA. After all the other Australian franchises don't exclusively represent Brisbane, Sydney Canberra and Perth (at least in theory). WORKING CLASS RUGGER - "Rumoured Atlantic conference". I haven't heard that rumour, but I like it.
Dan
Guest
MELBOURNE!!!! No ifs no buts, just set up the team and avoid the use of arbrary NFL nicknames (like Titans, Cowboys etc).
MarkH
Guest
Im on board with Melb. Its a great city, the temp is perfect for Rugby, its right in the city (getting on the cans after is easy) the CORP support is there and the people like the game (Ok im a Victorian). It will suck plenty of support away from the Storm Im afraid to say. Although Hong Kong would be a great spot. The heat and humidity is a killer. The locals dont really dont care. I think in future, extending to Japan and a team out of say San Diego!!!! not LA or SF is a great idea having lived here for a couple of years, youd be suprised as to how many CORP types have played the game, so if you think money is a prob here, we'll buy a team to start and slowly change them over with Americans. Im off to SF this weekend to watch the USA v IRE. Should be a good game. Its alive here and people play it. So, go Melb.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
exciting -existing. Sorry
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Shocks Basing a Super Side out of Hong Kong does appeal to me. There is a long established presence through the Seven's series. And it could be the catalyst for the local population to really take to the game in greater numbers than they are now. It would be potentially very successful. So not a bad idea. It will also open up the door to greater China. Back to the article. Melbourne -2011 Gold Coast- Never Western Sydney - Maaaybe. But the NSWRU should really reach out to the region more rather than have a new side. Perhaps help establish its own club competitions to develop the area more. PI - Never. If the team selected doesn't play out of the PI's and it won't then it shouldn't happen. But how about this. To assist the competitive ness of the potential Japan/ as Shocks has suggested Hong Kong sides one team from each island joins the Japan Top League. So if one or two Japanese enter the comp in 2013. The PI's could use this as a access way. Argentina - Yes. definitly Yes. But because of distance the Super Series cannot contemplate it at the moment. But with the introduction of the "Conference" system the fields should be starting to be sown for the rumoured "Atlanta" conference involving teams from Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, The US and Canada. This could include up to ten teams. To play each other on the Americas for half the season reducing extensive travel for most excitng Super Sides as some sides from each conference won't play many of those teams. Ideally if done right this could from the other half of the Super Series.
Midfielder
Guest
Fragglerocker Without being nasty they obviously flock to the games.
Midfielder
Guest
Fragglerocker how much support do you really think the East Sydney Blues really have deep down in Western Sydney?
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Brett and Andy are correct. The costs and revenue are shared equally among SANZAR partners as the Super 15 proposal is a pure SANZAR product for the first time. The previous deals for Super 12 and Super 14 included the Currie Cup as part of the package and that is why SA received greater revenue. They have already sold the rights to the Currie Cup and have a real figure against its value. With the Currie Cup removed it will be a reality check for Australia and NZ when the deal is presented to News Ltd to see how valuable Super rugby is on its own. SA isn't in favour of any further expansion to a Super 18 according to SA Managing Director Andy Marinos. SA will resist any attempts to extend the season any longer where it will either supersede or eradicate their Currie Cup competition. They won't agree to Super rugby being played beyond the first week of August, and if it is to expand it will have to be in a vertical competition structure and not a horizontal structure. When the IRB met in Dublin they discussed Argentina's entry into SANZAR and were disappointed that Argentine administrators had not done more to push their case. They were told they had two weeks to come back with both a major sponsor or broadcaster to the table to receive serious consideration. They hadn't provided enough information on how much it will cost to include them and how much revenue the South American market can generate so any cost modelling was impossible. The ARU are pushing for all Super teams to revert to geographical names but Australia is the odd one out in that their teams reflect states with no local representative teams feeding into them, whereas SA and NZ teams represent regions encompassing multiple representative teams. This was deliberate so as to be inclusive of all their domestic partners for marketing and merchandising. We haven't even begun a Super 15 yet so all talk of a Super 18 is pie in the sky stuff. Australia needs to concentrate on strengthening it's existing teams and not focusing on creating new ones.
Brett McKay
Guest
Actually AndyS, I think you're spot on, it would have to involve a renegotiation. Fraggle, I'm pretty sure part of the S15 announcement from SANZAR the other week was something about all revenues and expenses being split evenly from 2011, rather than the current situation where SA get the bigger slices of both. If Japan and the PIs came into a S18 for eg, there would have to be revenue and expenses going their way too. Not sure if that would be the case for a Japanese team in the S15 though, I think the idea initially was for the ARU to on-sell the fifth spot. Either way, if the S18 talks have already commenced, it becomes a moot point.
katzilla
Roar Guru
On the Back Page last night the AFL expert. I cant think of his name, was a legend of the game and has a dirty Mo, was talking up the chances of rugby getting a foothold in Vic. He reckons that Mexicans enjoy the international appeal of rugby and that it has a deeper history in Vic then RL. That from an AFL guy. It makes sense, much like RL in NZ, it will never be a threat to Union but everyone likes it as a sort of boutique alternative.
Fragglerocker
Roar Rookie
In answer to various comments - The percentages are just my humble opinion of what I think is 'likely'. They aren't where I'd most like to see the teams based. I just hoped my article would spark some debate and fully expected be proven wrong in some areas (B McKay - thanks for the correcting my errors of fact). I never really considered Hong Kong but SHOCKS makes some very good points in their favour. One suggestion I would make for future comments. Please differentiate between where you think teams SHOULD be based and where you expect teams WILL be based. Personally I'd LIKE to see Tokyo in the S15, and Beunos Aires, PIR and Vancouver in the S18 - But I know it's not going to happen that way. Andy S - I believe the division of TV revenue won't be determined until the broadcast rights are re-negotiated and by that time any new team would already be chosen. Gate takings are the responsibility of the hosting team as they are responsible for the hosting expenses (renting the stadium, providing security, etc).
AndyS
Guest
Passing thought - wouldn't inclusion of either Japan of the PI at this time require renegotiation of SANZAR itself and the split of revenues? Certainly I would expect they would want their share, and I can't imagine either party would be happy with the ARU speaking for them.
Brett McKay
Guest
mitzter, I don't so much mind naming rights per se, you just get used to reading the corporatisations on the official websites, and hearing them over ground PA systems. You're certainly hard-pressed to by a jersey without the sponsor logos nowadays. I guess that's a part of modern, professional sport. But yeah, when it starts creeping into the media, that's when it starts crossing the line for me. I can't for the life of me work out why the Ch9 commentators seem to have a fascination with the "Jetstar Titans", when they just refer to other clubs as Souths, or Parramatta, or the Broncos. Do we have another cash-for-comment situation here?? (and yes, I realise I'm crossing my own line by discussing this further in a public forum. If only it was cash for irony..) Slightly off topic Fraggle, apologies...
Simon
Guest
Good article. Although I’m not sure how the percentages were worked out, I think I found myself agreeing with most of them. For any team to be based on the GC or in WS, it would have to be a foreign team (e.g. JAP or PI), or I rather think, these sort of locations (also include Central Coast) will be home to teams in another comp akin to the old ARC, if that ever takes off again. Did I not hear correctly? I thought I heard on Fox that the ARU was pushing for the geographical names to be reattached to the teams. This would be good. Then all teams can be held more accountable to capture the heart of their whole province, and develop rugby on a wider scope. Obviously some teams in AUS do a better job of this than others. I suspect that if a S18 were to eventuate, the two new teams (besides the new SA team) would be from JAP (one in AUS, one in NZ). But what’s the probability of all teams opening the door to 3-4 overseas players (out of 30 players) specifically from the PI’s and ARG, whilst allowing them to still play for their own national teams at the appropriate time? Does anyone have any info on this?
mitzter
Guest
yes naming rights suck - get rid of them asap. They make them sound like a company team or something ala Japan. You can say 'the ACT Brumbies brought to you by CA' or 'the Wallabie brought to you by QANTAS' but not the QANTAS Wallabies - i always cring when i fear this by ch 7 broadcasters