As most of the world’s domestic competitions begin to commence, we can look forward to a feast of rugby. But has it all become a bit too much, and is the game suffering as a consequence?
The reality now is that the game is professional, and the roots of both rugby union and rugby league can trace their origins back to the tension between amateurism and professionalism in the late 1800s.
The Rugby Football Union strictly enforced amateur status on the game. There was constant political unrest as some clubs, such as Leeds, compensated their players for missing work and were then subsequently fined by the RFU.
This was despite the fact that the 1888 England team which toured Australia was reported to have been paid.
These tensions reached a head in 1895 when representatives of some Northern clubs formed the Northern Rugby Football Union.
This new body allowed payments to be made to players, and is seen by many to be the genesis of the sport of Rugby League.
Although initially their clubs played under “union” rules, eventually changes would occur, most notably reduction of teams to thirteen men, and the implementation of the play the ball law.
For years, the RFU took strong actions against these breakaways, and for the next one hundred years, as new organisations within rugby union were formed, namely the IRB and other national bodies, the game would remain fiercely amateur, despite the best attempts of some countries like France to do otherwise.
As we all know, things were a lot different then.
Tours formed the backbone of international programs, and most Test teams would play no more than six or seven Test matches a year, and often would play less.
But under increased threats of professional sports (ironically, rugby league), the IRB, now the game’s governing body, would declare in 1995 that the sport would become fully open, and removed any restrictions on either payments or benefits to the players.
So suddenly rugby was big business, and a business must continually drive to increase their numbers. A budget, the classic backbone of all money driven operations, must seek to increase year after year. So it has become with our rugby calendar.
But has it become too much for the most ardent of supporters?
A phenomenon occurred of late that truly confounded me. There were empty seats at a British and Irish Lions Test match in South Africa, a country that is truly passionate about the game.
And this was for the rarest sight in the rugby world – a Lions team.
The All Blacks, considered the greatest crowd puller in the international rugby world, will play their 450th test match this weekend against the Springboks.
Officially, New Zealand played their first Test match in 1903. Their 225th test match (the halfway point) was a 3-16 loss to France in Nantes in 1986. The first half of their international matches was played in 83 years.The second half has been played in the next 23 years.
It is just as staggering for other international countries. England, essentially the first international rugby team, played their first match against Scotland in 1871.
In the next 100 years, they would play 313 test matches.
From 1972 to the current day, the Red rose of England has run out onto a rugby field for a Test match 305 times.
Growth, of course, is paramount, especially to our game, with prime assets like the Pacific Islands, Argentina, Asia and the United States needing capital and resources to become genuine and regular practitioners at the top level.
But at some point, somewhere, things may need to be scaled back.
For while opportunity and money is out there to be had, the financial success of the big unions will eventually regress if the market becomes so convoluted and saturated that we get a bit sick of it.
I am a rugby tragic, and am excited for every game that is on the immediate horizon. But will it always be this way, and is it this way for all of us?
Gary
Guest
Cricket is just what you do when it's too hot to play rugby.
Steffy
Guest
The article repeats the myth that the split in 1895 was all about money - it wasn't. I
AndyS
Guest
But do you not notice the contradiction in picking cricket (with the IPL) and European soccer and rugby as your examples, when they are probably three sporting elements most awash in cash? It is the Kmart principle - lots and lots that's cheap is generally a better business model that a little that is extremely expensive. Doesn't mean it is good, but makes the most money. Looking domestically, we are up against exactly that in a different form. During the S15 we'll be pitting 2 or 3 matches in Australia against 8 NRL matches and another 8 AFL matches. Then come this time of year we reduce it to one Test match every couple of weeks. On top of that, we put what little Rugby we have on subscription TV while the other codes pipe theirs directly into every home FTA. And that doesn't even count soccer, both domestically and internationally. It is a little hard to see how the best strategic move would be less rugby...
ohtani's jacket,
Guest
The Super 14 and Tri-Nations would probably be more vibrant competitions if NZ, Australia and SA took turns winning them, but it wasn't a problem in the early days because there were plenty of star rugby players running around. SH is failing to produce star players. This All Blacks team was a lot more popular (and Henry too) when they had star players in 2005 and played an exciting style of rugby. SANZAR have fucked around with the rules, over expanded and diluted their competitions. Now they're suffering. The whole thing will go ::poof:: if they don't stop expanding. SANZAR was supposed to be the best against the best, now it's just watered down, drawn out rugby. I'm not sure if tours are the answer, but I did enjoy the midweek match against Munster. That was a tremendous occasion. Viewership figures were way down for that Grand Slam tour, however. The Tri-Nations is still the peak of viewership in NZ. The Tests appear to be important, if only for NZ to maintain their fragile dominance over SA and Australia. I still watch every All Black Test, but a lot of the games against NH sides are skippable. I just think the increase in the number of Tests each year clashes with the monotony of the four year WC cycle. The NH beat us to the punch with a better tournament (HC) and a Six Nations tournament with more passion, tradition and history. The expanded Tri-Nations was necessary on one hand since too often the individual match-ups ended in 1-1 draws, but at the same time the losses don't burn because you get a second chance the following week.
sheek
Guest
Make that 'knew".
sheek
Guest
I just new you'd have an answer!
FRED
Guest
when you hear millers name bandied around as a saviour i just about-----he was the instigator of many of todays woes and this is exactly the reason qld fail;what ward are these people in?
Matt
Guest
Exactly though OJ, it's the quest for money that is the cause for all our complaints about our game. The two idea I can think (outside trying to put import limits on NH clubs) is to scrap the Tri Nations and go back to touring. So the All Blacks would play just as many test matches in a season, but the opposition would not be the same each season. So a point of difference for the fans and the players year upon year. It seems that Tours engage the fans much better than one of tests and tournaments. Tours also involve mid week matches, which serves the task of player development and also panders to the ambitions of the clubs to be taken more seriously (compared to Test matches). I believe tours would offer the same money as Tri-Nations matches because they would have far better market penetration and would include mid week games too. My second idea (for Aus and NZ) is to build the market in the US. Currently NZ and Aus are forced to play a lot of night games to coincide with the bigger UK TV market times. But if a decent TV market could be fosterd in the Americas then NZ and Aus could start playing daytime games again (which garner much better support and produce far better running spectacles than night games) with their income subsidised by a large nightime fanbase in America. My third idea is for SH unions to start contracting young players into long term contracts (10year contracts) with a couple of stipulations. Firstly pencil in an OE period or 2-3 years where that player can, by giving decent enough notice, take a few years off to play in the NH. They would be free to earn whatever contract income they could at this time but would have to return once their time had elapsed. Secondly a player who wanted to permanently move to the NH would need a NH club to pay a transfer fee to the SH union that held the players contract. That way SH unions get a return of the player development they have inveted in a player. Players would see the benefit of a guaranteed 10 years of employment, plus the guarantee that they can leave to the NH and return. SH Unions lock up their players and could control the flow of players so that they wouldn't have a shortage in any positions due to players of the same position leaving at the same time.
FRED
Guest
SHEEK, i think i need vinays help,hes onto it
ohtani's jacket,
Guest
It's not a problem for us. We can pick and choose what we want to watch. But the players need a longer off season. Ideally, they'd scrap the end of year tours and just finish the season with club rugby, but the ARU and NZRU want more revenue sharing fixtures, so I can't see things changing anytime soon.
Matt
Guest
The biggest issue I can see is the attitudes and setup of the NH club scene. Dare I say, for fear of the wrath NH posters might resond with, but if SH unions weren't in constant fear of their players being poached to the north then we wouldn't have any issues of needing more money. If the NH comps put a hard limit on the number of import players (not eligible for the nation that club played in) then there would be far less demand for SH players. This would be mostly targeted at limiting imports form Tier 1 nations (NZ, Aus, SAF, Arg) so these nations could afford to pay their players a reasonable level of income (compared to now). If an All Black, like Luke McAlister, couldn't get hundreds of thousands to play for Sale then the NZRU wouldn't need to play 6 Tri Nations games a year, including 4 Bledisloe tests. The NZRU would also not need to play Super rugby and could concentrate it's spending on propping up the NPC instead. And with more money in NZ rugby (and no heavy demand for it's players) then the NZRU would be able to afford to play less matches with money as the primary objective, so the Pacific Islands could finally host the AB's. The only reason the SH teams play so many games is because they need the money to be able to try and match the massive money thrown the way of SH players in the north. If you look at football as your example you soon see what an open market system does for the game. You'll have 90% of the worlds best players in Europe and 75% of those will be foreigners. I would personally like to see rugby avoid that system. I'd prefer that the NH clubs put a limit of foreign Tier 1 talent importing so that SH rugby wouldn't be driven so much by the pound (or euro now it seems). Maybe in return we could have a return to tours, where the clubs would be rewarded for saving the game by being able to host mid-week matches against full strength touring SH sides. So no more 3 Nations every season. I'd imagine that players would much rather stay and play for the AB's etc if they only got to tour Wales (or Ireland or South Africa) once every 4-5 years. I still don't beleive that SH players go north for the 'challange'. They go for the money and they go for the change of scenary. So remove the money issue and change the season structure so the scenary is different each season (tours instead of tournaments). Then the SH can get back to playing in the NPC, Currie Cup and ARC and just play the odd cross boarder clash in a SH version of the H-Cup.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Yoga for the Red wine and Tantric for the sex.
sheek
Guest
Vinay, Broadly speaking, not over a long period of time. But you can't do it in a concentrated period. Too much wine, especially red, in a concentrated timeframe, & I get gout. As for too much sex in a concentrated timeframe, well I won't go into the short-term stresses that puts on the male body!
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Sheek- I disagree...you cannot have too much good wine and ,dareI say it, ,too much sex.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I can't watch cricket all year round. For me it is a summer sport to tide me over until footy starts again. But it seems to play all year round now, and I just can't get enthusiastic about it any more.
sheek
Guest
Yep, there is such a thing as too much of anything, no matter how good. Dare I say it - gourmet food, great wine & yes, even sex! De Beers diamonds have made an obscene fortune from creating an illusion of artificial scarcity. At the risk of being simplistic, rugby has gone for quantity over quality. Where once it was possible to remember & saviour the great test matches, these days one test simply meshes into another. Once upon a time, you might have 25 tests over 4 to 6 years, & it was much easier to remember those matches that stood out. These days, nations play 25 tests in just two seasons, & trying to remember the great matches is just too difficult. We have information overload, & most things pass us by like a blur. Of course, we're told we have to schedule more tests in order for the game to pay its way. But the fine line has been disturbed. I don't know where it's all going to end. It's a case of perhaps eventually killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The concept of the 3N countries playing each other 3 times EVERY year is a massive overkill. Not to mention 4 BC matches in one year. In Australia, we are paying the price of the ARU placing the sale of pay-TV subscriptions above developing the junior playing base of the game. It's like a business continuing to borrow money from the bank, but not making any significant increases in its productivity. A simplistic view perhaps, but there you have it. Sometimes I wistfully think to myself, I would love to have some of today's advantges (eg, S14, blanket coverage), but go back to say the early to mid 1980s, when there were still many fine rugby players going around. Better players then than now, i would venture to say.
Bay35Pablo
Roar Guru
Soccer and cricket are facing the same issues, and rugby needs to draw some lessons from it. I for one have given up on most cricket, because there is just so much of it. The current Ashes is the first time I have started paying half attention for years. Similarly, the European soccer season is so congested that it is a case of too much. Between national cup comps, regular leagues, and European leagues, there are 2 games a week for some top teams. The fans are also not a bottomless pit, and can't be expected to front up to every game. the EPL has faced a big problem in recent years with the costs of tickets spiralling, and fans crying out they can't afford it. Soccer is pricing its fans out of the game, with teams like Chelsea and Arsenal being criticised for having mostly rich fans who go more because they can afford it and it is a status thing than being the old working class bleed for their team fans. The local cup comps are being cheapened, with top European sides often fielding reserves to avoid overloading their first XI. Rugby in Europe seems to be facing the same issues. European qualified sides seem to have too congested a calendar, and rugby is not a game where you can easily front up for 2 games a week. The clubs pay their wages, and want the income, and so are likely to try to keep going. This will increase the club v country problem, given international windows cut into time that could be spent playing comps that earn the clubs money. Tests also bite into the maximum number of games a player can play each year. Although the 6 nations is hugely popular, the clubs will always resent it. SANZAR has avoided this in many ways due to the way the comps are structured, but must keep these lessons in mind. The problem is that rugby is likely to end up like soccer with the talent drain to Europe, meaning the European structure, which seems to have the most problems, will be the dominant one, and end up calling the shots on the Test structure.
Greg Smith
Guest
Consider a big year of Test cricket, Pakistan>>New Zealand>>West Indies>>Bangladesh>>India>>England>>Australia X2>>IPL Plus 20 20 World Cup ... then Tri Nations 2008 and then a Home Nations tour and then and then the Currie Cup and then, British and Irlish Lions Confederations Football Cup ... yawn - and back to the Tri Nations 2009 ...
Billo
Guest
A very interesting article. All great sport benefits from the scarcity factor, and it is possible to get too much of it. The NFL recognises that, which is why it has such a restricted program. The season ends with the fans crying out for more. International rugby used to be even more scarce than that, but it has now become much more common, especially with nine games in the Tri-Nations competition. There are signs that international rugby is losing some of its magic for the fans, especially in New Zealand and Australia, and perhaps even in South Africa. But in England the crowds have continued to rise for club rugby, and Twickenham is still regularly sold out. And the EPL plays almost the whole year round, and doesn't seem to suffer from reduced crowds. Maybe one of the problems for rugby is that modern defences have radically reduced the number of examples of outstanding action, and many games have become more of a grind than a celebration of open play.