Super 15 needs to bring in foreign players

Well, Carter lives in Auckland. They offered him a big deal when he came off contract with Canterbury, but he couldn't face the backlash it would've caused if he signed with Auckland.

If Dan Carter wanted to be in Auckland, then surely Dan Carter would be playing for Auckland in the Air New Zealand Cup? Surely it would have been in the interests of NZ rugby to have their largest provincial union sailing better than they currently are. Im not sure about SANZAR as a whole, but at the end of the day, if Australian rugby had a domestic comp like the NRL we wouldnt care too much about Super rugby at all

Money comes first, winning a championship is in your waning days when you sign with a contender for the minimum.

You may be right on Cruden, maybe he will be surrounded by All Blacks yet still starting S14 matches next year to put himself in the faces of the selectors. In which case it would be someone like Slade or whoever it was got relegated back to the bench by Cruden - watching young guys passing them by while they are stuck behind incumbent All Blacks, their career clock ticking away, not getting the game time to show their wares to the Europeans, and starting to question whether they will ever quite make that last step and see the big show for the Blackness...

It doesn't work like that. Look at the NBA, free agents either want to go to a big market team like the Knicks or Lakers or somewhere cosy like South Beach, Miami. Utah have an excellent organisation, but free agents don't want to live in Mormon country. Obviously, what we've got is a little different from America, but you can still see migration habits towards Sydney and even Auckland. Dan Carter wants to be in Auckaland (actually Dan Carter wants to be in France, but if he can't be in France he'd rather be in Auckland), but it was hushed up. If you're a team that's in a small market or is a perenially crap team, players will move faster than they're presently able to. The Highlanders, Reds etc., will just become "lottery" teams. Maybe they already are... but honestly, why do we sell everything out? Do you really want SANZAR rugby to become just like the NRL or even the Euro clubs?

Cruden's not a good example at all because a kid of his talent is all but certain to be holding down a 1st 5 spot in an NZ S14 side next season ... with the Hurricanes being first cab off the rank due to him playing within their region ... and why would he be looking at James O'Connor with envious eyes .. sure his pay packet might be bigger (if the 3rd party deals don't fall over and anyway the reports of $1m + have been refuted) ... but O'Connor will be plying his trade in a struggling side next season - whereas Cruden will be surrounded by All Blacks and in the face of AB selectors week in and week out - as Sam has said at his age Cruden's amibition would be to play as high as he possible can - once / if he achieves AB status the rewards will flow ... if money was his sole motivator he wouldn't be heading to Aust / SA it would be Japan / Europe ..

Brett In theory I agree with you, but there would be similarities to the plight of the Soceroos coach having a direct say in a players welfare and management in the best interests of the national side as there would be for future Wallaby, All Black and Sprinbok coaches if some of their top talent isn't centrally contracted to the home union. There already has been a public stoush between Wellington Lions coach Jamie Joseph and Graham Henry after All Blacks were released to their provincial unions to get some game time in between Tri Nations tests. Extrapolate that to a foreign coach in a foreign country who couldn't care less about our interests if it doesn't serve his own. The benefits are more for the players and franchise teams and not for the home union.

OJ I think you've obviously got something against Dunedin, but lets look at other examples where "less glamorous" cities have been able to create a winning culture and retain star players. In Australia, the Brumbies have been able to create a culture that wants players like Matt Giteau want to come and play for them, despite Sydney being a more "glamorous" place to live. As you're a Kiwi lets look at Crusaders and Hurricanes, having been to both places, I would argue Wellington would be a far more livable place for most and certainly more glamorous. However it is the Crusaders and Robbie Deans who created an excellent culture and was able to retain McCaw and Carter, whereas the Canes and Colin Cooper are the biggest underachievers in Super rugby history. In your analogy, I would say to the Highlanders, you need to create a culture that will get guys wanting to play for you. Obviously Israel Dagg wants to be part of a winning culture, I cant blame the guy for wanting that.

But the targets probably wouldn't be Carter, Brett or even necessarily Slade, it would be Cruden - he'd be the one with the prospect of two or three years behind an established All Blacks and a bunch of next bests. You don't think he would be looking at a James O'Connor and the contracts he signs and think to himself "There, but for the opportunity to play..."? I generally agree with your assessment, but not the emphasis - I would have said that most players want to PLAY for successful sides.

God no, please no... You can open up the market with a salary cap to prevent the richest clubs from taking over, but there's still the factor that some cities are more attractive destinations than others. So what you'll get is a situation where the Highlanders clear as much salary cap room as they can to sign a marquee free agent, but that guy doesn't want to live in Dunedin and play for the Highlanders. So he signs with a Sydney or Auckland team for less dollars but more bang. That leaves the Highlanders having to sign some pick-ups and the whole thing is a mess. I still believe the game should be able playing for your province, being selected by the franchise that covers your provincial area and stepping up to Test level. Some shitty club competition should not override this.

Matt, I think something like your salary cap suggestion would naturally follow any relaxing of the eligibilty laws, as does a tail follow the dog. I don't think you could have without the other, unless Super teams were restricted to the number of "foreign" players they could sign. Also, just to clarify, whenever the topic of eligibilty relaxation has been discussed in the press, and by the three national Unions, it's always been my understanding that player X would (and must) keep his national eligibilty, rather than qualifying for a new country after so many seasons. Likewise, if any young player hasn't represented at national age level, I'd expect ther would be some kind of declaration a la NSW and Qld NRL players declare their State of Origin allegiance. Finally, I don't know that a "free market" situation will ONLY benefit Australia. If the 6th best hooker in NZ gets signed by a South African side, then surely that benefits the player, the franchise AND the home union in the end? I think it could genuinely be win-win-win for all parties..

Great post Matt and lots of food for thought. I agree with your risk assessment of a free market within Super rugby and your suggestions are sensible and practical. Each union and subsequently any future member as expansion occurs would need to sign a binding agreement protecting each country's youth development. They would need to also agree upon equal playing squad numbers as Australian teams number 30, NZ 28 and I'm not sure about SA and a common currency to set a salary cap is a must.

I think if the ARU, SARU and NZRU kept control of all the Super Franchises then many of my fears could be overcome by mutual consent of those unions in helping protect the International game. But if Private Equity is introduced then these guys run it like a business and couldn't care less if the Waratah's gain hurts the All Blacks etc. Pro sport is about money. Inevitably the players go where the money is and money can certainly buy a victorious team. Currently the Crusaders are doing well. But the Blues were unbeatable once too and the Highlanders were title favorites. Likewise the Reds. Success definitely breeds success. But if a side like the Melbourne Storm weren't protected by a Salary cap then they would never have been in with a shot of signing and retaining players like Billy Slater and Greg Inglis. Soccer has the best examples of what happens in a free market, with all the best players migrating to the money in Europe. And then the best players in Europe migrating to a handful of the richest clubs. These clubs then have the money and the success to attract more talent in. So in my mind the only way to allow player movement between nations is that if any player has represented a nation at schoolboy, U20, Sevens or International level then they are locked to that nation to ensure youth poaching doesn't become the norm. Then a salary cap will need to be introduced, probably with a Salary floor too, to provide an even and competitive Super comp where the size of the host city doesn't guarantee success. But then you raise other issues, like Australia paying more to their players currently then NZ does and the fact that all 3 Sanzar nations have different currencies and costs of living. So would the salary cap be set in American Dollars and then applied to each nation as a conversion to their own currency?

Andy The NZ system relies on a player draft so that after each franchise announces their protected squad of 22 players then everyone else goes into the draft to be picked up by any team to make up their squad of 28. Drafted players can return to their home union to play in the domestic competition and this year the quality of the competition has been of a higher standard so players aren't moving permanently to the home bases of each of the Kiwi Super 14 teams as often as before. However the Crusaders this week are chasing two players from the Hawkes Bay team, Israel Dagg and Zac Guildford to relocate to Christchurch and therefore be eligible for the Crusaders and Canterbury in the ANPC, why? Because they have a weakness at fullback and wing that needs to be filled. This is what will more likely happen if the rules are relaxed, the stronger more successfull teams will attract the talent and the weaker teams will act as feeder unions and never get far from the bottom of the table. Very similar to what is happening in the English football premiership.

I just naively assumed it would be set up like a NSW player going to the Force. You go there play your games and then go home. So the Super 15 teams aren’t really buying the players there giving them a super 15 contract for x months and when there finished they return to their own union much different to the existing national union contracts. Not a real investment but just a way of insuring that the 6th best fly half in NZ gets to play super rugby. I think the second half of your post highlights obvious deep flaws in a free market within the SH which I think would require a lot more complicated rules just to try and remedy i.e. it’s not worth doing. Certainly developing talent from other regions would be an easier (and probably more long term rewarding) path to follow.

I've already asked this question before on the same topic earlier in the year. Why is it always the first assumption that players would sign to play for Australian teams? There is no doubt that money is one factor in any players decision of who to play for and where, but first and foremost players play because they want success. They want to win. They want to look back on their careers and have something to show for it. As that reality becomes less and less unlikely then money becomes more of a driving factor. For those players who still harbour an ambition to play for their country they know they stand a greater chance of selection if they play for a winning and successful team. Exhibit A - player movement within Australia this year from the weaker franchises the Force and Reds to the stronger sides the Waratahs and the Brumbies. If a fledgling team like Melbourne approaches a young Kiwi or SA player to sign, it's not going to be as appealing than an offer from say the likes of the Crusaders or the Bulls. If the eligibility rules are relaxed then I think what is more likely to happen is that the stronger teams will only get stronger as they'll have the pick of the bunch from all three countries and not just from within their own region. It's a fallacy when talking about Super rugby developing player depth for each country as it's really developing strength for each individual franchise. The Super teams like to stockpile as much talent as their budget and squads will allow them to. Case in point, the Crusaders will have available next season for first five, Dan Carter, Stephen Brett and new All Black Colin Slade, guess who will be getting most gametime. Logic dictates that one of the other two will move away from the area to be selected for another team and play more regularly, but then there is the mentoring and culture that a successful team develops that is just as strong a pull to a player than just a pay packet. As in any decision there are always unintended consequences and I would only say to approach this with caution as you may not necessarily get what you wish for.

I don't think the Aussie Super sides would stop the like of Carl Hayman, Aaron Mauger or Nick Evans from going overseas. They were already getting good coin and playing time. What they wanted was to earn as much money as possibe. Those guys want to go and see the world and be paid to do it. Otherwise why would Daniel Braid have looked to only use Queensland as a stepping stone? The money in Europe is still bigger, that is why is it wishful (yet unrealistic) thinking to believe that Australian and NZ players would play for Melbourne instead of in Europe of Japan. I also doubt that a Super team would allow their players to be released to play NPC rugby either. If you're leaving then NZRU controlled system then you're out. Just in the same way the National coaches would lose control of their player workloads too. Just like in the NH where the clubs are in conflict with the national unions over player availability. Why would the Waratahs release Dan Carter to play games outside any legal window. They would want their investment in cotton wool and not risking himself with injuries. You look at any sport around the world where the national union doesn't contract the players to clubs, as Australia and NZ currently do. There is conflict of interest, which is bad for the game. Why can't Australia just stick to recruiting players from lesser developed Rugby nations, like Argentina and the Pacific Isles. These nations need to get their players into Pro teams to help them develop and the don't have the funding to do it themselves. A free market is only good for Australia. Bad for NZ and South Africa. The only way a free market would work is for a salary cap to operate in parallel. Imagine the AFL or NRL without a salary cap, that is what would happen to Super rugby. Wealthy teams like the Broncos (on in Rugby's case, the Waratahs) would buy up all the talent while smaller teams, like Penrith (see the Chiefs, Highlanders) would have their talent harvested away to the money centres. In a free market NZ could only sustain the Blues, Canes and Saders. How is that good for the NZ game when currently NZ teams do by far the best of all the nations?

It would mean guys that sign for say Melbourne to get more coin or playing time can still play for NZ as opposed to going to Europe and dissapearing from the national system entirely. And most likely a Kiwi signing for an Aussie super 15 team is going to go home to play in the NPC when the super 15 season finishes. For South Africa those black players who are apparently good enough but aren't getting the oppurtunity will now have 15 teams that can sign them instead of 5.

It's Andy's second question that is the big speed bump in my eyes. How would a free player market help NZ's cause? Currently NZ has by far the best playing stocks. But it also has the weakest financial base. So in a free market situation the NZ Super teams would be severely weakened. Even if NZ players could play for Australia they wouldn't be allowed to play for the AB's. But if that law was dropped, as some have suggested it should, then what is to stop a side like the Force signing up young stars like Aaron Cruden or Robbie Robinson to big pay deals, telling them they'll get game time to show Graham Henry what they're made of. Then, if Henry doesn't give them a Black Jersey within 3 years those guys might be running out in a Wallabies jersey?! So where is the reward in a free market for the development programmes of NZ? The free market system only really helps Australia, while weakening the African and NZ teams. Why would the NZRU risk letting the Hurricanes and Crusaders turning into the Reds or Lions just so those teams can become more succesful?

1. Probably SA. 2. I'd tell the NZRFU to dump Super rugby (since Super rugby would become nothing more than a glorified NPC), trash the Bledisloe series, tie up all eligible players at a youth age level (u17, u19, u20, Junior ABs, Maoris ABs) and tell JON/ARU to go jump (preferably into something boiling)