The 2011 Super Rugby season was one to remember. The footy on the field was great, most of the time, and there was also good drama off the field.
The success of the Queensland Reds, the journey of the Crusaders and the problems at the Hurricanes and Brumbies have provided enough talking points to last two rugby seasons. This, combined with a Rugby World Cup year, has firmly put the game in the spotlight.
In saying all that, though, I believe that the SANZAR could do much more to take our game to better places.
Super Rugby, the Currie Cup and the ITM Cup are not doing so bad at the moment, but I don’t believe it is the best format to take southern hemisphere rugby forward in the long-term.
What I’m proposing will sound blasphemous to the purists, but I believe that SANZAR should scrap Super Rugby, the Currie Cup and the ITM Cup and start a new competition that will combine them all. For the sake of this article, let’s call it the Southern Hemisphere Cup (SHC).
I’ll explain my reasoning later, but first let me explain the basic framework of the SHC:
– 21 team competition: eight New Zealand teams (top eight of ITM Cup), eight South African teams (Currie Cup teams), five Australian teams (Super Rugby teams).
– 25 week competition: 21 week round robin tournament with four-week finals. Each team plays each other once and has one bye.
– Australian, NZ and SA conference system.
– Finals is a top eight system with top two of each conference going through with two ‘wildcard’ teams (seventh and eighth on the combined competition ladder).
The SHC season can start in mid to late February and be all done by mid-August. This will leave enough time for the Tri Nations and end of year tours.
Now to try and answer some obvious questions:
Why eliminate these competitions?
I believe that there are too many ‘top’ competitions in the southern hemisphere. This clogs up the rugby calendar. I understand the history of these comps, but the SHC is about the future. It’s about increasing the pie, so to speak.
The Currie Cup, as well as the ITM, are good local competitions, but because their respective markets are small, I’m not sure they will remain relevant in the future with the paying public, having so much more options now with respect to where they invest their money and attention.
Also, the ITM and Currie Cup formats have changed so many times over the years because of Super Rugby and the increased number of Test matches. So much so that now the competition itself doesn’t have much history, but the teams that participate in it do.
How about using the northern hemisphere format with local comps, then a ‘super comp’ to tie it all together?
Different type and size of market, I believe.
The size of the NH market is many times bigger than SH rugby. So they get more ‘bang’ for their buck. Also, the travel factor is not as big an issue for NH rugby than SH rugby. Travel costs for SH teams, especially the NZ and SA teams, are very high.
Also, in the NH, a lot of teams are bankrolled by wealthy individuals. Over here, we don’t have that same type of culture to rugby ownership like the NH. It’s the same for the NFL in the US. The teams are privately owned by very wealthy business men and their market is massive. Different circumstances.
How will the SHC be financed?
Basically the same way most of the other codes are financed – TV deals and sponsorship. SANZAR would pass on TV and sponsorship money to the national bodies. Then the national bodies would pass on the money to the teams.
Isn’t the SHC just a longer version of Super Rugby?
Sort of, but with a huge difference. The SHC will have the tribalism that exists in the ITM Cup and Currie Cup.
The knock on Super Rugby is that the tribalism that was part of the ITM and Currie Cup’s were lost because teams were a combination of provincial unions. Also, it was hard for supporters to follow their provincial team than their combined provincial team.
In the SHC there would be no merging of the provinces – except for Australia, where their Super Rugby teams will remain the same.
This would really bring the tribalism back. Also, an icon of NZ rugby, the Ranfurly Shield, would be utilised in the SHC within the NZ conference.
What happens to the teams that aren’t in the top eight NZ and SA provinces? Will they get a chance?
There will be a relegation-promotion system in place for the NZ and SA conferences. Last team in each conference gets relegated and the top team of the ‘second division’ gets promoted.
This would also make games at the end of the season between teams that have no hope of making the finals relevant – reason being that teams won’t want to get relegated and also they may have a chance to pick up a ‘wildcard’ into the finals.
Why does Australia get special treatment?
Provincial rugby in Australia is not as strong as NZ and SA – no disrespect intended. It just is, even taking to account the Reds winning the Super Rugby. Australian rugby has fierce competition from the NRL and AFL. The amalgamation of the provinces that make up the Super Rugby teams is a good fit for Australia in the SHC format. For the SHC to work effectively, SANZAR needs Australia rugby to be strong.
How will this impact Tri-Nations, end of year tours and British and Irish Lions tours?
The SHC will be over by then so that that it won’t impact any of the Test matches. The Lions tour, however, would be a different scenario. Not sure how to work that out yet, but I’m sure something can be worked out.
Maybe try and get the Lions to tour just after the finals for the SHC. That way they can play their ‘midweek’ games against second division teams (no more SHC teams because the season is over and have their Test matches incorporated into the Tri Nations).
For the second division teams, their season can start later in the year so their finals are on during the Tri Nations. That way we have more than just one game on the weekend. The second division standard would be higher than normal because its finals rugby and the chance of getting a promotion to the SHC.
Of course this scenario would need to be thought through to take into account all the factors.
Final thoughts:
The SHC format, I believe, is better for southern hemisphere rugby because rugby fans will get a decent season of quality rugby. It would simplify the rugby season, as well.
The current formats for each competition doesn’t go long enough in my mind. This means that the TV deals for these competitions aren’t as good as they can be.
With a 25 week SHC format rugby fans would be able to watch 210 high quality provincial games along with nine finals matches. A TV deal for that amount of content would be far better than separate TV deals for each different competition.
Also, I believe the fans would be more engaged with their teams because they won’t have to split their loyalties between their provincial team and their Super Rugby team. Now it’ll just be their provincial team and the national team. This would help with merchandising, club memberships and gate takings.
This format would be great for Australian rugby in general because now Australian rugby has a full season for their players to play in. Normally for players not selected in the Wallabies they only get to play a ‘half’ season then that’s basically it. Now it’s at least 21 weeks of solid rugby.
This would improve the depth of Australian rugby, which is what the Wallabies need.
The difficult thing as always in these matters is the politics. SANZAR may actually agree with the concept, but getting all the relevant bodies on side would be a huge task in itself.
We will need real leadership in SANZAR to make this happen because I believe the current arrangement is selling our game short.
Kovana
Guest
@ Emric "Now this is the figure that must have the ARU worried for the tri-nations test on the weekend 4 Live: Rugby Union: Tri Nations Fox Sports 3 259 1.Intl Rugby Tri Nations: 165,720 (10:05pm – 11:50pm)" Are you SURE it aint 744,000? On 9 it got 485,000 On FN it got 259,000
Damien
Roar Guru
Hey Jon, All this feedback and comments have made me rethink alot of assumptions that I have had and now am slowing turning to basically how it's going now. Its only taken 100 odd comments to sink in. - This tribalism concept that I went on about may be flawed. SR is less than 20 years old. I realise that many people don't like it but there alot of people that don't mind it at all. When I was younger I played for Suburbs in Auckland. The school I went to traditionally had Marist as their 'club'. Ponsomby was like the Sea Eagles in the NRL. We were pretty hard core supporters of our clubs and when they combined to form Auckland we always supported them. SR has sort of forced us to support one level up and some don't like it. But in 50 years time will we still be having this conversation ? My bet is that it will just be like when we jumped from Suburbs supporters to Auckland supporters. Now its just Auckland supporters to Blues supporters. - The Player payments issue. Given the production line of talent that NZ has, are they really worried about the drain of talent ? I mean its not like the NRL where the AFL and rugby can poach their talent. In NZ there is zero chance of an All Black going to the Warriors and even though Europe & Japan come calling the the Top Tier AB's can have sabaticals now. - Getting rid of the ITM and CC : Its a good feeder system for SR. I don't like that because of its history and believe it deserves better but I guess the way its going now keeps it some what relevant. The funniest thing I see when I look at the SHC as it stands is that its almost identitcal to SR right now !! Takeaway the tribalism aspect a few names and there is basically no difference. LOL. Sheek's words have come back to haunt me !! LOL '..you're kidding right ?' Talk about "the more things change the more they stay the same" Oh well, it was a good discussion anyway..
Jon
Guest
1 and 2) Ah, the old, "if the stadium is easy to get to, millions of people will flock there" argument. This argument has never borne true. Just because you can get to a stadium a little easier, doesn't mean casual fans are going to bother. If a casual sports fan in Penrith or Parramatta has a choice between the very popular NRL teams the Eels and Panthers, or two brand new rugby union teams with no history, no fan base, very few good players, operating at a lower budget, with much less advertising and promotional activity, they are not gonna suddenly forsake the sport of rugby league because it's easy to get to the stadium. It's an inane argument. If it were true, any sport could just start a team at Penrith or Parramatta, and they'd be instantly succesful, simply because their home ground was accessible. It's a logical fallicy. 3) If people have a league background, what does that have to do with supporting brand new rugby union teams? If anything it means they are less likely to support those teams. After all, they already have rugby league teams to support and as you say they are league supporters. And Islanders in Western Sydney may well support union, but they support league in large numbers too. And just because a fan supports a sport doesn't mean he will transalte that into support for a local team, unless someone sells the idea to them. As an example, there are many soccer fans in Australia, but many do not support the A-League as they see it as being of inferior quality and there is little advertising or promotional activity by the A-League. A new union team would be in the same position. Lesser quality than the exisitng Super Rugby teams, and with a much lower operating budget, reducing advertising and promotion. 4) Some work is being done to increase eparticipation in Western Sydney, and in fact participation numbers are on the rise, and a large part of this is Western Sydney, particularly amongst expat NZers and Islanders. But there is a big difference between participation at ametuer level and support for a new team or league. Again, soccer is a good example of that. Highst participation rates of any sport in this country (AFLs numbers are supposed to be higher but these are heavily inflated by Auskick - a program which means that a kid can turn up to one Auskick event, kick a bal l round for an hour, never play AFL again and is then counted in the national participation numbers for that year). This high participation for soccer has never translated into support for the A-League. Participation does not equal fans for a league. And besides, compared to soccer or league, union has tiny participation numbers in Western Sydney. 5) These clubs reflect a marginally increasing participation in Western Sydney. But you're right, these clubs aren't very inspiring. Any new franchise in this area would be seen as similar to these two teams. i.e. not very inspiring. The new team would have some better players, but on the level of a Super franchise. Since there's little history of support for union in Western Sydney, why would a slightly more proffesional approach have any real effect on popularity? These two clubs dismal support and poor on field success should be a warning about support for union in Western Sydney. 6) This is true. And the ARU can never hope to compete. They don't have anywhere near the resources or basic popularity of NRL and AFL. So what's your point? If anything this is a clue that union isn't in a position to challenge these two leagues in Western Sydney. 7) Union has always been a frigne sport in Australia. The majority of wallabies have always come from private schools. Changing this is a very gradual dfficult process that must take place at grass roots level. It has little to do with a new and financially unsupportable new team in Penrith or Parramatta. the players for these new clubs would again be largely drawn from private school programs. You can't manufacture new players. It will take generations to change the sport so that more working class and country players come through the system as top quality players. This is a grass roots project, and has little correlation to creating a new domestic league. 8? 9?) AFL probably doesn't even worry about rugby union much in Western Sydney any more than the NRL does. They know union's position is not strong there. Their competition is NRL at the proffesional level and soccer and league at the grass roots level in Western Sydney. Union barely rates a mention. But I doubt they laugh. They understand unions place. It's just business to them, not comedy. And the NRL's inocompitent management will soon see them sign a billion dollar plus tv contract which may well exceed AFL's current tv deal. If anything they are worried that GWS will turn into a black hole for their finances and the NRLs' massive increase in resources will make it much harder for GWS to make an impact in Sydney. As I've said before, many in the AFL think GWS is a very bad idea.
Damien
Roar Guru
Jon. I see where you're coming from with your 'less games, less content' point and it makes sense. If we take out a RWC year we roughly have 137 SR games, 94 ITM Cup games and 64 Currie Cup games. Thats 295 provincial rugby games. In comparison the SHC will only have 219 games. Not sure if they televise the ITM & CC second division. I'm assuming that SR would get the lions share of the provincial pie for obvious reasons. I'm not suggesting excluding any ITM & CC teams because I think they stand a 8 or 7 teams each so it still fits in with a 21 team format. With all that in mind, do you think that a SHC style format alongside televising the second division would at the very least make up the volume of content ? And to add to that wouldn't the SHC be able to get more revenue due to it being like an expanded SR anyway so it can command the premium that SR gets. Thats just on a purely per game level. The issue with player quality is different but my logic is that from a better TV deal we will get better paid players and lose less to the NH. If that logic were to be the case then I believe that a the second division content will be at a similar if not higher level to the current ITM & CC comps. But human nature being what it is who's to say all that extra revenue even makes it down to that level. We might end up with test players getting a massive pay rise but the SHC and 2nd division players getting an only modest rise which wouldn't stop them leaving anyway. I wonder if there are companies out there that can model this stuff, you know like when you get a new bridge they model how it affects the rest of the traffic in the city.
Johnno
Guest
Damo i will tell you why in my opinion whyi think Jons opinions are not valid. Moore Park waratahs, is a terrible location to get to, for all of sydney for that matter including eastern suburbs people, terrible logistically and public transport. 2) Parra stadium, and penrith stadium much close to public transport on the train line especially. So you can flood the masses in easy , like at homebush just hop on the train form anywhere in sydney. 3) People out there have a rugby league background, and the large pacific islander backgrounds out there love rugby union anyway 4) And people like Tatatfa polata naou and Rodney Blake are from west sydney , so there are some pacific islanders playing out there but not in the mass numbers that should. But they love rugby ,but only AFL, and NRL give them an oppurtunity. 5) Parra 2 bLues and penrith emus are amatuer clubs in the shute shield so not very inspiring avenues to make money and a career from 6) Western sydney is struggle street lots of new rich but a lot so fpeople on struggle street still with poor socio ecomic backgrounds and AFL and NRL are putting money into junior development to give todays kids the chance to make money when they become the nex generations of adults in 10-20 years time. 7) And rugby has to get out of the snooty private school system I went to one of those,and really promote rugby in government schools or junior clubs , the real heartland where the heart beat of real Australia is. and start giveing real Australia rugby union balls and giving them images of rugby union not just giving them images of AFL via GWS and NRL via the western sydney NRL teams. 8) The rugby union might reach it's potential in this nation which all passionate rugby fans want and there some out there, just as any other sports fans want there sport to be no1 or a big sport. 9) And I think the AFL must laugh at rugby's abandonment of western sydney, and the rugby leagues incompetant managament.
Damien
Roar Guru
Change is extremely difficult I agree. Going this way will probably mean cutting a layer of admin that has been in place for generations. Just say we lived in an ideal world and someone came up with say a $1.5B deal but they had to implement the SHC or something similar. I reckon we would still have an all in brawl..
Jon
Guest
It just doesn't seem too likely Damian. The unions won't make any drastic changes any time soon. They can't afford to.
Lorry
Guest
yes, the eds seem to choose some bizarre non-sequitir titles sometimes!!! Eds take note!!!
Jon
Guest
Emric, the ITM Cup is negotiated between the NZRU and Sky. The negotiations are done essentially at the same time as the Super Rugby negotiations and are treated as part of the total package. But only the NZRU owns the rights to the ITM Cup and only they get paid for it. It is negotiated as a seperate component of the total SANZAR broadcasting package. The roughly $20 million US over 5 years is paid to the NZRU, no one else. The NZRU can then negotiate to have the ITM broadcast overseas which it has done, but at little profit. The Currie Cup is in a similar situation, though worth much more to Naspers (Supersport). The Super Rugby comp and tri-nations are sold as a whole but the payment of the profits of this to the unions is negotiated within SANZAR. For a long time South Africa has receieved the largest slice of this, as they represent the largest viewing audience. However, this time round the profits were split essentially evenly, roughly $100 US over 5 years per union. If you look at those figures you can see that the NZRU makes $20m for the ITM and an additional $100m for Super Rugby. Sky gets all the Super games and all the ITM games. Lots of content. Any change to this which results in less games, results in less profits. Also a purley domestic competition holds less appeal for advertisers and sponsers. If you simply merge the ITM Cup into the Super 15 somehow (I don't even see how, unless you exclude some teams - meaning you aren't seeing all the best players or distributing profits and benfits evenly to the involved unions) you are making a huge cut to total content. It's gonna cost the NZRU money. Any way it adds up its reducing revenue. Meaning you start losing more top players. Meaning the competition is worth less to broadcasters. And so on.
Damien
Roar Guru
Thanks for that Emric. That article on the TV deal has just taught me a lesson in lazy research. I read somewhere on the Roar (before this article) about it being separate but didn't bother actually checking it out. Kinda changes the circumstances sum what if SANZAR can put ALL Southern Hemisphere content up for grabs. Do you think it would be a good idea to unbundle the package next time ? Would that dilute the monies that the ITM & CC would get because of the lack of Top Players in that comp ? Or would that just mean that SR gets a bigger slice ? So the SR players can potentially get a pay rise..
Emric
Guest
Kovana I'm fairly sure that the ITM Cup and Curry Cup are part of the same package deal for SANZAR. http://www.espnscrum.com/itm-cup-2011/rugby/story/113836.html The plan is to unbunble these competitions when the next TV deal comes up and make sky pay for them independently. Jon - The reason that the ITM cup is not rating the same numbers as super rugby is because the top 100 players of NZ rugby barely play in it anymore and the top 30 All Blacks almost never play for their provences. Return these players and you will see the crowds and numbers increase Also the top games of the ITM cup easy pull 120 000 viewers on sky sport and a unknown number of Rugby channel viewers the small unions still pull between 35 000 to 65 000 1.ITM Cup Rugby: 144,840 (7:30pm - 9:10pm) 1.ITM Cup Rugby: 79,470 (7:30pm - 9:15pm) 1.ITM Cup Rugby: 68,580 (2:30pm - 4:10pm) 2.ITM Cup Rugby: 48,930 (4:30pm - 6:15pm) Just some ITM cup stats over the last few days. I am not saying get rid of super rugby simply morph it into a competition where the ITM cup teams are playing for their provences and not for some team that no one cares about. Finally - no NRL game has never pulled more then 200 000 kiwis to watch and normal games get around 25 000 viewers which is less then the ITM cup games - Remember Kiwis watch rugby on Sky Aussies do not - when kiwis were watching the All Black games on FTA TV live the games were pulling 2million viewers + from a population of 3.5 million at the time. Australian Rugby Union smashed the Pay-TV record and the normal games regularly make the 65-000 viewership when you compare this to the Pay tv figures of the NRL games which are around 320 000 in Australia Now this is the figure that must have the ARU worried for the tri-nations test on the weekend 4 Live: Rugby Union: Tri Nations Fox Sports 3 259 1.Intl Rugby Tri Nations: 165,720 (10:05pm - 11:50pm) Now your argument on keeping the players - NZ rugby has been dealing with NRL strip mining its rugby teams for 60 years all we've done is replace one shark for a another except the Europeans will put limits on how many overseas players can play in their teams. Australian Rugby needs NZ more then NZ needs Australia we can recall our top 100 guys to the ITM cup and still have a product worth selling to sky TV - NZ does not get the entire 400 million dollars paid out to SANZAR and Sky TV needs Rugby in New Zealand because most of the country has it simply to watch rugby.
Damien
Roar Guru
I just used this site to come up with the table. I had the teams having one bye. http://www.teamopolis.com/tools/round-robin-generator.aspx Its pretty cool..
Jon
Guest
Kovana, it's around 300,000 just on pay tv. Free to air games go into the millions. And yes, the population difference is a large part of the difference in figures. Becuase NRL is popular primarily only in NSW and QLD, and AFL everywhere else I suppose you could say that union is more nationally popular in NZ than NRL is in Australia. In terms of crowds and participation, rugby league in Aus has alot more than rugby union in NZ. Again, that is to do with population.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Instead of "ignoring that" perhaps a little maths will help you understand; You can't have 21 teams play everyone in just 20 weeks. At least one team must be on a bye every weekend - therefore in only 20 weeks a team would play just 19 games (as they'd also have a bye). Therefore to play the other 20 teams and have your bye, you have 21 weeks...
Kovana
Guest
@ Jon. Are you sure its 1.1 million per CLUB game... From what i see, its more like 300K per club game. "The Origin decider got over 3 million viewers, three time more than an All Blacks test." Yes... do also know the population difference between the NZ and Oz? From last wiki read, Oz has 22 million.... NZ about 5 million. And again you are using only TV ratings.. how about participation, registered players, competitions, and crowds? So again i stand by my statement, RU is more popular in NZ then RL is in Oz.
Jon
Guest
GWS is completely funded from tv deals the AFL has. It is not in any self funding. AFL signed a 1,25 billion dollar tv deal recently. They have massivly larger cash reserves than union. They can afford to fund an expansion team ont heir won, without anyone's help. They can afford for GWS to not make money for many years (which it won't). And by the way many in AFL, particularly the Swans (who also don't turn a profit), object to the GWS on the grounds that it is a financial black hole and will dilute support in Sydney. Rugby union is simply no where near as popular as AFL in Australia. The ARU has nowhere near the funds and tv deals the AFL has. It's not a worthy comparison.
Damien
Roar Guru
Rugby in Oz and the AFL are in different universes. Globally of course rugby is bigger but in Oz the AFL is the Big Dog. I don't know where the ARU going to get this money from to fund this invasion. The AFL has a put a team in the rugby league heartland and have poached one of league's brightest young stars. As you would know they are ploughing MILLIONS into only one team. To show everyone else how much they have in their war chest they are paying Folau truckloads of cash. Folau's wage is bigger than anyone in Union or League. And this is for a guy that hasn't even played AFL yet. I know alot of AFL fans don't like this but when I heard this I couldn't help but tip my hat to the AFL. Why did they do this ? Because they can, and they have the cash to back it up. That's how you make a statement. I would love the ARU to be able to do something similar but I just can't see where the money is going to come from. An ARC would not enable the ARU to do something similar.
Jon
Guest
Kovana, the NRL averages 1.1 million viewers per CLUB game. The total cumulative audience for NRL was over 120 million people. The Origin decider got over 3 million viewers, three time more than an All Blacks test. Given that the All Blacks are the height of the game for NZ, and only play 14 games per year, you can see the massive difference in viewing figures for union in NZ and league in Australia.
Damien
Roar Guru
As I have said before I like the idea of an ARC but I can't see it working. AndyS & Jon's explanations are valid IMO. I believe that NZ & SA have the depth to field 8 good quality teams each. Oz should only have 5 (the SR teams) - I've outlined my reasons in the article. I believe with this many teams and a streamlined comp the SHC would get a bigger TV deal than the SR deal. That in turn should enable SANZAR to pay their players more, which hopefully will lessen the flow of talent to NH rugby. I agree with Jon on the intentions of SANZAR. I believe they are doing the best they can. Having an ARC up and running would be nice but it would be financial suicide to try it again now.
Johnno
Guest
Well JON that is a quesstion like how GWS can compete with the NRL. A code has to invade to make inroads and see if it can compete, and AFL and RUGBY CAN STEAL SOME NRL witht he right funding. And AFl has stacks of money pouring into western sydney via GWS. So much talent in western sydney, and these pacific islands kids can identify with rugby, so it is a goldmine of talent out there in sydney's west .