A promotion and relegation system in Super Rugby deserves, more than ever, to be discussed and looked at once and for all. It addresses the two main issues we are currently facing in southern hemisphere rugby: expansion and quality.
Rugby followers, SANZAR members, players or columnists here at ‘The Roar” have for ever been discussing ways to ‘expand”, i.e. include other teams from SA, New Zealand or Australia into the current S15. Then you have people, again at every level, who want to open the game to Japan, the Pacific Islands, the U.S.A., Canada etc…
Let’s be honest: a Super 18, then 24 (30?) unique competition played week in week out is unrealistic at best. It has been discussed on countless occasions so we won’t go there today.
Next, the quality of rugby on display. Again, we have all, at one stage or another criticized the rugby played at Super Rugby level in the last few years. Whether you are Campo or Joe Blow, we all talk about the ‘negative approach’ of certain teams, the lack of commitment, passion or envy showed by players or entire teams, the lack of flair or creativity (especially in Australia).
Basic rugby skills themselves have even been introduced into the equation lately: are today’s players of the same caliber as Howlett, Spencer, du Randt, Larkham, Burke or Matfield?
A promotion and relegation system would not answer or resolve these issues, no. But it could help introduce other teams to Super Rugby exposure, first via a second tier competition. I just want to outline here are the pros and cons of such a system. A system which has been in place in most sports across Europe for decades. Not so much in the New World (North America & Australasia).
The pros:
It just makes sense. You’re good enough; you stay at top level and play with the best. You’re not; you are relegated and play in the league below. Natural selection. Only fair. No dead wood or passengers in a stale, dull league playing dead rubbers week in week out, year in year out from round five onwards.
It keeps everyone on their toes: no ‘off year’ or you risk going down. Playing at the highest Super rugby level isn’t a given; it’s something you have to earn on the fields. You have to fight for it. At management level too: if you don’t have the shoulders to manage or run a top tier SR team, fair enough. Just go down for a while and let others have a go.
What a breeze of fresh air it would bring: nothing is ‘permanent’ or ‘for ever’. New derbies, new matches every year. You play the Lions this year but you might play the Kings next. Two competitions mean more teams, regions and people involved. You may not part if it yet but you could be.
Let’s face it: Super Rugby as it is now has no roots or links with the wider rugby community. It’s a sort of ‘no man’s land’ where only ‘chosen people’ have their say and play their own competition.
In a promotion and relegation system, all teams, amateur or not, are in the same pyramid, some at the top, others at the bottom, and most in between. Super Rugby, the N.B.A., N.R.L. and so on are not part of any system. They are outcasts. Above everyone else, inaccessible. Whether you are good enough or not, you are de facto denied the right of playing against them with your own team. Look but don’t touch.
Relegation battles are the essence of sport: to play for your mates, your colours, your team, your supporters actually means something. We don’t see many tears in the eyes of Super Rugby players at the end of the season do we? If you’re bottom of the ladder: ‘no worries, see you next year folks’!
These battles are where allegiance to a club is tested and history created. In a compact competition, 10-12 teams, you either fight for a place in the finals or the relegation. And it’s also true when you play in the so called ‘second division’: earning your spot in top flight because you’ve won your championship IS the pinnacle.
Many players, in any sport, who have gone through the experience often say that even winning a title is no match to the feeling of winning a promotion.
The cons:
Stability is a chance for teams and clubs to develop and improve without fear of being relegated. You can work on the longer term, take more risks, develop players, invest etc. Financial planning is easier. You have a safety net underneath.
Quality on the field and entertaining the crowds are (should be) your only priority. No need of conservative tactics or ‘win it at all costs’ mindset. You will have a shot next year, and next, and next…That’s why Super Rugby (same as the N.B.A., N.R.L. etc), is, on average, where the best and most entertaining rugby is played.
Players retention is higher as they are less likely to leave their struggling team after one disappointing season. Heinrich Brussow or Juan Smith would probably not be with the Cheetahs if the relegation system was in place. Which also means talent is more widespread with our current system.
Both systems have been in place for years all around the world and in all sports. And they work. What you get in one you don’t get in the other and vice versa. Then it’s all about the philosophy behind the systems, the spirit of sport and its values.
I was born with promotion and relegation systems, as a player and a supporter. It’s impossible to match the emotions you get with it when you play with the other system. In the former, the joys are more intense, the sadness more painful, the passion exacerbated whether you are on the pitch or on the terraces.
England have the ‘most expensive football match of the year’ often dubbed “the 80 (or 90 depending on the year) million match” where 2 teams battle it out during the last promotion game of the season: if you win, you get English Premier League money and exposure. You lose and it’s back to the drawing board. That’s what sport is all about.
Rugby in Europe doesn’t have the same money involved yet promotion and relegation battles are at the centre of most championships, from amateur to professional ranks. In my opinion, that’s the only way to build a competitive mindset.
When you have survived these relegation battles with your club, you are another man. And yes, I do feel that some Australian Super Rugby players would benefit from it. No question about that. They would toughen up.
But is it what we really want? Is it sustainable in Super Rugby world? In an era when SANZAR are talking about ‘expansion’, it might be worth giving it some thought.
Daniel
Guest
I think all rugby fans are in agreement with the fact that super rugby is heading towards being far too big. I beleive that it will eventually be a Champions league like deal, where the top teams in national championships play off,
Bakkies
Guest
NZ rugby will end up like SA if they go down that road. Players developed at smaller teams like Griquas, Valke, EP develop players and lose them. The Cheetahs have a huge talent production factory in Grey College but a poorer than the other big teams, so a lot of their talent has gone to the Sharks (Francois Steyn, Ruan Pienaar, du Plessis brothers, etc).
Bakkies
Guest
half the clubs in the Football League have been through administration. Clubs like Leeds United banked on Champions League qualification to cover their wage bills, they ended up getting relegated, then got demoted again to League One. No wonder UEFA have put the foot down, due to the overspending of Italian, Scottish (cue Rangers), English and Spanish clubs. The French, Dutch and German clubs focus more on developing players. I don't think many high profile German players play abroad these days, clubs aren't heavily in debt, national team is playing well and tickets are cheaper in the Bundesliga.
Bakkies
Guest
Not in Super Rugby. You can't have teams dropping in and out of Super Rugby, couple of years out of it will bankrupt some unions. It works in France as there over 26 professional clubs so there is depth, Super Rugby doesn't have that. In England you have teams like Bristol and Leeds yo-yoing between the Championship and Premiership. Promoted teams have less time to recruit a squad (look at Lyon for example). Time in recruiting is vital in Super Rugby as there is a smaller pool of players due to restrictions (ie foreign players), squad sizes and quality available to be competive.
sheek
Guest
Promotion/Relegation has its place. There's 'horses for courses', but super rugby is definitely NOT the place for promotion/relegation. There are so many holes in this argument I don't know where to start. But let me give you some background history to suffice. Super rugby began as far back as 1986. At the time there was a partial promotion/relegation. The 6 teams each year were made up the top 3 from the NZ NPC, the best one out Fiji/Samoa/Tonga, while NSW & Qld (the only reputable Aussie states) were always guaranteed their place. Each team played 5 home & away matches, with the finalists playing a 6th. When S6 expanded to S10 in 1993, partial promotion/relegation was still used. But now the top 4 from NZ's NPC qualified, along with the top 3 from SA's Currie Cup, the best of Fiji/Samoa/Tonga, while NSW & Qld were guaranteed their spots. There were two pools of 5. Each team played 4 home & away matches, with losing semi-finalists a 5th, & finalists a 6th match. When the professional S12 was proposed in 1996, it was envisaged that the partial promotion/relegation would continue. They even had a name for it - International Provincial Championship (IPC). However, the criteria now called for the top 5 from NZ's NPC to qualify, along with the top 4 from SA's Currie Cup, while NSW, Qld & ACT were guaranteed from Australia (since that's all they had). However, the NZRU realised immediately from previous super rugby experience, this would not work. Because it meant a leading All Black from a weak province would miss out on hard, regular rugby. So they switched to the regional system we see to this day. Let me repeat this, as it is a significant factor in subsequent events: A leading All Black from a weak province would miss out on hard, regular rugby. Under S6 & S10, the maximum number of matches ranged from 4-6 matches. But now the season would range from 12-14 matches. Far too long for a leading international player to be missing out on hard, regular rugby. The Saffies struggled with qualification (via Currie Cup) for 3-4 years before they too realised the same thing. That is, a leading Springbok from a weak province would miss out on regular, hard rugby, for too long. So they followed the NZ example of creating regional teams. Of course, none of this ever bothered the Aussies, because they only had the two, then the 3 provinces anyway. If any of you advocating a promotion/relegation system bothered to read your history, you would realise it simply won't work in a competition played over 16-20 weeks, or possibly more. It can work in a truncated Heineken Cup style comp over a maximum of no more than 7-8 weeks. But not in a comp that covers 16-20 weeks. So before you go on about sprouting an impractical promotion/relegation for super rugby - please read your history & understand its impracticality in super rugby!!!
mikeylives
Guest
If a small club is promoted, how will a "super" 15 match look played at a stadium that holds 100 people (ie some wooden chairs), with average TV camera facilities?
soapit
Guest
and plus the nature of soccer (low scoring) is that you get more upsets and unexpected draws so the mismatches are always a certain result
Nathan of Perth
Guest
Trite
Rugbug
Guest
Unfortunately Nick rugby isn't played on paper end of story
Nathan of Perth
Guest
Not to mention it gives you something to save teams like the North Queensland Fury in...
Nathan of Perth
Guest
Well that's the part that keeps seeming to trip you up: they don't 'lose' the team, its just their team is in a different tier for a year and usually has a good shot at bouncing back. But if your loyalty is to a club or region then the tier doesn't matter. They're still the club for you, your father, father's father, etc., or at least the club for you and the region you call home. And you become a part of their journey. And I can't imagine that its really that much better for a grass roots development to have their local team getting the stuffing pantsed out of them by teams at the top, whereas a second tier lets a team play a competitive grade whilst they regroup.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
The Brand Formerly Known As and his backing ground, The Rebels!
The Cattery
Roar Guru
The Reeles? Sorry, meant the Rebels.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
I agree with most, the promotion/relegation system is probably not suited to an international club rugby comp' like our SR, unfortunately. Still think that, on paper, it offers something that pre-formatted comps like the NRL, NBA, SR etc dont have. It's more the philosophy behind that i find interesting and when you have known it, you do feel that a frozen system is a bit dull. You cant beat the buzz and excitement you experience during a promotion or relegation comp'.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Further to what Simon has said, I can't see how it can work from an Australian perspective. You might have, for example, the Force or Reeles drop out one year, meaning a rugby development area has to go without its own team for at least one year - how could that be good for the game?
Nathan of Perth
Guest
I like the article. I originally though Pro/Rel was a crazy system but the more time goes by the more it makes sense to me!
AndyS
Guest
Maybe, but tell it to West Ham...http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/16/david-sullivan-west-ham-relegation. If you go promotion/relegation, you get everything that goes with it - parachute payments added to the competition economics, big debts run up as teams desperately try to buy the success that gives them access to the big money, etc, etc...
Lazza
Guest
What exactly is the 'problem' with the EPL? It’s a bit silly to argue with success, the present model is spectacularly popular around the world and overseas TV rights keep growing with every round. There will be a ‘soft’ salary cap coming in soon known as the ‘Financial Fair Play rules’. You can only spend what you earn and clubs will be banned from European competition if they accumulate too much debt. That’s the only model that would survive an EU court challenge. Socialist, manipulated leagues wouldn’t be tolerated in Europe.
simon
Guest
I can't see it being introduced into Australia. However, with the Otago crisis in NZ ATM, Graham Bowen spoke about something of this nature in an article yesterday at NZ's Rugby Heaven: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/provincial/6496419/Losing-ITM-Cup-grave-concern-for-All-Blacks# Bowen's specific idea (although details were vague) was for the traditional ITM Cup provinces to take the place of Super Rugby franchises and have some sort of promotion and relegation. His view was aired again in an article today by Peter Jones: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/our-experts/6506727/Otago-crisis-prompts-need-for-creative-thought?comment_msg=posted#post_comment I've always thought there were two main problems with it in NZ in particular: First, it would intentionally isolate fans from Super Rugby who don't follow any of the traditional provincial teams that make the cut. And secondly, only certain provincial teams would end up with all the players and money, etc. However, I'm now starting to hear the counter-arguments: Even though Super Rugby in NZ involves regional franchises made up of traditional provinces, people from a non-Super Rugby province are already expected to follow a team situated in the city of a rival province. So would Bowen's suggestion really isolate fans? Also, if I know that players from my province are now in a team playing in an international competition, doesn't that create some interest in that other team? Further, fans can still watch their own provincial team in their domestic competition, and the hope of promotion is always there. It appears that the English soccer (and rugby) fans are rather happy with their set up. And NZ is no stranger to different divisions with promotion and relegation anyway. Isn't having all the tradition and culture and tribalism of the traditional provinces on centre stage, what everyone wants anyway?
Johnno
Guest
Curous a salary cap would fix all that problems. Salary caps i think are good in promotion relegation division league. The EPL will have to go to salary cap soon i can not see it sustaining itself so many clubs in debt. The german soccer model for there divisions seems to work well.