- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Reading a few articles and opinions lately, it has become increasingly clear that many aren’t satisfied with the format of the current Super Rugby competition.
Opinions vary widely. Some people argue that the Super Rugby season is too long, encroaching and impacting upon other domestic competitions. Others say that the structure of the tournament does not lead to a fair qualification process.
Travel fatigue and poor management of players have also impacted on injuries and the quality of the Rugby Championship.
A popular idea is to expand Super Rugby to include up to eight teams per country. How would this be feasible? It would certainly make for an interesting debate.
But here is the real reason for this article. Some have suggested that South Africa should be discarded from Super Rugby, leaving Australia and New Zealand to participate in an eight-teams-each, Trans-Tasman competition.
Eliminating South Africa would reduce the cost of travel. Many people argue that more convenient kick-off times would also be introduced. That’s a tad of the mark in my view, because Super Rugby is also broadcast live into Europe.
Be that as it may, I have been pondering the outcome for the South Africans if they were to remove themselves from the equation.
Realistically, there are three options. Join up with Argentina in a Trans-Atlantic Super Rugby competition (we do have a strong bond with them), join up with the money tycoons in Europe, or simply go it alone.
Joining Argentina is impractical at this point in time as they have no professional structure, and to be honest, what is the difference between travelling eight hours west or ten hours east?
Joining Europe would mean playing in two different seasons, a horrendously inconvenient arrangement, for financial reasons only.
The only logical conclusion is to once again go it alone. So the main obstacle would obviously be finances and whether domestic rugby in South Africa would be able to sustain itself from the local market.
Having done some research into television viewership numbers from SuperSport, the following statistics came up.
Viewership average per game:
Super Rugby – 347,469
Absa Premiership – 371,389
Vodacom Cup – 165,995
In comparison with that, the English test series had an average viewership of 1,065,177.
Two things are clear from these figures: test rugby is by far the biggest revenue contributor to the SARU, and the Currie Cup has lost none of its attraction.
When comparing spectator numbers between the Currie Cup and Super Rugby, there is a marked drop for the domestic competition, however what must be taken into consideration is the fact that the Currie Cup has to do without the Springboks. That doesn’t happen during the Super Rugby season.
My conclusion is that SARU can consider going it alone.
April to May (Knock-out Cup)
14 Provinces (excluding their Super Rugby players), including Namibia and Los Pampas from Argentina, in a Knock-out Cup. The Knock-out Cup will consist of a round of 16, round of eight, round of four and a final, totalling four weeks.
March to May (Premier Division)
The Premier division, (the five existing Super Rugby franchises plus the Kings), will be a home and away round robin with semi-finals and a final, totalling 12 weeks.
June to November (Development Cup)
Once the preparation for the June test series starts, the Development Cup (now Vodacom Cup) will be strengthened by all the Super Rugby franchise players (excluding the Springboks), and will run from June to November for a home and away round robin with semi-finals and a final, totalling 26 weeks.
These three competitions will bring about three groups of players:
Those playing in the Knock-out Cup (four matches) and the Development Cup (26 matches), for a total of no more than 30 matches.
The next group will be involved in the Premier division (12 matches) and the Development Cup (26 matches), for a total of no more than 38 matches. Some management of players will be essential here.
The international players will be involved in the Premier Division (12 matches) and test matches (12 matches), for a total of no more than 24 matches.
The benefits are numerous:
1. Better player management.
2. Less travel.
3. Tests will once again become ‘tests’ and the familiarity will disappear.
4. No sharing of revenue to make up for lost revenue.
5. The SARU will be able to make adjustments and grow their Super Rugby franchises without the need for approval from their SANZAR partners.
6. Domestic rugby will once again regain top priority.
7. Less games will mean less injuries.
8. The focus will once again be back on domestic rugby and the development of our players.
My theory may not be 100 per cent accurate, as there is plenty of conjecture about the basis for my reasoning.
However, even if revenue streams are impacted in some way, overall costs will be reduced, and the importance of not having to accommodate SANZAR partners cannot be underestimated.
Having said all of that, I am not against the Super Rugby competition, even if it does need to be reviewed. The season is too long and the teams are not all playing one another.
If South Africa does withdraw from Super Rugby, I would advise the SARU not to get into bed with other unions.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.