Future's not All Black for New Zealand rugby

Stephen Jones had a great idea in a previous rugby world magazine article. It was for a combined HC and domestic season, involving 36 teams (12 Eng, 12 Fra, 12 Pro12). They would play in 6 groups of 6. Play in groups home and away (10 matches), play other group in own division home or away (6 matches). Finally there would be cross division matches (3 from each group home or away). – 12 matches. This gives a total of 28 matches same as current. The play offs would be domestic semifinal a and finals (2 weeks), followed by European semi finals and final. This could be a similar programme for SR. 3 groups of 6, (extra Team in each, and all SANZAR players allowed to move to any team, including Arg players). Play home and away in division (10 matches), play inter-conference matches (3 from each = 6). There would be domestic semi finals and finals, meaning each country could use this as their own trophy Currie Cup, NPC, etc. The domestic winners and the next best runner up, (based on season record) would qualify for SR semi finals, with teams ranked on season record. The final would be at neutral venue pre set up before season starts, like NFL Super Bowl. This way there would be a balance between domestic and inter conference games, the Argentinians would be brought back to SH and possibly Pacific Islands players also made available, (supported by IRB). Development of this would be to gradually add Japan and Arg teams until there were 24 teams, and 7 teams from SA, 7 teams from NZ, 7 from Aus, 1 Arg, 1 Japan and 1 PI.

The Broadcaster has always paid a premium for Super Rugby content over CC/NPC content. Provide more SR content and the $ increase. The evidence is there. It really is that simple. More, more, more.

Now you are thinking like a SANZAR executive member...nice and simple, 48% more of the same it'll be! :D (Jeez, hope that wasn't a psychic moment, need to keep save those up for the tipping comp...)

To extrapolate from the figures above: The 2011 deal provided roughly 20% more SANZAR matches (Super Rugby and RC tests) than the 2006 deal (from 109 to 131 matches). In turn the average revenue per match increased roughly 20% (from $464,220 to $560,305) It would then follow that if we increase the number of SANZAR matches in 2016 by 48% (from 131 to 194 matches) the average revenue per match should increase accordingly by 48% (from $560,305 to $829,251) That would result in $US1.608 billion over 10 years or $US804 million over five years !!!

Sheek, According to the published broadcast deals: 1996 Deal $US555 million over ten years $41.5 million per year ($55.5 million minus the current cost of NPC and CC) 84 Total SANZAR matches/season = $494,047/match 2006 Deal $US323 million over five years $50.6 million ($64.6 million minus NPC/CC) 109 Total SANZAR matches/season = $464,220/match 2011 Deal $437 million over five years 73.4 million (87.4 million minus NPC/CC) 131 Total SANZAR matches/season = 560,305/match The figures from the 1996 and 2006 deal have 14 million deducted annually to cover the current estimated value/cost of the NPC and CC which were automatically incorporated into the value of each deal. The 2011 NPC and Currie Cup broadcast deals were negotiated separately and were estimated at $US50 million for Currie Cup and $US20 million for NPC. It follows that a proposed season which disposes of or incorporates the current NPC and CC into the conference system of Super Rugby would work out roughly like so: 194 Total SANZAR matches, at the historical broadcast deal average of $US506,190 per match, would equal about $US491 million over five years. A very conservative estimate considering the large increase of "premium" SR content for the broadcaster. Not to mention the ability to still run (and sell to the broadcaster) a Vodacom Cup and ITM Cup style competition later in the season.

It could be that scheduling could improve if the pre qualifying rounds remain conference bound, but if SANZAR want cross conference matches I see no benefit at all.

Biltongbek, According to my maths, SA & NZ's share drops from 6.83 to 6.75. Australia's drops from 5.83 to 5.75, while Argentina's rises from 2.50 to 5.75 (same as Australia). When Argentina joins in, they keep the cowrie shells of their own domestic comp. The RC is already split four ways. The only change is the SR being split between four instead of three. But you would also think Argentina's participation would add value here. However, my key belief is that sum of the whole will be greater than its parts. In other words, a better constructed schedule will lead to a better overall product.

Sheek only problem I see with your Cowrie shells is that you now split between 4 nations, effectively meaning each nation gets less cowrie shells even though the pie is bigger

Well, the survival and finances of the game may take priority over what some spectators care for.

Johnno, I agree. I don't care for Sydney vs LA, or Brisbane vs Vancouver, or Canberra vs Tokyo in super rugby. What I would love, is to look forward to an opening round of ARC as follows: Brisbane vs South Brisbane; Sydney vs Canberra; East Sydney vs West Sydney; Melbourne vs Perth. And down the track, all going well, we could add Newcastle, Adelaide, Gold Coast, Central Coast, etc.

While world domination would be nice in theory, I'm not sure cutting in all those extra partners would necessarily make for better economics. Even if it did though, I'm with Sheek in my scepticism regarding the logistics. The only way I could see that working would be in a world where Rugby had gone to an international season and Super Duper Rugby comprised three timezone conferences; Africa/Europe, Asia/Oceania and The Americas. It is a nice mental exercise, but even the possibility of that would be a very long, long way down the track out past the black stump...

I didn't know that. Still, the obvious thing to take from that is that what they didn't do was say "Never mind, we don't need Super rugby anyway, we can make as much money from Currie Cup". Instead, they compromised the CC to ensure they were competitive with NZ in S12. I would have said the reason why was self-evident.

yeah day matches. then i can take my kids

Rugby Andrew, Thanks for the correction. Day matches in NZ are certainly preferable to twilight/night matches.

Sheek and others Reality is this, i simply form a marketing viewpoint do not see how a LA VS Capetown, or a New York VS Cape Town, can have any appeal to the regular fan. -Ridiculous timezones, geographic distance 3, large and so on and so on. And culturally too. -South Africa works a little coz they have a real established rugby union culture, USA/Canada/Japan don't any where near the same levels yet. And USA largest economy and biggest sports market in the world, should do there own national comp, with a few Canada teams, Toronto and Vancouver, like they do with there other sports comps. -Japan/USA/Canada in all reality, do not need super rugby. -If I was an American I would get far more excited by a Chicago VS New York match, than a Cape Town VS New York. -Or a Auckland VS New York, or Auckland VS Tokyo . Or Cape Town VS Tokyo . Club sport works best, when done in the same country, continent, and timezones. -Not flip-floppong all over the world getting frequent flyer points, and wining little prizes with your points, like free weekends away to Hamilton Island lol. Save the flipping burger's, flip flopping for the international matches. And super rugby should be seen, as this lost boy's home or an orphanage for countries, who can't feel they can compete with Europe, in other words the rest of the world. Rugby;s landscape should not be Europe, and the rest of the world. It should be continent based, . Work your continent and timezone, and stay out of others. Save it for the international's thats what they are there for. And its why Europe didn't let South Africa in. They want to keep Euro rugby for Europe countries only, not adding South Africa to the 6 nations.

When we can travel from Sydney to LA in less than two hours. And jump across to Tokyo in less than two hours. Then back to Sydney in less than two hours. Then we'll be ready to incorporate USA, Canada, Japan & perhaps even China. But right now it is far too impractical. It's obvious in both super rugby (SR) & rugby championships (RC), that current travel arrangements & player welfare need to be carefully managed. We might be able to move our finger across a map in a nano-second, but for all practical purposes, it is an entirely different matter to do this physically.

the US and asia markets are huge. having either of these markets as part of SR will change the face of it. hopefully for the better. but either way it'll be something new and easily beats just adding more sanzar teams

And if SANZAR incorporated the Argentine Zona Campeonato into the mix, with their best sides also qualifying for super rugby, you could add even more value to the revenue stream. RC = 10 cowrie shells (4 nations). SR = 5 cowrie shells (S12 or S16, top 3 or 4 from each of 4 nations). CC = 3 cowrie shells (1st division - 8 teams). NPC = 3 cowrie shells (1st division - 8 to 12 teams). ARC = 2/3 cowrie shells (8 teams only with hope for growth). ZC = 2/3 cowrie shells (1st division - 8 teams). Total revenue = 25/27 cowrie shells.

I totally agree with you, now if SA stop sharing their Cowrie shells........... ;)