I’ll begin with three home truths for all Australian rugby fans.
First, unless a miracle happens, putting the third tier right is going to take a generation to achieve.
Union is so far behind the AFL, NRL, A-League in terms of having a viable and respected domestic competition that even a well-funded, glitzy television campaign that ran for a decade wouldn’t help.
It has to be a competition built from the grass roots up, not one manufactured out of thin air and imposed from the top down.
It must be one which uses and exploits rugby’s existing strengths and supporter base in Australia.
The last thing that’s needed is for the ARU to make a huge pile of cash from this years’ Lions’ Tour, and then pump it into a monstrosity like the ARC, with manufactured teams in areas where there is little or no support for the game, in some futile attempt to have a national footprint.
History and common sense demand that the third tier competition must be based on the Sydney club competition.
The second home truth is that the third tier is not going to be a money spinner for some time.
In fact it will lose money. The key is to control costs, which means geographical concentration in a country the size of Australia is vital.
The third home truth is that no Wallabies will play in it due to the existing demands of professional rugby.
The competition won’t have any star power. Each week of the National Provincial Championship in New Zealand there are hundreds of thousands of empty seats in stadiums all over the country, an emphatic signal from the rugby-loving New Zealand public of what they think about its starless third tier.
This is further reason to concentrate the competition geographically, because gate revenues will be small for many years ahead.
Some will point to the huge crowds and television audiences for the Currie Cup as proof the third tier can be a financial success.
But there’s a number of factors why the Currie Cup is like that, and these factors don’t exist in Australia.
The Currie Cup has a long and hugely passionate history. Rugby is ingrained into the mentality of the average Afrikaner.
For them, there is no other sport apart from rugby.
But if God were to conjure up the average Australian bloke, he wouldn’t even support rugby.
In fact if God were to conjure up the average Australian town, it probably wouldn’t have a rugby club.
The history and passion required to financially sustain a third tier in Australia is simply not available in large enough numbers for a new ‘top down’ competition.
But all is definitely not lost.
Starting with the Sydney competition may be a small beginning, but at least it will be financially sustainable. And I’m certain that over time, big things will come from it.
Just look at the NRL. Twenty years ago all it had was a few clubs dotted throughout Sydney.
Now it’s a billion dollar business with a string of vibrant, highly respected professional clubs spread far and wide. The same thing could be said of the AFL.
The NRL and AFL are perfect examples of how to create and run a successful domestic competition.
If you have two shining examples of how to do it, why on earth would you even think to do it differently?
One of the big advantages the ARU has, as it considers the third tier solution, are the lessons it can learn not just from the NRL and AFL, but also from rugby’s own history.
Following rugby’s professionalisation in 1995, the code globally was faced with the vexed issue of the second tier.
In the Southern Hemisphere the Super 12 was created out of nothing. The jury is still out on whether Super Rugby is the way forward in this part of the world.
Compared to AFL and NRL, you would have to say it’s been a failure in Australia.
Were it not for the Reds, the competition would be in danger of slipping behind the A-League (it may have already done so), and even the ANBL in terms of television ratings, crowd figures, interest and most important of all, passion.
When rugby in England went professional, there was talk initially of the RFU establishing it’s own Super 12 by creating ‘super clubs’ teams out of nothing and planting them in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds and other major cities.
But the RFU was smart. It played to its existing strengths, namely the existing club competition and turned it into the premiership we have today.
It hasn’t even countenanced the idea of an aggressive expansion into league territory.
Some of the clubs in the first premiership seasons were tiny, such as Orrell RFC.
In the heady days of 1995 when cash was flooding into the game for the first time, it would have been easy for the RFU to remove clubs like Orrell and replace them with a manufactured ‘super club’, but it did not.
They left Orrell there. As it turned out, the club was demoted, but only as a result of a natural, lawful process, and not some manufactured reason.
Leaving the small clubs alone showed that authenticity is vital to the credibility of any professional sports competition.
Orrell and the other smalls clubs eventually dropped down through natural attrition or demotion, but it’s important to understand their removal from the top flight was not forced on the people and the supporters in a manufactured, unauthentic way.
From those humble beginnings when clubs like Saracens, Irish, Wasps and Harlequins were lucky to get a crowd of 200 through the gate, now the premiership boasts annual television ratings and attendances in the millions.
The same situation prevailed in France. Rugby union is now the second most popular sport there, but when it first went professional that support was confined to it’s heartland in the south.
The FFR could have planted manufactured teams in large population centres that were not traditionally rugby towns, like Lyon, Marseille, Nice and Lille, but they didn’t.
They understood the importance of history and authenticity when it came to sport.
For French rugby, its history lay in the towns and villages of the south and when the Top 14 went professional, big city teams from Paris and Toulouse rubbed shoulders with those from small towns like Brive and Pau.
In some ways the resounding success of the Wallabies in the period 1997-2003, and the hosting of the 2003 Rugby World Cup were the worst things that could happen to rugby in Australia.
These successes created an unprecedented boom of popularity for the sport, and gave the administrators, and many fans, the erroneous belief that passionate, enduring support for rugby union could be built from the top down.
If the powerful English and French Unions stick to their heartlands and existing clubs, what makes the ARU think it doesn’t have to?
Is it arrogance? I think so. If the ARU goes for an ARC or quasi-ARC option, or a manufactured competition with teams dreamed up out of thin air, then the organisation is no longer fit to run the game.
It would show it was interested more with retaining its power base, and with grandiose plans in the quest for unattainable riches, than in doing what is right for rugby.
The ARU board is stacked with Old Boys of the elite rugby schools. They want to maintain control of rugby in Australia, and the money to be made from it, within this social group.
If the clubs became seats of power it would open up rugby’s corridors of power to the masses, and heaven forbid, the working classes, and to people who didn’t go to the right school.
The third tier question in Australia is Marx’s class struggle in action.
Think about it. Do you honestly think the ARU could stomach the thought of the Southern Districts Rugby Club contracting three or four Wallabies, and being owned by Nick Politis? But isn’t that the answer right there to the third tier question?
In fact, isn’t that the answer to all of rugby’s problems in Australia?
When the rugby unions of New Zealand, Australia, Wales and Scotland make up new teams like the Crusaders, the Dragons, the Glasgow Warriors and the Sydney Fleet, these new teams are nothing but desperate attempts by the unions (and the Old Boys’ networks who run them) to retain power and control over rugby assets.
It doesn’t matter to these unions whether it works or not, or whether the fans want it, or whether it’s going to be a success. It’s simply about retaining control, and making sure men like Owen Glenn, Nick Politis and Eric Watson don’t get their hands on it.
The Pro 12 also provides an interesting example because that is a competition which started from scratch in 2001 and which had a mix of brand new and old teams.
The manufactured teams were Glasgow, Edinburgh and the four (originally five) Welsh regions, while all four of the Irish provinces Munster (1879), Leinster (1879), Ulster (1879) and Connacht (1885) have all been around for nearly 130 years.
After 12 years of the celtic competition, Glasgow, which is home to the most passionate sports fans in the world (think Rangers, Celtic and Partick Thistle), still can’t get more than 2000 people to a game, while there’s so few people at Murrayfield to watch Edinburgh that I wonder if I’m watching a professional sports event when I see it on TV.
The Welsh regions are in constant disarray and domestically in Wales, the game is rapidly losing ground and credibility to football. Contrast that with the Irish provinces, who are long-standing institutions.
They are booming. Their success is outstanding, and their supporters legion and passionate.
The Irish, English and French clubs are institutions, part of the history and fabric of their local communities.
As a consequence, from humble beginnings when a few hundred people turned up to watch, the popularity of rugby union has grown dramatically in those countries.
Contrast that with the fortunes of the manufactured clubs in Scotland and Wales, where after 12 years, support is almost non-existent, and the exact future direction of rugby is still not clear.
Sound familiar?
Support for Super Rugby in Melbourne and Perth is in decline, and not even five years has passed since these teams were created to much fanfare.
Doesn’t anyone remember what happened to Super League and the ARC, or the Central Vikings?
And if a manufactured, well-funded competition like Super Rugby can’t crack the Australian market, how is a third tier competition without money and star players going to?
The lesson for the ARU from history is that manufacturing teams and competitions where none existed before would be sheer folly.
All that will come from it are tears, debts and more egg on the face.
Talk of two teams in Brisbane, and splitting Sydney into four or five new teams with other teams from Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne would be totally wrong.
It completely ignores the lessons from history, not only those from Europe, but also from Australia’s own backyard in union and league.
The beauty with the Sydney club championship option is that Super Rugby remains in place, untouched.
Super Rugby receives a lot of flak from all quarters, most of it rightly deserved, but the competition has potential if things are done right.
Its weakness is the weakness of rugby union in Australia, but a successful third tier in Australia would have positive benefits for the Super Rugby competition as a whole.
Randwick, Gordon, Sydney University, Eastern Suburbs, Manly, Warringah, Eastwood, Northern Suburbs.
Just saying their names puts a shiver down my spine, and I’m a kiwi.
These are famous names, and famous clubs in rugby union.
Down the ages, these are the institutions that have carried rugby in Australia, and always will.
In a sea of change, this handful of clubs are the bulwark, the final bastions capable of halting Australian rugby’s retreat into oblivion.
They hold the key to the future of rugby in Australia.
But is the ARU prepared to relinquish the power to the clubs?
Only time will tell.
Maybe it’s time for these great Sydney clubs to be bold, and take matters into their own hands, much like the trail-blazing 22 northern clubs did in 1895.
Matthew Skellett
Guest
Trust it to the clubs? The Sydney club competition has to be one of the most lop-sided, corrupt, inefficient and skewed in favour of the richer clubs there is in the world -leave it up to them NO THANKS !!!!
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
"Twenty years ago all it had was a few clubs dotted throughout Sydney." Hmmm. I dont think thats true. 1993 rugby league ... Brisbane. Newcastle. Illawarra. Gold Coast. Canberra. http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/seasons/NSWRL_1993/summary.html
Mike
Guest
In fairness, Malcolm's proposal in the article was to restrict the "3rd tier" to just the Sydney comp, so its not a viable argument against him that the comps in WA, Tasmania etc are weak.
Sam
Guest
The "third tier" cannot exist in the existing market place without a substantial injection of capital along with years of persistence, patience and the willingness of some uber-multinational-sponsors to run at a loss for 5-10 years. The reason for this is in Western Australian, South Australia, Victoria Tasmania clubs play park rugby- no grandstands, no fences- meaning no gate takings. Apart from sponsorship from small businesses such as local car dealerships, pubs and small enterprise there is no income for clubs other than memberships. Aside from that We need to face facts, that there is such a range in the quality of game. We're talking about a 3rd, 4th and 5th tier concern here. Shute Shield, Brisbane Premier Grade clubs can fight it out between themselves for the big prize. NSW Subbies and Canberra Premier can do likewise. WA, VIC, SA and TAS in a 5th division.
Jerry
Guest
Even the early Highlanders were a different entity- Isitolo Maka, Doug Howlett, Jeremy Stanley, Rhys Duggan & Matt Cooper came in from the draft, Paul Miller and Simon Culhane from Southland. Those players were non Otago based All Blacks who played for the Highlanders in their first few seasons, and there were also the likes of Romi Ropati or Brian Lima. Obviously the majority of the Highlanders & Crusaders were predominantly Otago & Canterbury as they were the only major team in the catchment area but there's still some substantial differences.
abnutta
Roar Guru
Ian W, Doesn't seem to be a major issue with Super Rugby. NZRU's own invitation for licence management submissions declared that an average NZL super rugby team has seasonal expenses of $NZ 4.5 million and revenue of $NZ 4.1 million When one considers the expenses that are centrally met by SANZAR and the fact that player payments were not even included in a SR teams annual season expenditure... and each team is still bleeding 400k per year - that's $NZ 2 million per season for the entire conference... it would appear that financial sustainability is not high on the agenda as to whether a competition is successful or not - evidently it's about how much bang you get for every buck being flushed down the toilet that counts.
AndyS
Guest
A few observations: 1. The Sydney clubs are the home turf of the old boy network. Pour money into that and you entrench them forever. 2. The attendance at the 'Tahs v Rebels game was 11,200. Does that indicate a dramatic decline in support also? 3. The ARU pours money into Sydney club rugby already, with the ABC payed to show it. It is an even worse version of the ARC in that respect. 4. Those names might send a shiver down your spine, but they send a wave of apathy down mine. I am a relatively keen follower of rugby, but I'd be hard pressed to think of anything I would be less engaged by than an inter-suburb Sydney competition. The logic in your article seems to be that what we are doing now with respect to a third tier doesn't work and needs to change, so what we should do is pour even more money into exactly what we are doing now. Not sure I really follow that...
Stu
Guest
Jiggles and Bush could not agree more, as a Sunny Coast boy I could not understand why I was meant to support a brisbane side simply because they represented the North. Would you say that a teams culture can matter just as much as its physical location. I work in Caboolture and there are many Cowboys fans there because they see the Cowboys as being the rural team, so that is the team for them even though they are about forty minutes from Brisbane. In my experience there seems to be a metro, country/ coast divide in QLD. Definitely agree on Gold Coast teams being a bust, the Sunshine Coast is clearly the superior location, and I'm only very biased.
yankee_rob
Guest
First step is work to expand competitions like the Shute Shield, Old Premiership, Dewar Cup to state based versus city based competitions. Then use these tournaments as qualification for a national or even regional champioship. Use what you got. There is some tribalism left harness it to start an exciting new club comp.
yankee_rob
Guest
There is clearly alot of passion for the club game in Oz. So come up with a club competiton that is as inclusive nationally as possible and within financial means.
Greg
Guest
What about when you replace a hugely successful, tribal competition like the NPC with 5 franchises who no one has any alegience to? Those artificial teams above are teams created where there wasn't any alternative, unlike NZ rugby circa 95
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
"There has to be a third tier, but first and foremost, it has to be financially sustainable" One major issue with this is that the Sydney club competition isnt financially sustainable.
Greg
Guest
Maybe because otago were far better than southland and north otago??
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
No, the bills dont. Go read the accounts of the NT Thunder in the NEAFL - the expensive bit of running a semi-professional football team isnt the travel, its paying the players to be semi-professional. With tickets bought in bulk, ideally on a sponsorship deal, travelling once every second week you're looking at $200 in air fares and $100 in hotel bills - about two days pay at minimum wage. As far as the dumb idea of clubs being bought by rich benefactors, I strongly advise you to look at the disasters of Geoffrey Edelsten, Clive Palmer and Nathan Tinkler. The league *has* to ensure that clubs are viable without regular injections of cash from private benefactors - because the interests of the benefactors are not the interests of the code.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
It only really works when you have a situation like Brisbane and the NQ Cowboys in RL, two regions very far apart, and even then the Cows took 10 years to gain traction. The Crushers in RL are a perfect example of what not to do. Gold Coast teams in all sports are busts, and no one has shown me a reason why a Gold Coast in Rugby would work in a national competition, when all other sports have failed or a failing. An Easts man hey? And here I was thinking you were a very intelligent poster ;)
The Bush
Roar Guru
Malcolm, Unfortunately your article isn't clear. What are you suggesting that is different from what we currently have? Sydney has a competition already, so what kind of competition are you talking about? Is it one with less teams? Is it one where we will force all players to play in it after Super Rugby? What are you actually suggesting? You say the NRL, AFL and Top 14 all started small, true, but they also expanded eventually. We already have a Sydney based Rugby Union competition, so isn't the first step to do what the NSWRL did and add teams from cities outside the comp? Canberra and Illawara were first, then Newcastle and Brisbane. Shouldn't the plan be to do the same thing?
The Bush
Roar Guru
Jiggles, As a Queenslander, I know where you are coming from with our love of our state above everything else, but I don't think that means that city based teams up here can't work. I just think that the whole aligning clubs with teams for no purpose was stupid. If you're going to make a Brisbane Team and a Gold Coast Team, then do it, but don't force clubs from Brisbane to associate with a city that is very, very far away from them. For the recorfd JIggles, I'm an Easts man, so I know also first hand how stupid it was alligning our club with the Gold Coast.
Rob9
Guest
Nice one Mal. Some very good points you’ve raised but there are a few sentiments that I don’t entirely agree with. Firstly, I don’t believe history is necessarily the key ingredient for a successful professional sporting organisation in today’s modern world. The congested Sydney market in Rugby League and similarly the Melbourne market in AFL are hot topics in those codes. Considering the sporting landscape today, I bet both codes (particularly the NRL) wouldn’t mind turning back the clock and making some tough decisions in the late 80’s/early 90’s in order to have grown from a different platform instead of the suburban based leagues they were born out of. The Broncos were a manufactured club established in the late 80’s and brought in over the top of the QRL and they’re now the most successful professional rugby league team in the country (financially). The Brumbies are another prime example of a manufactured team brought into a professional league that has successfully built itself into the community. WSW’s have been an absolute revelation both on and off the field in the A-League this year. Before the A-League took leap of faith, everyone was questioning whether or not there would be a market for them out there. I don’t watch soccer but I had to stop on which ever FS channel was playing the Wanders v Mariners clash on Saturday night. I was just staring at the stands. I couldn’t believe this was a game in Gosford played 1 to 2 hours away from WS supporters. It’s not about history so much (although I agree it does play some part in today’s professional sporting landscape). It’s about building teams that effectively represent existing markets and making a realistic and meaningful connection with that community. I think the Broncos, Cowboys, Brumbies and Wanders (as well as other A-League teams like the Victory) are examples of this. The markets that sport operates in are dynamic and the offering needs to reflect that. As the markets evolve, professional sport needs to make adjustments as well. What worked 50 or 100 years ago may not work now and I believe 2 of the other 3 football codes in this country could be operating significantly more effectively if they created competitions that represent Australia in 2013 and not 1908. Many NRL clubs bottom lines point to this and the only reason they’ll be saved is because of the new TV deal. But the fact remains, the money the league is spending to prop these clubs up is stopping the NRL from running as efficiently as possible. Regarding the Force and Rebels, they’re operating in primarily AFL markets. There was always going to be a buzz when these new teams hit town followed by a bit of a drop off after the novelty wore off. But they’ve now both established themselves a foothold and I’m sure they have the ability to grow from these foundations. Furthermore, I applaud the ARU for entering 2 non-rugby markets in an attempt to grow the game nationally. They’re large and growing cities and there are existing markets there for rugby so I believe that it was a smart decision to take on Vic and WA. What I do agree with you on is your entire third tier argument, which basically sounds like you are advocating it to more or less remain as is. The issue for mine is our tier beneath international rugby does not effectively cover the fan base and Australia’s heartland areas and it’s not providing the opportunities to young football players looking seriously to make a career out of rugby. Take a look at the NRL which is arguably the toughest and most professional rugby code league in the world. They have two state based leagues feeding the national comp and in recent times they’ve established the U20’s. It’s a very similar situation to what we have in Rugby. The third tier isn’t broken, the professional tier is. Third tiers attract next to no following and therefore they fall under the liability column on the spread sheet. Establishing a national third tier competition would be establishing a financial black hole that rugby in this country cannot afford. The setup cost and the ongoing expense of running a league with a limited amount of revenue coming in doesn’t make a lot of sense. Just a small amount of tinkering needs to occur to both the Shute Shield and Brisbane’s Premier Rugby. Premier Rugby has been proactive in involving areas from outside of Brisbane with the Breakers and now the Stingrays from the Sunny Coast. I’d like to see the Darling Downs represented with a Toowoomba based club stepping up. The Shute Shield should be more accommodating to regions outside of Sydney also. Newcastle and Wollongong deserve to be involved and I’d like to see Canberra represented with a team or 2 also. Beyond that you could look at a Melbourne team in the Shute Shield and a Perth team in Prem Rugby so players in those cities have a direct path from local rugby into Super Rugby. But this should only occur only if and when the quality of players in these places is good enough to match it with the current Shute Shield and Prem Rugby standards. Otherwise it’s not worth throwing more money at. So keep the current structures and the teams of these 2 competitions in place and involve the major centres and rugby heartlands located within a bus trip from Brisbane and Sydney. If the time is right you could include Perth and Melbourne in each competition and it would only mean a flight for one team each round (as opposed to 3 to 5 for a national third tier depending on how many teams you have). May be look at a national championship between the QLD and NSW champion at the end of the season just to raise the profile of the third tier competition. Other than these small additions, not a lot else needs to be done to Australia’s third tier. Our energy, resources, money and attention needs to be focused on the tier above.
Mike
Guest
No problem. At least I'm reading the posts! Good points.
reality bites
Guest
Rugby fans in Australia are constantly bombarded with a barrage of negativity from the rugby league centric media. From reading this article I believe you have adopted a number of these negative views. To say that the average town doesn't have a rugby team is a bit rich, given rugby is very strong in regional areas. I also disagree that the ARC was a monstrosity. It was extremely successful player development tool, which is still lauded by many players.