At a time when rugby is struggling to remain profitable, and in Australia’s case relevant, the Southern Unions and the IRB need to look at the overall structure and nature of professional rugby.
Professionalism and Super Rugby brought many benefits, but also opened up a Pandora’s box of challenges. Union is in the odd situation of trying to compete professionally with a largely amateur structure.
Money is the obvious challenge, and the root of most others such as development and player retention.
In the cases of New Zealand and South Africa it is probably fair to say that a point of saturation has been reached. There are unlikely to be untapped markets for viewers or players.
It’s difficult to see how more money can be made or more players developed. Their problem lies in worldwide market disparity. France, Japan and the UK can afford to outbid them and that is not likely to change.
Australia has a different, more difficult challenge, in that not only are they fighting the call of offshore cash, but also two giant domestic rivals.
Barring some year of apocalyptic, game-destroying scandals (ok, this could conceivably happen in league!) the NRL and AFL are not going anywhere, and are likely to continue to dominate the Australian domestic scene.
Bill Pulver has recently announced a very poor financial outlook, and rather than paying more to retain players a paycut is on the cards.
No matter how much you hype up the lure of playing for your country, this would lead to more offshore losses. Today’s players do not, on the whole, have degrees and professions to fall back on once the knees give out.
You can’t eat gold, black or green caps, nor can you pay them into a superfund.
Where can they get more money? Calls have been made for expansion of the domestic competitions and a reduction of Tests.
Expansion costs money, is only borderline feasible in Australia and with domestic saturation the way it is in New Zealand and South Africa will it ever produce the money needed?
Would expansion within the Unions really get that many more people to turn up to a match or turn on the TV?
International expansion has the possibility of adding new audiences, but has the twin perils of expensive, time-consuming travel and timezone differences.
The Unions big pay days currently come from internationals. These teams are picked in an rather amateur fashion, have limited training and preparation time and probably, rarely play to the full potential of the players in the dozen outings a year they get.
Rather than reducing internationals to accommodate a risky, low-reward domestic expansion, perhaps the solution lies in the other direction.
It’s time for international rugby to become a full time job, with players playing under their country’s colours for a full nine months of the year. Not a meager 10 or 12 Tests, but more along the lines of 30 to 35. This will spell the end to the era of domestic rugby hamstringing what should be the pinnacle of the competition.
Two fully professional conferences would be created, comprising the northern six nations and the southern six nations with Japan and Samoa joining the current SANZAR group.
The year would consist of an internal home-and-away series in each group followed by six months of hosting or making international tours.
Tours would go back to the old format of a tour match and multiple Tests between hosts and visitor. The scheduling would see each of the top tier nations meeting either home or away once each two year cycle.
With permanent squads and development academies, each major nation will also commit to establishing a second tier team which can make a limited number of tours to emerging nations in their zone of influence to help the continuing growth of the game.
The potential payoff in advertising, TV rights and gate takings is enormous. An immediate 35 development spots open up in the domestic competitions.
And with the best players training and playing continuously under the national coach, rugby itself would rise to a whole new level in skill and entertainment value.
Madness or genius?
Rob9
Guest
I think a day will come when SA will break away for sure. Surely. And as I said below, although SA are contributing the most to SANZAR, it also makes sense for Australia and NZ to not be involved with SA in terms of a regular domestic season. Not just in terms of logistics and growth but financially as well. There's huge opportunities to grow rugby's value in each country through the opportunities that would be presented with a Trans Tasman League. In terms of the structures of the 2 leagues that would effectively replace Super Rugby, I believe SA would be best off holding on to their 2 divisions and use an 8/6 split in the 1st and 2nd division respectively. Use the French Top 14/Pro D2 model on a smaller scale. To maintain the quality and costs of an elite South African league, I'd go with this structure. 14 teams playing off the one platform may be a bit of a stretch at this stage as it would spread the top playing talent and funds too thinly. I'd also have 8 teams from both Australia and NZ in a Trans Tasman League also. The other opportunity that these even numbers presents is that they can move neatly into an Indian/Pacific Champions League. I'd go with 8 pools of 4 with each team in each pool playing each other home and away. So each pool would include 1 team from each of the SANZAR partners and the pools would be put together by seed the teams depending on where they finished in their domestic season. Then the final spots would be given to a team from either Japan, the US, Canada and Argentina who would each have their top 2 clubs involved in the tournament. And there we go, another concept for the SANZAR partners to generate more revenue from while also increasing their value within their regular domestic seasons.
Rob9
Guest
Dadiggle, I think you're grossly overstating what SA brings to the SANZAR relationship in terms of financial value. It's no secret that they contribute the most but you're making it sound as if it's an 80/20 split in SA's favour. As WCR points out it's somewhere in the vicinity of 40%. Calling Australia and NZ a spec of dust in the rugby world is a dramatic understatement their financial clout. If this were the case then SA would represent ET's droppings (a bit bigger than dust). I'm under no illusions as to what each of the SANZAR partners represents in global terms and it's true that we're shoveling sh!t against our larger northern hemisphere partners into the future. But this is rugby we're talking about here, it's the national sport in very few nations and well behind association football (among other sports in some cases) in most other countries. Both Australia and NZ have reasonably sized rugby markets. Not only that, they're large enough and affluent enough for sponsors to invest in with or without SA's involvement. As WCR rightly points out, without SA's involvement in our domestic tier, it presents a number of opportunities to increase the financial value of professional rugby within the Australian and NZ markets. Straight away, there's a saving on travel costs. All games are on in viewer friendly time slots so the value of the games is increased. Expansion becomes an easier proposition. Each country could introduce a further 3 teams so the size of the competition remains close to what it was with SA's involvement and 7 or 8 games can be played each round. It would also mean that each country has a further 3 professional teams generating revenue and doing a better job of effectively covering and representing each market at the elite level. I've got no doubt that Australia and NZ are holding SA rugby back at the elite level and limiting the revenue the SARU could be generating, but the door swings both ways.
dadiggle
Guest
You already got the money for the test matches long before its played. All thats left is promoting it and trying to get people through the gates. But that AUstralia has worked out as well as playing SA at Perthfontein will maximise profits as oppose to playing Argentina there.
And yet Rob, the imprint made on their minds has been one where they beleive they can't make it on their own, sadly the reality is they will cling to the SANZAR agreement with all their might. And in the process of doing so, they will never realise our full potential domestically. I fimrly beleive if we want to develop all 14 out provinces we will have to go it alone. Having expansion to a point where each country has 14 teams is unrealistic, even if the three closed conferences only get together for play offs.
Rob9
Guest
A very realistic gaze into the crystal ball there Bilt and i believe it's a future that has the potential to put South African rugby well ahead of where it is now. And it's a similar diagnosis for the remaining SANZAR partners as well e. g. one of prosperity. I think what's really key with such a restructure for SANZAR on the regular domestic front is that the stakeholders can act with their own best interests in mind. Yes Australia and NZ are still in each others pocket domestically but the reality is we need each other and our cultural and geographical closeness make a relationship in this regard workable. Its been SA who have presented the greatest divergence in opinions between the partners at the negotiating table in the past. I'm sure the cracks will continue to open into the future. It's clear SA want to go in a different direction and they're the only one of the 3 SANZAR partners that can afford to. I believe it's not a matter of if they will but when.
Rob9
Guest
All very true NOS. It's this platform that spreads the rugby gospel to the corners of each rugby market. Test match rugby should be the cherry on top that people hang out for. You've rightly pointed out the NRL and AFL as domestic heavy models. Is it any coinky-dink that these are the most successful codes in the country? All of the biggest codes are structured in the same way. Look at Soccer and the big European leagues. Is it yet another coincidence that the success of round ball code here has coincided with the creation and ongoing growth of the A-League. In rugby, England and France have a strong and extensive (12 -14 teams) professional domestic structure at the core of their union. These are the models that we should be moving towards. Not solely relying on test rugby as a cash cow and tool for growth. It just doesn't work like that.
I won't have a problem with that to be honest, I have been in two minds about the Super rugby comp since the new structure. If it doesn't change to something whereby the Currie Cup is in essence part and parcel of the Super Rugby format, then I won't mind at all if we do our own thing. I believe it is time for SARU to stop trying to please others and look after the 14 provincial teams we have here. Currently the Currie Cup has reduced to 6 teams, they can start off with 6 teams in year one, then add another team in year 2, etc. On this basis we can use revenue to build up to where all 14 provinces partake in the premier league or at least 8 of them, this will provide pro contracts to more than double the players that are currently being contracted which will mean more of our players can make money in SA rather than outside SA. Those that still want to leave is fine, we will then have more depth ad it won't hurt as much to lose a specific player as there will be 14 fly halves running around SA, to find a replacement will be much easier as you expose more players to first class rugby.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
SA share of the total current deal works out to be about around 40%. A big chunk to lose but recoverable in terms reducing travel and accommodation costs. Furthermore, from the Australian sense, most of that value is held in internationals not SR. By looking to move to a Trans Tasman SR competition it effectively places an emphasis on it as a domestic product. Add in another team each and you can run a 22 week regular season with 6 games live into our domestic markets. The value would increase.
Rob9
Guest
I completely agree WCR. It's often sprouted that SA adds more value to SANZAR than either of the other 2 players. While this is true, I believe that by restructuring our elite domestic rugby to become a Trans Tasman league, the value of what Australia and NZ can each contribute would increase. So it wouldn't be a case of cutting SA free and living off the scraps that each have contributed in the past. I also believe that such an arrangement would be beneficial to SA who have proven they're capable of going it alone. Furthermore, a Heineken Cup style tournament could be included to the domestic calendar to run in an 8 week window. Along with a Trans Tasman professional domestic league and the Rugby Championships, an Indian/Pacific tournament would create a further concept to generate revenue for the SANZAR partners. Such a concept would also allow for the inclusion of Argentina and the lucrative US, Canadian and Japanese markets that often get thrown around as Super Rugby expansion areas. An effective 3 pronged approach like the wealthy unions in the northern hemisphere have where domestic rugby is a valuable foundation is the best way to ensure the games growth and financial success here.
dadiggle
Guest
Its not about 10 people watching SA derbies in NZ its about 300 000 people in SA watching NZ and Australian games that counts. Thanks to us watching your teams play means there is interest from sponsors meaning there is money to pay the players and other things. So you can decide to do whatever you want you are just spec of dust in the universe if you look at the grand scheme of things.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Not to come across as a stir, but, I wouldn't actually mind if SA looked to go it alone with the Currie Cup in the near future. As long as the Rugby Championship is kept intact. The SA games don't actually add all that much value to the Australian market due to timezone restrictions. It would be better for all parties if the Currie Cup became the focus of SA Rugby while both Aus and NZ continue with SR among themselves. It would provide more timezone friendly games adding more value in our domestic market.
dadiggle
Guest
Not like it would matter if 50 000 pitch up for a game as some staduims in NZ are so small that guys have to walk around with a couch and put it somehwere next to the field to have something to sit on......
dadiggle
Guest
The Currie Cup viewers totals surpass Super Rugby mate.
Adam, there is a HUGE untapped market in SA, currently the sector of the population with the biggest purchase power is not Whites. we have been overtaken a couple of years ago already. I went to a seminar (Financial industry) a few years back and the biggest market then was already the middle upper market of black women, at that time they estimated 3 million of them. When you consider the white population is only about 5 million, so you're talking an estimated 1.2 million white families. So once that market is tapped, I can tell you with certainty that the Rugby participating market and viewing market can at least double. As far as the number of games concerned, Professor Tim Noakes in his studies have suggested the number of minutes played by a Professional Rugby player should not exceed 1600 - 1800 minutes of competitive rugby. That is about 20-23 games a year. Another question for you Adam. HOw long is the NFL season, how many games goes it entail per team. If you look at most contact sports I doubt you will find any other code that plays as many matches per year as rugby union players.
reality bites
Guest
Is rugby really struggling to remin profitable? Or are we just talking Australia? There are always swings and roundabouts, and with the Lions tour, resurgent Australian Super Rugby conference, I see a very positive future. Rugby league is in a difficult position, they are trying to move from a suburban competition to a full professional, national competition. But judging by most fans and players, this will be a massive 'cultural' challenge. Interesting days ahead.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
I have to agree with you Rob. All sports are based on strong domestic comps first, some even o LY have domestic comps and close to no tests. And no need to look far to get the best example (NRL and afl here). And as rugby lovers, we need local teams to follow and encourage. I can't imagine a rugby world without a Bayonne v Biarritz, Crusaders v Highlanders or Tahs v reds. We need these local rivalries.
Rob9
Guest
“Is Less More,or is it really that More is More? Oftencase reality says its the latter.” How is that the case?? “The Wallabies vs Italy would sell out Telstradome in a flash and probably do well at the SFS. Why would you suggest it be played in Canberra?” I suggested Canberra because the last time the Azzurri came to town, one of their two-match tour games was played in Canberra. Guess what? In Brumbie heartland, Canberra Stadium wasn’t even a sell out with 22,000 showing up. It also just so happens that the second game in the two-match tour was actually played at the Telstradome, and that attracted a ‘Rebels-like’ crowd of 20,000. Far from ‘selling out in a flash’. In the same June Test series we played France at ANZ in front of 40 odd thousand people. The ARU played the Wallabies/Wales game at the SFS due to the concerns over a half full ANZ against the 6 Nations champions. I think you’re looking at test matches through rose-coloured glasses here. The reality is, yes a lot of money is generated from the test schedule. But a lot of that is due to the magic surrounding tests. Overplay that card and that magic is gone. Some of the crowds that show up to non-All Black games already suggests that we’re already slipping into Test Match overkill.
AdamS
Roar Guru
Is Less More,or is it really that More is More? Oftencase reality says its the latter. In the format outlined the Bledisloe would be played as part of the Southern Home and Away tournament with room for a third test if wanted. Just as it currently is and as is the Mandela Plate. No change there. With Internationals, we only rarely get proper tours. In this format we get a proper 3 test home and 3 away against England completed in every four year cycle. Its not playing the big guns every week as you suggest. As for devaluing the competition, it would probably revalue it,I doubt France will send a mongrel holiday outfit over if they are going to get pantsed 3 times in a row rather than in a one off. The Wallabies vs Italy would sell out Telstradome in a flash and probably do well at the SFS. Why would you suggest it be played in Canberra?
Rob9
Guest
What your comment and article doesn’t take into account is the value of the ‘test match’ when the national team’s calendar is effectively doubled. Also does a Wallaby test against Italy at Canberra Stadium have the same value as a Reds vs Tahs game at Suncorp? Not only that, when we’re rolling the national team out almost every second weekend and regularly using B and C strength teams, what does that do to the value of a Bledisole Cup? You can’t also keep playing the big money generating tests against NZ, SA and ENG week in week out either. And if you do, it will have no other effect than devaluing those games. Why don’t they play a State of Origin every Wednesday night during the NRL season? We need a strong domestic rugby season. It’s this tier that takes quality rugby to the people and engages the population. What makes test matches the big money spinners is that they’re special. If anything, some of the gloss has been taken off by playing the Wallabies 15 times a year. Also, comparing crowds in SR games says something more about the competition structure being broken as opposed to the importance and value of an elite domestic competition.
AdamS
Roar Guru
Then what explains the current small crowds at Blues (20k) or Crusaders (14k).? And would 2 more teams who pull 14k crowds generate the revenue that 20 more tests would?