The South African Rugby Union (SARU) has poured cold water – in emphatic fashion – on recent speculation that the Super Rugby will be divided into an Argentinian/African conference and an Australasian conference when contracts are renegotiated.
Elements of the South African and New Zealand media are suggesting the SARU has effectively issued a Super Rugby taunt to its SANZAR partners, but really it seems that it’s down to a few sub-editors scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of sensationalism.
Headlines included:
* Six teams or nothing in Super Rugby – Hoskins
* Saru give Sanzar a Super Rugby ultimatum
* South Africa demand six Super Rugby teams from 2016
* SARU issue Super Rugby taunt
SARU president Oregan Hoskins did go so far as to say that there would be absolutely no compromise on including a sixth South African team in the Super competition when the television contracts come up for renewal.
“As far as I am concerned, it is not even an issue for us, it is six or nothing when the new broadcast deal comes into effect,” he is reported to have said at an Ellis Park function hosting the Webb Ellis Cup as it makes its way back to the International Rugby Board (IRB) headquarters in Dublin, Ireland.
In essence, Hoskins is answering to his political masters. They want the Kings in the competition because of what the franchise can do for developing the black South African player base in the Eastern Cape, which is substantial.
Some of what Hoskins said might be construed as fighting talk.
“We have to do everything it takes to ensure our teams play in whatever competition – if it is not Sanzar, then we have to look north. So I am hoping that we are being accommodated within Sanzar. We are being told that we are being accommodated.”
The interesting bit however was a clear statement from Hoskins that SANZAR has not yet worked out a solution. Does that suggest the three unions are currently at a stalemate?
Reading between the lines on some of the reports, there is a desire for Argentina to participate, but that participation may be a hybrid team comprising Argentinian and Australian players.
Hoskins said he liked the idea of 18 teams: six each from New Zealand and South Africa and five from Australia, and perhaps an Argentine team or a team that came together from “putting our heads together and working something out”.
Good news for rugby fans, however, is that SARU would not settle for an Australasian and African/Argentine conference model.
“I can’t see the idea of having a Australasian conference and an African conference,” Hoskins said.
“South Africa is the partner and the brand which is the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere in terms of commercial value, brand value, bums on seats, television viewership, the number of players we have, etcetera.”
What can we take from this?
Firstly, that the quality of the competition will not be compromised by a two-conference model – good news for everybody.
And secondly, Australia (we hope) is going to be forced to develop its own domestic competition instead of relying on an Australasian conference Band-Aid – good news for Australia in the long run.
Negotiations, it seems, have a way to go.
South Africa, however, may be in a stronger bargaining position than in previous years for a couple of reasons:
1. New Zealand Rugby wants to play South African teams as a means of blooding future talent, and hence are unlikely to support Australia’s push for an exclusive Australasian conference
2. The break-up of the European competition offers some leverage to South Africa, if nothing else
3. South Africa, having backed the re-election of IRB President Bernard Lapasset in the December 2011 vote (when both the ARU and New Zealand Rugby Union voted for England’s Bill Beaumont) can possibly rely on the support of the IRB.
Oregan Hoskins is also vice-chairman of the IRB.
If anything, relying on IRB politics (as I’ve described it) is possibly clutching at straws at best. A report by Spiro Zavos on The Roar in 2011 maintains that the ARU never supported Beaumont, despite media reports that he did.
My ultimate point, however, is that politics in sports isn’t just a South African reality.
Politics – national, international and within the game itself – plays a massive part in shaping the future of the sport.
Egos, personalities, personal agendas, national interests, big salaries, perks… all of these are advanced before the good of the game itself.
So if you’re expecting solutions ‘for the good of the game of rugby union’ in the near future, don’t hold your breath.
felix
Guest
SA = lots of people = more players = more teams NZ = small population = manageable & just perfect with 5 teams = no queries Aus = enough people,easilly bored = 4 teams at most would be okay = competing with similar entertaining odd shaped ball sports
norpus
Guest
Really? If the Rebels had local talent knocking on their door to live/play in Melbourne, if they are good enough they would get a berth, no doubt in my mind. But who are these emerging talents and why are they not being recruited if they are better or as good as. The way it is, it is a competitive market and those that are good enough win the spots. It is not as if the Rebels and Force are overbrimming with talent yet. If there are some 'emerging talent from the Sydney and Brisbane club competitions' needing games, and they go overseas to get picked, maybe their competition in the European/Japanese teams is not as strong? Either that or they are taking an early OE and chasing money without doing the hard yards yet. Some Gen Y perhaps tend to expect the world owes them a job?
DR
Guest
For mine it is there to develop professional players capable of playing Test match football. Club - Amatuer ITM/Currie - Semi-Proffesional Super - Professional Test - Elite That is how i view the competition and its core reason for existing. Yes it needs to be sustainable which is why SA should be allowed the 6th team. Simple as that in my view. Fixing the structure of the current competition is where it needs to start.
norpus
Guest
+1 good post kuruki One I find the most sensible Q. which Aust team to drop is the difficult part for ARU. Rebels or Force? Both were added to grow the game in Australia, not for SANZAR purposes or benefit, or if there was a benefit the cost benefit was likely negative to SANZAR. Personally, I think growing the game in Victoria is the better option, as there are more potential people to follow a successful team. Note I say successful, as in this country they success gets patronage, failure gets little patronage/funding. The Force only got the gig as they played the high $ politics quicker - and now where are they... John O'Neill was a hard negotiator and got the 5th team - ultimately to the detriment long term as the grass roots were not fed in retrospect to feed the top level. Time for ARU to rethink long term (not just the next 5 yr tv contract)
Kuruki
Roar Guru
Yes but success for who? As a Kiwi i would not be enticed to hop aboard a team of mercenaries. And who is going to front with the cash? The ARU can't afford to pay their own players let alone overpaid imports.
kunming tiger
Guest
The articel is really specualtion about speculation. In oher words nobody can or will say in public what options are on the table. Maybe this or perhaps that .
Theron K Cal
Guest
^Revert back to round robin.
Charcoal
Guest
One of the mistakes the Melbourne Rebels and Western Force have made is to recruit an inordinate number of overseas players, in the misguided belief that it would strengthen their teams, at the expense of recruiting emerging talent from the Sydney and Brisbane club competitions, many of whom have had to look to Europe and Japan to further their careers because of the limited opportunities available with the existing Australian Super Rugby franchises. This includes some that have played for Australian Schools and Australian U20/21's. This is a gross waste of resources and does nothing to advance the cause of strengthening Australia's local Rugby talent.
Gpc
Guest
Same time zone. Think of the rating!
Rambo
Guest
I think there is a growing number of fans who would prefer to head North. Superrugby is viewed as stale and boring with an format that favors some teams above others. Also there is a bit of a us vs them feeling between the ANZACs and SA, with the inconsistent siting commissions, refereeing, "Get the Jaapies", etc. Also with so many SA players playing up north already, and the Springboks now selecting Northern based players, I think there is a real appetite to head that way. However, the SA administration will want to also keep regular tests against the ABs, I am not sure if they can have both?
DR
Guest
Thanks Chris. Understood.
If you want to improve the super rugby comp, you first need to decide why it is there. Is it there to sustain our respective unions financially? If that is the case then the more teams the merrier at the cost of the Currie Cup and ITM. If it is there as an elite comp, then reduce the number of teams.
chris
Guest
Look, I make no bones about my post being overly simplistic, but... Conrad Smith, Richie McCaw, Ali Williams and Dan Carter have all taken sabbaticals to lengthen their international careers, there is a reluctance to select PI players (even if they are actually NZers, there was desperate scramble to find a place for Nonu in a local franchise, not because he will contribute to the Blues, but because he is needed by the All Blacks, etc. The New Zealand teams are run as true franchises of the NZRU. You only have to look at their uniform Adidas jerseys and their ANZ sponsors. The franchises have very little existence outside of the of the NZRU. Obviously it is not as clear cut as I made it out to be, obviously the they have an interest in having games on TV like the Australians and people from Christchurch love the Crusaders more than the Blues (similar to South Africa), but NZ has a different angle on Super Rugby compared to Australia and South Africa.
DR
Guest
Haha ;) if he wasn't playing for the hurricanes i would be pretty peeved!! My lord we are short on locks!! I'd take Du Toit at a stretch ;) Still, while there is a lot of negativity around the super comp i will continue to try and find ways to keep and improve it.
I get what you are saying, I suppose one player per franchise won't hurt, if only to satisfy your hunger to get Etzebeth to play in NZ. ;)
DR
Guest
Great post Chris but i am a little confused why you think NZ does not care much about our domestic game?
DR
Guest
I don't like administrators ;) While i understand what you are saying i see the internationals as the opportunity for country vs country and bragging rights. In terms of the franchise system currently, NZ teams are already spread with talent from outside their regions so it is already happening in many ways and we have already seen several signings in Australia as it is. My way of thinking is to see it done in a controlled fashion. It would benefit the individual players as well and strengthen teams across the board in many ways. Yes, one could find negatives if they so choose but in my way i try to think of positives. ;) Many players would benefit from playing under different coaches, conditions and styles. I honestly see it as a good thing and in no way hinders the development of young talent and can in fact help as it is trading rather than replacing. An example perhaps in Bird and Du Toit. Each would benefit from a season in the opposing camps. I'm sure you can appreciate where I am coming from even though i am probably not articulating it very well. I also like the idea that i am still able to see these players run around in my comp and adds incentive for viewers to watch more games. Just an idea i have had rolling around my head. Probably a pipe dream but it all works in my world ;)
Since Louis Luyt left Lions rugby has been mismanaged, financially and administratively, the guy that manages the Lions age group rugby told me that when Loffie Eloff became coach he contracted everything that moved that looked like potentially good. He contracted so many youngsters that some of them had to go play varsity rugby just to get a game, it nearly bankrupted the Lions. Louis Luyt may have been many things, but a good business man he was, at the time the Lions was one of the richest rugby unions in the world. but he also ran the province with a strong hand, the players respected him, it was win or the highway. Then you have Doornfontein, the location of Ellispark, compared to Loftus, Freestate Stadium etc, not the most desirable place to go for a game of rugby. There were talks a few years ago that they were going to build a stadium for the Lions in alberton, away from the filth of doornfontein, it never happened, and in my view a big mistake. People don't like to go to Ellispark, they will rock up for a big match, but nothing else. So all these collective issues have brought them down.
chris
Guest
Going slightly off topic, I have question for you. I know you say that you don't support any specific South African team, but if remember correctly you live in Jo'burg. Much of the current uncertainty have been caused by the consistent failure of the lions. Why have the lions been so poor over the last couple of decades? I know the historical reasons for the strength of the Bulls and Western Province, but since professionalism, why have the Sharks been able to grow into a power house of South African rugby, while the the Lions have floundered despite having much larger population base and economy to draw on?
Good post Chris.