Will the growth of Super Rugby lead to its demise ?

OZborne The NFL is a closed shop, so why can't super rugby. Like word class rugger comments about 4 divisions of 6, with some inter conference games, like in American sport, to make up a 16 match schedule, this seems to be about right number of matches. Look at the geographical unions of US rugby http://usarugby.org/geographical-unions To see how they have split up country, add in Canada's 4 teams Super rugby could be the NFL of rugby, but only if they open up the franchises to more private funding.

Rugby union may be dying in Oz, but its growing everywhere else. The problem is with Super Rugby, not the game of rugby. It simply needs to be a tournament where champions from the various conferences qualify. There must be a promotion relegation angle to maintain interest. This will invigorate interest in domestic leagues and keep Super Rugby fresh. It certainly shouldn't just expand to more locked-in teams. Its so damn simple: 2 x SA teams: winner and runner up in domestic cup 2 x NZ teams: winner and runner up in domestic cup 2 x Aus teams: winner and runner up in domestic cup 2 x Argentina teams: winner and runner up in domestic cup You could then add 2 league winners from 2 other domestic leagues, be it Italy, Spain, Japan - you name it. 10 team competition, round robin. More travel, but 9 games per team so much shorter season. Instead we have Super Rugby and then the domestic competitions which nobody cares about anymore. No wonder Super Rugby is tanking. Just look at Europe. over 80,000 people were at Wembley this weekend to watch Harlequins play Saracens. The Stade de France was sold out for Toulouse vs Stade Francais. The Aviva Stadium is sold out next week for Munster vs Leinster. Even Glasgow Warriors is starting to get full houses at Scotstoun. 7 years ago club rugby in Europe was in the wilderness. Europe is doing it right, using the football club promotion/relegation model. Meanwhile Sanzar ringfences the big money in the big franchises while the whole operations stagnates, which will ultimately kill them all. Watch the 2019 World Cup, if a SH team wins it, it will be for the last time.

Totally agree Pete the the more rugby teams added to the super rugby the outcome is less interest from fans the evidence is clear over the years. It is madness to continue this belief that more teams added will bring the fans and compete with afl and nrl. Ru must get smaller and concentrate on a smaller comp or die. People are not interested in teams from Japan or South Africa or anywhere else , they are only interested in local teams. Grow up Ru your belief that your game is the greatest the world has ever seen and will keep adding more teams just to prove it ,is the height of arrogance and an unprofessional way to improve what most people know --Rugby Union is boring , unprofessional and dying.

Hog - I just can't get my head around what you are trying to say.... it defies all logic - European Football is not a continent wide transational League (yes there are three Europen Cup competitions based around a knock out format but this is no way an anology with Super Rugby) The French (and indeed ,German,Danish etc etc football Leagues have nothing to do with EPL) the number of clubs in any of the European domestic Leagues is purely a matter for those Leagues as there is no European equivilant of Super Rugby and consequently no need for debate about how manY clubs the various Nations have in a transnational League that does not exiist. Super Rugby..a vast intercontental transnational quasi club comp is unique to Southern Hemisphere Rugby Union.The only remote equivilant I can think of would be the NHL and that is restricted to two nations who share a physical border and the same time zone .

Agreed - I was referring to the NRC or similar concept, not the conference system in Super Rugby.

Fair enough Sheek, thanks for the clarification.

"The above is your opinion but certainly not mine." Sorry if my words were poorly chosen, Disillusioned: I have no doubt that many others would share your opinion also - among the relatively small pool of existing rugby supporters. If we want to grow the game, rather than have its supporter base shrink, then I suggest you will find very few potential converts who are really interested in watching Waikato play Transvaal. Once a convert becomes a rusted-on supporter, then that will probably change. But the trick is to get them interested in the first place - local tribal rivalries are good for that.

If anyone thinks I'm being unreasonable about Sanzar's poor decision making and lack of innovation, and how detrimental it is to our game, have a read of this:- http://www.espnscrum.com/australia/rugby/story/216117.html for those who can't be bothered clicking thorugh the key point from a management consultant's advice to the ARU... "Rugby's great point of difference, its international character, is also its greatest strategic weakness. Under current practice, all product development [in the broadest sense] is limited to the pace of international action [including that of SANZAR] and that pace is glacial compared with AFL and NRL. "Relative to its Australian competitors, Australian rugby is in the perverse situation that not only does it have fewer resources and revenue, but it innovates more slowly. It is the reverse of the smaller, more nimble, competitor. Its resources are dependent on the Australian sports market but its competitive pace is dependent on an international bureaucracy, partners in SANZAR with inconsistent interests, and domestic team governance mainly operating on an amateur basis in a cut-throat, commercial and highly competitive market."

I'm with Tane too. And Sheek. The problem with Super Rugby is too many stakeholders. Decision making is based on compromise. Too many bad decsions get made. Here are some examples... - Some teams play each other twice and others not at all. - Because the top teams from each conference qualify for home finals the tournament is not a meritocracy. - They awarded points for byes, confusing the table, before finally undoing that mess this year. - The SupeRugby logotype. Who signed that off? It's missing an 'R". - The Blues continue to play in white jerseys against teams wearing blue jerseys. WT? - They decided to remove the geographical references in team names thus diminishing rugby's unique selling point (compared to NRL and AFL) of international diversity. The current discussion about 'where to' just demonstrates that sanzar doesn't have a clear and cohesive vision. Furthermore its disconnected from what supporters and players want. And there is little hope they'll get it right. It's time to rethink the role of sanzar. And that role should be to organise 1) The Rugby Championship and 2) A champion-of-champions Super Rugby tournament. End of story. The CEO's of South Africa, NZ and Australia need to get control of their game back again. Actually, some of the CEO's need to go too. Fresh blood is needed. I'm looking at you Steve Tew...

The unions should forget trying to counter players leaving. That happens, it's natural. The Welsh are trying to fight it and look where it's got their regions. Even with the top players leaving the Welsh are still developing players and have a strong under 20s team.

What a strange thing to say? I love rugby union ya weirdo. My point is that Super Rugby was leaking stars and players like a siv. The European clubs have 3 x the salary cap and nearly 80 Super Rugby players left last year for other comps. The ARU is broke and wont make any money from Super Rugby this year. Thats why I said it was a dead comp walking, its not because I dont like it. Super Rugby has a lot of difficulties with travel and 3 (possibly 5 soon) national bodies involved. It has a lot of things against it. Its not working very well now, its losing players, the ARU isnt making money and imo this is an attempt to keep it alive and I cant see it working. Yes league players are coming accross to union for the WC and Rio, namely SBW and Folau in the Super comp, the question is how long they will be willing to stay on after 2015, 2016.

I am with Tane. The competition is far too long considering the distance it covers and the format is a joke. Having too many local derbies takes the bite out of them. Brumbies got a pathetic 13,000 crowd for the first game of the season against the Reds. The crowds for this fixture in Canberra have decreased (despite the improvement in the Reds as historically it's one sided in favour of the Brumbies) over recent years. Given the size of Australia they aren't really local derbies anyway and unlike Ireland, France and England there isn't a culture of travelling to support your team. That also boosts the attendances and overall game day atmosphere.

Working Class rugger. "The issue only arises in SA where even though they have some 700,000+ players they seem to lack the talent pool to create a 6th competitive squad." The issue is not depth, the issue is having enough money to pay the players. On any given Heineken Cup weekend you can tally the number of South Africans playing in it, they average around 45 players. If you go around Europe and Japan the total number of players are in excess of 300. If we have the money to pay players their worth, we will have 6 competitive teams, but currently there are only 3 franchises that has money, and they poach from the other franchises and the feeder provinces.

Tane Mahuta watch aerial ping pong or six tackles and kick for all we care. Super Rugby is great product and like most things you tinker to make it better. League super stars are coming over to play Super and Test Rugby. Why is that the case?

Personally I'd like to see a Downunder competition with 10 NZ sides (two from each Super rugby franchise - 6 in the North Island & 4 in the South) and 7 Australian ones (add a 2nd NSW side and either a 2nd Qland side or a team from South Aus). Have a 5 or 6 team finals series and nclude the Ranfurly Shield - it would be fantastic. Unfortunately, money talks and South Africa produces the money and the best times for the British/French tv audience.

With this teams from NZ would have to fly to Argentina to only play one game, whereas the Buenos Aires' lads would have to make a couple of trips to NZ. I think their top players would rather just stay in France. I know I would. The other problem is that Japan is in the Nth hemisphere so the climate is the opposite of Australia's.

I disagree with this - in fact, Australian rugby was actually at its strongest when there were 3 teams. The best solution is to go back to the original Super 12 teams and tournament structure.

Speak for yourself! I am quite bored of seeing WF v Tahs and rebels etc each year. Bring me the SA and Kiwi clubs! The NRC will be the national level competition that you say we want to see. That comp will grow the game with the international flavour of SR adding even more interest. Get rid of the conference system please-it will get very boring, very quickly!

Why should we give up our national comp for you? Isn't Super Rugby enough for you? Does that not give you domestic and international competition? You guys not having a "domestic" competition is not our problem, why? Because you're in Australia and we're in NZ what you guys do domestically is your business, what the other codes do, is theirs.

One of the big joys for me when watching a game that doesn't involve my own team is the fact i can watch a NZ side play an Australian or South African side. It's that international aspect of those games that make it exciting for me. Having a competition full of SANZAR mixed teams would not appeal to me at all. I don't mind the token Aussie or South African popping up in a NZ side every now and then but i would hate for it to become widespread.