Everyone, it’s time. We’re taking on too much water and must abandon the Super Rugby ship before it’s too late.
The proposed 18-team Super Rugby structure with uneven pools, teams from four continents and less local content than now is a joke. It would be a gluing together of mismatched interests with more resemblance to the Frankenstein Monster than a coherent sporting competition.
This is not the structure Australian rugby needs to reverse its 10-year decline in popularity.
A new Trans-Tasman competition with potential links to Asia would be ideal, but the New Zealand Rugby Union has scuttled this in a desire to play South African teams in round robin matches.
I say let them. A New Zealand and South Africa competition is absurd and will not work, but if they’re determined to go in that direction we should leave them to it.
The Australian sports broadcasting market is many times more valuable than the New Zealand and South African markets combined. It’s time we stopped compromising our interests and launched a new competition built to suit the Australian market and support the growth of rugby in our country.
That means more (and all) games played at ideal times (for crowds and TV ratings) and more teams based in major population centres. Rugby union is currently getting killed in Australia by the other codes because they produce so much more quality content week in, week out.
The way forward would be to partner with broadcasters (including either Channel Seven or the Ten Network – free-to-air is essential) from the beginning on a new eight or ten team Australian competition. It would contain the five Australian Super Rugby teams and at least three other teams selected after a tender process.
These teams might come from private consortiums – ambitious National Rugby Championship clubs looking to step up as professional entities, teams from Asia or the Pacific, perhaps even a renegade New Zealand team. We should keep an open mind about where teams come from. The most important criteria would be that their financial backing be solid and committed for the long term.
People will say Australia doesn’t have the player depth for that many teams, which is true. Fortunately, the global player pool is large, and there are good players from a number of countries who struggle to get professional opportunities due to protectionist recruitment policies.
The solution would be to increase the import quota for each team, and not just for young uncapped players the Wallabies can potentially poach after three years. More international diversity in each squad would give this new competition a global feel without the need to fly over the Indian Ocean.
There is no doubt that going off on our own would be a risk, but the potential benefits are substantial.
Australian rugby would produce significantly more content valuable to broadcasters, and would have control over its scheduling as the other codes do now. At least one or two matches could be shown on free-to-air every weekend, while an NBA style digital pass subscription could provide access to all matches online.
The certainty of scheduling would also mean big annual events could be created around special occasions like Anzac Day and Easter.
When the New Zealand Rugby Union ultimately come back to us with their tail between their legs, we could in time create a competition to rival the NRL and AFL. This would secure the future of a sport that is currently reliant on the success of its national team. A team that only plays six games a year in Australia and only once, or at most twice, in each major market.
Super Rugby in its current form, and especially in its proposed new form, is like a chain around the neck of Australian rugby. Future freedom is risky, but a single day of freedom is worth more than a lifetime in chains.
Sterlo
Guest
Sheek, Most of your comments regarding your proposed domestic comp makeup of teams revolve around history and tradition, which is great. But now and then you throw in a comment how you think Brisbane or Queenslad should be refered to as the "Reds" and Sydney or NSW should be refered to as the "Waratahs" etc. Don't you think that line of thinking goes against the grain of traditional or historic names for unions? If there was a team in a 3rd tier domestic comp called the Brisbane Reds, what would the QLD state side be refered to as (assuming it still existed)?
Ralf
Guest
Kiwis are so convinced that SA is the greatest rival. The fact is, Aus is a more dynamic sports market than wither of these colonial backwaters. Aus doesn't need rugby. Without rugby what is NZ and SA?
Katipo
Guest
@Eddard thanks for this article and I think you have argued your point well especially debunking the idea that we have to have Super Rugby because of money (involvement in Super Rugby actually loses money). Of course I agree with you. The ARU needs the guts and brains to move on. Super rugby was a great kick start to professionalism but it has served its purpose. For Sanzar the Super Rugby of the future is a simple multi-country tournament - the much discussed and much shorter champion-of-champions with invites extended to the best from wide and far. Meanwhile the ARU needs to nurture growth and fan engagement with a strong and sustainable national championship (as you suggest). And let SA and NZ do whatever they want. To me it's the correct evolution. Some people object that we need the cross border contests to lift the quality of competition? I say that a new model doesn't prevent cross border contests in any way. But for Australian teams they would be 'friendlies' played outside of a tournament structure (this would mean you could still schedule Tahs v Crusaders if you wanted too and ultimately the ARU might choose to put the franchises in to the Super Champions tournament too - up to them). To Bill Pulver I'd ask if sanzar aren't interested in a champions tournament why wouldn't the ARU run one themselves? A World Series Cricket style tournament between NRC teams, invited ITM and Currie Cup finalists plus best clubs from the Islands and Japan's top company teams with all games played on Aussie soil? I mean how much would that be worth to broadcasters and.... why not? The most likely objection is the ARU doesn't have the resources to do it. I say put it up for tender and outsource it!
Ion Steyn
Guest
Has something like the following been considered? For the first round, three pools of five teams (or six teams in SA), Australians in one pool, NZ teams in another and SA teams in the third. To satisfy the fans of local derbies, each team in a group plays all the rest in their group, home and away. In the second round, each team plays two teams from the other groups, home and away (match-ups decided by the order teams finished in round one.) Then the top two in each group, plus the next best two, go into a round-robin top eight. Benefits: Plenty of derbies, cuts down on travel which consequently means money is saved and fewer gruelling flights for players, while pressure and excitement builds in rounds two and three at the business end.
Nevl
Guest
I feel super rugby has run its course. It was responsible for creating Brumbies,Force and Rebels We need to now go back to regional comps like itm cup, currie cup and now our nrc Then a round robin of 4 nations with argentina
jason8
Guest
As a Saffa who lived in California i used to wake up at 4am or stay awake till 3 after late shifts to watch the Sharks play their games... they worst thing was that was during a period they were not winning much. what a ballache that was.
Schuey
Guest
Australian rugby needs sth africa more than vice versa. The Saffas bring in the Super Rugby revenue which keeps Ausdie Rugby afloat. Pulver is doing great with a rotten hand.
alex
Roar Pro
It always cracks me up reading articles like this... First off what makes you guys think OZ rugby will survive without SR, What makes you guys think your guys NRC will be good enough to sustain your top tier players? will the nrc survive???? What makes you think NZ will just want to play you guys??? What makes you think NZ and SA needs you ???? Please someone try and explain it to me as im just a simple kiwi
alex
Roar Pro
As a kiwi so am i... Oz thinks they are Abs greatest rivals bhahaha we all no the bokk is, you guys are right lets get rid of oz and start a súper 12 comp, bye bye oz no more handouts fòr u
alex
Roar Pro
bye bye OZ then see how far down the rankings you go without the kiwis and boks helping you out, typical aussies blah blah blah
Robo
Guest
Then ask a sensible question
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
Hog, in previous threads you have exhibited a churlishness typical of those who want Rugby to disappear which will not happen... if we live within our means. E.g. You tried to introduce Roy Masters as some sort of authority, your hyperbolic statements &c. But I'm in a good mood this morning so... Despite our success internationally our Rugby management has decided that we need to introduce another tier. The fact is there is absolutely no demonstrable need for it whatsoever, except... the other WC winning nations have one. There is no rational supporting argument that this extra comp will do any more for the game in Oz and there is evidence that it is straining other relationships and resources. It has failed miserably in another format. It is probably just a poorly thought through knee-jerk populist reaction. However, if they have some sort of brilliant, dazzling ad campaign planned so compelling it will have the crowds baying for more then I will have to eat these words. Odds 200:1. In other words it is just another example of the poor Sports management this country has had to endure. We, in Rugby, have a millstone called the 'old boys network' or the 'leather patch brigade' which is big on tradition and boozy hazy exponential memory sessions but is not what the game needs at the pointy end. After school and club level Rugby is in the entertainment industry and has to plan, research and promote accordingly.
JG
Guest
The NZRU want to keep SA as they want their young players to play SA players, that is their main demand. The other issues for them were a shorter season (which they get by 1 week), less derby matches (which they get) and less travel to SA (which they get). At the end of the day, if it all goes pear shaped, NZ have their domestic comp and SA have theirs which are probably more important to them than SR anyway.
Emric
Guest
Eddard I get up at 3AM to watch my team play in SA. I wouldn't mind doing it a couple of times more during the season (or simply watching the reply on RC later in the day)
Harry Jones
Expert
100% love that format.
Mielie
Guest
There is no true Rugby supporter who would like to see the three great Rugby nations stop playing Rugby against each other.It always appears to be Oz who is reluctant to come to the ball. Correct, in a world of professional sport, lack of finances is a problem but I do not believe that Oz does not have enough business acumen to get Rugby up and running. IMO, and to use the vernacular, the ARU does not have enough "mongrel" in them. And also the supporter attitude. Having been fortunate enough to, over time, attended a NZ/OZ test and also a OZ/SA test, both in Sydney. It was like being in a morgue.No vocal team support and far more criticism than enthusiasm. Also, if you don't see something, you don't know its there. You've got to have free to air. If dad on the couch has the option of watching rose gardening or a game of Rugby, what's he going to watch. Come on Oz, do something. Please don't take your Rugby ball and petulantly go shuffling home. We want to play Rugby man!!
Harry Jones
Expert
My first preference is to have NZ-SA-OZ competing first and foremost, at every level. But if this triangle is split, I want NZ-SA, not NZ-OZ. I don't think SA is the one trying to break up with ARU; lately, I've been reading a lot of "get rid of SA" stuff. So, Garth is right.
killaku
Guest
We NZ have more depth coming through than SA we could have the 6th team.SA doesn't have the depth good enough to have 3 teams.But i agree NZ and SA should break away from Aussie rather than always propping their game and Players.NZ has to think of NZ first
Eddard
Roar Guru
Simon, the status quo is losing the ARU $10M per year and the franchises are barely able to keep their heads above water. The new proposal has been forecast to be worse unless there is a substantial increase in the broadcast rights. Which would take a miracle. The ARU is already losing. If NZ decided to stay with SA we wouldn't necessarily lose out of it. Starting our own new competition would be a risk but at least it would have the potential to grow the sport and give the ARU control of their product (everything about it could be designed to suit the Australian market - from structure, to scheduling, to small rule variations). The financial risk of staying on the current train is just as great, if not greater because it's more certain.
Eddard
Roar Guru
Emric, if it came down to a choice would you honestly rather NZ teams play in a round robin style competition with only SA teams rather than Aus and Asian based teams? You would be happy to watch a competition with half the games played in the middle of the night instead of one where every game was played at a convenient time for you to watch live?