Over the weekend we got a taste of what Super Rugby’s future will be from 2016. Super Rugby is going to be really super rugby.
With the foreshadowing of the format that SANZAR is going to take to the various broadcasting businesses, there was more consternation than there were high fives from the punditry.
There was Greg Martin, for instance, wondering why the heads of the Australian franchises had initially opposed the format and then endorsed it after a meeting with the ARU’s CEO Bill Pulver.
The answer is pretty obvious to anyone who looks at the details of the format.
This is the best outcome that could be expected for Australian rugby from a difficult negotiation that requires SANZAR to somehow make a perfect triangle out of a circle.
SANZAR represents South African, New Zealand and Australian rugby. The essential difficulty with this grouping is that while the general rugby interests of the three parties are aligned, their specific interests are not.
Moreover, following the dictum of Karl Marx that political power follows economic power, the economic power in SANZAR is the South African Rugby Union. And it is SARU that has different objectives from the ARU and the New Zealand Rugby Union.
The bulk of the money in SANZAR comes from the South African part of the triangle. As with Indian money and cricket power, whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
Because of the politics of colour in South Africa, the SARU had to ensure a sixth South African Super Rugby team based in Port Elizabeth, a bastion of coloured and black rugby power, came into the Super Rugby format in 2016.
This team, the Kings, helps fill out the quotas imposed by the ANC authorities for black and coloured players in South African rugby.
There is a prevailing belief in South African rugby, too, that it is extremely difficult for South African teams. With the arduous travelling requirements imposed on them, it’s hard to win a Super Rugby tournament. So the new format had to reduce the travelling requirements for South African teams.
RUPA, the Australian players’ union, rather naively argued for dropping South Africa from SANZAR and creating a new NZAAR, incorporating Asian rugby. The problem here is that the television money is not in the pot yet for a New Zealand, Australia and Asia tournament.
The operative word is, yet. But this new agreement will increase the playing and watching reach of Super Rugby by adding a team from Argentina and one other new team, hopefully based in Tokyo, Hong Kong or Singapore.
What we know of the proposed 2016 format looks good for Australian rugby.
There will be effectively two major pillars in the new Super Rugby format – Australasia and South Africa.
The Australasian pillar will have two conferences, with five teams from Australia in one and five teams from New Zealand in the other.
The South African pillar will comprise of two conferences of four teams. There will be six South African sides and two other sides – one from Argentina and one other. Saracens, which are owned by South African interests, are said to be interested in a franchise.
Where Bill Pulver could really earn his salary is in getting an Asian team up as the 18th side, rather than a team from Europe. Asia is in the Australasian time zone, while Europe is in the South African time zone.
RUPA and others have been banging on about the need for a Super Rugby format based essentially on Australian and New Zealand teams. Well, they haven’t exactly got this format but they have got Australia and New Zealand as an entity with the majority of games played by their teams being against each other.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why the Australian rugby community can’t grasp this essential truth.
The Australian teams will play all the New Zealand teams each season. They will also, along with the New Zealand teams, play all the teams from one of the South African conferences.
The Australian and New Zealand teams will lose some of their local derbies. Instead of eight local derbies in each conference, there will be six. But the conferences will be rewarded by a new arrangement where each Australian and New Zealand team plays each other every year.
The point here to understand is that not all the home-and-away matches are big sellers. The Waratahs, for instance, get a bigger crowd for a match against the Crusaders than they do for matches against the Force and Rebels. And after Saturday night’s thriller, there should be a really big crowd the next time the Waratahs play the Hurricanes in Sydney.
The other great benefit for the Australian sides is that it will be slightly easier to get into the finals series. The Australian and New Zealand conferences will provide five finalists out of 10 teams. The South African conferences will provide three finalists out of eight teams.
The presumption on the part of South African authorities, presumably, is that the three finalists from South Africa’s conferences will come from the six South African sides. But Wayne Smith, in an informative article in The Australian, has found out that the Argentinians will only pick players playing in the Super Rugby tournament for the Pumas. This will make the Argentinian team, despite all the travelling they will have to do, a most formidable side.
There will be slightly fewer matches and less travelling for most of the players. Good. But with the increased number of teams, from 15 to 18, there will be 135 regular-season matches compared with the 120 matches in the current competition. The broadcaster will welcome this.
The spread of countries involved will bring in new and bigger audiences. I was intrigued, for instance, to hear from one of the New Zealand broadcasters over the weekend that there is dedicated Super Rugby coverage in the UK with Michael Lynagh and Sean Fitzpatrick involved with the discussion.
As I noted at the top of this article, we got a taste of what the refocused Super Rugby format will bring us over the weekend with some terrific matches: Blues versus Reds, Crusaders versus Brumbies, Waratahs versus Hurricanes, and Stormers versus Highlanders. All these matches involved a New Zealand team.
After the thrilling victory by the Waratahs, coach Michael Cheika praised the Hurricanes for their determination to play open, attacking and vibrant rugby despite the consequences. And watching the television coverage of the Stormers versus Highlanders match, you could hear the enthusiasm of the crowd for the way the Stormers had changed their playing style.
The Waratahs’ season was on the line when they were 17 points down with time still remaining in the first half. The Hurricanes had just scored back-to-back tries, the second from the kick-off. But the Waratahs kept to their ball-in-hand game, won their kick-off and mounted a torrid series of attacks before scoring a crucial try.
By half time the Waratahs had, amazingly, levelled the scores. In the second half their superior fitness, and possibly home-ground advantage, took them through to a bonus point victory.
Michael Hooper was man of the match, and he deserved it for his tackle on TJ Perenara that saved a certain try for the Hurricanes. But for me the crucial player was Will Skelton. As soon as he came on the Waratahs’ ball-in-hand game began to find gaps in the Hurricanes’ defensive line.
The Brumbies found that the Crusaders are very difficult to defeat at home in Christchurch. Their new signing, Fijian giant Nemani Nadolo, has given the Crusaders the battering ram they have missed since Robbie Fruean’s health problems made him a spasmodic threat.
The return of Richie McCaw added a lot more muscle in defence. I always believe that sides that want to win tournaments (and this applies to rugby league as well) need at least one tackling machine, preferably a forward who knocks over everything that comes his way.
McCaw is seen, incorrectly in my opinion, as a ‘fetcher’ who breaks the rules. In fact, he gets only a few turnovers, generally at crucial times. His main contribution is his work rate at taking the ball up hard, backing up to continue attacks, his lineout play and especially his ferocious tackling.
Once again he has come up with a new variation in this play. He sort of wrestle-throws ball-runners so that the ball is facing the tackling side of the ruck. This enables Crusaders moving into the ruck to force a turnover.
I thought that Stephen Larkham, who has proven to be an excellent coach with potential for higher honours, made a mistake in leaving Pat McCabe out of the starting line-up. McCabe’s combination with Matt Toomua destroyed the Blues earlier this year. It was only when McCabe came on as a replacement for Christian Lealiifano that the Brumbies looked like breaching the Crusader defence.
It’s worth asking here what Wallabies coach Ewen McKenzie is going to do about his inside centres. Last year’s combination of Quade Cooper and Matt Toomua, working as a NZ-style five-eighths combination, worked in Europe.
But Cooper is playing like someone dissatisfied with the game plan given to him by Reds coach Richard Graham. This raises the possibility of a Toomua, McCabe and Tevita Kuridrani as a trio, with Adam Ashley-Cooper played as a winger.
With the Reds last on the Australian conference ladder, there is cause for concern. The questions raised about Cooper’s performances are minor compared to those over Richard Graham’s future. This is now the second franchise he has coached to a notable lack of success.
How much more rope can he be given before it is turned into a noose?
The Rebels’ victory over the Sharks was well taken, professional and without the sort of magic play that the leading Australian and New Zealand teams can produce. The Sharks play the Brumbies at Canberra on Saturday night in the match of the round. The Brumbies need to win to give themselves and the other chasing sides from Australia and New Zealand a chance of getting to the top of the table.
The surprise package in the Australian conference are the Western Force. They are three points behind the Brumbies on the table with a game in hand. They begin the perilous South African part of their schedule on Saturday night with a match against the Cheetahs. With the previous week off, they arrive in South Africa fresh, playing a side not performing as well as they should.
It seems likely, even with the Bulls’ victory over the Cheetahs this weekend, that only one South African side – the Sharks – will make the finals. There is a possibility that between one and three Australian sides might make the finals, depending how the Brumbies, Waratahs and Force play out their remaining matches.
I must say that I am more hopeful for the Brumbies and Waratahs.
At the beginning of the season, I stuck my neck out in suggesting that this could be the season the Waratahs made the finals, with a good chance of continuing on to the grand final. I must admit that when they went behind by 17 points against the Hurricanes, I thought that the Curse of Spiro had struck once again.
But the splendid fightback and ultimate victory gives some hope that it’s not an impossible mission for the Waratahs. And once in the finals, anything can happen for a side with more strike power than any other Australian team.
Old Bugger
Guest
James Gee, I like baiting you because I always feel assured that you'd suffer from foot & mouth disease like now, when you respond - and once again, you haven't failed my assuredness because you've gone and put your foot where it shouldn't be - in your mouth. I did not say the entire reason for rugby in NZ was to develope players for international rugby. What I said was the reason for SANZAR and the SR competition was to improve the international playing stocks in each country. Agreed that AFL & NRL may have negotiated greater revenue options than RU but unlike RU, these 2 codes fail to attract a truly international competition like the RWC which last time I checked, is credited as being the 3rd most watched sporting occasion on a global scale....not bad for a professional sport that's 18years old. Still, I wouldn't want to clog your national thought process by introducing a global impact for fear of giving you more excuses to suffer F&M. And honestly, I haven't got a clue where the next generation of sports minded kiwi kids will go assuming you are referring to aspiring young kiwi stars - at a guess, probably sailing for Olympic selection and potentially AC representation, but since you're a kiwi, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us with your powers of foresight and let us in on the secret. Oh and btw, I am not delusional and I'm not acting when I say rugby is not under threat because it is....however and I will let you ease into this piece of foresight - it is not under pressure from the likes of either AFL or NRL codes as you so staunchly believe. It is in fact under pressure from within itself with severe impacts from UK/France RU clubs pursuing SANZAR players and coaches. So, by all means, please continue to believe that rugby is under threat from AFL and/or NRL - but here's an interesting bit of news flash for you while you're contemplating. This morning David Smith announced the NRL will initiate central contracts for NRL players in an effort to mitigate/stop the flow of more high profile players like SBW and Sam Burgess from being enticed into that dreaded RU code as you have reminded this blog. Listen up sunshine - if the NRL CEO freely admits to that concern, then from your perspective, you should be reconsidering which code you really believe is under threat. Lastly (and please make this a last comment cos I am really concerned for you mate what with that dreadful F&M disease flowing around somewhere between your foot, your mouth and the space between your ears), I will concede that there are other sports that have junior, age-grade and womens participation....there's rowing, canoeing, yacht sailing, football, athletics, swimming, weight-lifting and even rugby union, to name a few....do you see where I'm going with this?? In 2016, all these sports will be part of the Rio Olympics but I'm trying my hardest to look for the NRL and AFL as 2016 olympic sports.....never mind sunshine, better luck next time but I wouldn't want you to hold your breath waiting for that to happen - it's much more fun when you have that F&M urge.
James
Guest
Old Bugger - I really didn't want to post again but you have baited me into it. You are essentially saying that the entire reason rugby in New Zealand exists is to develop players for a few test matches per season. Rugby will DIE in NZ if that is not addressed and more meaning is given to the game at lower levels. The AFL and NRL both possess far greater resources than the NZRU and when (not if) those competitions expand into New Zealand it will be a death-knell for rugby. The tribal and personal connection those sports will illicit will trump what rugby currently offers, which is a commercialized sense of nationalism and an uncompetitive international 'scene'. What do you think the next generation are going to be attracted to? A few uncompetitive international fixtures, given an unhealthy level of priority because it is 'traditional', or a competitive and tribal week-to-week competition with a far greater degree of personal connection than international sports will ever offer? The cracks are already showing with NRL merchandise in NZ greatly outselling rugby gear. To act as if rugby is immune to the threat of other codes is delusional. There is only so much interest and money to go around. I say these things because I love rugby and want to see it survive and thrive, which it certainly hasn't done recently. Oh and BTW, I'm fairly sure that rugby is not the only sport that has junior, age-grade and women's participation.
James
Guest
"TV rights from the three nations for the SANZAR competition are pooled, with Australia contributing $US12.6 million a year from broadcaster Fox Sports, $US11.9 million from New Zealand’s Sky Sports and $US10.9 million from South Africa’s SuperSports." So it looks like SA contributes the LEAST, not the most.
Old Bugger
Guest
James Another wild statement when you suggest the NRL and other Aus competitions are a real threat to NZ rugby. Nah mate, you got it wrong there. The real threat is from within RU circles and it's up in the northern hemisphere. That's where the threat is but it's a threat that has no bias because it also threatens SA & AU's rugby fraternities. NRL??? Sheesh, they'd be worried that more players of the calibre of Folau, SBW and Hunt don't desert the ship for another winter code and more particularly, deserting to chance their wares up north.
Mike
Guest
Definitely Digger. Fans will be more interested in seeing a game against red hot Crusaders than a team that is not as strong. My point was that the difference is marginal when we look at the big picture. And on the TV front, things are even worse because the majority of NSW residents will never see the game anyway, regardless of who plays.
Mike
Guest
All true. Tinfoil hat for some bizarre reason just *assumed* that the media market in Australia must be identical to the media market in South Africa. Sure, that makes sense... ;) My only quibble is that I believe Pay TV's penetration rate in Australia is less than 30% - it hit 29% a few years ago and has either plateaued or gone slightly backwards since then. What that means is that 70%+ of Australian households never see any pro-rugby, apart from the occasional Wallabies test. How is that supposed to grow the game in Australia? Then there is the money. ARU says it gets $25 million per year in broadcasting rights from Super rugby. Soccer's A-League gets $40 million on a free to air deal, NRL and AFL get $200 million and $250 million per year respectively from their combined FTA/Pay TV deals. Its not hard to work out that ARU can do a heck of a lot better than the miserable $25 million per year its getting now, so long as it has a competition which will draw in a reasonable amount of FTA viewers. Even Super Rugby can do that, and its not ideal. The mooted NRC, a domestic national competition, has even more potential. A major problem is that these things take time to set up and the ARU should have been working on it several years ago. At least it has finally got the NRC to birthing stage, although will it be stupid enough to tie it exclusively to Pay TV? Let's see.
Mike
Guest
You've lost me James - I can't see anything in that Roy Masters article that even relates to my post. What is the "myth", and how has it been discredited?
jeznez
Roar Guru
zhenry - I am not going all out to defend Walsh - I am defending one decision. I was critical of the back chat penalty in the heat of the moment - you can see my comment on the live blog - I am even more against that decision now that I can consider it after the game - I think it was incredibly poor. With the case of the "mucking around" I stand by the decision while remaining critical of his lack of explanation. I have had an opposing prop play silly buggers with the set up for the bind - at the level I played I never expected the ref to resolve it, it was left in my hands - in this case I believe T-A was way out of line and got what he deserved. As a professional I expect Walsh to rule on that. I only saw the action live and maybe if I see a replay I will change my tune - but I was blowing up before Walsh blew his whistle so you can understand why I agree with him in this instance.
jeznez
Roar Guru
I'm not suggesting he will wind up binding on his arm - he will have to work around Toomaga-Allen's arm to reach his eventual bind point. T-A is using his arm to block where Robinson's arm can go - the bind is going to wind up on his back but Fatcat has to reach around him to get there first. As the loosehead Robinsn is coming over Toomaga-Allen's arm as he binds, by raising his own arm he is trying to disrupt Robinson's approach. There is some leeway in how a prop sets up but nothing like T-A was trying to get away with there.
mickybly
Roar Rookie
"The spread of countries involved will bring in new and bigger audiences. I was intrigued, for instance, to hear from one of the New Zealand broadcasters over the weekend that there is dedicated Super Rugby coverage in the UK with Michael Lynagh and Sean Fitzpatrick involved with the discussion." I'm living in the UK at the moment, and was pleasantly surprised (shocked) at the amount of SR coverage - their analysis is spot on - the best I've seen out of any country. They also have Thinus Delport from a saffa point of view + the English host. The lack of bias is astounding - basically - it is objective, insightful, informed analysis, something I'd never encountered watching sport in Aus or NZ (or hearing SA commentators too, and in my brief travels there). Having a Singaporean / Japanese / Hongkonger team will only add to the world's interest, and therefore non-SANZAR country-sourced revenue - an awesome thing for all 3 countries (well, 4 with the new one!).
James
Guest
OK, I didn't mean to offend anybody when I called SA a "third world" country. I apologise. However the point about political interference is valid I believe.
Rodney
Roar Pro
not really. It's not really fair to split up the NRL broadcasting money as it doesn't end up all going to the clubs, but the 6 nations cash will get split and be sent out to all the national unions. France has always had the potential to seriously attack the NRL, but never really has because buying RL players to play RU is a very risky investment and isn't usually worth paying over market rate. The Gaurdian put the French top 14 broadcast rights at ~60 mil pounds per year, roughly translating to 120mil AUD, you can add Heineken cup and the 6 nations to this but its still not close to the $250mil the NRL gets every year. But Broadcast deals mean very little in Europe as the clubs are usually owned by wealthy benefactors who pick up the difference between the Broadcast deal and the current salary cap (isn't it like 10mil Euros a season or something ridiculously huge?). The new Broadcast deal means very little as the big clubs have never needed the broadcast cash to buy players and the cap hasn't changed (as far as i'm aware).
zhenry
Guest
Ok a bit broad in my comment, but NZ needs have that as possibility (going it alone with SA). In my opinion Tew has done a totally inadequate job for NZ in his international negotiations, both for Super and International rugby NZ seems to come of worst each time. The guy might be good at close arm battles in an org such as NZRU but he does not have the overall vision for NZ rugby. Having the NZ-SA option is important for not allowing AU to get its way. NZ has been for to lax and O'Neill was too smart for him, He does not have the vision and negotiating skills to put NZ rugby where it should be - have said a lot about that over the years.
zhenry
Guest
NZRU are forsaking their provincial grass roots rugby, it is crowded out by super rugby, One provincial game a season against each other is enough the rest should be club. NZ rugby is completely out of balance all those super games against the NZ franchises should be given over to the provincial comp. From NZ point of view Super rugby needs its priorities revised. Making the players play more games for TV coverage is an AU problem, and you can keep it as far as I am concerned. Tew needs to keep his eye on whats best for NZ. Thats balancing the money, looking after players, attending to the nursery and the experience of the international game. I tend to go with more of an emphasis on club rugby and playing that internationally rather than a franchise system. A complete revision. Unfortunately don't think NZRU is up to it.
Cunny Funts
Guest
Certainly, rugby could get plenty more viewers on FTA compared to payTV, though I couldn't guess how many more... But it'd be a good thing for the entire game. FTA + NRC + other competitions (like 7000 in the stands for Manly v Warringah on the weekend) = a whole lot more promise for the future of rugby in Australia. Here's hoping 10 comes good with their apparent interest in showing rugby...
zhenry
Guest
Sometimes Walsh can be a good referee, but he is often not and that occurred last Saturday. He is a problem personality and what happened on Saturday was unacceptable. Jeznez you are going all out to defend Walsh, he does not deserve it. Agree with you KevKom. Must also mention that both Barrett and Parinara made kicks that cost the Hurricanes 2 tries against them, it was obvious to C Smith after the match that the side that held the ball scored, why did he not insist on that on the field. If he did and they ignored his direction the Hurricanes have a problem.
Old Bugger
Guest
Tane One of the key aspects of the SANZAR triumvirate was to go professional and provide a base competition centred around International rugby. The main reason for that was to prevent David Lord from establishing a similar competition utilizing international players from NZ, AUS and SA. Those were the base reasons - how it came about was establishing the Super 12. The Super comp became the means to retain each countries international players back in 1996. You may not recall, but Lord made his approaches immediately after SA won the 1995 RWC announcing an international professional format based around players from the tri-nations. It nearly worked because the NH unions were still struggling internally with where to go and what to do. In fact, it took those unions a couple of more years to finally cement their professional comps so Lord's approach to the tri-nations international players, was more like a coup-de-tat from left field. It caught the union bosses off guard and caused some anxiety amongst not only the players approached and the unions involved but also, the fans and supporters in each country. So, for your information, SANZAR eventuated to protect the tri-nations international arena and retain each country's international players because these were the only guys that Lord was talking with. He wasn't talking with any players outside of that circle - he figured that would eventuate later once he coralled the main players from each nation. It was all about internationals so don't try and make it sound like its a tribalistic club competition to suit your own needs and requirements. That was and still remains IMO, the only reason SR exists today - to increase and continuously improve each nation's international sides and players.
Emric
Guest
Celtic just to add to my above statement - The French Rugby Top 14 (This is the TOP 14 competition not including the European Championship) secured a tv deal worth raound 790,000,000 Australian dollars spread over 14 clubs thats 11,285,714 per club over 5 years which is roughly what the NRL is getting for its 16 clubs. Factor in that the tv deal does not including any European Competition which the FRU is free to collect their share from as well, and finally nor does it include international deals (which the Australian deal did). The French are truly rolling in broadcaster cash and the rest of the Rugby World is in serious trouble including the NRL
Emric
Guest
And you do realize that the 1 billion dollar NRL deal is 100 million in advertising and 925 million in cash split over 16 clubs over 5 years which equals 11,500,000 million (the 6 nations makes more for far far less in reality) lets also factor in the exchange rate the 6 nations is paid in Euros 1 aussie dollar = 67 cents euro or 1 euro = 1.5 euros so the 16,666,666 * 1.5 = 24,999,999 Aussie dollars.. Would you like to rethink your statement?
Jerry
Guest
His arm position is irrelevant to Robinson's bind though, cause Robinson isn't allowed to bind on his arm. I think the penalty was actually for JTA binding on Robinson's arm. Walsh is terrible at communicating with players sometimes.