There has been a lot of conjecture recently about the expansion of Super Rugby into Asia. Fuelling much of the debate was the announcement by SANZAR that the 18th and final side to be added to the Super Rugby competition in 2016 will come from either Singapore or Japan.
While both are exciting concepts, as current Japan coach Eddie Jones pointed out with Japan growing in stature as an international side and with the World Cup being staged there in 2019, it would be madness if they were not handed the franchise.
The strength of Singapore’s bid appears to be on the serious commercial potential of such a venture as well as it’s closer proximity to South Africa, whose conference it would be a part of.
Whether you love or hate the idea of this expansion, you have to hand it to SANZAR for at least being bold enough to go after this new market.
The main problem is likely to be that the side that enters the competition will be little more than whipping boys – think the Melbourne Rebels – and fans may disengage as a result. Obviously SANZAR are being driven by the fact that the potential commercial upside is significant particularly when it comes time for TV rights negotiations.
There is a real opportunity in this expansion particularly for Australia and New Zealand, provided they are willing to again grasp change and move on from their fixed selection policies of the past.
The policy that I am referring to is that of only selecting players for Test sides who currently play their domestic rugby within the confines of each respective national border. I am not criticising this policy as it has proved extremely successful to date and in all likelihood has allowed both nations to survive and remain competitive in an increasingly cut throat environment.
Perhaps though with the expansion of Super Rugby into new frontiers, it is now time for a re-think.
Even the greatest optimists in the world would have trouble convincing themselves that an Asian based franchise could be anything but cannon fodder in the competition without serious foreign player involvement.
Realistically, out of a possible squad of 30, this Asian franchise will likely need a minimum of 20 foreign players initially just to be competitive. And therein lies the opportunity.
Why can’t the ARU and New Zealand Rugby Union agree a way in which players are drafted to the new Asian franchise while remaining centrally contracted to their national union and therefore remaining eligible for international duty? They could agree a model where they pay a fraction of the players salary costs yet rather than losing a player offshore they actually increase their prospective player pool.
Rugby players are no different to other young people, they too seek new experiences and environments. This model would allow players who are looking for new experiences to do so without the pitfall of then losing the ability to play international rugby.
The likes of Hosea Gear, Ben Mowan, Sitiveni Sivivatu, Matt GIteau, Carl Hayman or Drew Mitchell could have all sought to broaden their horizons while also bumping up their salaries and without giving up on further international rugby like under the current model. This could have kept Nick Cummins within Australia Rugby.
Surely this would be better for the Springboks too. Rather than having the likes of Bakkies Botha and Bryan Habana toiling away for 12 months, wouldn’t it be better to have them playing in Japan or Singapore where their season aligns and overlaps with South Africa’s?
This leads me to Argentina. The only way Argentina will be truly successful is if their players return to the Southern Hemisphere competitions permanently. It is just not physically possible for the Pumas to be expected to play for ten months with their club sides in Europe and then front up for the Rugby Championship and deliver their best possible performances. Perhaps in a way that doesn’t undermine the new Argentinian franchise, the new Asian side could recruit heavily on Argentinian players. Likewise Pacific Island players too.
Once all is said and done, there is no argument that the global rugby landscape is changing and perhaps it’s time for the national bodies to change with it.
hog
Guest
Agreed The comment is rubbish, by simply chasing money you end up with a mess, which sums up Super rugby nicely!!!
sheek
Roar Guru
Rubbish! I'm fundamentally opposed to the principle that money is the only reason for doing anything. Too often imperfect models are spawned as a result. Maybe my problem is I'm too idealistic, & I have nothing good to offer for these expansion plans.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
I know I have wrestled with this for a while too. But if you think about this for a moment honestly, what you have is club rugby negatively impacting Currie Cup or ITM Cup. I know they are supposed to flow into each other and players play club and then ITM or Currie Cup but if Currie Cup and ITM cup are to grow then they need to be longer. Young club players love finishing their games and going down to the stadium paying $5 and watching their local provincial team play. It's what should happen. We have separated club and provincial. That is wrong. Club rugby seems to get as long as it needs. But ITM and Currie are getting pushed around and pulled and never getting the time slots they need. If they were given prominence and completely separated from club AND SUper then it can work. How do club rugby players move into ITM/Currie Cup? They are selected into Development squads throughout the season and at the end of the season the local ITM Cup team will select club players for next years ITM/Currie Cup. This is the same way that Super Rugby works. Players are contracted in September/October for the following season. The idea that clubs would die off if the ITM/Currie Cup was extended and Top players taken out would not happen. All Blacks were taken out and people yelled. But Clubs did not die. Super Rugby players were taken out and people yelled. But club rugby is still strong. If ITM cup/Currie Cup players were taken out clubs would still be strong.
atlas
Guest
What? Have you forgotten club rugby, from where NPC/ITM Cup players are selected? In most provinces the club season winds up this month or early August - eg Wellingtons club rugby season runs in 2014 from 29 March through to finals weekend 2/3 August (and as Hurricanes didn't make playoffs, club teams have their Super players back).
ChubbzyK96
Guest
Doesnt Japan have a half decent rugby comp? Even so can't wait for the Tokyo Honda's or the Fujitsu Mitsubishi's to play in Super 18
We used to have 3pm kick offs, so that would be the earliest.
Bakkies
Guest
As a side I don't think the Saffies will go earlier than a 2pm kick off. No harm in discussing it.
Bakkies
Guest
That's in Argentina and explains why they are in the SA conference where there is only a 5 hour diff between BA and SA. When a kiwi team plays the arg side there has to be an adjustment to suit arg viewers (like a afternoon kick off in NZ). Kick off times first of all have to suit the tv times of the two fan bases of the competing teams. It's a big issue in Sanzar. These recommended time slots are to avoid the away fan base from watching the games past midnight.
Nobrain
Guest
I think you are wrong with the time, but to let you know most of the games are played between 3:30 and 7:00 am in local argentinian time. I never get the chance to watch them live, I have to record each game and watch it later. This is something that people like me (54 years old) are not used to do, but younger generation do it all the time, the like to watch the games when is conveniently for them and there is nothing wrong with that.
Silent1
Guest
While it is not ideal I think the new format is not just bout making money but growing the game also. I think if they had made it super 15 from the start with 5 Nz teams, 3 Oz, 4 Sa, 2 Arg & 1 Pi the competition would be in a much better shape right now. This proposed new format could work but I think they're doing it wrong I think they need to add another Asian team and Argentine team on top off the proposed 1 into each of the SA conferences. This way the fighting over Singapore Vs Japan will end as both will get included (the APD's wouldn't get much attendance in Singapore at first but could take games to the P.I and Hong Kong each year) aswell as Argentina getting two teams it would really boost the Pumas and Argentina Rugby as a hole. This way both Sa conferences have 5 teams (the same amount as Aus & Nz) so the comp will be even. I propose for teams to play each in their conference once plus another team twice (this way the Arg teams can play their countrymen home & away and same for the Asian teams giving them an extra domestic game), all the 5 teams in the other part of your conference eg Sa 1, Sa 2, Nz 1, Aus 1. And playing either each team in one of the other 2 conferences (changing annually) or 3 teams in one conf. & 2 in the other one. This is the same amount of games proposed under the new Super Rugby format. While I know not everyone is keen on expanding into new areas, another format I believe could work is to simply only add 2 teams to the current 15 either Kings and Arg or Kings and P.I. Each team would play each other one creating a full round robin of 16 games 8 home and away plus finals. But the difference would be the established nations (SA, NZ, AUS) teams taking games internationally. My idea is for each NZ team (5) taking 2 games each year internationally, thats 10 games so I choose 5 games in Asia (1 from each team, 4 in Japan and 1 in either Hong Kong or Singapore) 2 in the Pacific (Samoa, Fiji Or Tonga) and 3 in North America (USA & Canada). Aus also will take 2 games per team internationally each year with 5 games (1 each) going to Asia (4 to Japan and 1 to Singapore or Hong Kong) with another 2 to the Pacific and 3 to North America. Sa wil be different in that they will only take one game each internationally with 3 teams taking their 'home' game against the arg side to Argentina but not to Buenos Aires (as thats were they will be based) and the other 3 teams will be taking their game to North America. This way Sanzar can sell rights to these games to the respective nations networks bringing in extra money aswell as fans into the comp aswell as the sport. This would take the comp to Asia (10 games) and North America (9) without adding teams there and diluting the talent aswell as helping los pampas out by giving them and extra 3 games in their home country now they only play outside of Argentina 5 games a year (excluding finals) (giving the nation 11 games a year). It would also promote the game in the Pacific with 4 games a year. Sa would play host to 48 games, with Aus and NZ left with 30 each. While travel would be a factor you would work in the draw for the aus and nz teams north american games etc to be en-route to Sa or before or after a bye. Im sure it could be worked out to not be too much travel but each team would get 2 byes plus 3 weeks off during the june tours...............
Bakkies
Guest
I imagine kickoff times would be up for discussion even from a NZ and Aus point of view as fans aren't watching the between 2-4am matches. It makes sense for Aussie and Kiwi teams to play matches against each other or derbies on a Friday night leaving out the SA teams as their supporters are at school or work. I guess Sanzar don't do logic.
Lostintokyo
Guest
If the TV contract allows a 14:30 kick off that could work. And a 13:30 kick off for Aussie games. And a 11:30 kick off for the Kiwi games in SA. Have not seen any hint of that compromise yet but it would be one solution to time zone issues. Imagine Bakkies the after game drinks after a home game with an 11:30 kick off!! Could be legendary.
Bakkies
Guest
Not if the Asia away game in kicked off at 2:30 SA time which is 9:30 pm in Tokyo (8:30 in Singapore they get the team). Do Japanese go to bed that early?
Lostintokyo
Guest
Talking about the kick off times in SA. Japan will be asleep.
Bakkies
Guest
Actually the ones who could be asleep would be the Kiwis. Night kick offs in Asia won't affect the Saffies at all. The times will be similar to the Force home games which come on in the afternoon in Europe and Africa.
Lostintokyo
Guest
Agree with a lot of what your article points our Cam but not the part about Japan being cannon fodder. Japan already have a significant input of foreign players. And most of them speak excellent Japanese. What national top ten side has 100% local born (Kiwis back off a retort here). Australia is looking forward to Henry Speight's marauding in the back line as the Chiefs did not capitalize on Hamiliton High School initive. It's been going on since JC played fullback for Juruselem. If Japan can handle Samoa, Italy and Wales B then they can handle Super Rugby. Problem is it will be akin to the national side playing provincial football. Not good for Japan. The heat issue of both Singapore and Japanese summer must be addressed. Finally why play in a time zone where the fans are asleep at kick off. Agree Cam, brave and better to have players in our comp then heading to Europe but the current plan needs work. It could be so much more if done properly. In this regard I am in Sheek's corner with his NRC argument. Rushed. I am aware the sand in the hour glass is almost empty regarding ARU cash and The Kings are on a promise but don't screw up Japan's rugby as a solution. Do it properly and Sanzar will have a financial solution. Japan and Asia dwarf Toulon. Japan will be a huge supporter of Super Rugby if done correctly (Japan East and Japan West in the right conference with the correct Super conference set up). Singapore now seems to me crazy. The Island teams would benefit from a strong Super comp not empty stands in Singapore. Problem is lack of time. And the correct long term vision
woodart
Guest
thats always going to be the biggest hurdle. how many times have powerful clubs got in the way of players turning out for their countries? in all sports, clubs are always pulling the "needs a minor operation, sorry, cant play for country" .that is the biggest reason why relying on foriegn based players is a bad idea. no amount of carefully worded contracts will overide a shonky medical excuse , or club pressure. the fijian rugby team has been shortchanged badly by french clubs putting the pressure on to say no to playing for their country.
Bakkies
Guest
As far as I know the gate money was directed towards them.
WSM58
Guest
If financial security is the main driver behind Super Rugby expansion, all the more reason there should be a Asia/Pacific Super 14s competition with 5 x teams each from Australia and New Zealand as is currently and say 3 x teams from Japan and one team from Singapore. Also change the test selection policy for ARU and NZRU players in this competition "even the one's playing in one of the 4 Asian teams " are still eligble for test selection.
hog
Guest
That is what many of us on here have been advocating for a while now. The issue is what format does Super rugby then take, and what exactly is a 2nd tier. In Australia's case it does not have the money to do this, Since the beginning effectively they have been driving a Ferrari on a Holden wage. The whole concept of Super rugby in AUS is unsustainable, you are losing market share every year & putting increased pressure on the Wallabies to maintain revenue. Expansion to Asia is simply sticking another finger in the dike that will solve nothing until the ARU address the underlying factors of a lack of domestic market penetration. Super rugby is a chain around the ARU's neck that may eventually kill the code of in Australia.