In an age where corporate money is quickly consuming more and more of the product that is sport and recreation to the local fans of our sporting codes, I sometimes stop and wonder where the suits, media and corporate sponsorship dollars are taking the game I love; rugby.
Is it to better our game, by expanding it in a responsible and justified sense? Or is it simply an excuse for SANZAR to drive up revenue without a second thought of what the fans would like to see happen in our game?
We are the people who drive-up membership bases, pay a monthly television allowance to watch our team play and attend match days to give back to our own individual unions and teams. I have since early June heard that SANZAR and Australia in particular are very interested in seeing a team from Asia, namely Singapore or Japan come into the competition as the 18th team in the Super Rugby competition.
What I really find hard to understand in all this is really a simple equation, one based on common sense. The expansion of Super Rugby is based on reducing unnecessary travel time and strengthening other areas of rugby outside of the traditional SANZAR nations. My question is, and many of my rugby friends agree, what will bringing in a team based in Asia seriously bring to the competition?
While Argentina has been licensed a side to be placed in one of the African Conferences, why not allow them to have one in each conference. There is no geographical justification for an Asian-based team being placed in one of the African Conferences, where as any side from the above mentioned proposals (Japan or Singapore) would be much closer to Australasia on the basis of travel.
This is one thing that the SARU has increasingly argued against before the new television deal comes into play because of the increased demand for travel and the fatigue it causes on players.
On top of this, Japan already has an established a financially successful rugby competition that if need be, could be adapted in the future for the sake of incorporating other nations such as Fiji, Samoa or Tonga into their own professional tournament if it were given time.
All I can see as a result of this negligence, is a team based in Asia as a ‘glorified’ pacific nations team and a standalone team in Argentina which will essentially comprise, given time, the Pumas that then goes on to play in the Rugby Championship.
By instead including two Argentine teams, one based in Buenos Aires and one in the northwest province of Tucuman. We then have a competition that makes more logistical sense and allows Argentina to develop their rugby product and youth set-up in their own country.
SANZAR needs to look at the big picture and should be attempting to fully develop both their domestic and international rugby products for the greater good of viability, practicality and future of Super Rugby as the best based rugby competition in the world. I feel there is easily enough money to justify including two teams from Argentina and that this will help generate increased revenue into the game for all Unions concerned.
Glefty
Guest
July 22nd 2014 @ 9:39pm Charcoal said I’m just over this whole expansionist crap. What is the point of it? How is it going to improve the relevance of the code in AUSTRALIA? So far, it’s going backwards. Australia’s interest should come before any delusional fantasies about expansion proposed by SANZAR. I just hope that the Australian representatives have the intestinal fortitude to resist these changes to the point of pulling out altogether. I doubt if there is any benefit for NZ and SA either. Let’s just keep it as a Southern Hemisphere competition (and without Argentina). A Super 16 with 5 teams each from Aust and NZ and 6 teams from SA played in a round robin and finals. SIMPLE. Best idea ever!!!!!
kunming tiger
Guest
Basically you hit the nail on the head most o the people on this forum aren't living in the real world of pro sports. Overheads with regard to pro sports are such that without broadcast revenue pro sports as we know them wouldn't exist. Sources of revenue from match ticketing, membership or merchandise isn't sufficient to broadcasters and sponsors make up the difference, He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Midfielder
Guest
Hog / Sheek Or grow a lot ... say SA/Aust/ NZ all have 8 teams .. ANG 6 to 8 teams ... Japan also 6 to 8 teams... so between 36 & 40 teams... Each nation could play 2 rounds say 14 weeks and select their top four teams... finishing with say 16 teams into a knock out competition with home and away adding 7 weeks so 21 weeks in total and the 8 teams in Aust / NZ / etc essentially make up the national domestic competition...
sheek
Guest
I had a vision years ago, whichessentially hasn't changed much, & it was as follows: Rugby Championship - South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina (& I believe, Pacific Islands). Plus inbound & outbound tours. Super Rugby - top teams from each of five domestic comps. Say, three each from SA, NZ & Aus; two from Arg & leading Island team. Domestic comps - Currie Cup (SA), NPC (NZ), APC/NRC (Aus), Campeonato Argentino (ARG) & Inter-Island South Pacific comp. The beauty of domestic comps is that each country can have as many or as few teams in its premier division as they choose. They can also have promotion & relegation if they so desire. The Islanders might prefer 2-4 regions from each of Fiji, Samoa & Tonga. Finally, while the leading domestic teams are involved in super rugby, other domestic teams don't miss out. They can be involved in a knock-out style pool & comp involving both first & second division clubs, running roughly the same length of time as super rugby ( 3-5 weeks). For me, the above structures preserve the history, tradition & heritage of long established pathways while also introducing a modern benefit. Premier rugby clubs are still essential as the first pathway for aspiring players after leaving high school, & for those still aspiring for a professional career. From premier rugby clubs down, the base broadens out to suburban & regional clubs & junior district clubs.
Common Sense
Guest
Your crowd numbers for those corresponding games disagrees with you.
sheek
Roar Guru
Bush, While a sound move just adding one more domestic team to each existing conference, we might as well kick Argentina out of the Rugby Championship while we're at it. Makes no sense, no sense at all, to have the Pumas in the RC but no presence in super rugby. Either we make the effort to incorporate a minimum two teams from Argentine regions, or we ignore them altogether. At present what we have is a band-aid exercise. An example of a flimsy band-aid trying to stem the loss of gushing blood from a severed femoral artery. It's pathetic.
Charcoal
Guest
I'm just over this whole expansionist crap. What is the point of it? How is it going to improve the relevance of the code in AUSTRALIA? So far, it's going backwards. Australia's interest should come before any delusional fantasies about expansion proposed by SANZAR. I just hope that the Australian representatives have the intestinal fortitude to resist these changes to the point of pulling out altogether. I doubt if there is any benefit for NZ and SA either. Let's just keep it as a Southern Hemisphere competition (and without Argentina). A Super 16 with 5 teams each from Aust and NZ and 6 teams from SA played in a round robin and finals. SIMPLE.
You are missing the point, the benefit is to play Nz and Oz teams, otherwise why take part?
allblackfan
Guest
you can expand the SA conference with more teams. What is the flying time from Europe to South Africa?
Info
Guest
How about three conferences of 7? 21 teams. 6 SA and 1 Argentina 5 oz, 1 Singapore and 1 japan 5 NZ, 1 Singapore and 1 other team for NZ to decide ( japan, islander, New Plymouth, north harbour) Play 6 conference games, 7 inter conference games, then 3 conference games.
Harry Jones
Expert
Singapore is smart at purchasing. Small island nation that harvests every rain drop. Has a great jungle special force corps. Awesome street food. They'll buy the best mercenaries; a Samoan-South African-Kiwi mix. They'll be superstars in Singapore.
Harry Jones
Expert
Charming.
AndyS
Guest
Can't see any SA player going anywhere near the Singapore team. Poor delicate petals struggle with the travel they have, so I really can't see them being based in Singapore and then having to play 4 or 5 teams in the Republic, plus 2 or 3 in Aus or NZ. They'll run screaming - that is a far worse travel load than any SA team has ever had, and the Japanese would/Argentineans will have it even worse still. Lucky no-one cares about them...
Harry Jones
Expert
Every team could have a "travel quota?"
Harry Jones
Expert
I'm kind of looking forward to Singapore being in. It might be my Second Team, full of rich Saffas.
Harry Jones
Expert
How will this affect your quota docrine, Mr Charrington? Will SA clubs be the only ones in Super Rugby who must not hire a certain number of a certain ethnicity?
We don't want more home games, we are duplicating the Currie Cup.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
But you are getting more home games. You mean its only more benefit "in your mind" but the SARFU lobbied for less travel and got it. They claimed it was the reason their teams had fared so badly winning SR less than NZ. They said its harder for SA teams to go to Australasia than vice versa because of the reverse time difference. So a key position in negotiations was reducing tours across the Indian Ocean. Travelling east produces worse jet lag. I have heard that a thousand times.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Sorry but the assertion that the EPL is local teams playing eachother is beyond ridiculous. They are 100% full of the top imported stars from over the world, not local players, so their fan base reflects that - people watch Barcelona because of Ronaldo and the Stars and the team. If it was only the city of Barcelona that was interested they would not be the team they are. Super rugby teams are the same. They get significant support from around the whole country and obviously their is an attempt to build their brands. Having All Blacks in All teams means almost all NZ teams are well supported by all Kiwis. Regionalism is reduced a lot. People choose a team based on the style they like and the players they like. Its how Asian people choose an EPL team or Australians choose as NFL team to follow. That is one of the ways Super Rugby is growing. It is the same as all major sports.
Sharksfan
Guest
SARU is controlled by the same sports minister that said that SA rugby teams will have to follow a 50% quota system in 2015 and then withdrew his comment the next day.