Over the next two years, Australia’s rugby landscape will go through its biggest transformation since the establishment of the Super 12 competition 18 years ago.
The inaugural NRC season is set to kickoff in August and SANZAR is giving Super Rugby its most significant makeover.
Three new teams will be distributed over a conference structure that requires a strong knowledge in advanced algorithms to wrap your head around.
In its boldest expansion to date, Super Rugby in 2016 will include teams from two new markets, with clubs to be established in Argentina and either Japan or Singapore.
Bill Pulver has been the ARU’s man at the reins during a whirlwind 18-month tenure that has seen him reintroduce a third tier concept and thrash out a new direction for Super Rugby with his Kiwi and South African counterparts. His attention in recent months has now turned to selling these developments to Australia’s sporting public.
The NRC is going to provide Australian rugby with what we’re told is a much needed stepping stone between club rugby and Super Rugby.
I have my doubts as to how a two-month competition can have any serious impact on our playing depth, especially considering the most recent Super Rugby season suggests we’re not all that far behind our SANZAR partners when it comes to providing adequate talent to fill five professional rugby teams.
I also have my concerns that this competition could prove to be yet another costly expedition into the bottomless pit that is a national third tier, which is something the ARU can ill-afford. Nonetheless, I’ll take Mr Pulver’s word that this new model can be self-sufficient and it will get my full support.
But we can’t pretend that this concept can be anything more than a platform to give fringe and up-and-coming Super Rugby players a bit of a splash around in the shallow end.
There are many other important objectives on the ARU’s table that require attention and resources and the NRC won’t satisfy them. Furthermore, the moment it becomes apparent that the competition will run with the burden of consistent losses, the plug needs to be pulled.
Since SANZAR released its desired 18-team model in May, reactions have been mixed. Many fans were left scratching their heads wondering how this proposal is going to drive the game forward in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
Pulver believes the expanded structure will improve the competition while boosting the all-important broadcast revenue. While I think there’s every chance the TV pie will increase, I fail to see how these changes will improve Super Rugby, let alone make it more engaging for fans.
During one of his Q and A sessions with The Roar earlier this year, Pulver mentioned that not being able to truly re-engage fans was the biggest risk for rugby in Australia. I wholeheartedly agree with him but with this in mind I can’t fathom how he’s advocating this new Super Rugby structure.
The concept of not only maintaining, but building the game’s presence across the three SANZAR markets needed to be the focal point while deciding on the immanent evolution of Super Rugby. I can’t help but feel that what we were presented with in early May doesn’t effectively achieve this.
The rugby world is going through a period of unprecedented growth on many fronts and SANZAR requires a direction that ensures the relevance of tier two rugby on the world stage. This is particularly important within the Australian market, where three football codes continue to surge ahead with enormous television deals and impressive levels of exposure that suggest rugby occupies nothing more than a niche position in our sporting landscape.
While SANZAR now debates the merits of which Asian frontier to conquer, I’m still wondering how a team in Japan, Singapore or Timbuctoo is going to increase the game’s standing domestically and make an impression on the ARU’s coffers that currently depend on a Lions tour every 12 years.
I understand the SANZAR negotiating table can resemble the footpath outside James Packer’s Bondi digs, with all parties having some firm ideas and set criteria to work around. Even with these contrasting beliefs, I fail to see how what the three parties agreed upon is beneficial to any of their individual interests, especially in the long run.
After two and a half months spent in utter disbelief at a thoughtless model, and yet another missed opportunity for SANZAR, I’ve put together what I believe to be a superior proposal. In doing that, I’ve tried to keep in mind the parametres and some of the goals of negotiating for 2016 and beyond.
New Zealand wants to maintain a relationship with South Africa
The New Zealand Rugby Union believe they produce a higher calibre of player when they are exposed to South African teams and away games in the Republic.
South Africa want six
In 2014, the Kings from Port Elizabeth sat out the Super Rugby season after doing what was looking like becoming an annual tag-in, tag-out scenario with the Lions. The SARU didn’t want to have to rotate teams in and out to accommodate the six areas that they (and their government) believe should be represented in Super Rugby.
An emphasis on derbies
This objective was driven particularly hard by the ARU as local or derby games prove to be a ratings winner and crowd figures suggest they’re fan favourites.
Taking Super Rugby to new frontiers
The Pumas now have a place in the Rugby Championship and there have long been calls for Argentina to be involved in Super Rugby. This will be realised in 2016. SANZAR also seem to be of the mindset that there’s a pot of gold waiting for them in Asia, so any changes to Super Rugby also seemed to inevitably involve Japan and one of the Tiger economies.
The travel
The ARU and SARU were quite vocal about expansion not leading to an increase in the travel demands on players and even expressed a desire to cut back if possible. RUPA also chimed in and directly voiced player concerns.
Protecting the third tier in New Zealand and South Africa
Both the New Zealand Rugby Union and the SARU have always required a window for the ITM and Currie Cups to run.
Mo Money
Obviously the jury will be out on this until SANZAR sit down with broadcasters to throw around some figures, but creating a structure that’s conducive to the needs of TV would no doubt be a strong influencer to ensure the three partners receive a bigger piece of pie moving forward. This is even more important as the wages above the equator are becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with.
Growing the game
Continuing (or kick-starting) the growth of the game is, without doubt, the most important factor in the decision making process, and the second tier underneath Test rugby plays a pivotal role in achieving this.
All three partners are locked in an ongoing battle in chasing hearts and minds within their respective publics to get bums on seats and kids at sign-on days. Considering the significantly weaker position rugby holds in Australia when compared to New Zealand and South Africa, this objective is incredibly important in our backyard.
While I concede that SANZAR have gone some way to satisfying most of these criterions, I think many fans would agree that what’s resulted is some sort of Frankenstein monster that has the potential to do more harm than good.
The package seems to be well off the mark of what was required and I really don’t see it being the vehicle Australian rugby desperately needs to pick up new fans. Not only that, I think the new Super Rugby runs the real risk of turning off current fans that the game just as desperately needs to hold onto.
Over the last 12 or so months I’ve heard a lot of interesting proposals on The Roar from people like myself who live and breathe rugby and want nothing but the best for the sport. In my next article, I’d like to share my ideas and demonstrate how they fit into the negotiating criteria.
Until then, how do you feel SANZAR have gone fitting their model into these parameters, and do you think what we’re left with is what we (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) need?
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
From Allblacks.com: With the matches being played in Australia and New Zealand, both local broadcasters experienced record 2014 results with SKY (345,000) and Fox Sports (246,000) posting their highest average audiences for the year. In addition, each of these games reached over half a million people. Fox Sports' figures for the Waratahs' successful Semi-Final eclipsed any game played during the 2013 Super Rugby season and represented an astonishing 292 percent comparative uplift on last year's penultimate week. Additionally, the Crusaders v Sharks games was the sixth-highest rating game overall in Australia this year and the highest-rating game played overseas. - Australia and New Zealand experienced highest average audience for 2014 - Fox Sports experienced a 292 percent increase on 2013 Semi-Finals and Waratahs v Brumbies rated better than any game throughout the 2013 season - Crusaders v Sharks was the sixth-highest rating game in Australia this year - It was also Fox Sports' most-watched game played outside of Australia while Waratahs v Brumbies was the most-watched game on SKY played outside of New Zealand - SuperSport's audience for the Crusaders v Sharks match was 15 percent greater than last season's corresponding Semi-Final and it was SKY's best-rating match for the season with 345,000 viewers in New Zealand The Waratahs v Brumbies clash meanwhile produced the highest audience for SKY for a match played out of New Zealand this season, while the Crusaders v Sharks Semi-Final attracted a record viewership of 345,000 - easily the broadcaster's best result for a Super Rugby match in 2014. South African fans continued to watch and support the Sharks with SuperSport's average audience of 350,000 for the match being 15 percent higher than the corresponding New Zealand Semi-Final from 2013. Furthermore, the combined live average of the two Semi-Finals as shown by SANZAR's three core broadcast partners attracted the highest average audience for matches played in New Zealand (822,000) and Australia (665,000) this season. SANZAR CEO Greg Peters said, "Interest in the Semi-Finals was incredibly strong with our host broadcasters posting positive results compared to previous benchmarks, illustrating the immense interest among fans in our core territories. "Each match had an average audience of more than quarter of a million people and more Australians tuned in to watch the Semi-Finals than they did any match throughout all of last season. "We are optimistic that Saturday's Final between the Waratahs and Crusaders will produce similarly positive numbers and be a fitting showpiece to a memorable season, along with what may prove to be a record crowd for a Super Rugby match."
Dru
Guest
Guess not. I'll look forward to it next time.
Dru
Guest
As we go through these debates, it's the sort of thing I'm interested in. I ran up a few figures around domestic economy and player numbers, but mentioned the next step is the micro sports economy and opportunity. I am still minded to see Australia as the highest risk/opportunity, even counting SE Asia. But there is a lot that hasn't even been touched about RSA in this discussion.
Rob9
Guest
Glenn, look at the finances of every club throughout ARL/NRL history, just about everyone bar the broncos have (almost) consistently run at a loss. Newcastle's haven't been anywhere near as significant as the Tigers, Sharks, Dragons, Panthers etc. and their attendances are usually within the top quarter of the league. What was never disputed (and another thing you can't seem to comprehend from my posts) is the fact that the AFL and NRL are the top 2 leagues in the country. What you've failed to do is create the link between that and the fact that it's solely because they're born out of suburban leagues. Both codes have had the benefit of dominating the landscapes they've existed in over the last 100 of years. AFL in the south, RL in the north. They could have elevated what ever model they wanted when the games started to become national and what evidence do you have to suggest they wouldn't be in the same positions today? What's more, every other code that's entered the landscape since has taken bits and pieces of the NRL and AFL models but not one has decided to take the suburban approach. It doesn't exactly build a strong case for suggesting that the suburban model is integral to building a successful professional/national league in Australia does it?
Bakkies
Guest
As an outsider I say yes. The Saffers can explain about the black middle class.
Bakkies
Guest
'Sounds like a story state off affairs in ACT. How did it get this way, and whats the way out.' - In depth in my posts to Sheek that the ACT expanded it's catchment in to the fertile south coast and southern inland areas (which include Riverina, Deniliquin, etc) which covers a lot of ground. I don't think the club and school base has ever been much greater than it is now within the ACT. - I think that Royals clubhouse was brought out by the Raiders. Easts clubhouse is long gone. Don't know about the old Norths. - The ACT Government has provided a lot of assistance. I say without the Government support the Brumbies will still be training at Griffith. That includes pushing through the sale of the old site. You could say that was vital in providing much needed funds to the union. - Unlike Sydney it's difficult to say where the true heartland of ACT Rugby is. It's spread across the territory.
Bakkies
Guest
Exactly it's supply and demand. Otherwise Aus Rugby ends up like Wales.
Glenn Innes
Guest
There are a load of errors in your reply (for eg Newcastle have struggled with finance for their entire existence not just just the last two years _ i could go on forever and write an essay like you just did but everyone is bored with it so we will have to agree to disagree on this issue as nothing you have written denies the basic fact that the two most popular leagues in this country are based around city based Leagues that have been around for decades and clubs that have been around for decades that is a fact everything beyond that is mere opinion.
AndyS
Guest
I know. They had the opportunity to restructure everything and address fundamental issues, but instead the battle is being lost to the NRL....
AndyS
Guest
The new ownership idea will certainly be interesting. Can't see it affecting anything much in NSW though, as the grassroots structures and clubs will remain the responsibility of the NSWRU. It might give them a bit more money to splash around, but like the money for the Rebels that implies they would have any idea what to do with it to radically turn their fortunes around. I think it will all go down the same bottomless pits, to squeals that it is still not enough. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether a sport that is only played professionally in three states is a national sport. Being based there at the time I can state with certainty that S12 was utterly invisible in WA in the early 00's - I tried to follow it, but the only people I could find who had even a passing interest were kiwis (and they just followed the results rather than watching). I knew more than a few locals that played locally, but to them Super rugby was an eastern states comp and of no real interest. You'd be surprised how few were much bothered about the fortunes of the Wallabies too.
RobC
Roar Guru
Andy, fyi NSWRU already went broke in 2000. ARU allocated $5mil ran it for 3 years and slashed cost. Dwyer came in to help the turnaround. When it was done EM got the head coach. And yes they are too big too fail a bit like AFL ARL. Except VRL and ARL have already gone through their respective failures and revolutions. Rugby, I expect to see much more.
AndyS
Guest
As an addenda, I would say that long-term investment, development and selection of top PROFESSIONAL players is not the states and their structures, only those with professional structures. South Australia have all the necessary grassroots structures, but they have no professional outlet so how many professionals do they generate? They logically must have no less talented sportsmen than anywhere else, but they all go elsewhere and will continue to do so.
RobC
Roar Guru
Starting a new thread, bit easier to respond. Re Tahs, - Im pretty sure win or lose, the current administration wont make much difference. - Definition of insanity etc. Whats new with the Tahs? - Ownership change in 2016. There are six interested parties. Dwyer has shared this thoughts and intentions: - He plans to use the formula he used in Narbonne France. - The formula? using his own words 'Grassroots'. re other states. They will not impact NSW if they are sustainable. The reverse is true: - The Rebs just cost $5.5 mil to ARU in allocation and management attention. Something that could have gone to other states. - If the Force fails thats another few mil that ARU will forced be forced to pump and operate. - Even if the Force or Melbourne drops out all together without replacement teams. Rugby continues to be national sport, as it did in SR12. The world will keep turning. . It wont be the end of Rugby national sport. I agree a national club comp is not yet feasible.
RobC
Roar Guru
Starting a new thread, bit easier to respond. Re Tahs, - Im pretty sure win or lose, the current administration wont make much difference. - Definition of insanity etc. Whats new? Ownership change in 2016. There are six interested parties. Dwyer has shared this thoughts and intentions: - Some reading re Tahs future: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/bob-dwyer-in-bid-for-private-takeover-of-nsw-waratahs-20140502-zr348.html - He plans to use the formula he used in France: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/02/12/narbonne-says-merci-australians - The formula? Grassroots engagement. His own words (last two paras): http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/dwyers-view-the-wallabies-squad-firms-up/ re other states. They will not impact NSW if they are sustainable. The reverse is true: - The Rebs just cost $5.5 mil to ARU in alllocation and management attention. Something that could have gone to other states. - If the Force fails thats another few mil that ARU will forced be forced to pump and operate. - Even if the Force or Melbourne drops out all together without replacement teams. Rugby continues to be national sport, as it did in SR12. The world will keep turning. . It wont be the end of Rugby national sport. I agree a national club comp is not yet feasible.
AndyS
Guest
Union may be losing the fight in NSW, but there is nothing about having teams in Vic or WA that has a bearing on that. There is no consolidation or plans that could somehow be enacted but only if there were just three professional teams...to be honest, I'm not sure there are much by way of plans either way other than hope that what is happening now somehow turns stuff around. The ARU has potentially got a winning Waratahs team at last, and fingers crossed for the Wallabies. If that doesn't work, I don't think they will have any clue whatsoever what to do next. It is all they've come up with for the last few years - gotta be playing winning and entertaining rugby, then we'll be sorted. So if the Force fails I think it will be the end of Rugby as a national sport. There won't be a way back or a means of generating a groundswell, and there certainly won't be a national semi-pro competition in parallel with SR - that by definition would be the end of the Sydney and Brisbane premier competitions and I think the powers that be would rather have their little pond than take that step. The only thing that might change that and have a bullet bitten would perhaps be the bankruptcy of the NSWRU, such that they have no option but to go into survival mode. Even then, they would go down the "too big to fail" path and nothing would change.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Yes agree to disagree at this stage Rob9
Rob9
Roar Guru
Crowe owns just over one third of the Rabbitohs and he burns through nothing like $20 million a year. I’m sure those losses would even test out Rusty’s loyalties. It would be hugely irresponsible of SANZAR to enter a new market knowing full-well that substantial losses are ahead for the foreseeable future. You can’t rely on the good faith and charity of wealthy benefactors to always be there. Look what happened with Tinkler and the Knights. Owen this is going around in circles, I just mentioned a few posts above that the Top League (not Top 14 in Japan as you put it... do you really follow rugby?) doesn’t make money and it’s in a very unique situation not just in world rugby but world sport. Agree to disagree for now and we’ll see how it all plays out over the coming years.
RobC
Roar Guru
Not so common for decent organisations, Andy. Among other valuable organisational characteristics. Actually for a long time, until the recent board restructure, ARU is run by NSW and Qld. It was their own money.They were finally 'coerced' to open up board representation. And reform continues at snails pace. I have grave doubts that the people who run the Vic and WA are anywhere near Qld and ACT. NSW is clearly in a better state than Vic Rugby. NSW however remains a challenge. But the key next step for NSW is impending Tahs ownership change and the finals. Go Tahs! Good pointers about ARU $ source, though I offer a different perspective: - Lets not forget the TV viewers from the 3 states, and stadium attendees from BNE, SYD, CBR who I believe (guess) comprise a lion share of spectators and $ - long-term investment, development and selection of top players is actually the states and their structure, as opposed to ARU. ARU picks the WBs and preps them for the games, They pay the player for participation in return for top performance. If they're not good enough, they're out - Viewers attend to watch the players without their talent the games will be
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Actually a large number of corporations and mega rich businessmen who invest in sports make losses every year. They do it for other reasons. EPL team owners don't all make money. Some of them never. Rich oligarchs like to own teams. The TOP 14 in Japan has never turned a profit. These companies are not in it for only a profit. How much do you know about Singapore's sovereign wealth fund? It is controlled by the benevolent dictator Lee's wife. She plays with it and has made some terrible investment decisions of recent date. If she is suddenly interested in sinking $100billion of her multi billion fund into sports teams (the super team is part of their global Singapore sporta hub strategy that includes other international events like grand prix, mararathons, rugby sevens and they will bid for Asian Games etc...) ...then who are we to stop her? Sports teams and the filthy rich are sometimes a good mix. NRL teams are owned by rich listers as are A League teams. The South Sydney Bunnies have lost Russel Crowe a bundle but he loves owning and watching hia team. SANZAR is on to a winner.
Rob9
Roar Guru
I may be the only person on the Roar who believes that, but it’s an opinion shared by the President of the ARFU. So you’re going off rumours for the Japanese bid. I'd go with the President on this one again suggesting that the Japanese companies will protect their interests in their sacred Top League. Backing from the union itself would be an absolute disaster for the JRFU and for the sake of Asian rugby, I hope and pray the corporates come out of the woodwork before it comes to that. Singapore may have a wealthy French backer behind them but you must be the only person on the Roar who believes a Singapore bid could be a potential success. If it does get the green light (and due to the lack of corporate interest in Japan, it’s looking increasingly likely that they just might), it’ll be interesting to see how long they survive with one lonely frog sitting in their brilliant stadium. The thing about businessmen is, no matter how passionate about something they are, they don’t really tend to enjoy loosing truckloads of money.