So, where is the Asian Super Rugby team going to go? It’s indicative of the level of indecision that even the timeline on when the decision will be made is confusing.
It depends on which reports you read.
Given that all three SANZAR heads are in Singapore attending an IRB meeting this week, there’s a fair chance that a conclusion is imminent. But then again, maybe not.
After all, the New Zealand press had the decision out last week, while Australia’s Daily Telegraph didn’t offer a definitive announcement date, just that the team was definitely Japan’s.
Yet across the Indian Ocean, the South African press reported a decision on hold, potentially until mid-November, saying concerns were mounting around the detail of the Japanese bid.
The caution being exercised is well advised. The chairmen and chief executives of the South African, Australian and New Zealand unions need to be certain they are taking the right option.
To get it wrong would be calamitous, and if they opt for Japan, they will get it wrong.
Imagine the Western Force agreeing to play half of its home games in Auckland, a mere 5,358 kilometres away from Perth. Sound fanciful? Of course it is, yet an almost identical proposal is at the core of the Japanese bid!
The Japanese, who would enter one of the South African leagues under the new three-way conference system that has been designed to cut down on travel, have said they will play up to half of their home games in Singapore in order to reduce the air miles required of visiting teams.
This is undoubtedly targeted at South Africa, whose teams the Asian side plays home and away during the regular season.
The trouble is, at 5,311 kilometres, Singapore is only 47 kilometres closer to Tokyo than Perth is to Auckland. And there is simply no way a New Zealand, Australian or South African team would ever consider such a scenario, as it would seriously compromise their competitiveness in a tournament that has a strong results bias towards home sides.
A predominantly Japanese team pitched in under these conditions would be lambs to the slaughter. And where is the value to Super Rugby and SANZAR in that?
That’s one of the big issues around the Japanese option, but it is not the only one.
There are serious questions about the Japan Rugby Football Union’s financial ability to embark on such an undertaking. The chatter in Japan is that it simply doesn’t have the money.
That the Australian Rugby Union, in particular, could even be considering Japan in these circumstances, given the experience of the Melbourne Rebels sucking its financial coffers dry, is absolutely mind-boggling.
With so many playing contacts up in Japan, it wasn’t hard for The Outsider to gain a strong picture of what the JRFU bid offers – or in actual fact, doesn’t.
Because it has neither the money nor the contracted players, the JRFU couldn’t put a Super Rugby team together without the full backing of the Japanese clubs. But despite reports that the clubs – who operate totally independently – are fully behind the bid, and will hand over their players to the Super Rugby team for nothing, there are major doubts that this is really the case.
Having experienced Japanese society during a stint up there, I learnt that to lose face is arguably the biggest sin in the land.
Given that the national union is driving the Super Rugby bid, the clubs won’t fail to support it officially. To do otherwise would be a major loss of face for Japanese rugby as a whole. But there’s saying and there’s doing.
The clubs might say that they are supportive, but once the bid is over the line, will they really act on these words? Will they hand over all of their players?
Then there’s the issue of the playing staff itself.
Even if the clubs are prepared to sanction their participation, will the foreign players – many of whom opt for Japan because the rugby is softer and the season shorter, thereby prolonging their careers – really want to play for a Japanese Super Rugby team?
Would they really want to be on the road for three-quarters of the season?
History suggests that those who still want to play Super Rugby after playing in Japan, and are still at the level where they can, return to their home teams to do it. Think George Smith, or more recently Jerome Kaino.
Then there is the ‘proposed’ change to the Japanese season.
Currently it runs from early September to early February. The top league is made up entirely of company teams, with the players all employees of the companies themselves.
The JRFU is proposing shortening the league to just over three months in order to accommodate SANZAR requirements. How does that benefit Japanese rugby?
As with the player release, why would the clubs agree to it? There is very little in it for them.
The other argument that has been pushed as to why a JRFU-sponsored team would be a vastly superior option than an independently owned and run Asian franchise, based out of Singapore, is tradition.
Japan has a rugby heritage, so the story goes. Nowhere else in Asia does. If the game is to be grown in the region, it can only be done from Japan.
This argument is flawed.
Japan has been Asia’s exclusive representative at the Rugby World Cup since it started, yet it has it done very little for the development of the game in the greater Asian area in the 27 years since.
Not only has it not been proactive, rugby in Asia has actually grown through this time despite of Japan, rather than because of it.
Promoters of the Japanese option cite the country’s hosting of the 2019 World Cup, and the need to ‘boost’ that tournament, as a reason why the International Rugby Board supports its bid.
That in itself should be a red flag: if the game in Japan is so strong already, why does its World Cup need the ‘lift’ getting Super Rugby entry would supply?
It’s also a short-term and irresponsible argument, if that is indeed the IRB position, as the regional participation rates suggest Super Rugby in South-East Asia could lift the game like never before.
As in the case of Japan, the game was brought to the likes of Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Sri Lanka (yep, that’s in Asia too) by the British.
Judged on the latest IRB participation rates, the scope for growth in these countries is enormous.
Between them, Malaysia (75,400), Sri Lanka (58,480), Hong Kong (21,585) and Singapore (12,430) have 167,895 registered rugby players. Not only is that more than Japan’s 119,598, it also tops New Zealand’s 149,978. And that’s without the nations or region in question having any professional structure in place, or any flagship team in a professional competition.
Obviously the playing standard is way lower, but the enthusiasm for the game is undoubtedly there. That will manifest itself over time, initially in support for ‘their’ representative in Super Rugby, but also in more numbers playing the game and improving playing standards, as the benefits of the high-performance structures of a professional rugby club within the region trickle down.
It’s such a huge opportunity – both for the game and for SANZAR.
Placing an independent Super Rugby franchise, which has no peripheral political issues to deal with and can recruit players from all over the globe, in this region could be the game’s biggest advancement since the competition started.
It would be like, albeit on a smaller scale, inserting an English Premier League club in the middle of the world’s most populous and economically powerful region.
600 million people in South-East Asia, and 1.5 billion in China, suddenly with a fully professional representative in the highest profile annual competition the game has, and right on their doorstep? Even the time zone works for broadcasting purposes.
Singapore provides a perfect bridge for the natural flow of live television. It fills the current void in timing between the Perth and South African kick offs.
I know that many of you reading this don’t want it, but expansion is unstoppable. For the game’s financial future, it’s necessary.
While the ARU and its five Super Rugby teams are all crying poor, the Premier League’s current TV deal is worth £5.5 billion over three years. Media outlets covering Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia paid £650 million of this between them.
So powerful is the televised product that the EPL has become, last year 98 per cent of all games were available to viewers outside of England. North Korea and Albania were the only territories not to have some form of rights agreement in place.
Even if it will be slight by comparison, rugby has got to get a piece of that action.
For the growth of the game in Asia, the commercial opportunities for SANZAR, the much-needed precedent of bringing private ownership and big corporate dollars into the competition, the travel logistics and the sheer value it would add to Super Rugby, the decision on where to put the new team is a no-brainer.
SANZAR must go with the private ownership model based, at least initially, out of Singapore.
Forget Japan. There are too many red lights with that bid, too much that is uncertain.
It’s just not worth the risk.
DaniE
Roar Guru
FYI - Singapore to potentially host Lions Tests, international tests http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/oct/10/singapore-talks-hosting-british-irish-lions-international-tests
chikushi
Guest
I have lived in Japan for 15 years and play club rugby here for a feeder club to the Top League. I also help coach high school and university teams. Don't hurt your head trying to understand how Japan does stuff...........I gave up asking questions years ago
Eddard
Roar Guru
MAJB, the crowds were not bigger in the 80's. Maybe Sydney club rugby crowds were, especially for finals, but that's because Sydney club rugby contained the best players in the 1980's, while now it is a feeder league. Again, the 1987 World Cup Semi Final against France was not even a sell out. And the ARU announced record participation figures in 2013. http://www.rugby.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/1699/ArticleID/10741/Rugby-Sevens-big-contributor-to-record-participation-for-Australian-Rugby.aspx No doubt these numbers are a little dubious, but the game is certainly more popular Australia wide than it ever was before. For example rugby has grown a lot at the grassroots level in Perth since the Force were admitted to Super Rugby. And sevens and women's rugby are on a big upward curve. It's not all doom and gloom.
MAJB
Guest
In Brief Why do write such rubbish. Participation in Rugby has declined since 1980 and considering that the population has increased this makes the decline even greater. There are fewer Rugby clubs, Australia wide, than1980. As Sheek has already pointed out crowds were bigger in the 1980s than now. If more people are watching Rugby on TV why are the ratings falling and Fox talking about a smaller fee? In the 1960s and 1970s, when I was playing, Sydney had a subbies club for about every 3 suburbs. You would be lucky to find a game of Rugby on a Saturday arvo in Sydney now, unless you were a member of one of the few private school old boys clubs. Change your non de plume to get real.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Eddard of course it's hard to say how much the cost is as SANZAR don't reveal how much TV networks and national unions would offer to the cause. That determines how feasible these teams are. It should of course be pointed out to sports ministeries how much a country's chances in Olympic 7s would be improved by players taking part in Super rugby. I would get the national coach of each team to coach the Super rugby team as well, along with his support crew, which would save money. All of these teams do seem quite straightforward though, with few of the problems elsewhere. What are SANZAR waiting for anyway?
Jarijari
Guest
The Outsider was a handy five-eighth for the Two Blues back in the 1980s.
Eddard
Roar Guru
I think Argentina certainly have the talent for 2 or 3 teams, the bigger issue is economic. Super Rugby teams cost a lot of money! Not just the player wages. I guess if the first team is a success on and off the field it will open the door for more. One thing they've said they're looking to do is select only locally based players for the national team in future. We'll see how effective that is at getting players back from Europe or keeping the younger players at home. The players for North American teams would come from around the world. They'd be private teams with maybe half local players and half brought in from everywhere else. There'd be no shortage of players attracted to playing in America.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Here, Eddard, is the original post but with the contentious words removed: 'Eddard my worry about the Japanese Super team is actually the cost of assembling the squad more than anything else. Are the best Japanese players company employees who would have to turn fully professional? Would they lose on their current Top league earnings? Or is it the case that the marquee players are the only highly paid participants in the Top league, and that the rest earn far less? Some above have remarked on the static interest in rugby in Japan, but this is forgetting the massive effect the World Cup will have in 2019. As for the Singapore option, it doesn’t make any sense to me. There will never be enough local players. If local players were what is desired, Kuala Lumpor would seem to have the capacity with 75,000 players and reasonable economy. If China is the desired market, then Hong Kong would at least be next to a vast Chinese population. In terms of South Africa and New Zealand’s opposition, I think New Zealand will in the end do what Australia want simply because they are so desperate for cash. South Africa is the real problem with its curious proposals. I sympathise with them in wanting more teams for themselves: that is far and makes perfect sense, but all their others suggestions are insane.'
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Eddard now you have a reply to a post never planned to have one, although even that has taken a vast amount of time to be moderated so you will have to continue waiting. In terms of the Americas conference, it would need more than one team from Argentina, but that would require buying back the Argentine Super players from Europe, which would be very expensive given the huge salaries they are accustomed to there. How many teams could Argentina provide? Without their European players, perhaps two, with their European players, perhaps four. In a hypothetical American conference there would be a Californian team, Vancouver, and two Buenos Aires teams. Ideally this would expand to further Argentine teams if the European players could be lured back, and a further team on the east coast of America and Toronto although it's hard to see where the players for more than one American or Canadian team would come from in the short term. The creation of an Americas conference would of course reduce travel time for the rest of SANZAR, but they would have to do a lot of it.
Eddard
Roar Guru
KPM, my post was in response to Katipo. With regards to yours - the Japanese players could still play Top 14 AND Super Rugby - as the likes of Tanaka and Horie already do now. It's not an issue. I would like to see the US and Canada brought into Super Rugby too. Perhaps first as part of an Americas conference and eventually with separate North American and South American divisions. San Francisco would be a better bet than LA in my opinion if you were to start with only one American team, but I don't think that would be ideal. It's probably more likely the US will start their own professional league. There are already a few organisations trying to get competitions started.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
And is still waiting.
Dan
Guest
hmmmmm back to the drawing board but in the spirit of goodwill the current Rand cross with the US. http://www.x-rates.com/graph/?from=ZAR&to=USD&amount=1
CNS
Guest
You are one in a hundred then. If this was the format and no Aussie teams made the next stage a lot of interest would be lost and they would call for the reformation of Super Rugby.
Sorry Dan, but we will need those RANDS for ourselves ;)
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Eddard just to let you know that my reply is apparently awaiting moderation so it may take a while to appear.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Eddard my worry about the Japanese Super team is actually the cost of assembling the squad more than anything else. Are the best Japanese players company employees who would have to turn fully professional? Would they lose on their current Top league earnings? Or is it the case that the marquee players are the only highly paid participants in the Top league, and that the rest earn far less? Some above have remarked on the static interest in rugby in Japan, but this is forgetting the massive effect the World Cup will have in 2019. As for the Singapore option, it doesn't make any sense to me. There will never be enough local players. If local players were what is desired, Kuala Lumpor would seem to have the capacity with 75,000 players and reasonable economy. If China is the desired market, then Hong Kong would at least be next to a vast Chinese population. In terms of South Africa and New Zealand's opposition, I think New Zealand will in the end do what Australia want simply because they are so desperate for cash. South Africa is the real problem with its string of idiotic, bizarre and seflish proposals. I sympathise with them in wanting more teams for themselves: that is far and makes perfect sense, but all their others suggestions are insane.
Dan
Guest
Biltongbek, let me rephrase. South Africa you are now out of super rugby but it would be very handy if you could let us keep the pay tv dollars you bring in!
Dan
Guest
Kiwi sides belting Australian ones?.......I have had 40 years to get used to it! If that was the case and the top four sides were from NZ I could throw my support behind them as they take on the Africans! I am just saying in its current format the super rugby comp doesn't fire the imagination. The franchises would also save a ton of money on travel which could be offset by not having a super rugby regional tv deal which in real terms seems to be going backwards.
Eddard
Roar Guru
It's a long term strategy not an immediate cash grab. You do realise Japan were until last weekend the 10th ranked international team in the world? That they have beaten Italy and Wales in the last 18 months? They got beaten 54-6 by the All Blacks last year, but do you think the Rebels, Lions, Cheetahs etc would do any better? And the Japanese super rugby side will be stronger than the national side given they'll add a few marquee foreigners. And your alternate sounds great, and is not too dissimilar to what the ARU originally hoped for. The problem is New Zealand and South Africa don't want it. Therefore it isn't going to happen.
CNS
Guest
That is fine, South Africa has enough interest and Rugby dollars to fund their own top comp, it just would be interesting to watch South Africans belt their old friends the English.