I would like to start out by saying that I am a huge Super Rugby supporter and ideally it should be the primary competition for Australian rugby fans to view and enjoy.
It’s the best rugby in the world, but it’s being driven in the wrong direction.
Self-interests are always muddy waters to navigate. Each respective union has needs and pressures pushing and pulling them in all directions. Unfortunately, in Super Rugby’s case it is pushing it to the brink of irrelevance.
In a country where rugby is already on the back foot the game cannot afford to rely solely on the one-team model of the Wallabies and a quasi-domestic structure that it doesn’t have full control over. Which is why I am proposing that the ARU looks to end its business relationships with SANZAR and look to take its property to the domestic market.
First of all, I am acutely aware of the financial implications. There’s a lot of risk involved. But it may be a risk the ARU cannot avoid.
The basic structures are already in place, particularly with the establishment of the National Rugby Championships last year. It essentially provides a structure to retreat away from Super Rugby, and it would be fairly simple.
The current five franchises would move down to the NRC. Alongside the five Super Rugby franchises you can include Queensland and NSW Country (both based out of major regional centres such as Wollongong or Rockhampton) and a Western Sydney team. This would provide a solid 14-week season plus two weeks of finals for 16 weeks total. More importantly it would provide 59 games in ideal timeslots for broadcasters to be able to sell on to advertisers.
While this may appear to be less rugby, It’s more rugby than we currently see on our shores.
Second, as part of this movement it would be advisable for the ARU to establish a separate business specifically with the goal of running this competition. Its job would be to drive sponsorship revenue, investigate ownership models and broadcasting opportunities and administer the NRC.
Essentially it would be a split in how the ARU operates. The ARU would be responsible for running the Wallabies and the game’s overall development. It would run separately from its business wing and only receive a licence fee or dividend from the new entity.
The key to this model’s success is autonomy of the new business wing to not only control the NRC but also establish further intellectual properties in the future. One such property would be a summer rugby sevens circuit. This would call for a separate board with no overlap (no one individual would be permitted to serve on both boars) and extensive business experience.
Thirdly, and finally, the ARU must look to establish a subsidiary wing for the sole purpose of streamlining the grassroots game and its development. One of the major issues within Australian rugby is the sheer number of groups with just one oar in the water.
One of the major issues with this apart from ego, is the part-time nature of these organisations. A single, professional group that sets clear objectives and directs the development of the game at club level.
To summarise, our involvement in Super Rugby should end and the game taken to our domestic market. The ARU should split into three group – the ARU itself, who would administer the Wallabies and only the Wallabies, separate business wing to run and grow all commercial properties (Rugby Australia), and a grassroots and development subsidiary (Grassroots Rugby Australia) that collects registrations, grants and sponsorship itself and then uses it to administer the club game and develop the game in new regions.
Ozee316
Guest
People have to watch out all this sudden baby + bathwater stuff. The situation is that in 2020 when any changes can and will be made they can be made one of two ways: Incrementally expanding on the current Super Teams with new franchises chosen from successful Currie Cup, ITM, NRC teams + fresh private investment. OR Suddenly replacing all Super teams with Currie Cup, ITM, NRC teams You can see that based on the way Super Rugby is and has been expanding, the first method above is far more likely. I can still lead to a Champions League in each country. E.g. 8 Super Teams in Australia 8 NRC teams Both leagues play concurrently and the losing Super Team plays the winning NRC team for the right to enter Super Rugby next season. NRC teams will begin to attract investment and sponsors and eventually in all 3 countries a full Champions league could begin once SA and ITM Cup teams are also similarly ready. The key is not to assume it will happen suddenly but in all likelyhood all nations are going to get more top level teams. It's just a matter of when.
blob
Guest
I have to Agree, They have to take the same approach as the A league did, at the time scrapping the NSL was very unpopular with the establishment, but it was the best thing that ever happened to football in Australia. I also whole heartedly agree the NRC hardly can be called a serious national comp when in perth they did not even try and sell it as such, I personally love Super Rugby they just need to work out how to sell in to Australians.
Ozee316
Guest
Blob I like the idea as much as Super Rugby. Just one small eeny weeny tiny tiny problemo.... Australia doesn't have a.National Competition. And no matter how much you or anyone else tries to say otherwise the NRC or their Super teams do not suddenly 'make' a national competition like Currie Cup and ITM Cup teams do. The NRC teams, which are still very fragile combinations of partner unions need time to settle in. The Super Teams would be far too strong against NZ and SA teams so that would not work either. In a couple years time we might be able to tentatively say the three countries National leagues could join together in a championship playoff but a lot needs go on behind the scenes in the NRC over two years before we know it even exists. Fox was reluctant to renew the NRC rights for 2015. Sound promising?
blob
Guest
each three countrys should be stripped back to thei full fledged domestic leagues, the just have a heinken cup style comp to make up for the international games, this would make south african teams coming to australia exiting again and more relevent. you can add the japan and argentinian teams in as the rep form the same way romania and spain compete in european challange cup leauge
Phil O'Donovan
Guest
Super Rugby is the only international format that the majority of Australian players will experience.Remove that and the transition to International rugby will be almost impossible.Even more players will head overseas and righly so.The present Super format would probably then include teams from Argentina and Australian rugby would become irrelevant.
richard
Guest
Ozee316 - the NPC started in 1976.Prior to that,provinces merely played "friendlies' v each other. The real focus of the domestic season was the Ranfurly Shield.
RobC
Roar Guru
cool! Where can we picket?
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
The article is more about protesting dissatisfaction with the current expansion plans than anything else.
Jusitn Mahon
Guest
I made no argument to the contrary, indeed football (club and representative) is played at national, continental and global levels. My argument was that if the ARU this their bacon will be saved by dicking around with competition participation/policy - they truly haven't understood the nature of their predicament. It goes so, so much deeper. Neither staying or leaving SANZAR won't make a shred of difference in the long run.
Ozee316
Guest
Yes I meant to say Super Rugby has an advantage over NH clubs when it comes to linking with the eventual USA Pro league. - Super Rugby season matches the proposed USA pro Rugby exactly - Super Rugby is a franchise league and conference model which Americans are familiar with. Both NH and SH competitions have time differences to be able to link with USA. NH has a better fit and their Winters alingn but USA is not gonna play Pro rugby in Winter.
pjm
Roar Rookie
As league in NZ grows, as it is, you'll come to see things out of our pragmatic eyes.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Both proposed leagues are set to be run during the NH spring/summer so it will be a good fit.
Ozee316
Guest
Whether Europe likes it or not Duprw Rugby has two things the USA will like much better. It's a franchise league and it's in their Summer
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Eddard, Sorry about this, it won't allow me to respond to your post directly. I actually wrote an article way back in 2009 about SR becoming the NFL of Rugby. http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/10/16/could-super-rugby-be-our-nfl/ The foundation work has already begun to an extent. In the US there are two Pro League concepts in the works. One private and the other one USAR driven. SANZAR could very easily partner with one (most likely USAR possibly even the CRFU) to provide the experitse, branding etc. with the intent of integrating it come 2020/21. Argentina has the Campenato de Argentino that with the right planning could be elevated. The long term project would be Asia but there certainly be the possibility of another Asian based franchise come 2020/21. It is possible that by 2020/21 SR could contain as many as five 6 team conferences. In the long run, that could be grown to 6 six team conferences. At that point, then SR will likely be the top dog when it comes to Rugby competitions. Interestingly enough, the recent slide in the Aus dollar may work out for the ARU if the deal is negotiated in USD.
alex
Roar Pro
i disagree with you regarding new zealand following, we see competition against the bokk as essential
alex
Roar Pro
As i was reading this i was thinking to myself is this a tongue in cheek article but it turns out its a serious one, i'll put my two cents worth in. If Australia leaves sanzar Australian rugby will die, there is no two ways about it.. The wallabies with fall further down the rankings because they won't play against the best players in the world week in week out. Ask yourself this do you want Australia to be a tier2 team? Thats what will happen, what makes you think you have the players in oz to have a top flight competition which you will definatly will not have because there will be no money to keep them in oz, so who will go to these games without any marquee players... And where will the sponsorship come from? Whether you like it or not Australia is stuck with SANZAR
Ozee316
Guest
What people are saying, including myself, is that building a domestic presence is not mutually exclusive to interacting with SANZAR partners and participation in Super Rugby. Both are possible and indeed can support eachother.
Justin Mahon
Guest
Given: (1) where most here suggest rugby is going internationally in the long term; (2) what most here see the impact of the NRL/AFL on domestic (and by extension Australian) rugby; (3) that in Australia there is already a football code that exemplifies how to operate in a domestic market where (1) and (2) above are already reality (that is, it is already truly global AND domestically impacted by the NRL/AFL commercial and talent duopoly) Why on Earth the ARU doesn't take a long term view and learn from those for whom rugby's present and agreed future is their long-standing history is a mystery to me? If the ARU doesn't embark on a fundamental, long-term, root and branch reform of the game at all levels the sport will go the way of the Dinosaurs. It is arguably much more critical for rugby now than it was for football a decade ago. Why? Because one of football's biggest barriers to reform is also its biggest point of differentiation with rugby, namely football despite early, national innovation, got lazy believing our massive participation base would always keep the game alive (which it did and does). Rugby doesn't have this luxury. The ARU strategy should be characterised by the motto 'build domestic rugby so we can take on the world'. The current 'club competition TV revenue will save the game' model is a recipe for failure as even if it saved the ARU and the Wallabies financially - it most certainly will not save rugby more broadly - it is an existential question. The only question is will rugby have to courage to understand that such an approach is about much, much more than participating in the right mix of national and pan-national competitions? Until rugby understands it is about governance, growing participation, athlete development and a unitary, national framework for all of this, it is paddling the proverbial barbwire boat.
Ozee316
Guest
If you were to add 5 more teams in NZ this would be difficult to decide because you are looking at some very small centres to support a Super team. However it's more of a process of deciding which 4 ITM Cup unions must be 'relegated' and it can even be possible to introduce a promotion/relegaion system to the loser of the local Super Rugby versus the winner of ITM Cup. On NZ Taranaki and Tasman are screaming out for higher honours. Bay of Plenty gets ignored a lot as a region even though their team doesn't do well. Basing a team in Southland would boost that city's economy and their ITM team has done well recently. Reflecting the NZ population, adding 3 teams in the North Island and two more in the South makes commercial and strategic sense. With the 4 ITM teams left out, a stronger Heartland ITM Cup competition could provide a relegation opportunity.
Ozee316
Guest
I'm sure that Super Rugby chiefs are working on many of the suggestions you have WCR. - Earlier Later start times in New Zealand when playing Australian teams e.g 8pm could be considered for example in an effort to hit prime time viewing slots. - The adoption of an Australian Conference from 2016 is already a signal from SANZAR of things to come. The conference will produce 4 winner to go through to the Finals... - Expanding NZ and Australian conferences to 6 or 8 teams each, while limiting finals entry to 4 teams combined (or two from each nation) may already be on their agenda. It will take broadcast and fan demand and business equity to get new teams on board but the potential is there. - after the 2016 to 2020 broadcast contract has run we will have a better idea of where new teams can be located and how many. - Asia looks like being able to Support 4 teams and South Africa at least 8 if not 10. - the conference makeups would need to be reconfigured but the general principle the same that teams play off against their own nation and a selection of overseas teams and the top teams go thru to the playoffs. - a ten team local league could entail splitting into two pools of 5 teams which play eachother twice each for 8 games plus the other 5 teams totalling 13 home nation matches. A further 8 matches can be played against two other 'pools' on a yearly rotation to add the international flavor. Only the winner in each pool advances to the Quarter Finals. - South America and Asia would be able to make just 5 teams each while AUS/NZ/SA could field 10 strong teams each for a 40 team league. Such a tournament would provide minimum 10 teams x 13 home matches = 130 local derby matches in Australia, not to mention matches against famous NZ teams and SA teams and ones from Japan with Auzzie stars in them.