In order to survive against the invasive attentions of European and Japanese rugby, not to mention the NRL, AFL and football, rugby needs to expand its global presence and move into new territories.
Much has been made of newly absorbed Argentina and Japan, and the next targets of the USA and Canada, but less so of more distant horizons.
Malaysia, Thailand and Sri Lanka are the three countries with significant playing numbers and in the case of the first two, rapidly growing economies. While not too much rugby is played in China, India, and Brazil, the long-term financial benefits of spreading the game here are obvious.
But how to give some exposure of rugby and, in particular, the high-octane southern hemisphere brand? The way has been shown by accidentally playing a few Super Rugby matches in Singapore.
Occasional, well-promoted encounters between visiting teams dramatically raise the presence of the game.
Kuala Lumpur would seem a natural place for such a yearly visit, with perhaps Bangkok and Colombo following. Other potential markets might also be considered. In Malaysia and Bangkok the number of expats alone would guarantee a large enough crowd for a one-off match.
Such ventures as these should be integral to a long-term strategy, whereby Super Rugby and, in its footsteps, the Rugby Championship identifies and then takes over promising new territories and creates vast, global competitions. They can spur tremendously accelerated growth.
Playing Super Rugby matches is the first stage, followed some years later by the creation of a Super team in the country, and in the end acceptance of the national team to the Rugby Championship.
It is not enough to wait for new markets to come to SANZAAR, they must be actively sought out.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
There is: they have been doing it since professionalism began and have shown no signs of stopping. Nor does the author give any evidence to support his dream that they will.
Rob9
Guest
Do you really think the author is just making these things up? Do you see the irony of your first sentence? I'm certainly inclined put more weight behind this article as opposed to what you think might be the case from your armchair. There's also not a shred of evidence that suggests these owners are willing and able to sink millions more pounds into salaries.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Not too long we hope!
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
It probably wouldn't be making the most of the market to have just one team in each country and so the game would be slowly vanquished. It might sell out despite the repetitive matches, but other sports would fill up the local territory abandoned by the absence of multiple teams. Fun idea though :-)
Chris
Guest
Instead of Super Rugby going global around the 4 corners of the Earth with mickey mouse teams why not just merge Super Rugby with the Rugby Championship and just have a 32 week world league involving international teams and let anything below that be pro ( on a normal wage level) , semi-pro/amateur as looking at attendances Rugby homelands in New Zealand, South Africa and Australia cant support any Super or Prov teams but international's with the All Blacks/South Africa could pack out any stadium in there own country plus there be less players to pay top money. The World Rugby League would be a 2 division comp with 4 up and 4 down promotion and relegation. Premier League Australia New Zealand South Africa Japan USA Canada Argentina Pacific Islands England Ireland Wales Scotland France Italy Georgia Romania Division Pro 2 (fill in the empty spaces) Win/win for all so there be no world cup or tours just a 20 week summer comp with play offs and finals and at half time of each match the 7's teams of each country can play each other. Any players striving to be in national selection will ply there trades in the pro/semi/amateur leagues below in there country ( think NHL is the world international league and the AHL is the country based league). Please send all money donations to my paypal account World Rugby and Fox etc.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
This is just the coulmnist's opinion, not fact. The rich owners in Europe have never left the clubs they own even in the face of losses, The whole nature of ownership is that the tycoons pay enormous sums which smallow up losses in exchange for ownership. There isn't the slightest evidence of any of them wanting to leave.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Owen I think the difficulty there would be the wealthy club owners in Europe who although they might wish to join, would be very dangerous once admitted. They have serious spending power and could start to plunder the other Super teams wholesale. It would be a great risk involving them. The celtic teams are another issue, but whether they are worth it or not financially is another question.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
It is. The playing numbers are extraordinary. Obviously Sri Lanka isn't the richest market but if cricket finds it economically worthwhile to play there there's no reason rugby shouldn't too.
Owen
Guest
The attraction of two European funded teams is obviously the broadcast revenues and ability to stage Super Rugby matches up in Europe a few times a year. Basing one out of Dubai and one out of Mumbai keeps them near Africa and close to Australasia for interconference games.
Owen
Guest
The most interesting proposal I read recently was how two new European franchises funded by the PRO12 and AVIVA leagues could be added to Super Rugby from 2020 from Europe. Stay with me. Europe is far away but not if they are in the South African conference and play most of their games within their. In addition copying the Sunwolves, having a second home such as Dubai and Mumbai is appealing. Players would be loaned to the team from various club's wider training squads to get them valuable game time.
Rob9
Guest
Really!? Again, read those last 2 lines. 'most Premiership clubs face the medium-term prospect of mounting annual losses'. That spells out the status quo pretty clearly. The majority of clubs run at a loss which is far from ideal for any owner. There's nothing there to suggest that owners are willing and able to plough more money into salaries and further deepen their losses. It explicitly states that they're currently jostling for position if more money should run in to the game- which doesn't appear to be on the horizon.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
There didn't seem to be much evidence of losses really, in fact they suggest it's ok so long as the big owners are around, which they will be. The likes of Bruce Ford at Bath seem to just enjoy owning and directing a particular club. Removing the salary cap wouldn't make much difference to most clubs which couldn't spend much beyond it, but would to the richest clubs who have super rich owners who would joyfully plough enormous sums into decadent squads.
Rugby stu
Guest
Apparently the game is really popular in Sri Lanka due to the country have a school system that mimics the British Public (private) schools.
Rob9
Guest
Just to give you some more context, take a read of this: http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/news-opinion/peter-sharkey-rugby-sugar-daddies-7719891 Take particular note of the parts discussing the wait for this wave of cash to materialise (despite this being before the RWC it still hasn’t) and the final 2 lines (“However, even with next year’s World Cup on the horizon, there’s little sign that rugby is scheduled to benefit from the dramatic injection of broadcaster-led funding many owners crave. Such a conclusion would suggest that realistically, most Premiership clubs face the medium-term prospect of mounting annual losses”).
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Fair enough :-)
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
It's probably only a matter of time before Singapore, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and even Bangkok join the the fun. The first two only need a 15,000 average gate at the prices they would charge to pay off. Also China would then get jealous and want to join in with all their resources.
tc
Guest
Kpm Hong Kong was on the agenda during expansion talks but they said they weren't ready, whatever that means.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
You're right tc about the motive being financial, and if Singapore could produce a regular Super crowd, let alone even a small TV audience, I'm sure players from almost anywhere would be found to fill a team. Quite simply a pillaging of any NRL player with a rugby background or even without would be enough to make most of the team. I wonder why Hong Kong isn't on the agenda for the same reason. The need for money is so desperate that extreme measures will be called for.
tc
Guest
Kpm I understand exactly what your saying about local playing growth and whether a Super team can achieve that, but I think the picture is bigger than that, I believe the push for expansion is driven more by financial needs than anything else. With that in mind I think purely expat team rosters in Asian Super teams (outside Japan) for a start is a good idea, also if Singapore does get a Super team then they should try and roster from across South East Asia, and the same for teams in Hong Kong, Dubai and Seoul if they eventuate. Lorry The way Brazilian rugby is growing I think a Super team from there is only a matter of time. I don't think it will be long and we will see continental conferences with half a dozen teams each.
Rob9
Guest
The jury is still well and truly out on what the Sunwolves inclusion means for SANSAAR, let alone whether the franchise will catch on in Tokyo/Japan. Suggesting its 'necessary for the games survival' is a huge overstatement and premature. No, because KPM 'says so' still doesn't qualify as evidence. I'm inclined to agree with Fiddlesticks here.