There is an event that transpired over the past weeks that should have filled the powers of SANZAAR not so much with mild tremors of disquiet, but abject horror.
In the shop window of New Jersey, two English premiership clubs staged a game, with the purpose described by their chief executive: “There are ambitious plans to grow rugby in the States, and this is the latest stage in that strategy.”
That’s right, the European clubs plan to take over the US in place of SANZAAR. Not only that, but they have already acquired a TV deal to spread their gospel, with NBC screening a live match to 85 million Americans.
“This new agreement is an historic milestone for us. It takes the Aviva brand of rugby to a bigger audience than we ever had in the US.”
An England international added the further grim statement: “Hopefully over the next few seasons rugby can have a similar impact to the NFL in London and attract a big audience.”
But slow down, wasn’t SANZAAR supposed to be the body to absorb American rugby into its fold, with its superior league, and haven’t ARU executives been planning Super rugby teams in the US for decades?
It seems as if the old amateur thinking has surfaced once again in the fatal sin of complacency. Let’s take our time, and no one else will possess the courage to step in and pillage our destined markets. Let’s manoeuvre at the snail’s pace of five yearly TV deals: why rush ourselves? Perhaps a team or so might be added some time in the 2020s.
Except by then the greedy, dynamic European clubs will have stormed in and plundered the market wholesale.
If SANZAAR wishes to claim North American rugby it cannot wait until 2021, but must act next year. It needs to plant Super teams in both the USA and Canada, and not one but two in each, one on each American coast to ward off attempts by Europe to plant its flag on the eastern coast, by arguing it is closer to them.
Teams in Los Angeles, New York or Boston, Vancouver and Toronto need to be planted in 2017.
The formula is simple. Halve the national teams in squads of perfectly equal strength, fill the rest with some cross-code converts, preferably of American or Canadian grandparentage, and then some other players.
It had been pointed out that such a conference would vastly reduce travel, as a separate American conference would be self-contained, rather than a single team being tagged on to a distant conference as is the case with the Jaguares now.
The TV deals would be amended mid-contract with the agreement of the companies, which would obviously be forthcoming in the case of such windfalls as the US and Canada. The TV companies should be approached immediately.
It should be made quite clear now, whoever wins the US market will control the future of global rugby in perpetuity. It is a race for conquest and one that if SANZAAR lose, will condemn them to insignificance and allow Europe to dominate eternally with its two-dimensional game and raiding of southern hemisphere talent.
This is a moment of existential crisis for southern hemisphere rugby. Argentina and Japan are excellent expansion territories, but as nothing compared to the riches in store in North America.
If Super Rugby teams are established immediately, America and Canada along with their enormous potential wealth will be within SANZAAR’s grasp, as it will be obvious the product is in a completely different universe of quality from European club rugby.
As they grow in strength they can be admitted to the Rugby Championship, not the Six Nations. The resulting riches will allow SANZAAR to save its stars from European theft and plough endless millions into the game at home.
But wait until the next TV deal and the grand European larceny will have been accomplished, the storehouse will be bare, and SANZAAR will look have nothing to do but look on.
30 mm Tags
Guest
SANZAAR promoting Vancouver to Bloemfontein etc. It is a circus waiting on rocket ships not yet invented.Current day travel times will make the skill level of managing jet lag more important than technical rugby skills. Its now all about the size of the TV audience.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
I remember a figure of 1.2 million for Rooney, for two years I think, which is certainly a rip off. Gower I very much doubt came cheap whatever his off-field issues. Ryan Cross never played SOO so would never have commanded much of a price. Basically there are about 14 teams of cheap NRL players to be had. Also, Ryan Cross was not much of player but still made the Wallabies.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
That might apply to test rugby, but hardly Super rugby. The costs are high for it and the markets small as is does not have the reach of test rugby.
Bakkies
Guest
'Bakkies the markets are very small and the costs high in the current markets.' Wrong since it started it was geared towards test Rugby. The Super 12 barely broke even despite its initial success. The Tri Nations made the money so the ARU saw where the cash was at.
Bakkies
Guest
'Johnno quite right and think that as Craig Gower and Luke Rooney had multiple Kangaroo caps and so would have come at a price' Not really Gower had off field issues. Rooney wanted to get out of dodge and experience bookies outside of Penrith. 'Even an insignificant NRL player like Ryan Cross didn’t just do well at Super level but even made the Wallabies.' Cross played rep Rugby in under age and was a key try scorer for the Rorters.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
There's been more since but I'm not going to go over the Internet to prove it you. If you don't believe it then fine.http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/09/15/super-rugby-chiefs-eyeing-canada-and-us-for-potential-expansion/ http://www.thisisamericanrugby.com/2015/11/sanzar-once-again-hints-at-north.html?m=1 There are endless more if you have the energy to look. A couple of interesting points from that interview. Firstly the idea of spreading teams all over the Americas which surely means more than one on both Canada and the U.S. They have to get to a large enough total to make a conference, which is how it should be. Separate conferences in each region are better for everyone and cheaper. Secondly, there is the point that whole a middling quality procompetition is helpful, it would not have the dramatic effect of an elite commercial product.
Rob9
Guest
On far greater authority than what you’re demonstrating. Now the link, where do I start… well firstly it’s your article, I don’t need to scour the net in search of what doesn’t exist. Then, you do know this was from three years ago. How much water has passed under the bridge? Well enough for the formation of ProRugby. There’s nothing there that’s definitive in suggesting the US is a fore drawn conclusion. Considering when this was written and the developments since then (eg. The Jaguars), it suggests SANZAAR has decided the US is still a way off from being a safe investment. Note the language where he says “perhaps – I stress the word perhaps, North America is part of that solution”. Well we now know it wasn’t. He’s said it quite clearly, to consider further expansion, it has to be worth their while in terms of playing stocks and the financials. It hasn’t been and I suggest it won’t be any time soon. I further suggest by the time it is sustainable, ProRugby will be fulfilling the needs and wants of the American rugby public and the Super Rugby model won’t (as it currently isn’t) be conducive to these needs. I suggest doing a more thorough analysis of the articles you post as evidence to support your viewpoint. This doesn’t in any way shape or form mount a solid case in backing up your cause. If anything it does the opposite. You can’t force Super Rugby on America either KPM. And I’d suggest the stakeholders will continue to avoid the massive risks associated with it as well.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
It's strange you claim insight into the psyche of the American sports fan: on what authority? I'm not going to spend time looking up what you can easily find but here's something recent:http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/1548690-exclusive-sanzar-ceo-greg-peters-talks-super-expansion I doubt anything will happen before the next TV deal, although it should. But you can be sure it will happen. You can't prevent it: too many dollars at stake.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
U.S. has sometimes been accused of being colonial actually.
Rob9
Guest
It's your problem that you have zero insight into the psyche of the American sports fan or the sporting landscape and culture that exists there. As others have suggested, you're putting far too much weight behind a few Premiership clubs committing games across the Atlantic and the media speculation about what SANZAAR 'might' do at an unknown point down the track. You've had umpteen chances through exchanges with numerous commenters to post a link from an official within one of these organisations explicitly stating that the US market lies within their strategic direction. You're yet to deliver, because despite speculation nothing exists. We both agree rugby's future in the US is bright. I still think you've well and truly over-calculated how bright by throwing around 'pots of gold' chat. The way to achieving this success is being tread as we speak through ProRugby, not media grapevines leading their way from the Premiership and SANZAAR. And as myself and others have already suggested, the conditions point to that pathway providing minuscule bang for quite a lot of buck. Buck's that SANZAAR don't have.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
If thinking lacrosse terrible is a problem, I'm happy to have it. It would seem NBC, the English clubs and SANZAAR agree with me on the saleability of rugby in the U.S. so I'm relatively confident about it as much as it's possible about anything in the future. I don't junk any of us believe rugby will erupt and dominate the U.S., just that it will be a lucrative niche sport with a small but significant audience. That's enough. A small audience in the U.S. In 15 years could be the size of New Zealand or more. Nor can you predict that the process wouldn't be sped up by external forces. There's no way to know that it wouldn't. Indeed NBC, those English clubs and SANZAAR all seem to think it will.
Rob9
Guest
This is your problem, you're calling Lacrosse a terrible sport. Plenty of people in North America disagree with you. You can't tell people what they want and should be watching/playing just cause you think it's great. Heck rugby has a far greater presence in Australia yet it hasn't really caught on to become a national game- it's gone backwards in terms of national market share. You think rugby is a great sport and product and I agree with you. But don't be so ignorant to believe that something you love will simply 'catch on' and away it goes. You're ignoring that what you're attempting to do is make an impact on a culture. Not just any culture but a dominant one that doesn't adapt quickly to external forces. I keep saying, rugby has potential in the US and has already started kicking goals but you need to get back to reality about what that means. If rugby can get to Lacrosse's level in the States it will be an achievement; and I repeat, that process won't be sped up by external forces.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Lacrosse is a terrible sport with little spectator interest or attempt to grow itself. UFC you could say walked in to the space of boxing, but equally it could be said just to have sold itself well. Some American sports are doing much worse than others too: baseball is doing less well than gridiron for example. You can't put the UFC'S success on boxing's decline so simply. Half a million participants is already a mass of potential fans without any other considerations. In any case, you might have noticed that the northern clubs are putting on a match every week in NBC? Don't you think that they must consider there a big big enough audience for it to be worth selling? And why do you think NBC are willing to spend money on this if they don't think there's an audience? Clearly there is or NBC and the English clubs are mad. It's amusing you think I'm the only one to conceive of plans for this kind of SANZAAR expansion. The ARU were considering it from the early part of the last decade, while a bid from Singapore was a serious contender for the place currently talent by Japan. Whether you think SANZAAR should or shouldn't expand to north America, to deny they are seriously considering it is fanciful. This will.give you an idea of the current state of affairs and plans: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rugby-union/super-rugbys-global-expansion-plan/news-story/82629d484c1f0af526830d504f26472d I don't see any contradiction between top down and ground up techniques to grow rugby. A premium product can attract a wide TV audience and spread the game, while another tier and junior participation can push it up from below. Which is likely what will happen.
Rob9
Guest
You do understand that MMA is a combat sport as opposed to a contact sport? There was gap in the market that boxing wasn't satisfying and over the course of 20 + years Dana White and his team has exploited it with a product that's an easy start up compared to what you're proposing and suggesting will engage fans. You can hardly point at team sports in the US and suggest that the playing and fan bases aren't being satisfied with options and content respectively. The place is a Mecca for it and considering everything that's been happening in the US over the last few years regarding the effects of concussion, it presents a further speed bump for any impact sport trying to make a go of the US market. Over the course of your 'day dream' articles, I don't know how many times people from Brett McKay to myself to countless others have said to you that numbers don't necessarily equate to dollars. It's a point you continue to ignore so I don't think anyone can help you. In terms of the US's already reasonable rugby following within their market, the market size doesn't help. There's no real concentration of fans and mass media will continue to be clogged with the range and depth of sporting options (embedded in the US culture) that they are blessed with. Rugby needs to chip away at penetration (as they're doing) not attempt to make a splash with some foreign concept that isn't conducive to the needs and wants of the US Sports fan while also being a cost negative exercise. Let me ask you this, why does Lacrosse remain a niche sport in elite terms in the US? A contact sport with a long history as a huge participation sport in the US. If it's contact, shouldn't it be a raging success? It's this domain that rugby in the US should be aiming at. Strong junior participation, a college presence and a small scale (by US terms, medium scale by the rest of us) professional league. Thinking beyond this is pointless at this stage. This trajectory won't be sped up by Super Rugby or Premiership involvement. It will leave those stakeholders investing heavily in an attempt to gain traction in the US market to provide entities that meet their standards, while not a lot coming through the front door in terms of revenue at this premature stage. By the time the US is close to being able to effectively and sustainably operate at this level, they'd be better served (and they'll know this) by their own domestic league. And I hate to tell you this, that's exactly the pathway they've put themselves on with the inception of ProRugby. Anything beyond this is media/KPM speculation.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Rugby had hardly got anywhere given the high numbers for so long in the U.S., nor does it have access to the high quality New Zealand/Australian intellectual property that Argentina have effortlessly absorbed recently. A super rugby team would dramatically accelerate grey of the sport and in any case wouldn't contradict the prorugby competition anyway, wich will be pretty small fry and not guaranteed to succeed. Probably the two in combination are ideal.
Danoz
Guest
Why does America need to join either Europe or SAANZAR at all? Its taken a long time to get a professional comp started up here. The next few years will be critical in developing that competition to make it successful. There are enough colleague and amateurs athletes here to populate the competition, they just need to grow it and promote it. If they are successful, then the market is big enough here that they could take it on themselves. From an American standpoint, there is no need to then sell out to a foreign competition that requires long travel times etc... American sport thrives on local derbies, perfect for Rugby. The USA Eagles and some of the pro teams get better over time, become more competitive in either international games, or possible exhibition games. Great success for world rugby (not the former IRB but rugby in general). Use the NBC deal to promote the game, continue to get Aust, NZ, Ireland and European teams to come over and play games to promote the game and show what it is capable of. I think this is a fantastic way growing this game organically here in the US. Being from Oz its has been pretty hard here the last few years relying on Youtube to get my rugby highlights. I am looking forward to the NBC deal and the pro comp to get my fix! Onward and upwards!!!!!
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Well I'll be happy in a few years to quote you on the NHL being more likely to expand in Australia than rugby in America. You cheerfully ignore the half million playing numbers and 85 million reach of the current TV deal. 85 million is a seriously large audience in the richest country in the world. There is also a lack of appreciation on your part of the size of the U.S. New Zealand is 4.5 million, the U.S. 330 million. A sport only needs the smallest following of a tiny fraction of this colossal continent sized country in order to earn handsomely. No one's claiming rugby will take over America. What's being claimed is that it can acquire enough of an audience to earn nicely. The UFC example is also incorrect. There were not millions of Muay Thai or Brazilian Jiujitsu practitioners in the U.S. before the UFC and the kind of spectator sport they offered had no forerunner. It was just an effective product which won a large audience. Your example of organic growth is mystical. Why should rugby grow any more successfully in this way than through a high quality spectator sport. Your 'organic' route is a pure experiment. It may not work. Fotunately there are serious businessmen in charge of SANZAAR, hence the expansion to Argentina and Japan. You'll see my pie in the sky U.S. team become a reality pretty quickly. Why do you think SANZAAR have been talking about it and considering it the past years if they weren't planning to do it? Hasn't the move into Japan and Argentina at the same time shown you the direction they plan to go?
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Bakkies the markets are very small and the costs high in the current markets. Hence why larger markets are in the sights.
Rob9
Guest
O but Bakkies it will because it's the US and they have over 300 million people there and they only watch contact sport and we're so similar to 'gridion' which means it must work. O and there's also leprechaun that passes loads of gold coins each morning and he said we can have them all if we put a few Super Rugby teams there. There you go KPM, saved you the hard work.
Rob9
Guest
Oh boy, now you’re really clutching at straws aren’t you. Firstly the UFC hasn’t been an overnight success, it’s been around since the early 90’s. It also draws on athletes (and fans) with a vast array of MMA backgrounds from boxing, to Muay Thai, to Judo, to Jiu-Jitsu, to Wrestling (huge in high school and college sport in the States and its role in MMA is far more relevant to the comparison between rugby and ‘gridion’), to Karate and Taekwondo (how many squillions of children grew up doing the last 2). The seeds that make the UFC and their connection to US culture/sport have a far deeper connection than rugby and football which have similarities but at the end of the day are completely different sports. You’re also comparing two sports with completely different formats. One uses a tournament style format and is played for a season of (let’s say for Super Rugby) 18 weeks including play offs, while the clubs involved in said tournament also require facilities and resources. The UFC is has a ‘fight night’ structure and involves around 500 fighters, all of which train independently using their earnings to sustain this. The vast majority of these fighters still need a second job to get by with only a few at the top earning big bucks. The UFC events are also between cable TV and pay per view and all things considered, their overheads are a fraction of what’s required when comparing it to a the successful running of a league involving clubs. The fact that you’ve attempted to draw this comparison just demonstrates what sort of level you’re operating at. Alright, let’s pretend that things operate as they do in KPM’s parallel universe. SANZAAR decides to splash the cash on a presence in the US/Nth America. They’ve sucked it up and decided to invest what’s required to get SR off the ground. Suggesting the revenue made from a US presence will cover its costs or that there’s private money willing to take the financial blow for a sustained period of time with no end in sight is simply a bridge too far. There’s some impact on the TV deal but that’s gobbled up by the expenses. After 2 or 3 TV deals, the USARFU have realised that they’ve now got some traction (predominately due to the organic growth of the game that will come with time) and that they’re better off alone worrying about their own backyard and growing the game without the hindrances that come with being a part of Super Rugby. That leaves the SANZAAR partners not only back to where they were but worse than before financially. What a future for the game. You’re also putting words into my mouth. Please show me where I’ve said rugby cannot succeed in the US? I just have differing view of what that success looks like and when analysing the big picture believe Super Rugby isn’t the vehicle to take US Rugby to that success for the sake of both US rugby and SANZAAR. As with all of your articles, there’s a tidal wave of comments attempting to bring you and your ‘pie in the sky’ stuff back down to earth but you continue to ignore the realities these comments pose and come up with some warped logic to get around them. I mean, here’s nipper who sounds like he’s actually a rugby fan based in the US and you still dismiss his input. The reality of the situation (back on planet earth) is that the NHL has a better shot at expanding into Australia than what you’re proposing. But you keep living in la-la land and coming up with this stuff. Just don’t hold your breath for the comment- ‘great idea, that makes perfect logical sense and is a shoe-in to succeed’.