We’re always asking: ‘What is the future of rugby?’ Binary answers are elusive, and probably false.
The boring is that rugby must build at home and overseas, build the grassroots and professional game, build the men’s game and women’s game, while investing and saving money.
It’s been said that rugby is at a crossroads, but the truth is closer to a spaghetti junction than your average two-lane intersection.
Some great reporting by Georgina Robinson has unearthed dilemmas at the top of the sport – should Australia participate in the current direction of Super Rugby, whatever that direction is?
Should Super Rugby be expanded again, but contracted at home and in South Africa (the Southern Kings’ debt problems may prove an enforced answer to that question).
The spaghetti junction at the top of the sport alone is worth addressing.
In 2016, all five Australian teams, in a post-World Cup year, performed horribly. There just wasn’t the depth and quality of players to compete on the same level as New Zealand. The same could be said of the South African teams, although to a lesser extent. That has led to the prospect of putting the Force on the chopping block, even though Bill Pulver knows in is heart you can’t cut your way to success.
The truth in this is a conflicting duality to be managed carefully, over a long period of time.
F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
The test for Australian rugby is to adhere to that mantra.
It must create less dependency on Super Rugby, without killing it as a vital source of money and player development for Test level.
Australia needs Super Rugby’s revenue stream and the opportunity to play against quality provincial teams. But it also needs to find a consistent Australian free-to-air television audience – one Super Rugby cannot provide. We now have 20 years of evidence of this.
Super Rugby must continue to be the best provincial competition it can be and Australia must remain part of that. But there must also be simultaneous development of the NRC as the Australian professional rugby product, long term.
The strength of the NRC years down the track will determine whether rugby is to ever have a solid free-to-air television presence, whether after the 2027 World Cup we can bounce back or continue to get mercilessly toweled up by New Zealand development pathways.
There is precedent for this kind of dual growth in Australia’s crowded sporting market: football, a sport I’ve previously suggested be watched closely for clues and ideas.
The Socceroos’ participation in Asian competition mirrors the importance of the international competition and wider audiences of Super Rugby.
Slow and steady growth of the A-League provides a picture of the urgent need for rugby to continue to develop a tribal and uniquely Australian following. Truly local gatherings, a uniquely Australian product, one that can be tailored to suit the market.
There have been peaks and troughs for Australian football, but the dual paths to growth have remained in place. Rugby must hold its nerve in the same way.
A thriving NRC – complemented by televised sevens rugby tournaments during the ‘offseason’ – must either provide feasible additional Super Rugby teams or feed players into a finishing and testing school format before the Wallabies are selected.
But both must remain. The Force must stay, to be a logical conclusion to Spirit pathways. The Rams must be ably supported to provide the opposite pathway. Drastic moves could easily send the game to the wall.
The future of rugby is slow and steady growth on two clear lines. We aren’t at a crossroads after all, what rugby builds must run on a rail line.
Chasbie
Guest
Please explain how is the nrc producing top footballers, most players have already been signed and the rest are good club rugby playing in a competion.that's really glorified touch football
sheek
Roar Guru
I know the caravan has moved on, but a response is required here. The NPC & Currie Cup are both struggling because the best players rarely participate. If they're not involved with super rugby & the national team, they've scooted to Europe or Japan. No competition can thrive without its best players. Sheffield Shield & indeed Shute Shield cop the same criticism. But both these comps have been stripped of their best players. In its heyday the Sheffield Shield had all the leading players, current, past & future all lining up against each other. It was the best cricket outside tests you could watch. Ditto Shute Shield. There were days in the past when as many as 30 current, past & future Wallabies would all play on the weekend, sometimes up to a dozen squaring off against each in the one match. It's convenient to criticize these comps viability when they have been stripped of their best talent.
sheek
Roar Guru
Also TWAS, Well done with your many offerings. I DO appreciate what you have to say even if I don't always agree with your point of view.
sheek
Roar Guru
Elisha, Thanks for this article. Well done. There are two things we definitely know: 1. The current structure ISN'T working, so we must find another, more effective way, especially for Australian rugby. 2. However, there are almost as many differing opinions & ideas on the way forward as there are rugby fans. One other observation I would make is not to take much notice of anything SANZAAR says. They are into empire building, to make themselves an indispensable part of the southern hemisphere landscape. Unfortunately, they are well on the way to achieving this. But what is good for SANZAAR isn't necessarily good for rugby.
Rob9
Guest
I don't know if it's correct or not but in my mind (for example) Man U operate on the 2nd tier of the sport whether they're playing Champions League or the Premier League. Of course, the Champions League is supposed to represent the Championship of Europe as opposed to the Championship of England but they're both 2nd tier formats (I think). If there's a team sitting underneath Man U that feeds them while nurturing juniors and always operates on a platform outside of the Premier League, I suppose that would represent their 3rd tier. Soccer's' an interesting one though because I don't know whether you would count the division under the Premier League as the next tier down or because there's promotion/relegation between the leagues that they'd still count (technically) as the 2nd tier. The point in terms of rugby in Australia, there's a clear feeder system in place the creates very defined tiers. There's a clear difference in the competition and clubs structure between say the Queensland Reds and Brisbane City and Super Rugby/NRC vs Man U and Leeds Utd who play in the Premier League and Championship respectively.
PeterK
Roar Guru
NB - Cash Buys wins now that sports are professional. There are plenty of clubs in Premier Soccer, MLB (USA Baseball), the small ones with little money that have no forseeable or sutainable success, yet maintain a loyal fan base. In basketball Teams that have never played in the NBA Finals (ie never have been Conference Champions): Los Angeles Clippers. Denver Nuggets. Minnesota Timberwolves. Charlotte Hornets. Toronto Raptors. Memphis Grizzlies. New Orleans Pelicans. In NFL 13 teams have never won the super bowl.
AndyS
Guest
Mitchell joined the Force in 2007, not in their initial year. No different from any out of contract player. Vedelago was very much a bench player, and I had it from the horse's mouth at the time that if the Reds had really wanted to keep him they probably shouldn't have tried to negotiate a pay cut. Mcisaac wasn't even a listed player in 2005, he'd been dropped from the list Doherty was very firmly a bench player only starting the occasional game Daruda was a debuting player and had only been on the bench twice, one of which was a DNP. Fair call on Pelasasa though, forgot about him and knew there had to be one. So, two starters and two bench players, one of which they were effectively kicking out the door anyway. Wholesale destruction of the team indeed, so different from what would happen every single year!
PeterK
Roar Guru
hog - you wrote I suppose you grow it similar to how you want to expand Super rugby to countries that have never had a sufficient fan base to support a professional rugby team. How do you know they have insufficient fan base to support a professional rugby team? In fact sunwolves and jagueres have a very good fanbase. Japan has a professional club scene. If you are referring to my suggestion of Canada and USA. They have semi-pro clubs. They do NOT have a sufficient fan base to support a fully professional club comp i.e 8-10 professional teams. However I am sure they have the 2 fanbase to support 1-2 professional teams in an intl provincial comp.
Wayne
Guest
Drew Mitchell Nathan Sharpe Rudi Vedalago Tai McIsaac Junior Pelesasa Luke Doherty Scott Daruda
Tinfoil Hat
Guest
Why is it always about money? I am going to assume you are taking the piss because of the abject stupidity of asking why a professional sport needs money be viable.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
The reality is it will only happen if Australian rugby won't go broke in the process.
AndyS
Guest
Interesting, so you would say that something like a Champions League where they take the very best of each league and pit them against each other is still only the same level as the average of where those teams come from? One of the models touted as a SR replacement is precisely that - a domestic comp followed by a Champions League. In practice then, you'd say it would be the same as the NRC being the only support for the Wallabies, regardless of who the top few teams subsequently pitch themselves against...I'm afraid you might be right.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
But it's not like success cannot be achieved. In 2014 Australia had the Waratahs, Brumbies and Force all competing for a finals position. There's supporters all around the world who are happy to attend games consistently with little or no prospect of tangible success. They've grown up supporting the teams. It takes time to build that attachment though. To say Godwin left because of the Force's results is misleading. That doesn't consider if he felt the environment was stunting his own development and impacting on his rep chances. Plenty of players are selected from poor teams if they are playing good. And I disagree that he was the type of player a team could be built around. I don't think he even showed that for the Aus U20's.
hog
Guest
We can agree on something then TWAS, the reality is though that will only happen if the ARU have the vision, drive and passion to make it happen.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
They will improve dramatically. Their revenue was $10M or more lower due to the RWC. Their TV revenue was something like $22M. This year it will be $57M.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Well said rebel.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Yeah that comment from Beastie Boy is a bit like lamenting that the Prime Minister doesn't care enough about your local council. Of course he doesn't. That's why the federal government passes on revenue to the State and Local Governments.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It needs to be a transition. Potentially at the end of this TV deal it would be the time to transition. Currently we have a 16 week Super Rugby and a 7 week NRC. I'd love to see that swapped for a 7 week Super Rugby and 16 week NRC either at that time, or following the next TV deal.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I live in Melbourne Champ. It was a comment about Georgina Robinson's Sydney-centric view. Which isn't hers, as she's just a mouthpiece for the NSWRU.
rebel
Guest
Nic, fans aren't only turning away due to on field success, the method of play and skills has been abysmal and this can't necessarily be put down to expansion. Good coaches can get the most out of the squads they have, for example Jamie Joseph. Who did he have when he started, no one. He went thorough some lean years and the more negative among us wanted to sack him as the easy option. However look what happened, he developed players, created an exciting game plan and won a comp. Many of the no name players he started with have gone on to represent at higher level starting with one or two fringe ABs to now having several crucial cogs in the AB setup, two arguably being the best in their position in the world. From recollection both the Rebel and Force juniors are winning national comps. Why would anyone ever consider taking away their hard earned pathways. Also as TWAS pointed out there are also those up and coming players in traditional heartlands that would otherwise have their pathways blocked, now have more opportunities to succeed. Like I said Australia's issues lie with coaching and skills, with Mick Byrnes appointment hopefully we will get to see a national program rolled out to increase skills across the board. I also think that the ARU should set up a coaching academy similar to IRANZ (or send more coaches to IRANZ to begin with) so that coaching skills increase and there is more continuity across the board in the country. The Foleys and Grahams of Australian rugby are holding back the potential. The ARU has fought to get a national footprint for rugby and now they need to shore it up. As I put in my 'Risk' analogy above, no body wins by just shoring up the Australasia (read NSW and QLD) continent only. They need strategic growth. If you give up Asia (Vic) and Africa (WA) to AFL, see how long you can hold on in the game.