It beggars belief that Australia accepted the change to the current structure of Super Rugby.
The 2011-15 structure, involving five teams from each country playing each other (with an exception or two), was a good model that kept everyone happy.
Former ARU CEO John O’Neil said as much, with his claim that it kept the fans, players and broadcasters onside. In fact, it seems everyone was on side, except for the South African Rugby Union.
At the insistence of South Africa, a sixth South African team and an Argentinian team have been added to Super Rugby. The format has also been changed, again, to one that many people do not recognise. I don’t have a clue how the new format works, and I am a passionate fan.
It is easy to be critical of the ARU in this situation. The truth is that the ARU relies on a lot of the broadcasting revenue that comes from the SARU, where ratings are highest for Super Rugby. Hence, South Africa has a powerful position in any negotiation. It’s understandable that the ARU wants to grant them concessions, after all, they effectively subsidise the ARU with the broadcast revenue split, the ARU receiving a bigger share than they contribute.
But this new deal takes things a step too far, and is liquidating the long-term value of Super Rugby in exchange for short-term cash. The South African and Argentinian teams have a low profile, do not attract crowds, and are drawing interest away from rugby in Australia.
One need only see the empty stadiums and ratings to understand that these teams are poisonous to the long-term goals of the game.
The ARU should immediately pull up stumps with the SARU. As an organisation, they have allowed themselves to be bullied by their opposites. As of the next broadcasting deal, the ARU should implement the following plan to ensure both the commercial and community success of Super Rugby going forward.
Firstly, the competition shall have no South African teams, and will consist of five New Zealand teams, four Australian teams, and up to three other teams that will be invited to bid from the Asia-Pacific region. No team west of Perth need apply.
This is important – the games need to be on at suitable times for Australian audiences. I’ve lost track of the amount of times my team has got a head full of steam with the community, only to go to South Africa, and be all bar forgotten within 24 hours.
The money trade off simply doesn’t add up. Extra broadcast money to diminish teams’ brand name makes no sense. The ARU should send a message that, apart from Rugby Championship games, it wants absolutely nothing to do with the SARU.
Secondly, every team in the competition will play each other twice, at home and away. A team will receive bonus points for scoring four tries and finishing within seven points.
The new bonus point system convolutes an already confusing rule, as does the actual fixture system. Why are we playing that team? Ask the gods at SANZAAR, because no one else knows. “It’s a conference-franchise-inclusion-country-club system,” they’d say, to an empty stadium.
Thirdly, the finals system will be two weeks, involving a semi-finals week and a grand final week. There are no quotas for teams to be from a certain country, only that they be top of the table.
The bizarre format of placing teams in the finals because they were from a certain country was bad, with many fans (particularly from New Zealand) rightfully arguing their team had been robbed of a finals place. Such a system only reduced the competition’s credibility.
Believe it or not, the fix is actually very simple. Rugby fans don’t want a convoluted system – they solve convoluted problems at work, or in their life. Rugby is supposed to be a simple escape. Just fix it.
If there is a cash shortfall in the aftermath from ditching the SARU, so be it. The long-term future of the game is too important.
DaveB
Guest
Spikhaza - We agree the new system is terrible. I think you have exaggerated the power SA yielded during the negotiations. And you are understanting the AR & NZRUs role. Remember - SA did not want Regional Conferences. Australia did.. And so did NZ to a lesser extent. Aus and NZ believed that derbies were key. - SARU wanted 6 sides- no argument - Everyone wanted expansion - Add Arg and Jap. - Our main TV sponsor did not love the 6th side and it hates Conferences. It just allowed politics to prevail because not doing so would have been intolerable. So for SA to get 6 sides we had to lose the Conference debate. I would have been delighted if you had held firm. No Conferences. No 6th side. But we are where we are - The Status Quo is the worst position - Fewer sides and round robin is OK until the contract runs out - If we get sent North to negotiate... I am ok with that... But that could hurt 4Ns... hopefully not
Bakkies
Guest
'Their should be independent domestic competitions in each country. ' Blame the Sydney clubs for that not getting off the ground in the 90s.
Bakkies
Guest
'The people in Broadmeadows get social security and free health cover. The people in Toorak do too, although most probably buy health insurance which lowers the costs to the rest of the population. ' Are you sure about that? This isn't the 80s anymore.
Memphis
Guest
Other codes are expanding and we are stuck in 3 Commonwealth countries - the Japanese expansion will bear fruit in time esp at World Cup. Some people have a limited view - RL only takes place in NSW and Qld and that's fine by most people and AFL has a national comp but cant expand Soccer has a lot of followers of Euro soccer but struggles to get a crowd locally as the other 2 big codes have the best comps in the world for their game. Rugby has a chance to be an inbetween with international exposure and playing good NZ and SA teams but I admit its hard to get a better game than last weeks Highlanders vrs Crusaders. Amazing
Memphis
Guest
Republican death rides everything that isn't Tasmanian or whatever else he follows..
markie362
Guest
Oh yea why would the kiwis dump super 66 for ur idea.its a bit insular
mania
Guest
lol BBL's cricket. my bad
Zero Gain
Guest
The people in Broadmeadows get social security and free health cover. The people in Toorak do too, although most probably buy health insurance which lowers the costs to the rest of the population. Envy?
NaBUru38
Guest
The Jaguares certainly don't have a low profile in Argentina.
davSA
Guest
Charcoal don't be swayed by a few comments on the Roar which may give the impression that SA supporters don't want the Aussie sides here . This is absolutely not reflective of the Rugby loving public in SA . We are far too consumed with our own poor performances and side issues to even fleetingly consider a competition without Australia. Anyway many of those comments probably come from ex pats than from us still living here . Sydney , accusing SARU of Mafia tactics and hijacking the game is laughable . That would be crediting them with far more intellect and strategic insight than they possess . Trust me on that one.
Charcoal
Guest
Couldn't agree more. If neither NZ or SA and their supporters are interested in playing or watching Australian Super Rugby teams, then we should let them go it alone. What's the point in us staying involved? Rugby Union in Australia has gone downhill anyway. We would be better off in the longer term in developing our own domestic competition based on the NRC with fully professional players. That doesn't preclude an end of season 4 nation Southern Hemisphere Rugby Championship or indeed a Champions League as suggested by Sheek and others. If soccer can do it, why can't Rugby? All we need are some savvy administrators with a bit of vision, which regrettably the current bunch don't seem to possess.
Zero Gain
Guest
This is the whole issue. Their should be independent domestic competitions in each country. Then a champions series. Much better and more interesting. It also ends all of the 'you owe us' mentality that is fanciful and illusory.
Zero Gain
Guest
OK, good points but I don't agree with your conclusions. I know lots of people dedicated to making the lives of others better. Like many on here I travel a lot and every time I do I find myself thinking just how great our society is.
davSA
Guest
Not in agreement here Harry. Needs more than a few tweaks . We have a situation where if for example The Lions maintain form and make the playoffs , it could be the first time they play any NZ team in the tournament. How can this be in the interests of either country's supporters.
Celtic334
Guest
I like your enthusiasm Mania, if Aus rugby had more people like you instead of toffs who are out for their own agenda, we'd be a richer game. However when talking quality, SAF are about the same level as Aus atm, minus the Lions. A lot of it is just masked by the fact that Aus teams play NZ team far more frequently. So far this year we have a sample size of 3 games, all that has happened is that the Reds got the better or the Sharks (marginally), the Sharks got the better of the Brumbies (marginally) and the only class side between both countries comfortably beat the Tahs, although side note being at altitude. Last year the records were fairly similar, but for a national perspective the Wallabies were considerably better than the Boks (which is saying something) but both were pathetic against the All Blacks. I am fully expecting the same trouncing that are happening to the Aus teams to happen to the SA teams. side note, BBL is the domestic cricket competition and probably the only sport that has a similar international foot print commercially and playing standards to Rugby does. Just nit picking here tho. haha. Anyway i enjoyed reading your perspective, i am sure iv taken some of it on board to future discussions and how i think about things.
Spikhaza
Roar Guru
Couldn't agree more Sheek. Too many doves running Super rugby, we need some hawks!!!!
mania
Guest
f course you are correct Celtic334 IF you take quality out of the equation. however...when the ABs play in SA i either getup for it or record it (as far as tv stats go this is the same thing because my TV has to view it to record it). but either way there is no way i'm gonna miss it. so timeslots isnt really a factor if the quality is high and there is a demand to watch those games. your BBL example is from the perpective of AussieBasketballAdministration. has nothing to do with the fans. i agree with almost everything you say. you have an awesome argument . you should be on the SANZAAR or ARU board fighting for Australia. however... for all your commercial arguments i'll counter it with quality and the good of rugby. sorry to say it but comparing aus vs sa , kiwi teams prefer to play sa. wasnt always like this, but recently (last 8-9 years) it has become the case and its all about the aus quality levels of rugby declining. its worsened in the last couple of years. Australian rugby is in direstraights. its major and i've never known aus rugby to be in this much trouble. at this stage if nz had to branch off, for the good of rugby and having a decent product to show case to the world; you would have to partner with sa. something i'd like to point out that no one has brought up is, if aus carry on in this decline, they will no longer be bringing anything of value to the table. for the right amount of money aus could get kicked out of super rugby. far fetched but its a natural conclusion unless this entropy aus is going through isnt stopped
Gewurtz
Guest
Spot on! 100% in agreement.
Redbull
Guest
Yeah, I don't get why everyone says it is so complicated and difficult to follow. Again, not an endorsement
Marto
Guest
Celtic334 Wonderful stuff!