Since before the Super Rugby competition kicked off this season, the talk has been dominated by one topic: how many teams will be cut for 2018.
The SANZAAR delegates are meeting in London this week, and the expectation is that a decision will be made on what Super Rugby – and indeed, SANZAAR itself – will look like from next season.
It’s worth remembering at this point that cutting teams is but one of the three options on the table; four, in fact, if you add ‘keep the status quo’ into the mix.
SANZAAR commissioned international consulting firm Accenture to produce a strategic review after the 2016 season, and the report made three suggestions for consideration by SANZAAR and their stakeholders:
1. Dropping one team from South Africa and Australia
2. Dropping two teams from South Africa
3. Expanding the competition even further
As I mentioned, it’s entirely possible that the stakeholders – which include the four national unions and the host broadcasters from those countries – could yet decide to agree to maintain 18 teams and tweak the structure of the conferences. They could also decide to see out the final years of the broadcasting deal that saw the extra teams added in the first place.
It certainly feels unlikely that that will be the case. To hear the acknowledgement from all corners of the SANZAAR universe that the current structure isn’t engaging fans and spectators as they hoped it might is at least refreshing; to ignore it and do nothing would be sheer madness, a new low in common sense.
Yet it continues to astound me that, in Australia at least, the expectation from the outset has been that one team will have to be cut.
This line of commentary has carried on through reports, opinion pieces, and thousands of comments. It’s been so widely written that if you were new to the game, you’d have just accepted this is going to happen.
And in all this, one nagging thought has remained with me: why isn’t Australian rugby fighting for its fifth team?
Don’t get me wrong, it’s never been easier to be down on rugby in Australia. You only have to look to your left or right, and there are plenty of soapboxes for you to step upon and unload on the game. Pick your topic, and have your say.
But what about fighting for the good of Australian rugby?
Ceding more than 30 professional opportunities in Australia does not feel like a move that benefits Australian rugby. Losing 20 per cent of the starting front rowers, or openside flankers, or halves, or back three players in the country does not sound like a move that strengthens the game in Australia.
Even if you managed to keep the top 30 Wallabies players in the country, losing the next 30 to overseas clubs – which will happen, we all know it will – does not consolidate the strength of the talent pool.
It’s more than that, too; all five sides run under-20s programs feeding into the Australian under-20s set-up. So it’s not just the professional level we’re affecting, the next generation will similarly lose their pathway.
And this is why it astounds me that the ARU has been so wishy-washy around the prospect.
The consistent line of commentary since the options were tabled has been along the lines of ‘being part of a joint venture’, and ‘needing to hear the thoughts of our partners’, ‘being fluid about our preferred position going forward’.
Sorry, what now?
Even if all that is true beyond closed doors, what is wrong with actually showing a bit of fight, and making it known publicly that Australia does not want to give up a side? Even if it’s a very real prospect, what would be so wrong with showing the rugby public of Australia that one of our teams just won’t be set adrift and forgotten?
Why should rugby fans in Perth or Canberra or even Melbourne have to hear answers to direct questions about guaranteeing five teams next year begin with, “we can’t make any promises”.
So far, only the Rugby Union Player’s Association has made anything resembling a statement of intent.
“Australia’s professional rugby players are staunch in their opposition to any mooted alternative models which would reduce Australia’s representation in the Super Rugby competition for 2018 and beyond,” the RUPA position stated unequivocally the week before Super Rugby started.
Why couldn’t the ARU have backed this up with a similar position?
By all means, say you want to look at Super Rugby structures and maybe tweak the conferences so they make more sense and involve fewer circumnavigations of the globe – even explore trans-Tasman comps.
But would it be so hard to come out and say five teams is what Australia wants in whatever form Super Rugby takes in 2018? Why not show the fans that Australian rugby is going to put up a fight for the benefit of Australian rugby?
Rugby has never been in a more vulnerable position in Australia, yet the public commentary feels like we’re just preparing to roll over and take whatever’s put in front of us.
I’ve often wondered what ‘the Australian way’ of the playing rugby really is, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t involve meek surrender.
Up north
Guest
The kiwis were the number one ranked team, after beating the kangaroos 3 matches in a row. They recently lost that top spot to the kangaroos after a poor 4 Nations campaign. Think you are looking like a buffoon Marto.
ScottD
Guest
Sheek I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "academies" but the Western Force have what they call the Future Force Foundation which is their version of an academy . It looks to be working well and is definitely not elitist
richard
Guest
Based on a Fijian and a Tongan playing for the AB's means they were targeted by NZ.Google the background to both players before you write such piffle.FYI,NZ has a large enough PI population without having to scour the islands.
Glen
Guest
If teams are cut its a massive opportunity for the NRL in particular. - I assume Waratahs and Reds are safe. - If the Brumbies are cut it would be a boon for the Raiders and less so GWS. Raiders should poach some players and extend an olive branch to the local RU community. - If the Force are cut the NRL should explore a full license takeover. Pay out the ARU. Not everyone will jump ship but some will. A new Perth team is on the cards anyway and this one would have a ready made fan base. - If the Rebels are cut the NRL should explore a similar takeover. I don't think Melbourne is ready for a new NRL side to accompany the Storm but a ready made side with fans and history - could be a convenient shortcut.
Jock Cornet
Guest
I live in bondi and played rugby in Sydney for 8 years
Republican
Guest
.....it is very unjust while I really hope Union supporters across this region cease their patronage of the code at all tiers, not simply as a some token protest but to begin a revolution, for future generations sake. The sporting industry has lost all parity in respect of virtues sport should espouse. it has lost its way, its soul, its sense of purpose while we the humble punters are the only ones who can bring the bankers who dictate their agenda of avarice, back down to earth.
Republican
Guest
.....this has always been the culture of Union in this country, i.e. it is given O2 by expat Kiwis both on and off the field. The code would be less than niche if not for the 600k plus NZ'ers living here. This phenomena now extended to League here, a code we actually boast some pedigree in. The Kiwi diaspora throughout the NRL is 38% and growing while NRL scouts are selecting Kiwis above any local domestic grass roots aspirants. This does not auger well for the code to my mind while NZ are now ranked # one in the world at League as well, courtesy of our unintended largesse in fostering their athletes.
sheek
Roar Guru
Surfside, AFL is aware of its domestic-only footprint, which is why it works hard at giving its fans what they want. The AFL is one of the most watched sports on the planet, & may be the most watched per capita, although I'm willing to be corrected on that point. So lack of international footprint is irrelevant as long as AFL gives it fans what they want. Which Australian rugby isn't doing. Despite what might be happening elsewhere.
Mark Richmond
Roar Guru
If it comes down to money, there is only one Australian franchise that has never received a bail out from the ARU.....The Brumbies, yet it looks like their neck is on the block.
Clifto
Guest
I've not looked into this issue in any great depth, but I have to say I was surprised to see Kiwi Wharenui Hawera playing 10 for the Brumbies. Why is he playing at the expense of an up-and-coming Australian? Why are the Brumbies training up a Kiwi? I don't buy this from Larkham: "A fruitless search at home prompted Larkham to look across the ditch" http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/89482012/unknown-kiwi-wharenui-hawera-set-for-brumbies-no-10-role-in-super-rugby Do examples like this suggest the local playing pool is too shallow to support 5 strong teams?? Or should Aussie Super teams be directed to focus on bringing local talent through???
Concerned Supporter
Guest
And pay David Pocock AUD $750 in 2017 for NOT playing in Australia ?
Republican
Guest
.......Union seems to be between a rock and a very hard place here, to be sure.
ScottD
Guest
Fisher just quit from Gloucester
DOUBLES
Guest
Nothing to worry about too much as Fijians are only good as wingers in league and Union.They don't like the tough stuff in the forwards.. Only Petero Civonecieva was a great tough as teak forward as he was born in REDCLIFFE BRISBANE playing league ..Radike Samo another one who was a great forward, but other than them, overall Fijians are talking up wingers spots in both codes only, and if they are faster than a local winger.. Good on them..
Marto
Guest
Republican, They are not ranked number one in league mate..We hammered the Kiwis in the RLWC final in 2013. ( and are current world champs ) The supposed superstar $onny Bill was made to look like an amateur by the aussies in that final.... We also just smashed the Kiwis in the 4 nations final last year ... Do a bit of googling before looking like a buffoon champ....
paul
Guest
Deano 20 percent isn`t much. Considering you have your own team..
ethan
Guest
Cheers Andy, I seem to recall hearing the numbers 3 and 7 somewhere but it's reaching to a hazy place in the back of my mind so I could easily be wrong.
Old Bugger
Guest
Now, now guys. Back when I was we playing, players had a chance to play for BOP, Hawkes Bay, Horowhenua, Whanganui, Manawatu, Waikato, Thames valley and other provincial sides that weren't consistent, Ranfurly Shield winners. And then, the NZRU introduced the AirNZ/NPC/ITM/Mitre 10 competition in 1976 and the only reason BOP won that inaugural comp, was because the ABs had 2 teams touring overseas, in SA and Argentina. Nevertheless, in the years following '76, players from those provinces I mentioned above, all of a sudden started getting offers to go to the main centres to play their rugger - centres like Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. What happened to those provincial centres regarding their rugby fortunes when their top players were being snapped up?? Gees, from my viewpoint, it took ages for the BOP to try and stay with the top rugby teams, always just missing the promotion/relegation before they finally, got demoted. Waikato took ages to recover from its initial demotion. The blessing when Super Rugby started was the NZRU could see the damage being done to the provincial sides with rugby players being drawn to the main centres so they did the only thing they could, to build a strong NZ base......they delineated provinces to each Super side and forced those sides to concentrate the core of their teams, from those provinces. Next, they allowed the SR sides to pick players from other provinces only when, that player was not chosen, by their home SR team. And then, they max'd the squad numbers to 25-30players, formed centralised contracts making a total of 125-150players, being placed on the NZRU/SR salary list. Of course, the SR teams still got one over the NZRU, by persuading players to resettle in the new SR region and used personal reasons, as the relocation motivation. So, what is happening to Auckland today is really an extension, of what was happening in NZ immediately post 1976. The only saviour back then, was the players were still in NZ and available for the ABs but that IMO, is no consolation to what happened in those provinces and how they struggled, to hold onto a provincial rugby team or for that matter, a place in the Premier competition. Now, the curse is the challenge from overseas and how NZ can continue as a rugby nation, in the face of such a financial onslaught. I'm forever the optimist and as long as kids want to be ABs when they start school, then I have a belief, that the parents, junior clubs, coaches and the primary, middle and secondary school systems, will identify and promote the next wunder-kids to senior, provincial, SR and eventually, ABs rugby.
Republican
Guest
More power to the Roar Rugby community for having this discussion. I dont support the code but I must say that out of all the codes represented here on Roar, the Rugby community are the most engaged in respect of discussing the more philosophical and cultural issues in my experience. I know my comments are often met with hostility as I am prone to playing the Devils Advocate, so thanks for persevering with me and affording me the space to contribute. May the Force be with the Brumbies - now and forever.......
Republican
Guest
.......big yellow taxi....... Aint it the truth!