The indecision on whether to maintain the current structure or grow the game further is suffocating Super Rugby followers.
A hallmark of sport is its ability to bring people together. Super Rugby’s backbone of success has been in its international flavour equally from South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, emerging players from the Pacific Islands and more recently Japan and Argentina.
It’s been refreshing reading everyone’s thoughts on the direction of Super Rugby this week and I think we can all agree on something, the current model is way too complicated. Put it this way, if you can’t explain how your competition works in less than three sentences; you’ve got yourself a problem.
At the time of writing I am sure the powers to be are finalising an outcome on the competitions direction.
Fundamentally, a trade off exists between competition quality versus the long-term growth of the game, domestically and abroad. The current model is way too complicated, keeping it simple works.
The answer [cue Old El Passo meme], ‘why don’t we have both’?
This is my idea, this is how it works – the benefits and risks in the short term.
A Super Rugby competition exists with the already established teams plus six extra teams located throughout the Americas and Asia-Pacific. A promotion and relegation systems exists between the top 12 and bottom 12, where the bottom/top three teams of each league are promoted and relegated each year.
A finals system takes place in the top division where the top four teams progress to a final series and an eventual champion is declared.
Newly established franchises are based in new regions that include North America (two franchises from the USA, one from Canada), a second Argentinian team, and Asia (Hong Kong and Singapore, alternatively a second Japanese franchise in Kyoto).
While many may perceive this as naïve, there are benefits to persevere with such a strategy. There would be question marks surrounding quality, travel, scheduling and the bottom line.
Rugby is becoming a more popular sport in these countries, and with the introduction of sevens in the Olympics, the game’s profile has significantly increased.
The USA is the largest sports market in the world. One thing Americans do really well is that they are sports-mad and fervent supporters of their teams in good and bad times.
Teams in say Palo Alto, Denver and Vancouver would capture interest in the local towns with corporate sponsors willing to get their names on a jersey. Even if you only captured 10 per cent of the public’s imagination, you could have security in in the game’s longevity.
America is the largest economy in the world and would attract a great deal of sponsorships to get the brand into time zones all over the world.
The same could be said also for franchises based in Hong Kong and Singapore. These are truly global cities with a large expatriate base; franchises would get some traction as there aren’t any other sports available.
If you were a global company (i.e. Banking/Healthcare/Telecommunications) you would gain exposure all throughout a South East Asian time zone which would raise your profile significantly (China is just next door too).
New teams, more games leads to more viewers and audiences where there is an appetite for sport. There would be an incentive to play for these franchises as well as you pay very little (anything at all) in tax. The highest tax bracket in Hong Kong and Singapore rests only at 15 per cent, that and you’re more than likely to be paid in US dollars – you would attract talent and people would want to play for you.
The risks involved is largely a significant drop in quality. This will be overcome in years while squads take time to develop. Support for the game in Canada and America is low compared to other major sports such as hockey and NFL but at least you would endeavour to gain some interest.
Even if the second tier competition was bad, at least it is still worth watching both teams throwing around a footy and having a close game; better that than seeing a team being blown off the park by 50 points every week.
There is a clear distinction in the competition as it stands now, every New Zealand team is outstanding, two South African and Australian teams are competitive, the rest are lagging behind.
Fulfilling this would also require that all southern hemisphere unions acted as a cartel. A law would have to be introduced where you weren’t allowed to play for your country unless you were playing in Super Rugby (or the NRC, ITM Cup, Currie Cup and Top League).
We have the luxury of the best emerging talent in the world. New Zealand has been a consistent production line of quality players, Western Sydney is a hot bed of talent where kids are being churned and pillaged by the NRL/AFL, players hailing from Tonga, Fiji and Samoa have long been lost to Europe, and there are hundreds of South Africans and Australians plying their trade in second tier competitions all over Italy and France.
These players could fill a void in new franchises, while it would also give an opportunity for players in the Americas to blood new talent in order to raise the standard of the game domestically and increase their competitiveness internationally.
In the proposed model you could incorporate teams from each existing conference to play each other at least once a year.
The shortening of the season would flow nicely into the global calendar from 2020 and would provide players with ample time to rest.
Personally, it has been disappointing to hear that Australian rugby fans are happy to see one of their teams let go, while the competitiveness is diluted. To me it seems short sighted to let 20 per cent of your emerging talent go to either overseas clubs or stuck on the reserves bench with zero game time. Perth, Canberra and Melbourne do have valid local competitions in place with a cult following and vocal support base.
Cutting a South African team would also be a sad sight. The initial endeavour of the Southern Kings was to emancipate people who felt hamstrung by their socioeconomic status.
It’s not my place to champion and discuss politics or social issues. Regardless if it were in Australia or South Africa, it would be a shame and a disappointment to see a franchise cut a drift and serve as a slap in the face to their loyal supporters.
This is really a divergent way of thinking and there are a lot of moving parts. But hey who wouldn’t say no to amalgamating all the best players from around the world and spicing up the game internationally?
What makes rugby such a niche sport is that it does embrace its amateur (tribal) roots where players from a certain province can express themselves in an interpretation of how they play the game.
To me rugby is the ultimate team sport where you can be the best player on the field and not even touch the ball.
The success of any competition is inherit on its simplicity. People are endeared to a representation of their team trying their best on their behalf.
Sloppy rugby in the meantime would have to do, but at least it’s worthwhile watching a bunch of boofheads picking up the ball and running with it.
piru
Roar Rookie
It's been in large part due to the Force and regular professional games in the state, but agreed, ARU has done little if anything to help. For the record WA rugby has grown every year for the last 10 and currently has the largest Women's comp in Australia.
Crazy Horse
Roar Pro
The massive growth in Rugby in WA had been despite the ARU not because of it.
Lostintokyo
Guest
Expansion would be preferable to shrinkage. I support your views.
markie362
Guest
But the players dont need to worry about air travel.they canjust sign with a french english or jap club and earn 3 times the money
sheek
Roar Guru
No Machooka, It's not okay & with respect you haven't got some of the things I've said. i don't like the direction rugby is heading with super rugby & haven't for some years now. No doubt we'll know soon enough & I won't like it one bit. In which case many roarers will be relieved not to hear from me much anymore. I've long followed the beat of my own drum, & i'm too old to change, or want to change. And I certainly won't change for anything I fundamentally disagree with.
Waz
Guest
Put simply whatever happens to Super Rugby, a focus must be put on the roots of the domestic game which are struggling badly. I can see the merits in a geographically expanded comp but seriously, right now what we must have is more domestic clashes and a revitalising of the local rugby scene. It's not all doom n gloom but it won't be far off if they don't get these changes right.
Machooka
Roar Guru
Bless you Delfina... I'm big on Orcas but for mine a close second is the Dolphin. Likewise, I'm very fond of all things Spanish having been lucky enough to live there a couple of times :) Yes, the key point is travel. And travel kills. Time zones don't work for we supporters. Who gets up at 1.00am to watch the Bulls play da Cheetahs in Aussie... or NZ? Maybe only the odd ex-pat yeah... which is fair enough eh!?!
tahriffic
Guest
i think the article alluded to pacific islanders having an avenue to play for singapore/hong kong franchises
hog
Guest
If that is the case then what is in this for the ARU, if there income is reduced accordingly for the number of teams then they are effectively no better of than present. Then it would appear they are putting all there eggs in 4 teams being more competitive and a different format as such creating more interest locally. You have to ask the question what, if any is the long term strategy for rugby here. How can a 4 team product on pay TV with little hope of greater mainstream exposure compete with 3 other codes all gaining greater domestic exposure and revenue. Which ultimately has to flow onto the Wallabies who soon will be the sole premium product for 5 months of the year, yet how are they going to drive growth when the grassroots will be struggling to just survive let alone provide new fans.
Delfina
Guest
Chook, there is a lot to like here. Especially dividing the world along those meridians of longitude. I think the last time this happened was under Pope Alexander the Sixth (the Borgia Pope) when he demarcated between the Portuguese and Spanish parts of South America in 1500. The key point is that air travel these days is a killer. And what aspiring sportsman wants to contemplate a future where huge amounts of time is spent in airports and cramped seats?
Machooka
Roar Guru
You're back... man that was quick when all things considered. Back in the day it was always a newspaper, or a mag, a long smoke, and a large 'do not disturb' sign erected on door. Mine you in reality it wasn't worth going anywhere near that old out-house whence it was engaged :) sheek... seriously is this another convenient string to your bow? 'Something like the RC was always going to happen... eventually' 'Professionalism only accelerated it's introduction.' Classic stuff sheek! And regardless of what Terry suggested... the fact remains unchanged that when rugby turned pro, the so-called pros went hyper pro and delivered us SR 12... and yes the Tri-Nations. Nothing more... nothing less! Further... 'There comes a time (how Neil Young dude) when you have to cut your losses & start afresh.' What a load of crap! What ever happened to consensus, faith, the ability to just say yeah... but we'll need to try harder. Geez... according to you it's like where's my gun and get off my lawn :) I always value your input sheek... but I feel on this issue you need to take a step back, breath it all in, yes it's OK you can inhale... then let it all out. Capisce? :)
Old Bugger
Guest
Cadfael Unfortunately, it is SANZAAR that cops the financial reduction and the individual union payments, will be solely dependant upon the number of their teams, playing SR. Accordingly, the big reductions will apply to Australia and South Africa because their team entrants have reduced to four (from 5 for ARU and from 6 for SARU). Argie and NZ will still get a fee for the 1 and 5 teams respectively but, I would suggest those payments, will be pro-rated in accordance with the total reduction, suffered by Sanzaar.
sheek
Roar Guru
Machooka, Wallabies were already involved in annual tests with ABs prior to 1996 & the Boks, recently returned to international rugby, had already received & toured both Australia & NZ. Indeed, with the single exception of 1981, the Wallabies have played the ABs annually as far back as 1979. All the Tri-Nations did, was formalise an annual comp with all three countries. There was nothing earth-shattering or millennium changing about this. Something like the RC was always going to happen eventually. Professionalism simply accelerated its introduction. As for super rugby, it had existed for a decade before professionalism arrived. But it was a different beast, being the best provinces from each country each year participating. Indeed, as far back as 1981, QRU secretary Terry Doyle had suggested a Trans-Tasman comp of Queensland, Sydney, Auckland, Canterbury, Wellington & Otago, since the two Aussie provinces were now playing regular annual matches against NZ provinces. It was the South Pacific Championship, or S6, that grew out of that suggestion, which in turn became S10, when South Africa rejoined the international community. Of course, in 1996 it became S12, but changed significantly from provinces to regions, except in Australia. Yes, ARU not bargaining from a position of strength & getting weaker. There comes a time when you have to cut your losses & start afresh.
Machooka
Roar Guru
Forgot to add (thanks sheek for reminding me) that the current RC would, under my new alternative plans for SR world, and it's future domination, now include the good ole US of A, Japan & Canada in this re-jigged format. Time now for an emerging new power base. Europe is sooo last century... yeah? Call it the 'Magnificent 7'... if you will. Sounds a lot better than the stock standard, albeit present '6 Nations' from those North types!?! C'mon on Rupert.... this is doable, just costs you some hard earned, plus opens all sorts of doors for revenue in the 'Americas'. The other world. The plus known rugby universe :)
Machooka
Roar Guru
Haha sheek... of course 'international rugby' existed before S6, S10... and S to infinity! Wrong... Tri-nations (or now the present RC) only exists due to rugby turning professional and the start of the relationship between Rupert and the then created SANZAR. Now SANZAAR. And when Argies got involved it was also due to the promise of SR team. Now whether the RC needs SR to exist into future or not is a moot point, and one that comes with the benefit of hindsight. And further it's somewhat stating the bleeding obvious that SR only exists 'as long as the member partners are willing... '. Similarly, I am also tired of the ARU 'cow-tailing' to NZ & SA... but we're not in a position of real strength are we!?! 'Time to go.'? I hope the penny spent was worth it :)
Rob9
Roar Guru
'Hemispheric Rule??' You do know where Japan is, right? In any event, this idea of rugby growth coming from one of two global power sources is ridiculous. What's wrong with the USA and Canada sorting out the USA and Canada? That's where all of their growth has come from to date and despite what the 6 Nations (Pro12 or otherwise domestically) or SANZAAR might want to achieve, internal and organic growth is what's going to continue to drive these nations forward.
sheek
Roar Guru
Not entirely right Machooka. International rugby existed before S6, S10, S12, S14, S15, S18, S180, whatever. Tri-Nations was introduced at same time as S12 in 1996. Argentina's entry into RC preceeded Jaguares into super rugby, when in fact it should have been the other way around. The RC doesn't need super rugby to exist in its current format, of if you wanted to stretch the argument to its conclusion, the RC doesn't need super rugby at all, to survive. Super rugby only exists as long as the member partners are willing to be part of the set-up. Once it ceases serving the interests of any member, if they've got any sense, they will either change the format, or withdraw. Frankly, I'm fed up with the ARU cow-tailing to NZ & SA. Super rugby right now is not serving Australian rugby's interests. Time to go.
Machooka
Roar Guru
sheek the AFL, NRL & A-League are national competitions... period. SR is an international comp. and whether right or wrong the ARU is part of that now. And further the RC was created on the back of SR or otherwise it wouldn't exist. The ARU now have a national competition... it's called the NRC. I agree with you on the travel issues... any competition like the SR must be pretty much longitudinal, not lateral :)
A joke
Guest
As an AFL man I just see a lot of flaws in Union and its organisation. It is too worried about test rugby. In our footy we got rid of rep games such as state footy because we are too worried about the week in week out stuff of out clubs. It is obvious you are on the wrong path to everyone but yourselves. Build a national union competition, only in Australia. We don't give a stuff about Kwa Zulu natal and Otago. We care about Australia. Time to kick SA and NZ into touch, then buy their best players into our league.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
The one party that has only been mentioned briefly is the broadcaster. They paid SANZAAR "x" dollars for "y" games per season. Talk is one Australian side will go and contrary to Alex, there have been reports two SA sides will go not 1. If these sides go, obviously the number of games has to reduce so funding would be reduced. But who cops the cuts? All the unions or only those affected by losing teams. Fox would be quite within their rights to reduce broadcast funding if the team numbers diminish. It wouldn't surprise if the existing teams were kept at 18 and their be three 6 team conferences until the next broadcast rights deal is done. As a Tah's supporter I am against any Australian team copping it.. The sad thing is we are hearing absolutely nothing from our administration.