SANZAAR has finally revealed the changes to the Super Rugby format to be introduced at the end of the 2017 season, re-jigging the much-maligned format and consigning one Australian and two South African teams to the scrapheap.
However, the announcement is likely to infuriate already-frustrated Australian rugby fans, with the sides which will make way at the end of the season still a mystery.
In a statement released on Sunday evening, Super Rugby’s governing body didn’t name the teams that won’t be suiting up in 2018, with that decision to be made by the ARU and SARU.
» Five talking points from Super Rugby Round 7
“This decision has not been an easy one and we recognise the difficulty associated with reducing the number of teams in Australia and South Africa,” said SANZAAR Chairman Brent Impey.
“Naturally we understand that there will be some very disappointed franchises but the tournament’s long-term future and the economic reality of the business at present is something that had to be addressed.
“The decision to retain the Sunwolves is linked directly to SANZAAR’s strategic plan for the future. The potential for growth of the sport in Asia off the back of the establishment of the Sunwolves and the impending RWC in 2019 is significant. It remains an obvious focus for the organisation and a Japanese Super Rugby franchise is key to that strategy.”
The ARU announced they will be holding a press conference at 9:30am (AEST) on Monday morning to “address the Super Rugby competition restructure announced by SANZAAR.”
With three teams now out of the picture, the controversial conference system has been changed, although not completely scrapped despite the criticism of many fans.
Instead of the two-group, four-conference format which was introduced at the start of 2016, next year will see the competition split into three groups.
Under the new system, the four South African teams will be in one conference alongside Argentina’s Jaguares, while the remaining Australian teams will couple up with the Sunwolves in another. New Zealand’s five sides make up the final conference.
Under the revised structure, each team will not play all 14 other sides, rather meeting 12 of the opposing franchises throughout the course of the season.
Much like in the current structure, each conference winner will advance to the finals at the end of the regular season from 2018 onwards, with the next five sides on the overall ladder making up the remainder of the teams in the finals.
SANZAAR CEO Andy Marinos said there were two key factors that influenced the decision to cut Super Rugby back down to the 15-team format.
“It became clear during our strategic assessment that there are two facets to the future of our tournaments,” Marinos said.
“The first is a requirement to react to existing market forces within the sporting business environment and to implement short-term change to Super Rugby. This is what we have done.
“The second is the longer term vision, through a strategic plan, to build the brand that in the future can maximise further development of the game, commercial revenues and the ongoing sustainability of the tournaments. This work is presently ongoing and details will be released in the coming months.”
While the ARU is likely to reveal the Australian team which will make way in 2018 on Monday morning, it is not yet known when their South African counterparts will do the same.
At any rate, it is likely to be a nervous night for Western Force players. Despite the side’s 46-41 victory over the Kings in Perth on Sunday afternoon, the franchise remains the most likely side to be axed in the new format.
In South Africa, the Cheetahs and Kings look to be the most likely teams to make way in 2018.
Revised Super Rugby format
The competition will be played between three conferences comprising the following teams.
New Zealand Conference
Blues, Chiefs, Crusaders, Highlanders, HurricanesAustralian Conference
Four Australian teams (TBC), SunwolvesSouth Africa Conference
Four South Africa teams (TBC), JaguaresTournament Details
-120 match regular season plus seven-match finals series
-15 teams
-Three conferences (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa)
-18 rounds (16 matches per team, two bye weeks)
-Each team will play eight matches within its conference (four home and four away)
-Each team will play eight cross-conference matches – against four of the five teams from each of the other two conferences (four at home and four away)
-Each team will play 12 of the other teams within the season (85% of opposition teams which is up from 70% in 2016).
-Eight team Finals Series: Three Conference winners and; five wild card places – the next best performing teams based on competition points after the Conference winners regardless of -Conference. Conference winners and fourth-placed team on competition points will host quarter-finals.
Jon
Guest
The SARU has more bargaining power than Australia or NZ. That's where the majority of the tv revenue comes from. NZ, while obviously the best rugby nation, with the best players and teams, is a tiny country. The All Blacks transcend that. Super Rugby doesn't.
Jon
Guest
"Apparently, SA and Australian networks were worried they might not get any finals games in their own time zone due to the strength of the kiwi franchises. So much for competition points integrity!" They're right. It's a catch 22. You make it just points based, and it might just become a finals series based in NZ. That's definitely reflective of the current quality of their teams. But people in Australia and South Africa won't tune in. The tv companies will lose money. They'll pay less money to SANZAR if that happens.
Jon
Guest
I agree with everything you said except the idea that this will be great for Australian rugby. I think it will have little effect on the sport's popularity. I don't think the remaining four teams will suddenly get competitive now that the Force is gone. The problems are systemic, and aren't caused by the Force's existence. There might be a small uptick in tv viewing figures - but probably not. This will kill the sport in Western Australia. I'm not saying this reformat of the comp shouldn't happen - just that anyone who expects this to save Australian rugby is naive.
Jon
Guest
It's not as though it's a sky is falling argument though. The negative attitude is based on reality. I agree that it's not the ARU's fault. The ARU are on a hiding to nothing. It doesn't matter who you put in charge of the ARU, they're just in a horrible position. The real problem is this : rugby union isn't very popular in Australia and it's getting less popular all the time.
davSA
Guest
They anyway wont need to make any statement . A simple phone call ie. You will not cut The Kings ..will be enough . Its how they work.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
I will always follow rugby, Jacko. But if the Brumbies were to be absorbed by the Force (and let's be honest, it would be an absorption rather than a merger), they would cease to be the Brumbies to me. If it is the choice between having the team be cut so that it can RIP and I can remember it proudly (and hopefully have it be resurrected one day) or a tokenistic, contrived and condescending absorption by the Rebels I would take the former over the latter. I'd still support and follow the rugby, but I would probably follow the Bulls or Hurricanes/Crusaders, or the Reds if I could bring myself to support an Aussie team other than the Brumbies.
Jacko
Guest
Rhys you seem to want to blame NZ for everything. Ive heard Aus said they cannot sustain constantly losing money and wanted to cut 1 team. Ive heard they got what they asked for. Not that I expect you to see anything but some NZ conspiracy.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
I didn't realise going bankrupt and then being bought means that it is the 'strongest financial of the 3 being considered for a cut'. Sounds like the Rebels are in a great financial position longterm, and don't need to rely on the subsidies of a private benefactor. Good to know that you're certain the Imperium group will always be in the financial position to pay for the Rebels, and will always be willing to pay for the Rebels too. Oh only if I had the ability to fortune tell as well.
Jacko
Guest
Haha Look at A league, NRL, AFL Netball They are all the same...More games that count
Jacko
Guest
Kiwi Rhys. No country got what it wanted. No fan is as bitter and twisted as you
Jacko
Guest
Are you referring to the same team that is now privately owned and is the strongest financial of the 3 being concidered for a cut? So why have the Brumbies lost 2.5 million in the past 2 seasons and are only afloat because they sold a parcel of land for millions. They have about a million left...so almost enough to last this seasson before asking for a handout
Jacko
Guest
Fionn you surprise me. You strike me as a bloke who loves his rugby and if that is true you would still follow it no matter what happens.
Jacko
Guest
Bakkies I livein Brisbane and know plenty of Lions supporters. They seem pretty damn happy to have a team and there is still at least 10 teams within an hours drive in Melbourne so are these disgruntled Fitzroy supporters not following the sport anymore? They dont seem to be missed based on the commercial reality of the AFL
Jacko
Guest
Spiro probably gets a fee. Not one person in the world would pay Boz a fee.
Bakkies
Guest
Spot on Fionn a lot of fans haven't gone to Brumbies games since the board dropped ACT from the name. I understand why they did it to be inclusive to the rest of the ACT region and catchment that they inherited from NSW. More clarity and better explanation then the marketing jumbo that was given might have calmed those people down.
Jacko
Guest
Fionn Rhys is nothing but anti NZ and will bring that in to any conversation he can. He is a bitter twisted ex Kiwi who still has a NZ passport yet hates anything Kiwi. I dont understand why but have asked him and he ignores the question, yet still continues the constant Vitriol against anything Kiwi. Any crap he gets he brings it on himself
AndyS
Guest
I think what he is saying is that it will be easier, as there will be one less choice for them. I grew up in Perth back in the day, hence my attachment. I can state with absolute certainty that not a single person in my school, or even my wider circle of family and social aquaintances, played rugby. I was vaguely aware that it must exist, simply because my father had played (I later found out, to quite a high level). And I have memories of watching the '84 tour, but only as an interesting thing, never as something I could involve myself with. It took living in Japan and Europe to ignite my interest in the sport, certainly not upbringing. I knew people who played lacrosse and even ice hockey, but not rugby. And with the support they get (and have always gotten) from the ARU, I suspect that or something fairly similar will be the case again.
Bakkies
Guest
No any ex Fitzroy supporters Jacko? They are in the same boat as North Sydney Bears supporters with no team in the top competition to support. Like death they would support nearby Collingwood, Carlton or North Melbourne. The Melbourne and Hawthorn merger talks were full of angst particularly from the Melbourne support as they would have been swallowed up eventually and the fact that Hawthorn were playing at Waverley at the time didn't help either. It was further from their home and their second favourite weekend getaway Mt Buller. I am too young to comment on the affect that the South Melbourne relocation had on their supporters.
Jacko
Guest
Yes playing every team once and actually earning a spot in the finals by how you go all season is SOOOOOOO UNFAIR
Bakkies
Guest
Jacko are you sure you are speaking about the same team that has had several changes of ownership in 6 years, had to cut a marquee player with a year left in his contract due to off field behaviour (Cipriani), their marketing is so atrocious that the public don't even know they have a team, signed Brian Waldron as CEO, had a divide between the young and senior players, the only Australian team not to have a major sponsor and have got the ARU millions despite their ownership model?