Is Rugby Union in trouble? It’s a topic that has come up more than once on The Roar this year. Today Geoff Levy and David Shein have launched a #SaveRugbyUnion campaign calling for change.
Levy and Shein say that SANZAAR’s strategy of managing the game is not working, and argue that club competition should be reorganised into a conference-based world championship featuring privately owned franchises.
Chief concerns are the continued departure of players to the northern hemisphere in search of greater remuneration, and the damage that seeking to increase TV revenue has done to the equity of competitions.
The state of the rule book, and whether it is simple and easy enough for fans and referees to understand and enjoy the game, is also at issue.
Levy and Shein have launched a survey where Rugby fans are invited to voice their concers about the game.
Have a read of their full statement below, and let us know what you think in the comments.
Rugby requires change. Below international level, the rot has set in. Audiences are dwindling. The rule book is incomprehensible. Australian rugby is imploding. Pacific Island’s rugby is languishing. Great players leave for the Northern Hemisphere – the only place they can be paid their worth.
Rugby requires change if it is to remain relevant to the fans. It requires change to rebuild the excitement we all feel for the game at its best. Above all, it requires change before the interest in the game we love evaporates completely.
Fundamentally, rugby requires a new competition structure where teams play in conferences in the same time zone – regardless of Hemisphere.
As players, interested parties and officials we know this is a radical shift for international and club rugby.
But, SANZAAR’s strategy is not working.
We are calling for a global competition of privately owned franchises divided into three or four conferences. Critically, the teams in each conference would play in the same time zones, irrespective of Hemisphere.
Each conference has 10 teams playing each other home and away each season. The top four in each conference play off in their conference finals. The winner of each conference (and a wild card if there are only three conferences) play off for the World Championship.
In other words, a simple-to-understand competition where every year each franchise team has an equal chance of becoming World Champion. We are sure fans will want to follow their team as they pursue the mantle of the world’s best. Compare this with the competition today, a competition literally cobbled together and one which is all over the place.
A quality competition with strong fan equity has been sacrificed to TV revenues and the need to deliver a high volume of games for broadcasters no matter how poor or irrelevant the competition, or how inconvenient the time zone for players and fans alike.
It’s time for a competition structure similar to that envisaged some 25 years ago. In 1995, the World Rugby Corporation (WRC), a consortium of international business people with rugby in their hearts, sought to transform the game by taking it professional and establishing a global competition structure.
Much of what was proposed then is relevant today, including the new competition format and some other principles. These include:
1. Rules that are simple and easy to understand for everybody, referees included
2. A consistent, global quality standard of refereeing and a logical referee appointment process befitting a global competition
3. A positive, fresh, dynamic culture and approach
4. Use of event experts to help rather than only relying on traditional rugby people
5. A differentiated and vastly better experience at the game – a vibrant competition needs full grounds. Fan equity is everything
6. Pricing competitive to other entertainment options
7. Superstars not lost to home fans but available to play for their country no matter where in the world they ply their trade
The WRC sought to transform the game. Along with creating a new era of professionalism, the WRC vision also incorporated protecting Southern Hemisphere rugby as a major international football code and stimulating the longterm development of the game on the world stage.
At the time the Rugby Unions labelled the WRC the enemy of the orthodoxy of the game. Yet its founders are widely acknowledged as the catalyst for necessary, well overdue and revolutionary changes. It was time for the game to pivot before it was disrupted.
AND it is time again to #SaveRugbyUnion.
Tinkering around the edges won’t cut it. Without fans the game cannot remain meaningful or relevant.
So now, twenty years later, if rugby is going to get it right, it is time for SANZAAR (which was born as a result of the changes forced by the WRC) to revisit the principles and competition structure that the WRC proposed. What was true then is still highly relevant today and as new, bold people take over, hopefully things can be viewed with an open mind.
But change can only be driven by the fans, players past and present, and officials.
That is why today we are calling on them to have their say. Today, we have launched a new conversation to help stimulate discussion and debate around the changes required. Those who want to have their say can take our poll on our Facebook Page.
Cuw
Guest
i wonder if ur aware that an auzzy guy proposed an "80 80" tournament? where all players had to be either 80kg or lower. it never saw light of day.....
bert
Guest
A simplification of the laws of rugby equates to a simplification of the game. If you want to watch a simple game, watch tennis or basketball, or even AFL. If other nations are intelligent enough to follow and support the game, surely it is not beyond the grasp of the inhabitants of the "Clever Country"
Unanimous
Guest
Not sure I agree with all of the details, but some form of coordination between competitions world wide - even if it's just a world wide salary cap, better synchronization of seasons, and/or a global champions cup - can benefit the sport. It doesn't necessarily need a complete restructuring of ownership and administration, and different models are probably appropriate for different environments - e.g. private ownership can provide capital where governments don't provide stadiums, but community ownership seems better where they do. Something that ensures globally competitive teams can exist anywhere a market exists, and not just in the same country as 11 or more other globally competitive teams, will be helpful in growing the sport.
mtiger
Guest
"2. Everyman class. Average playing height of team of 175cm applies. Some type of muscle mass ruling applies also. Benefit of this. Enables game to expand to Asia. Other pros below." Yes, which does not have to be full on PRO mental model since 16. It can be a short time respite for 2 full years.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
I'm aware of the recent player load complaints. That's the beauty of such a model. The 20 weeks was just a suggestion. It could easily be tweaked to fit in with what the respective want. be it 20, 18 or 16 weeks.
bert
Guest
"But change can only be driven by fans, players past and present, and officials." If that were true, the ARU board would be long gone
DavSA
Guest
Yup, good post ........and exchange rates .Maybe a better solution for world rugby may be ...pay in bitcoin.
Anthony
Roar Pro
Nice framework and breakdown. I would follow what you said, but have 10 home and away games within your division only. Each team awarded Divisions Premiers Title. A Champions Cup then held amongst 6 Division Premiers. Come up with a fair quirky finals structure like SR, and boom. Rugby Premiers Club Champion. You do this for 13 weeks for Super Rugby Class. Repeat again for the Everyman Class (I'll get to this shortly). Adds far more excitement. TWO champions. TWO finals series. More is more. People also see Rugby is for the Everyman, not just giants. But each team has a size class like boxing; 1. Super Rugby class. As per normal. No restrictions. 2. Everyman class. Average playing height of team of 175cm applies. Some type of muscle mass ruling applies also. Benefit of this. Enables game to expand to Asia. Other pros below. Why create a two classes? Well, Players are getting massive. And I mean massive. Both height and muscle mass. People look at the game and don't want their kids playing against giants. Personally I hate watching Rugby when players get too big. They don't represent me. Dial it back a notch. Think Wallabies 1991, or Grand Slam, and just a little bit smaller than that, not much just a little. That is the everyman class. Even though we might never make it, at least we are can believe we could if we really wanted to.
Anthony
Roar Pro
Here Here! How about fans ownership of clubs.
mothy
Guest
Thumbs up working class! Not sure if it would work or not, but it doesn't hurt to put things up and discuss it. From it only good discussion can happen even out of the box ideas! Constructiveness in ideas is awesome!
Cuw
Guest
i wonder if ur aware that very prominent players in AVIVA have stated they may have to resort to strike action , if the tournament is expanded? in fact Billy Vunipolla went on record that he is willing to take a paycut to play less and prolong his career. not sure how players in SH feel , given their meager earning ....
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Funnily enough this could actually be done relatively easily by essentially combining Super Rugby and the Pro 14. Plus a few additions. Not saying that it should but it's not as unworkable as many would assume. There's a lot of speculation bouncing about regarding where the Pro 14 will look to expand next from the USA, Canada, Germany, Spain and Georgia all being mentioned in the last year or two. There's also been a lot of rumour about other SA franchises looking to follow the Cheetahs and Kings going north. So there could be an opportunity on the horizon. Not definite not possible. Here's how it could be done. Combine both competitions bringing the total number of teams to 29. Bring the Force back to bring it to 30. From there another 6 franchises would need to be found. But before we look at how it would be structured. With the Force back we would again have 5 teams. Add in the Drua as a fully fledged franchise we would have one of the 6 x 6 team conferences. NZ with its five plus the Sunwolves would have another. The 6 SA franchises another while the other 12 Pro 14 teams would be split into two more 6 team conferences. The sixth conference would be Americas based. With the Jaguares joined by another Argentine or Sth American franchise. The Pro 14 has been looking at Nth America for a couple of years now. This structure would look to do similar by adding two team from both Canada and the USA. One East and West in both nations. To bring that conference to 6. For a total of 36 teams. From there the competition would be divided into two 18 team conferences. East/West, Atlantic/Pacifc whatever you want to call them. Each with three conferences each. Each teams plays their in conference opponents twice home and away for 10 games plus each team from the two corresponding conferences within their division for a total of 20 games. Now from our perspective this would deliver 17 games of the prospective 20 in beneficial time zones for each team. Not perfect but no solution ever is. Each division would have its own unified table with the top 8 from both progressing to the divisional finals. Basic three week 7 game finals series to determine the respective Divisional Champions. Once they are determined. Both Divisional Champions would face off in the overall Championship Final. Set a fortnight after the Divisional finals. The game would be hosted by the team from the division set to host the final which would rotate on a year by year basis. This competition would 360 regular season games plus a 15 game finals series including the overall Championship game. Which would bring it to 375 games. Just some thoughts on the matter.
Cuw
Guest
" Chief concerns are the continued departure of players to the northern hemisphere in search of greater remuneration, and the damage that seeking to increase TV revenue has done to the equity of competitions." unless there is parity in pay , people will migrate. one reason for the higher pay in NH is not just rich owners but also the numbers who watch the game. that is where TV deals come in. even if a rich owner comes and buys up the SH clubs , he cant be pumping money like a bottomless pit ; income generation avenues are necessary on a recurring basis. even for a billionaire , there is always thus far - no further AND " not throwing good money after bad ". i find it surprising that there seems to be no understanding of simple economic factors time and again with these proposals or have all the economists also gone to NH ??
DavSA
Guest
With this proposal who exactly do they intend to save rugby for ? NZ will never accept private ownership . SA will never allow the current political hold that government has over the provinces to be relinguished to private capital. Can these private owners sell/transfer any player they so choose. Nope this must have been constructed over way too many double scotches.
Perthstayer
Roar Rookie
Cobblers. Start to finish. This article must be a prank.
Tim Rogers
Roar Rookie
Great news for Jono, I hope he does well and wish him the best. To add to this I was wondering what people thought if the IPRC did get up as a quality competition, Now there is a lot of water to go under the bridge and years of development ahead for rugby. My question is as a Force fan who lives in hope! – if the IPRC was to succeed over time. Could it be possible like I heard Rod kaffer say be a second level club comp to Super rugby with a relegation and promotion component something like happens in the EPL? Therefore working on a formula of bottom teams being relegated to the IPRC and the top teams being promoted to the super rugby comp. It would create more interest and be incentive for all teams to fight for their position on the ladder both at the top and bottom. It would probably see lots of player movement and create incentives in the IPRC for clubs to invest in players who could get them into the promotion zone. The whole thing would be more cut throat as teams fight for survival. 15 is a good number in this scenario the only down side is finance. As i’m not sure how it would work with a conference system. Unless you play each other once and your conference teams twice. Look – I know this could be pie in the sky stuff but if it worked I think it would add a lot of interest to spectators and broadcasters with so much at stake. New broad cast deals are required in 2020 would that be a game changer for sponsors, broadcasters and alternative broadcasting avenues like streaming? It still offers exposure to rugby talent that may not be seen with no opportunities in SR. So the argument of diluting the product is less of an argument yet still offers players within it a taste of professionalism. Any thoughts ? Especially positive ones would be nice ?
kkovak
Guest
Have to keep the money rolling in to pay for the chardonnay swilling feminists on the ARU Board .As you say who really cares
Mark
Guest
Whose winter? Our winter is no problem for us. Their winter means playing our summer in over 30 degrees.
Ballymore Brumby
Roar Pro
I don't get the constant outcry for rule change and the always ambiguous 'simplification' of the game. Or that rugby as it is now is somehow 'difficult for the fans to understand' and needs to change. There is some nice sentiment in those outcomes, but its short on any actual deliverable.
AndyS
Guest
They should give it up. That was where SR was heading, but they failed to take the supporters with them and particularly in the switch to conferences. The structure is heading the other way now.