There appear to be two contrasting forces at play when looking at SANZAAR’s second-tier landscape.
Firstly, there’s the requirement for pooling resources to get within a ball park or two of the big money being thrown at our playing talent from the Northern Hemisphere.
Then there’s the requirement to manage the health of our own backyard to ensure the game survives and hopefully grows.
Rugby Australia has dropped the ball in this second regard.
It’s clear the game has actually retreated in almost every measurable facet in Australia as the national governing body has been fixated on the initial focus while neglecting the product at home.
This has certainly been reflected at each juncture involving the SANZAAR partners negotiating the next Super incarnation and whispers of more change grow louder as we approach the next fork in the road in 2021.
I’ve always advocated for the ARU (now RA) to move us to a model that’s more domestically focused, whatever that might look like.
The problem is, that initial driving force and acceptance of being ‘stronger as one’ to ward off northern raids of our best playing talent is a powerful driver.
It’s led to us caving in to the external prerequisites that our partners come to the table with, while leaving us with a compromised model that has the game here stuck in reverse.
Reports suggest RA’s ideal model has been to break away with New Zealand for our primary ‘domestic season’, leaving the door open to link up with the other parties for a ‘Champions League’ style tournament in a small window later in the season.
This best represents Australian interests but it’s never got off the ground due to the competing drivers of the other partners. For example, the NZRU’s desire for regular game time in the Republic for their players.
This being the case, a time has to come for the national governing body to be brave and take a leap of faith.
Yes, RA must respect the need to tap into revenue that’s generated from beyond our own shores, but with the game’s current trajectory we risk a scenario where we won’t be producing quality players that need protecting from European clubs.
So the question becomes, where can a new external source of revenue come from to soften the blow of cutting the SARU and NZRU cord?
I believe the answer to this question requires us shifting our focus from the old power to the new. Namely the US and Japan.
Australia’s best players would shine in a Pacific Champions League. (Photo by Speed Media/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
But first, this is what our domestic landscape should look like. In short, ten teams effectively covering the game’s heartlands and those significant population bases that command a team.
The ten teams I’d include are Brisbane North (Ballymore), Brisbane South (TBA), Gold Coast (Cbus Super Stadium/TBA), North Shore (Brookvale), Sydney (Allianz Stadium/TBA), Western Sydney (Western Sydney Stadium), Newcastle (McDonald Jones Stadium/TBA), Canberra (GIO Stadium), Melbourne (AAMI Park), Perth (NIB Stadium).
A home-and-away season lasting 18 weeks before two weeks of finals to arrive at our premiers.
Things like mascots, stadiums and even alternate season structures might be an article for another day.
The elephant that sits squarely in the middle of the room whenever an idea for a national competition is broached is how to ensure four Super Rugby squads worth of players moving to England, France and Japan isn’t what follows.
Initially, a salary cap of around $3 million across a competition of 10 teams is achievable given the greater depths such a concept goes in covering our heartlands compared to the status quo of four city teams.
This cap is a good chunk less than what our Super teams are currently forking out for playing talent and unfortunately an influx of players moving overseas is unavoidable.
But with contract top-ups for the top 40 or so players in the country, RA can push this hit to only effect the middle tier of players and ensure the impact to the national team is minimal while an entertaining national league product is still showcased.
On the point of playing resources, it’s also worth pointing out another positive side effect that a beefed-up domestic footprint can deliver.
As well as creating a platform that’s more visible, easier to follow and takes the elite rugby product to the doorstep of more fans, it will establish a pathway that will surely keep and turn many more exciting rugby prospects towards our code.
Having only four potential homes to ply a trade locally compared to the 15 that exist in the NRL means a significant amount of footballing talent moves away from or fails to explore our pathway. An extra six professional teams will help shift this dynamic.
The next aspect of this proposal involves RA plugging into a new source of off-shore revenue to supplement pulling out of Super Rugby.
The national governing body should pursue relationships with Japan’s well established Top League and the emerging Major League Rugby in the US.
This new partnership would involve the creation of the Pacific Champions League, including the 10 new franchises making up our national league, plus the best six from the Top League’s 16 teams and the best four from MLR’s nine (soon to be 12) clubs.
These 20 teams would be distributed across a tournament that follows the current structure of the Rugby World Cup – four pools of five teams playing into quarter-finals and so on.
The Pacific Champions League would be played in an eight-week window, preferably following our domestic Test season and before the Northern Hemisphere internationals.
The end results include a significantly larger professional rugby footprint to engage more of our rugby public and potentially convert many more of the masses that have been forgotten by the hard-to-engage-with Super Rugby model.
Free of the obligation to compromise our unique and independent interests with our SANZAAR partners, we’ll have a concept tailored to our needs only to ensure local fans keep tuning in while having the real opportunity to bring in many more that we so desperately need.
If a domestic league covering more local bases, involving only our teams playing within Australian friendly time zones can be a success, over time our own market has the capacity and potential to cover the shortfall created by withdrawing from Super Rugby.
That said, the lucrative US and Japanese markets certainly create the buffer required to take the initial plunge while possessing the potential to be even more financially beneficial than our current alignments.
So, I plead with you Raelene as you no doubt keep a keen eye on the fan columns of The Roar, if we can’t get a deal from our current partners that provides us with a real opportunity to turn around the game’s fortunes, be brave.
Cut the ties that so desperately need cutting. Explore all options out there that can go some ways towards making up the difference.
Yes, there may be some suffering in the short term but it will be worth it.
At the end of the day we simply cannot afford to attach ourselves to another Super Rugby ‘rebirth’ that’s not too dissimilar to the status quo.
Matt
Guest
Call it controversial, but I think RA should be considering a radically different option. I believe Australia's competitive advantage is athletic talent and lifestyle. I also believe that Rugby Australia is weak on coaching talent and can not afford to compete with European clubs for high end salaries. Therefore I'd proposed they should let all Australian players around the world be eligible for the Wallabies. The immediate effects of this would be a migration of the the top talent to overseas clubs. However, there are four things to also consider: 1. World Rugby's eligibility rules are soon to move to 5 years of residency. So there is now a much longer wait time for National Unions to convert foreign talent into 'locals'. This makes 'project players' a much higher risk. 2. The LNR are implementing much stricter guidelines on the number of 'non-french' players allowed in a match-day squad. This will become more strict over time also, meaning there are many less spaces available for foreign players. 3. The European club leagues are all trying to pull up the drawbridge on promotion/relegation or expansion. This is to shore up the finances of the club game. This reduces the number of teams wanting to (and who can afford to) sign star players. 4. Regulation 9. Clubs are required by World Rugby to release players, which if enforced by the national union, means that players will be absent for at least 13-14 weeks of the year, making them less attractive. Under this scenario Rugby Australia allows the foreign clubs to pay the majority of the Wallabies wages and to provide better coaching and domestic environments for the players. The positive is the significant reduction for the most significant cost to RA (player wages) and a harder finishing school to prepare Wallabies for test match rugby. In addition Rugby Australia should then renegotiate with the Rugby Players association such that a significantly smaller proportion of match-day revenue is given to the remaining players and a higher proportion is kept by RA for grassroots development. As the best players will be gone the remaining players will have less leverage. The Wallabies will continue to receive the prestige (and match fees) of international rugby. But importantly Rugby Australia can instead focus spending on the grassroots game and on emerging talent. They can create a local domestic competition devoid of the best 20 or so star players, but with a heavy focus on a lowered player workload, more local derbies, more suburban grounds and more youth. This refocusses Rugby Australian money towards the base and middle of the pyramid. It also allow Australia to then identify, select and capture the nationality of rising domestic talent so that they'll be eligible for the Wallabies even if they head offshore for an over inflated pay cheque. Rugby Australia will still expect to receive the TV money for Wallabies tours and the Rugby Championship. They'll also expect less TV money for the domestic competition (compared to Super Rugby) but will have lower relative costs to operate this competition.
In brief
Guest
That's funny I thought I saw 17000 at Brookvale a couple of weeks ago?
Rob9
Roar Guru
I think we’re effectively gunning for the same thing here Ray. Just to be clear, I’m not exactly suggesting Australia make a straight swap of NZ and SA for the US and Japan (misleading headline that wasn’t my choice). Far from it. I’ve suggested an Australian based league very similar to yours to take the place of the primary focus of our domestic season. Then (assuming the NZ and SA horses have bolted which would be my best guess given we would have pulled out of Super Rugby) we link up for only a small window with Japan and the US in an attempt to go some ways towards supplementing the financial gain we took from our involvement in SR. This would by no means look like what SR currently does and would simply be an 8 week add on to the season. It’s only at this stage that games would be played OS and a few outside friendly time zones.
Rob9
Roar Guru
Karl, you’ve asked a question I’ve given an answer to. I was very careful to put ‘one of’ in there for folk like yourself who know better. Of course this is something that’s completely subjective and really beside the point, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that Sydney at least represents one of a few rugby Mecca’s. The first fact there (home to the largest rugby competition in the world) would suggest the shock and horror you’ve expressed at ‘Sydney’ and ‘significant rugby city’ being in the same sentence is slightly OTT.
AndyS
Guest
My point though is that they are like someone who dreams of winning lotto but never buys a ticket. They say they would like to be more domestically oriented, but seem content to allow the NRC to just drift along with no plan or ambition. If something changed and they actually found themselves having to use it as the basis for something new, it simply wouldn't have enough credibility from which to negotiate or sell.
Karl C
Guest
Under what forlorn and desperate hope and consideration do you class Sydney as possibly the most significant rugby city in the world? It definitely isn’t anything to do with the infrastructure, fans, quality or history and tradition of rugby. Or is it merely because a lot of people living there? I dare say there would be small towns all over NZ, SA and Wales, Scotland and Other parts of the UK that have a deeper and stronger sense of rugby tradition and history.
Ray L
Roar Rookie
I respect your suggestion Rob, but for my part, I can't stomach any competition that is outside of time friendly zones or between out of season hemispheres and that includes Super Rugby. For this reason I'm sceptical of whether a competition including Japan and the US would be workable. Travel costs alone, not to mention the toll on player welfare with the amount of travel across multiple time zones, would be unsustainable. I'm more interested going to local club games. Sooner or later, we have to bite the bullet and upgrade the NRC to a fully professional season long competition. If soccer can do it with the A-League, even with its problems, then why can't rugby? It's not going to be a money spinner in the initial stages, but it's got to start somewhere. It could run in tandem with the respective State Premier Rugby competitions and will require NSW and Qld in particular to put aside their prejudices and embrace the concept. I can't see a National District club competition being feasible as a long term strategy played over a full season, because who gets in and who misses out? Best to leave it as it is as a local third tier competition, which will still attract a lot of support, as clearly demonstrated in recent times. This would be the end of Super Rugby as we know it. NZ is not interested in a Trans-Tasman competition, without SA's involvement. If Australia goes it alone, which IMO would be in our best interests, then NZ, SA and Argentina could continue to compete in a watered down Super Rugby competition if they saw fit, but more likely they would instead focus on upgrading their own domestic provincial competitions like Australia. It would encourage greater local provincial support. That still leaves the door open for an end of season Champions League for the four Southern Hemisphere nations as suggested by Sheek and others. Much less travel and expense as well as enhanced player welfare, which is something that is frequently overlooked. Please forget about trying to merge an incompatible competition between out of season Northern and Southern Hemisphere provinces. As for the makeup of an upgraded NRC, I would change the current team structures in NSW and Qld and discontinue the "Country" branding. It's pretty meaningless anyway as they are almost exclusively made up of players from the respective Premier Rugby clubs in Sydney and Brisbane. Aside from some specific regional teams, none of the other codes have "Country" teams in their premier competitions. I would start initially with an 8 team structure, but have 3 teams in Sydney, based on the Northern, Southern and Western regions, 2 teams in Brisbane based on the North and South and Canberra, Melbourne and Perth. The Sydney and Brisbane Premier Rugby clubs would act as feeders to their respective regional teams and it should be strictly enforced. This would create a greater tribal following in each region. As the competition matures, further teams could be added, such as Adelaide and major regional cities in NSW and Qld.
Rob9
Roar Guru
Not perhaps, Andy. The Trans Tasman model is what we pushed for with NZ at the last negotiations. Pulver said as much and I 110% agree with you, him and anyone else that believes it is the best scenario for Australian rugby. Unfortunately though, it’s not on the table and I guess (and as you point out) it would only ever be entertained if the SARU pulled out of Super Rugby. Given the current climate, this obviously isn’t beyond the realms of possibility but I think RA would be I’ll-advised to sit on their hands waiting for what could happen. As such, what I’ve proposed here is the best I can come up with for putting Australian rugby on a positive trajectory again. If Tew started flirting a bit though, my preference would change immediately.
Rob9
Roar Guru
Not sure where you’re going with this TNVFS? Is it just a general comment? I’m not sure I’ve made such a comparison between the two? But then again, I’m not sure many would refer to me as a ‘smart rugby person’ so am guessing this goes in the sweeping statement category... On the topic though, I’d certainly put Japan ahead of the US in rugby hierarchy in basically all measureable forms (on field, infrastructure, visibility, popularity etc). The US is certainly catching up speed though and I think both are worth RA’s attention.
Rob9
Roar Guru
Most of my explanation for this is in the article. The external revenue source supplementing Super Rugby withdrawal, engaging the US, Japan etc. Of course none of this is a proven formula and a guaranteed ‘fix’. Just an idea like Super 12 was all those years ago. I also acknowledge the initial difficulties in holding onto those ‘mid tier’ players, being those outside regular Wallaby contention but still established names. But where I think a concept like this can really be a success and uncover a greater source of revenue that isn’t currently being tapped into is by providing better coverage of our local market. Particularly within the heartlands currently represented by the Reds and especially the Waratahs. Take a look at Sydney for a minute; it hosts one of the most well participated in competitions anywhere in the world. With a population approaching 6 million, the city is home to more people than 4 of the 10 nations that play in the 6 Nations and Rugby Championship. This population represents almost a quarter of the nation and almost half the population that lives in our rugby states. Yet there is just one lonely professional team that is responsible for representing one of (if not THE) most significant rugby cities in the world. That’s even before uttering a word about the vast expanses of the Sydney basin and the increasingly difficult job people have commuting within it. Do you think the Waratahs could do an adequate job of representing such a region? Shute Shield Grand Finals and some of the larger derby games suggest that the Waratahs penetration of the Sydney landscape these days is really quite shallow. I think more professional teams here will do wonders for taking this tier of the game to more fans and uncovering more again.
AndyS
Guest
Perhaps, but that is not within RA control and could change. What they should be doing is everything that is within their control, so that if circumstances change they would be in a position to act. There is zero evidence of that however, so I am sceptical they have any real intentions to that end. As it stands, might be even worse if SA bit the bullet and a trans-Tasman was foist upon them. They could pretty confidently plan on failure, having failed to plan or create any sort of contingency. They are pretty much pot committed with SR, and there is no evidence they have any intention to do anything but cross fingers.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
I am a bit surprised that so many smart rugby people believe that Japan and the USA are at the same level. Japan is seriously knocking on the door be the next Tier One nation, they have earned their bones both on and off the field for a long time (and they harbor one the best domestic leagues in the world and will host the Cup in a couple of months). What on earth has the USA done that is even remotely close to Japan (since winning gold in the 1924 Summer Olympics)?
Ralph
Roar Guru
For the salaries.
Rob9
Roar Guru
The money for the concept in general?
Ralph
Roar Guru
That's true to some extent, but part of why ITM works so well is that it is a financial stepping stone for players. A bit like College football in the USA, which I understand is also great to watch and has a good following. I don't quite see how the money works. Wouldn't you just end up as a feeder to off shore careers?
Rob9
Roar Guru
Ralph, I’d argue ITM Cup provides consumers with a more engaging product than Super Rugby yet it’s filled with part timers and no All Blacks. NRC can be a bit more hit and miss but it’s still an entertaining product that’s worth a watch too.
Ralph
Roar Guru
If the quality of play is lower, how do you define this 'more engaging product'? I gave up watching league because the quality of play was so poor. Slow, repetitive, one dimensional. It's only worth a watch at its very highest level.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
The breakaway isn't possible purely because the NZRU are resistant to the concept despite games featuring both Aus and NZ teams rate higher than SA games in both countries.
Rudi
Guest
Brilliant concept, I am all for it.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Pretty much. Having a two phased set up one with an more international flavour and the other with a more domestic orientation allows for a happy medium in the short term. And potentially could prove as a solid test case for the long term. As I said above. They Aus derby games rate much higher than any other in Aus. The Rebels/Brumbies got 95K and the Tahs/Reds 128k this past weekend. Beating the A-League, NBL and AFL JLT Series. If such a set up the one I suggest was implemented and those ratings maintained if not improved upon over the period before any future TV deal it could provide the perfect test case for a more domestically orientated competiton.