Late last year I wrote a story about how, in light of a more hopeful future for Australian rugby, the media should concentrate more on the game and less on the corporate machinations behind it.
This was because the corporate stuff is boring, negative and risks undermining our game. A lot of sports opinion writers, journalists and supporters commenting online clearly drew the same conclusion, because the writing that I have seen at the beginning of this season both here on The Roar and elsewhere has been excellent. It has been the sort of positive and fun, but not sycophantic, news and analysis that sports writing should be about.
However, I am going to break my own rule about commenting on corporate matters in this instance, but ultimately to reinforce the point. This is because – as has become predictable at the beginning of the Super Rugby season – a stakeholder who isn’t getting what they want has thrown a public bomb to try to hold Rugby Australia to ransom by derailing the positive experience for supporters.
This season it is the turn of Foxtel to be the February rugby Grinch. They are not happy with Rugby Australia CEO Raelene Castle driving a harder bargain for a new media rights deal than they are used to.
(AAP Image/Daniel Munoz)
Foxtel has just announced through its associated News Corp Australia media outlets that it is withdrawing from contract negotiations with Rugby Australia, ending a 25-year commercial relationship for media rights with the code.
I predict that this announcement will be accompanied by a barrage of self-serving vitriol through spear-throwers in News Corp publications, about how Castle and her associates will be the death of rugby in Australia and must go.
I also reckon Foxtel is bluffing, hoping to get Rugby Australia and its member unions to dump Castle and cave to Foxtel’s demands. Rupert Murdoch didn’t make his fortune by paying more than he had to for things.
Castle and the rest of the Rugby Australia board are quite right to test the market for better offers, because the worst they are likely to get is the same offer as they would have from Foxtel in the first place. This means that, despite the panic that Foxtel will attempt to spread, Rugby Australia does not appear to face a significant downside risk from Castle’s approach.
In looking for a better deal, I hope that Rugby Australia does not just chase the most money and instead looks for a balance between the necessary revenue and other benefits. Substantial free-to-air coverage to grow our game should be right at the top of the list. Foxtel’s exit from negotiations surely represents a massive opportunity to secure this holy grail of Australian rugby.
I also hope Rugby Australia looks at a way to bring the Western Force back into the Super Rugby fold, now that the Sunwolves have left the tournament. I do not doubt that chairman Cameron Clyne sincerely thought that he was doing the right thing when he led the decision to remove the Force from Rugby Australia, but I would hope that in his last few months he can see that the West Australians have done a wonderful job in supporting and building their Global Rapid Rugby tournament.
As the football code where Australia gets the most international exposure, rugby should as far as possible represent the whole of Australia and I hope from 2021 it does so again.
So the best thing that fans and the non-News Corp media can do during the likely onslaught of negativity from News Corp is to ignore it and continue to enjoy and support Aussie rugby. The more we do that, the more attractive a financial prospect the game will be to another potential media organisation and the better deal Rugby Australia is likely to get.
That would be the best outcome for our game and all of us.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Nah. The explosion of NH wages. Stuff like this is all Red Herrings. People complain about too many games in the middle of the night. Was just as much with 12 teams and less games in good time zones. From around 2015 NH wages really ballooned so now there are a lot of top players missing. That's what's killed it. 12 team single round robin was the best version because it had all the best players. Players rarely even retired OS then. Now they leave in their prime.
I believe the expansion of Super Rugby was its downfall. The twelve team single round robin was by far the best version of Super rugby
You need Supersport, we get to watch it all.
Malotru
Roar Rookie
No worries DJ, unlike a lot of others I'm excited and interested to see the young players emerging. I'm quite a fan of the ITM cup and the younger talent on display last year was good to see.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
No, just an impression, probably overstated - and I see some of the NZ teams are a few players short because some All Blacks aren’t playing early rounds.
Malotru
Roar Rookie
Any concrete stats on the player exodus DaveJ. 70-80% seems a tad fanciful.
Micko
Roar Rookie
This "international exposure" rubbish doesn't mean anything! It's the same appeal soccer fans make. Repeating it ad nauseum doesn't change anything!
The Recalcitrant
Guest
No complaints from me if Foxtel walks. I do not know a single person that has it. And if that is the deathknell of pro rugby union in Australia then so be it. The model is wrong in anycase. Time to come up with a sustainable model. Burying the game behind Rupert Murdoch tv's paywall is the very definition of insanity. So, with them out of the way lets see where the game can go. Foxtel were a really bad pimp for the game.
Grandslamfan
Roar Rookie
It sounds like Shane Mattiske is calling the shots on the broadcasting rights negotiation strategy at Rugby Australia? By all acounts he make some smart calls for the NRL back in 2012-13?
Peximus
Guest
A winning wallabies team will sort out sponsors, media coverage agreements and RA management! ATM, winning is nonexistent so all these unappealing administrative issues now become items of interest!
AndyS
Guest
To be honest, I thought they were mad to even think about a NSW team in the first place. It would seem sensible heads prevailed at least, and it wasn't even mooted for 2020. I believe NZ and even SA have some indirect involvement, but IMO a long arms length would be advisable for the foreseeable future. And nothing at all from the Australian rugby centres.
Zak
Roar Rookie
Well said Ray. I did read about the new format and I think it mentioned some teams may only have 3 home games? How is a franchise supposed to be financially self sufficient with only six home games? Absolutely ridiculous if that’s true. You suggested a conference system with each conference having a home and away series which is exactly what I want to see happen. Unfortunately, it seems that the Super Rugby powerbrokers seem to only interested in the pay TV rights and not what’s best for the teams
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Yeah all that cheap rugby from Korea and China disrupting the locally made stuff. That must be it. Brilliant point there Glor.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
AND a few earlier starts wouldn't hurt.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
That’s not blocking. That’s saying they won’t be putting a team forward for 2019 as it is too soon to get something established. Turns out they were right as even the competition couldn’t get itself organised to start by then either. They are interested in putting a team up once it’s up and running. But Forrest needs to actually get the competition up and running first.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Not actively doing anything isn’t blocking. There wasn’t a team basically ready to go that they tried to prevent from being involved. There was a concept of a team which they indicated they didn’t want any involvement with. Maybe if it got up they’d try and stop it. But there was no team
ForceFan
Roar Rookie
This looks like “blocking” to me……at least for the 2019 plans. “Forrest’s vision for an eight-team rebel competition with a $1 million prize purse was delivered a significant setback last month when Rugby Australia and their counterparts over the ditch indicated they would not support his plan to get a team each in western Sydney and New Zealand in time for the 2019 season kick-off in March.” https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/australia-new-zealand-say-not-now-to-world-series-rugby-20181011-p508zc.html This announcement from Hore came a month after: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/castle-gives-go-ahead-for-world-series-to-become-a-western-force-in-sydney-20180913-p503md.html It will be interesting to see what unfolds in 2021 and beyond.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You say the Pacific Islands being “abandoned” was disgraceful. But what if they were kept? A tournament with promotion and relegation in the professional era can have dire consequences for relegated teams. If the SRU had to contract a team of players, but were relegated, it could kill them having to fulfil those obligations with no income from Super Rugbt.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Why didn’t the broadcasters want it? I know it’s foolish saying they’d know what works given Foxtel losing money like it’s the GFC, but surely they have an idea. After all they want as many people watching it as possible.
sheek
Roar Guru
TWAS, IMHO the best SH model was abandoned back in 1995. Technically, the S10 was a Champions Cup comprising the best domestic teams each year from from Oz, NZ, SA the Pacific. Australia had only NSW & Qld, but had the option to be encouraged to develop more provinces. Argentina came later. But super rugby in 1996 ring fenced the lucky chosen 12, which eventually led to the detriment of the domestic comps especially in NZ & SA. The Pacific Islands were disgracefully abandoned altogether. Super rugby became top heavy, without a similar sustained growth path below it. Anyway, this is just a brief summary & not the full story as there are other factors involved. It would be great to wind the clock back to 1995, with domestic comps feeding into the Champions Cup, followed by the Rugby Championship (which of course came later). But I guess it's too late now. France, England Japan are the places to be if you want a serious career outside of test rugby.