The current Australian rugby calendar is a mess. Rather than having a clear and logical structure, it’s a patchwork of competitions overlapping throughout the year and overwhelming all but the most committed fans.
Click here to read Part 1 of this series
Click here to read Part 2 of this series
Click here to read Part 3 of this series
My proposed alternative is built around four guiding principles:
1. Emphasise quality over quantity
2. Eliminate overlap between competitions
3. Build logically throughout the year, starting with club footy and culminating with the Wallabies
4. Accept the reality of northern hemisphere club competitions and work around them rather than competing with them
Summary
The primary change to the calendar is the increased emphasis on club rugby with Super Rugby being scrapped and replaced with a dramatically shortened provincial competition.
Club rugby
While transitioning to a national club competition makes sense over the medium term, the city-based club competitions (i.e. Shute Shield and Hospital Cup) have been going well in the past couple of years so there’s a risk in ripping them up. My proposed format would be a 13-week season running from the middle of March through until early June.
This would consist of 11 round-robin games followed by a four-team, two-week finals series. Ideally, you would also force alignment between the premier and sub-districts competitions in each city to enable promotion-relegation to first division subbies and then all the way down from there.
Shortening the season and introducing promotion and relegation would ensure that every game mattered and putting the finals in June, which is otherwise a relatively quiet part of the year for sport, would mean more attention.
The bigger change though would be playing club rugby in clear air and sending all 50 centrally contracted players to play for their clubs. This will both elevate the profile of the competitions and create a really interesting dynamic of amateurs turning up on a weekly basis to test themselves against the best. Sure, Samu Kerevi might tear up the Brisbane club competition on a weekly basis but that would still be pretty fun to watch.
(Photo by Lee Warren/Gallo Images/Getty Images)
It would also make the Wallabies the most accessible elite sportsmen in Australia. Rather than playing behind a wall of security guards on cavernous stadiums, there would now be 25 Wallabies running around each week on suburban grounds that have kids on the field at halftime. This would do wonders for the players’ profiles and fans’ feeling of connection with the professional game.
Provincial rugby
Unlike current model where Super Rugby is the core professional product, I would return provincial rugby to its representative roots with five teams representing the rugby playing states (NSW, Queensland, ACT, Victoria and Western Australia), and a Barbarians team made up of overseas-based players and any players left over from NSW and Queensland.
The tournament would run from mid-June to mid-July, which is important because it commences after the completion of the European club season and would enable foreign-based players to play. Each domestic team would host three games with the Barbarians effectively on the road for five weeks. As with the Six Nations, there would be no final — first past the post.
Unlike Super Rugby, this streamlined format would ensure a consistent viewing experience with three games each weekend (Friday night, Saturday afternoon, Saturday night), a really simple competition format and the guarantee of an Australian winner. The timing in the calendar and the presence of overseas-based players would also make it a de facto competition for Wallabies jerseys, which would provide additional interest.
This is similar to the 2020 model with a couple of key differences. It’s much more condensed, with 15 games in five weeks rather than 20 in ten. And there is no final — it’s first past the post.
The biggest difference is that these players won’t be contracted by provincial franchises. Instead, as with State of Origin, they would be representative teams, with players (and coaches) picked from their relevant competitions with the players reimbursed through match fees ($5000 per game would equate to $25,000 for a month’s work).
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
An alternative option would be to condense ACT, Victoria and WA into the one team and condense the tournament down from five weeks to three, which would improve the standard of play and reduce the competitive imbalance but this risks further alienating the already estranged WA rugby fans (and their wealthy patrons) so it is probably best to leave them in. If they get towelled up, so be it — that could form part of a transition to a national club competition.
International rugby
The mere existence of international rugby is our biggest competitive advantage relative to other Australian winter sports. Internationals should be rugby’s core product and the focus of the annual calendar.
This is the case in Europe with the Six Nations being the focal point of the calendar but not so in the southern hemisphere where the Rugby Championship has largely failed to engage fans.
My proposed international calendar would run for four months and have three elements:
• Incoming tour
• Lomu Cup
• End-of-season European tour
Incoming tour
This would be largely unchanged from the current model, which gives exposure to the northern hemisphere teams who we only play rarely, provides a warm-up to the Lomu Cup and generates a positive financial return.
The Lomu Cup
Everyone talks about the flaws of Super Rugby, but the Rugby Championship is just as bad. Twelve games over eight weeks is not enough to sustain interest. Few games are close contests so the outcome is predictable. And the home-and-away format almost invariably leaves a heap of dead rubbers towards the end. It should be scrapped, and replaced with the Lomu Cup, which will run from August to October and become rugby’s marquee competition outside Europe.
(Phil Walter/Getty Images)
Unlike the Rugby Championship, which only has four teams, the Lomu Cup will have 12, split across two tiers with promotion and relegation of two teams every year.
Initial tiers
• Tier 1 (Lomu Cup) — New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, Japan and Fiji
• Tier 2 (Campese Shield) — USA, Tonga, Samoa, Canada, Brazil and Uruguay
Each tier will play a round-robin tournament (five rounds of six games played each weekend) followed by a finals weekend held at a pre-determined neutral location. Lomu Cup matches will be hosted in competing countries while the Campese Shield will follow a travelling model with each round hosted in a different location (i.e. Round 1 has three games in Canada, Round 2 has three games in the USA, etc.).
At the completion of the round-robin phase, the last-placed finisher in the Lomu Cup is relegated while the top-placed finisher in the Campese Shield is promoted.
The finals weekend would have four games as follows:
• Lomu Cup final: LC1 versus LC2
• Lomu Cup relegation: LC4 versus LC5
• Campese Shield promotion: CS2 versus CS3
• Exhibition: LC3 and LC6 versus CS1, CS4, CS5 and CS6
This new format would triple the number of games played each week, make it less predictable, ensure every game had meaningful stakes, give more variety in opponent and ensure a climactic outcome. It would also bring the Pacific Islands into the fold and provide a realistic pathway for the continued growth of rugby in Japan and the USA.
If the tournament was a success (and why wouldn’t it be?), the finals would pretty quickly become the biggest weekend on the rugby calendar, generate huge crowds and could be auctioned off like the Super Bowl, the Sevens World Series final and the Champions League final to provide additional revenue.
European tour
As with the incoming tour, this would be largely unchanged from the current format and provides a good chance to give younger players experience in European conditions. I would make selection only eligible to Australian-based players, which would allow the overseas-based players to return to their clubs.
Anzac Day
The only other addition to the calendar is an annual Anzac Day fixture with New Zealand. I have seen others suggesting we should play a Bledisloe here but that would be totally out of sync with the rest of the calendar and doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Instead, we should give a high-profile platform for our other national teams that currently lack a spotlight. I’d play five games at a single venue starting at lunchtime and concluding in the evening with hosting switching back and forth between the two countries each year.
The games would be:
• Classic Wallabies versus classic All Blacks
• Women’s sevens
• Junior Wallabies versus junior All Blacks (under-20s)
• Men’s sevens
• Wallaroos versus Black Ferns
It wouldn’t necessarily pack out a stadium but it would draw a pretty good crowd (for example at North Sydney Oval) and it would be perfect public-holiday background TV content because it would go all day.
In summary, this calendar would deliver on the strategy of less is more, show clearer linkages between the different competitions and put as much focus as possible on the international game — all of which would improve both fan engagement and commercial returns, all the more if the guys in gold jerseys can start winning some more games.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
I agree that there has to be restrictions on the number of games played and that will force increased squads. However there will not be the money available to entice players plus the whole set up will be less attractive as a work and lifestyle. Too many games will screw the pooch, but PE will not care. They will already have long since got their money back plus desired rate of return. Just fiddling with how much cream on top.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Just a theory. My imaginings could be completely wrong. . I definitely think at some point the players will draw a line in the sand collectively. . Who knows what will happen after that.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Interesting but who will pay the extra costs. PE firms do not acquire 27% of the English Premiership as an entity. They take 27% of the revenues. Given the clubs were pretty keen to sign up and get some money it will be interesting to see how hard they negotiated to put restrictions on PE's ability to increase revenues. Will not end well, but assume that salaries will go down as numbers go up.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Yep, hard nosed clubs likely to become even harder trying to wring out every last scrap of value with the PE not focussed on the long term but looking at a much shorter horizon. Can imagine that if the NH players unionise/strike and get a reduction in number of games that the work around from the clubs/PE is to increase squad sizes and look to recruit even more players from the South. The clubs/PE entities won't want to reduce the number of games, even if they are constrained on how many matches players can play.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
This will get worse with private equity involvement, they will be solely focused on more revenues which will include more games.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Dead, not at risk. We tolerate being smashed at SR because we still hold out hope for the Wallabies. If the Wallabies become perennial easy beats kids will stop playing it and it will slowly become a sport for old men.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
That is pie in the sky, pre 1970s view of the business world and sportspeople. Employees have far fewer career opportunities and employers far less able to be generous, and that was in 2019. Post COVID will be a lot tougher with a lot less money going around. I don't think the NH will be handing out big money contracts to too many players in the near future.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Well said, Max.
Honest Max
Roar Rookie
I really like that you’re looking at the whole picture with fresh eyes. I don’t agree that what you’ve described here is the right way to go, but that’s just my opinion and I’ve been wrong loads of times. I do believe that the club comp is key and I don’t think we should be shortening their season, just to allow for the 0.1% that play tests. First grade is an achievement in itself, and some blokes are happy playing 5ths. These clubs likely can’t survive on 5 home games a year and I think we’d lose the essence of the community game, which is far more important than the Wallabies. You mentioned 6N, which is a 5 round comp - less is more in this case. Your model has Australia playing more games than clubs and spending plenty of time in airports, planes and hotels. In this way, you have ‘elevated’ the National Team to a ‘club’ which the whole nation follows. I could go on.... Don’t let the negativity get to you - it’s fantastic what you’re doing, and even if we don’t agree with all of your proposals, we all respect the effort and the thinking that’s behind it.
Don
Roar Rookie
Club rugby is engaging a small number of people relative to the potential Super Rugby audience. A well structured, planned, funded, marketed and played model of Super Rugby has vastly more potential to engage a broader fan base than a Clubs comp. The Author keeps pointing to Club rugby engagement and the wealth and passion of those fans driving the success of the proposed comps. But in my experience a large percentage of Club Rugby followers (maybe outside of 9 ex Captains and some Shute Shield clubs) also want to see a version of Super Rugby similar to how it currently exists. And if Super Rugby is failing with most of those fans already following it, how does a low rent version bolted to the end of an abbreviated club season work? How do clubs survive with this shortened season too? Is there another club comp in each State outside of the proposed club comp for all the players which didn’t make provincial sides? A Super 10 comp with NZ, Aus and Japan seems most logical.
Jeremy as an outsider I applaud your effort you have put into this. I have a few observations. If you want to save money pay players less, whatever the revenue generated, the responsibility of RA (who has a fiduciary responsibility to all things related to rugby union in OZ) is to ensure the sustainability financially. Why pay a player a million dollars? The bird has flown the coop, players in the professional era are mercenaries and will try to earn as much money as they can in their short careers. Pride in the jersey in one thing, but life after rugby another. Pay what is a reasonable salary and that is the end of it, the more money RA put into development of players and coaching the more depth Australia will have and might just be able to feed the upper echelon of Australian rugby enough players to mitigate the losses of players going overseas. The Giteau law is another issue, trying to force players to stay by putting conditions on them wearing the Wallaby jersey may sound like a good idea, but when you force a player to make a decision for his future and the possibility that he might represent Australia if he hangs around is comparing reality of revenue with a dream. Most people will rather settle for reality. What the best structure is for Australia, I don’t know, but I will say this, as long as RA focuses on the top, the bottom will never provide sustainable depth, that goes for coach development too.
Richard
Roar Rookie
Hey mate, really appreciate the effort and intellect that you're putting into this series. There's always holes to be picked but honestly I have had this entire conversation at 4am 3 bags deep so many times. "How can we save rugby!". This is the best manifestation of this chat I have ever seen. The club to representative model is exactly the approach RA needs to take if NZ out of the mix.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Jez, so my question from yesterday stands. . Is the only time the professionally contracted players are in a fully professional environment during the International season? . That is the 25 pros, the 25 U-23’s and any overseas based Wallabies that are back? . The interstate matches are still largely amateur selections and over in a flash. When are our pros and U-23’s developing as full time rugby players? Training with and playing against similar opposition? . It can’t happen while they are training two nights a week playing half a club rugby season.
Sheikh
Roar Rookie
I've a couple of questions regarding this idea: 1) If there are only 50 professional rugby players in Australia, what happens when we go from the club season to the provincial season? Is it to be that each province has 10 professionals and ~20 guys paid for a month? Or is it that, if the 50 players picked as professionals happen to come from one or two states, there will be fully professional sides against 30 guys picked as the best from club rugby in that state? I'm not sure either way results in quality, competitive rugby. 2) The provincial season seems to start within 2 weeks, at most, after the club season finishes. This isn't much time (pre-season and 5 games) for the provincial sides to learn how to play together and learn their coach's tactics and structures. What you'd get is the worst part of the NRC, throwing together squads who don't know each other, resulting in possibly high scoring games; because attacking is easier based on individual play, but defense requires team cohesion. This wouldn't identify the best players, just the best improvisors, and doesn't help preparation for the International season. 3) How do the 50 professional players get refreshed? Is it that once you get a contract you are in for good until you retire, and then it's a one-out-one-in policy? Is it that you get a contract for 5 years and 10 players get cut each year and have to fight for their contract to be renegotiated? (If so, do we want players to have contracts for 10 years, as that's rather long to be at the top of your game.) Is it that every one of the 50 contracts gets looked at each year? If so, who is going to want to stay in Australia where you might get cut each year, as opposed to heading to Europe, Japan, etc where you can sign a 3 year contract. I like the idea of replacing the Rugby Championship with the Lomu Cup, but will you get 12 nations to agree to that? What will become of the Bledisloe? If both NZ and Australia remain in tier 1 then there may be 2 games a year (Lomu Cup & ANZAC day clash), but the ANZAC day clash comes in the middle of the club season, so the players won't be conditioned for international matches and will have no preparation- you are all but guaranteeing a loss in that match each year.
jeznez
Roar Guru
National unions have been battling the clubs for greater access to players since the inception of professionalism. The sticking point is the clubs that want their game to be of primacy, are paying the lion's share of salaries and want to protect their investment. There is a further spanner thrown by player work load complaints coming out primarily from the NH. The clubs having invested heavily want the maximum playing content they can get. The major clubs have no interest in paying less for less playing time. The players in fact are getting closer to unionising to negotiate less matches - they won't then turn around and go an play extras back at home. We are already seeing the likes of Sam Warburton retiring at 29 because the grind got too much. Here is a four year old article complaining about workloads, the issues are still there today: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/may/05/england-rugby-union-squad-workload-players-welfare
@Jeremy.Atkin
Roar Rookie
Good question. Has anyone ever tried? i.e. a discounted salary for a month off at the start of the off-season? Has anyone ever had the incentive to try before? I honestly don't know the answers to these questions. Do you think the issue is the players not going for it or the clubs not going for it or both?
jeznez
Roar Guru
Your third option ignores what is happening in every single country that doesn't have a Giteau rule. Sure, scrap the rule. Why will suddenly Australia be able to bring players back outside of test windows when no other country in the world can do that now?
@Jeremy.Atkin
Roar Rookie
The whole thing is predicated on the idea that playing for the Wallabies is still an aspiration for these guys. If that’s not the case at all then we might as well all go home… Players currently don’t the option to pay for their overseas clubs and compete for Wallabies jerseys because the Giteau rule requires them to be contracted by Super Rugby teams which can’t happen while they’re contracted with the European Clubs. At the moment it’s a black and white choice – cash or possible Wallabies jersey. There’s no in between. What I’m proposing is just a third option.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
How is it engaging people? It gets such little broadcast interest that it needs to pay to be shown. Club Rugby would need to improve engagement in order to make any money, let alone enough to actually start funding any form of professionalism. Super Rugby is subsidised by test money, but it also is very important to support test rugby. Without a Super Rugby level, test rugby and it's income is at risk.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Well no we can say definitively for sure. Because we've seen it in the past. In fact we've already seen some players recently retire in their playing prime to pursue non-rugby careers. And that's based on them making $80k or more out of rugby.