When the South African Rugby Union voted to send their strongest franchise sides to a competition other than Super Rugby, that in itself wasn’t the story. The story was there was little to suggest this shift to Europe was anything but a permanent move.
With COVID-19 infections rising and the global death toll just rising past one million, expecting Super Rugby to revert to normality in 2021 would have been absurd. With all the international travel and the varying quarantine requirements of its participants, there was no real chance of the competition as we knew it resuming in a pandemic-affected world.
Even so, there were general ideas floating around about a tournament with teams from South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Argentina eventually recommencing. That ship now looks to have not so much sailed as sunk before it’s left the harbour.
Not that it’s particularly surprising. When New Zealand Rugby announced their proposed plan for future provincial rugby, they talked of “establishing a new professional team competition in 2021” – hardly something you’d do as a one-off – while Rugby Australia were cagier, publicly talking of “Super Rugby level for 2021” with scant detail on what lay beyond.
Even take COVID and the flaming dumpster that is 2020 in general out of the equation, and the ‘South Africa to Europe’ narrative is nothing new. There have been ample hints that SARU could be aligning themselves northwards (the painfully obvious one being the Cheetahs and Lions turning Pro12 into Pro14), it’s just taken a catastrophic global pandemic to turn those hints into something concrete.
Because it’s not surprising doesn’t mean it’s not a shame, though. The most obvious loser from the development is Argentinian rugby, which is now thoroughly isolated in the world of top-level franchise play.
There has been bitter disappointment among hardened rugby fans, too. The unique quirks brought about by having its competitors split across continents helped make Super Rugby a compelling tournament – discussions about how teams could and would deal with their tours to South Africa and visits to Argentina for one were interesting, welcome points of difference.
(Photo by Gordon Arons/Gallo Images/Getty Images)
The mix of contrasting gameplans from country to country also made for fascinating and often entertaining rugby, all the while exposing players to different styles of play before hitting the Test arena. That was no bad thing.
Even so, in much the same way that pushing the Stormers, Bulls, Sharks and Lions into what would become the Pro16 makes sense for SARU, it’s far from the worst news for Australia. The time difference between the two countries makes for horrid broadcast slots whenever games are hosted in South Africa, but with that now off the table, whatever version of Super Rugby we’re left with now surely becomes a more attractive proposition for broadcasters here.
It will naturally change things from a SANZAAR broadcast perspective, but it’s worth keeping firmly in mind that the value of those deals leans far more heavily on the Rugby Championship than Super Rugby. Because of that, and with SARU saying they “remain part of the joint venture”, the four nations will likely remain wedded where Test matches are concerned even after Wednesday’s divorce.
That announcement also brings into focus the deteriorating relationship between Rugby AU and NZR, who’ve been engaged in recent months in a contest to see who can piss furthest across the Tasman.
The latest round has been particularly unedifying, New Zealand adamant that the SANZAAR schedule for the Rugby Championship is somehow Australia’s fault, despite Rugby AU chairman Hamish McLennan and leaked minutes of a SANZAAR CEOs meeting – which have been labelled as false by NZR – insisting otherwise.
Hamish McLennan. (Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
Let’s put aside the bickering about who’s at fault for a moment. It’s clear the he-said, she-said posturing benefits no one either side of the ditch. It certainly won’t help create any kind of trans-Tasman provincial competition in the coming years, which the pandemic would have made a delicate act even with a strong relationship between the two governing bodies.
McLennan struck a far more conciliatory tone than his NZR counterparts on Tuesday night on Sky New Zealand’s The Breakdown. While admitting the partnership between the two rugby nations is “at probably the lowest ebb it’s ever been”, the chairman managed to find a balance between offering forthright answers, sticking up for Australian rugby, and not playing the role of antagoniser – as well as throwing in an “I like all Kiwis actually … you guys are such a great rugby nation” for good measure.
If we really have seen the last of South Africa entering their best domestic sides in a fully-fledged iteration of Super Rugby, New Zealand and Australia need to recognise they are stronger when they work together. This applies on the field – where it stands that two countries’ player pools will make for a larger, more competitive and varied competition – as well as off it – where the commercial pulling power of two unions offers more stability than that of one.
One notable aspect of McLennan’s Breakdown appearance on Tuesday – which left his Kiwi hosts suitably impressed – was his intention of repairing the relationship. It might seem too obvious a point to draw attention to, but it’s more constructive than the language lobbed back in Rugby AU’s direction.
And while we can assume that the two nations will come back to the boardroom to work together out of sheer necessity more than anything else, that process has to begin somewhere. A declaration of intent to repair the relationship isn’t the worst starting point.
It’s a daunting task, but things improved after they were downright dire following the fractious 2003 World Cup hosting negotiations. They can improve again this time. (As an aside, what is it about fixturing that brings out the worst in this partnership?)
After outlining that Rugby AU took offence to how they were “instructed” to cut two or three teams for NZR’s proposed Trans-Tasman competition, McLennan said, “We’re prepared to accept that that’s all water under the bridge, but we’ve got to get focused on building a new competition for next year and beyond”.
That’s an approach that, for the good of rugby, ought to be embraced by everyone either side of the Tasman.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
Supersport in SA sponsor some of the sides. You are right, there's a big difference in the contribution to the game of the three TV partners
fiwiboy7042
Roar Rookie
Hands up anyone who thinks this will repair the relationship! :unhappy: https://www.rugby.com.au/news/2020/10/06/rugby-australia-chairman-hamish-mclennan-says-australia-can-host-new-zealand-super-rugby-teams
Brian Westlake
Roar Rookie
Ireland England Scotland and multiple states of the US should start installing birth suites in Nuku'alofa, Apia, Raratonga etc so as they can say that they were born in that country.... " Look at the all blacks" ..." Yeah, they were all born in new zealand?
Paul
Roar Guru
that's fair enough potsie, I can certainly see your point of view and agree that regularly playing teams that aren't up to standard benefits no-one, regardless which country they're from. In my ideal world, Aussie rugby should shrink back into it's shell and develop a game good enough to take on other domestic rivals. The measure of success would come through performances at Test level, ie if we're good enough to mix it with the All Blacks, etc, it stands to reason at least some of our local teams should be competitive against the NZ provincial sides. How long would this process take - as long as it takes, but asking anyone to stump good money and their time to watch teams getting a hiding every week through a combined regional competition, has a very limited shelf life. I for one probably wouldn't bother watching too many games.
Ex force fan
Guest
was in the law book and no one had tried to remove it Not everything that is lawful is moral. Ask Jean-Sébastien Jacques the ex CEO of Ro Tinto that destroyed the Juukan Gorge caves in WA.
potsie
Guest
For the majority of NZ fans, "a competition I can watch which is both entertaining and enjoyable", is a competition with no Australian teams. I think people underestimate how harmful the falling away of Australian and South African teams over the last 15 years or so has been to NZ rugby. Two good competitions are better than one bad one.
Ex force fan
Guest
Surprise, we’re out of here Deciding to go alone (what) and trashing your long term relationships (how) were the two mistakes NZRU made this year. It doesn't matter if they made these mistakes in 2020 or 2025 they are still mistakes.
Hugh_96
Roar Pro
Yep fitness the least of her concerns, more the hits you take, especially in League when they have a 'high' tackling style. Also for the League journos, not being disrespectful, they have no idea about the athleticism and skills of the 7s girls. What was interesting was some of the commentators really didn't want to keep emphasising the 7s girls too much over their League girls. Also the Super W girls from the Tahs and Reds played vey well.
potsie
Guest
EFF, it was based on market research in NZ. Everyone who subscribes to AllBlacks.com and most people who subscribe to sports channels and apps, and most rugby club members were surveyed. NZR softened the survey results (for economic of relationship reasons??? don't know) to enable Australian teams to be included.
Hugh_96
Roar Pro
It was good the Roosters didn't put it all on her, she moved between centre and 5/8 so didn't have the responsibility to guide the team around, could settle in and show her skills. Just like rugby it also helps when your forwards are dominating the ruck area. I also liked how Yasmin Meakes played in the centres for the Roosters. Lastly yep Green had a good game but Pelite stood out for mine in both defence and attack.
potsie
Guest
Was it a mistake? What options did they have? Would it have been better to wait until late 2025 and then say to Australia, SA, and Argentina, "Surprise, we're out of here!"
fiwiboy7042
Roar Rookie
And now I just read in the Australian today that McLennan has offered Aust as hosts for all 5 NZ Super franchises next year to get the TT competition off the ground (ie host the competition). I thought he wanted to repair the relationship? Because this certainly isn't helping!
potsie
Guest
Rob Nicol represents about 200 NZ based professional players. NZR represent the other 100,000 players and fans and the long term interests of rugby in NZ. The players' association of course should be involved but their interests only have a minor overlap with the best interests of rugby in NZ.
potsie
Guest
I'd locate them in Tauranga (would have been New Plymouth but the phasing out of the petroleum industry in NZ will likely hit the Taranaki economy), Napier and Nelson, all growing in population and base the teams on the the Tasman and Hawkes Bay NPC teams which are close to Superugby teams in strength - each have 4 or 5 superugby players on their benches this year. The Tauranga team would need to pull players from anywhere they can get them. The at-ground spectator count wouldn't be great - the stadiums in these places are smallish - but each of these areas, Tasman District, and Hawkes Bay especially are too geographically remote for their populations to get to Superugby games anywhere else - you can't leave work and 5pm, drive for 4-5 hours and get to a 7pm kickoff game - so are a partially untapped market. The NZ based viewership should increase by a reasonable amount because all teams would be familiar to viewers and play a positive style of rugby and play in good time zones with games during the daytime. I think Australian viewership of Superugby is only about 60K per game?? That is not a big number to add domestically for a more compelling, better structured competition with daytime games - but the big wins (and these are more speculative) would be selling the rights into secondary markets - Australia, UK, France, Japan, Europe and through Rugby Pass. If this became the preferred off-season or 2nd choice rugby option for these markets, and the broadcast money didn't have to be shared, then that income could be transformative. Worth the gamble imo. I don't think that playing weaker teams is the solution to the intensity level issues the players have raised. Mostly this is a mental fatigue issue associated with getting up for big games every week (at least that is what the players have said) to which the answer is they will adjust mental intensities as they adapt to a new competition. To the extent the issue is physical, then scheduling of byes is surely better than travelling internationally and playing a team perceived as less physical.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
Mass migration from the islands is due to the methods and policies of NZRU us it? Well, I suppose harvesting any half decent school rugby player in the islands and giving them ‘scholarships’ might count. Anyway, I’m intrigued, could you spell out these ‘methods’ that England, Ireland, Scotland and the NFL learned at the feet of the AB Demi-gods?
Ex force fan
Guest
I wonder if the Aritipu report, like many consultant reports are an independent analysis of the situation with logical outcomes or a report made up from interviews with management that formalise what management already think. I am sceptical.
Ex force fan
Guest
You may be right, however where would you place the two extra Kiwi teams and what extra will they bring to the competition in terms of spectators and viewers? Maybe the competition would do better if some of them are playing for other weaker franchises to lift the quality and allow the game to grow into new areas instead of cannibalising existing support?
Emery Ambrose
Roar Rookie
Fingers crossed for Domestic comps in the SANZAAR nations in 2021 and then a super series to finish a 25 year partnership.
potsie
Guest
EFF, ten years ago it would have been different but at present I think the next best teams in the region would be one, maybe two new NZ teams.
potsie
Guest
You do understand that it was Allo Allo booing. It was never serious after the first time and got funnier and funnier.