New Zealand Rugby confirm trans-Tasman comp in the works

What on earth is arrogant about the statement that you’ve quoted back to me graymatter? The Pacific Islands represent developing economies and trying to incorporate their interests into something built to satisfy the potential that exists in the Australian and New Zealand markets, while (again) staying within reach of the big northern hemisphere fish will create an imbalance. One that will need to be covered which will fall back on Australia and New Zealand. This is professional sport, it needs more than just rainbows and fairyfloss to survive. It relies on broadcast deals, corporate sponsorships and eyeballs attached to pockets with a reasonable amount of disposable income in them. Your dead right about one thing; it is World Rugby’s responsibility to develop the game globally. Meanwhile it’s RA’s job to develop the game in Australia and the NZR’s job to develop the game in New Zealand. Allocating resources beyond these means (which is exactly what propping up teams beyond their borders is doing) is a direct neglect of their core business and borders on negligent given the challenging environment we each find ourselves in. As I’m sure you’d be well-aware; the overwhelming majority of those rugby players with Pacific Islands heritage in Australia and NZ were either born or immigrated with parents to the country they play rugby in. An Australia or New Zealand without their PI players would be Wallaby/AB teams that have ignored players that were born and/or developed in their country. Take the emotion out of it. Again I’m not suggesting we (the rugby world) should forget about them and acknowledge that more can and should be done to support and grow these important rugby heartlands. If you’ve really taken that out of my comment which is what your rant implies, then you either haven’t read it multiple times like you say you have or your analytical skills leave a lot to be desired. Finally, you do know that Los Pumas best finish at the RWC came in 2007... 8 years before the birth of the Jaguares. They’ve hardly had this meteoric rise timed with the Jaguares existence. A great result on the weekend but it’s arguably gone the other way over the last 5 years.

Rob, I was going to let this go... but I've read your response several times and I can't let this lie. "they are developing countries.. there shouldn't be a place for them in trans Tasman Rugby". What a load of arrogant rubbish. They would not be a drain on resources but rather be a participant in the reasonable sharing of those resources. After all isn't the intent of world rugby to develop the game? It seems to me what you are implying is that we should be greedy based on the fact that we need to "remain within reach of those bigger fish" I re-iterate our Pacific neighbors have made huge contributions to the quality and enjoyment of Rugby around the world. What would Australian Rugby and NZ rugby, to name but two, look like without our respective contingent of Pacifica heritage players? I don't think its much to ask that we share some of the spoils and allow them a national team identity. As a an example of what greater inclusion can deliver as yourself would the Pumas have developed as much as they clearly have without their recent involvement via the Jaguares in the Super 15 comp?

Sounds perfect. 5 oz, 5 nz, fiji, combined samoa tonga. That will be a brilliant comp

in 2022, the TT comp may be the only one. It could mean bumping the number of Super teams in each comp to six which will do away with that bye. Fiji may be based in Suva but could be part of Super Rugby Aust (like the Drua in the NRC). Moana Pasifika is likely to be based in Auckland, the largest Polynesian city in the world.

In no way shape or form do I believe that Pacific Island rugby should be an afterthought and that more shouldn’t be done to incorporate them in the rugby world’s structures. I’d suggest the most meaningful thing the rugby world can do for the Pacific Islands is to tighten international eligibility and engage their national teams in other international competitions beyond their 4 yearly cameo. But when it comes to professional rugby, like those small soccer nations that punch above their weight on the international stage but offer little in terms of a domestic scene compared to (in particular) the European heavyweights; there shouldn’t be a place for them in Trans Tasman rugby. They are developing countries and I cannot fathom how they can’t be a drain on resources. And resources need to be protected and invested incredibly wisely in our corner of the globe if we are to remain within reach of those bigger fish in the pond.

So Rob, How about we can the Waratahs and the Reds and substitute them with Samoa/Tonga and Fiji? That way we can mitigate the player drain and avoid dilution! I am being a bit tongue in cheek here but the point I m trying to make is its about time we recognize the fantastic contribution the Pacifica nations have made to world rugby and having some established identity would not be a bad thing!

But that only makes sense if the T-T comp is the only comp. If it is preceded by SRao/SRau with the two Pasifika teams playing in NZ, there is zero logic to playing 'home' matches in Sydney.

This year has obviously been about each union doing what they can in an attempt to honour their respective broadcast agreements and recoup what they can to throw into the pot (before everyone takes their even cut). I believe the current agreement was due to expire at the end of this year anyway and it’s disintegration was all but confirmed with SA announcing their intentions to realign their domestic interests with the Pro. Therefore, moving ahead I think it’s highly doubtful that any sort of split arrangements will be entered into- especially if everyone is doing their own thing or establishing new partnerships. There might be some sort of pooled and evenly split arrangement for those ‘champions league’ type components that have been bandied around.

Headline: trans-Tasman Comp Paragraph 1: says details soon Paragraph 2: changes subject Paragraph 3-8: about different subject Paragraph 9: paraphrases paragraph 1

if you're taking about Super Rugby NZ, SANZAAR owns it and licenses the franchises out. In NZ, those franchise licensing rights are due to expire this year (as I understand it) after a 25-year term. That pool sharing arrangement never made any sense to me either but it was in the early days of professionalism. My guess; it may not be replicated again.

that's why I suspect they may rotate home ground venues.

I would have thought the two prime location for Pasifika teams, outside of the islands themselves of course, would have been Auckland and Western Sydney...?

I’m not sure if you’re confusing negotiation sticking points, or even contrasting organisational cultures with overarching national cultures. By no means am I suggesting that NZ is a 7th state of Australia (nobody on either side of the Tasman wants that), but as far as putting two countries next to each other and drawing parallels, there’s not many more pairings (at least in the Western World) that represent as snug a fit. Furthermore, there’s a long history of successfully aligning professional sporting interests together to maximise size of the market pie- not just in rugby but plenty of other sports.

But that was for a competition that had direct involvement from each union. There’s an argument to be made that it’s strength is a result of and dependent on each unions participation. What’s being suggested here is that one union takes the broadcast revenue for a competition they play no part in. That makes no sense and I would be flabbergasted if the NZR (who own the competition) would let that happen- especially given the state of the current relationship between the two unions.

This comes down to that pool-sharing arrangement SANZAAR has (and it was a mutual decision that, I think, began back in 1996). I never really understood the arrangement and whether Argentina was covered by that when they joined.

... a fully embedded Trans Tasman competition is worth twice as much as Australia’s 5 teams playing amongst themselves ... This is what I'm suggesting and what I've read. Not sure how clear I made that. As for cultural similarities between the countries, I think those similarities may not be as great as you think. There are some noticeable differences and that is showing up in these rugby talks (ie the broadcast deals both unions achieved and the need for South African involvement).

The reality is the franchises need those 5 games. Ideally it would have been 6 to have 3 more home games.

It would be an incredibly unique model in world sport (and one that makes no sense) for RA to capture the broadcast revenue generated from an overseas based and owned competition. It’s not theirs to sell.

I just read the 2021 crossover concept. Involving all 5 teams from each country playing the 5 teams from the opposing country before the top 2 from each playoff in a 2 week finals system. You can certainly see more broadcast value in that (as opposed to just the top 2 from SRAU and SRA playing off at the conclusion of their domestic seasons) and a good transition to the fully embedded/covid-free model being proposed from 2022.

If that’s true, and it’s also true that Australia gets the Aussie rights for kiwi comps, they may as well keep the separate comps to start the season and rake in the money for Super Rugby Aotearoa. That way you keep the on field benefits of SRAU.