Sydney tribalism is best for the future of the game.
Amid all the talk of expansion with the addition of a new team in Brisbane in 2023 followed by a second New Zealand club in the following years, critics of the National Rugby League continue to criticise the competition for its over-reliance on Sydney-based clubs.
Fans intent on expanding the game continue to suggest that the Bulldogs should move to Christchurch, the Sharks and Dragons should merge, and the Wests Tigers should become the West Coast Tigers, forgetting the lessons that were learnt from the Super League war and that still reverberate today.
Rugby league fans need to look no further than the North Sydney Bears, who fell victim to a failed merger with the Manly Sea Eagles and have since been relegated to the NSW Cup. In the process, they have lost their core supporter base with many refusing to watch the NRL and their former grassroots heartland of Sydney’s north shore has become a hotbed for the AFL with the Sydney Swans winning hearts and minds.
Bears fans have effectively stood aside and let the game pass them, instead shifting to other codes like the A-League, AFL and Shute Shield. While the red and black retain a rusted-on supporter base that turn up at North Sydney Oval week in and week out, the NRL has lost a strong brand and a huge area of its heartland in the process.
(Photo by Getty Images)
Sport at its heart is a tribal game, built on rivalries between teams that have built up passion and support over decades. Whether it is New South Wales versus Queensland or South Sydney versus Eastern Suburbs, these rivalries sell tickets and have become some of the biggest events on the rugby league calendar.
If the Wests Tigers moved to Perth, their rivalry with Manly would lose its credibility and the ‘Fibros versus Silvertails’ storyline would be lost to the game. A rivalry with the Adelaide Sharks would not fix that and while a team in a new market might get some eyeballs in the short term, Sydney rugby league has proven to be resilient time and time again.
Rugby union has learnt that exact lesson. The corporatism of Super Rugby that stemmed from the professionalism of rugby union in the late ’90s didn’t help the code, it hindered it.
Matches between the NSW Waratahs and Western Force aren’t nearly as strong as a Shute Shield game between Manly and Warringah. Even in the Shute Shield’s attempts to expand to Western Sydney, the Parramatta Two Blues have been left in the dust and the club lacks any competition because it doesn’t share the same history as Sydney Uni and Eastern Suburbs.
Last week in Europe, football fans were in uproar over the proposal to create their own Super League. The bigger clubs of Real Madrid, Manchester United and Juventus wanted to leave clubs like Atalanta and Eibar behind in pursuit of their own greed and success. But a match between Liverpool and Barcelona won’t draw as much passion as one against Everton. Tribalism breeds excitement, intensity and support.
(Rich Linley – CameraSport via Getty Images)
So why then is football’s Super League relevant to the over-saturation of Sydney rugby league clubs? Despite having so many teams in a city of 4.5 million, the NRL’s nine Sydney clubs remain its strongest with the Parramatta Eels and South Sydney Rabbitohs leading the competition in memberships with over 30,000 each.
While that pales in comparison to the AFL’s juggernauts such as the West Coast Eagles and Richmond Tigers, each with over 100,000 members, the Eels and Rabbitohs still have significantly more members than the Storm and Broncos.
The NRL’s expansion plans will only strengthen Sydney rugby league. As the saying goes, fish where the fish are. Brisbane and New Zealand already have a long history with rugby league and immediately offer a strong business case that Perth and Adelaide lack. They have fans who are passionate about the game. They have fans who play the game at a grassroots level and can help to create rivalries with the Broncos and Warriors respectively.
Regardless of whether the Redcliffe Dolphins, Jagera Jets or Brisbane Firehawks get the go ahead, it will strengthen Queensland rugby league, and the expansion to 18 clubs allows the NRL to split the game into two conferences.
Each conference will hold nine teams. The Arthur Beetson conference will be made up of the Broncos, Raiders, Titans, Storm, Knights, Cowboys, Warriors and expansion teams. And the Clive Churchill conference will be made up of the Bulldogs, Sharks, Sea Eagles, Eels, Panthers, Rabbitohs, Dragons, Roosters and Wests Tigers.
(Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
Conferences will help to foster existing rivalries, allowing each team to play each other twice – home and away – within their own conference, and also opens up the possibility for new rivalries to form.
But why will splitting the competition along outdated divisions strengthen the game in Sydney? Every match now carries more weight. It will effectively revive the old NSWRL and guarantees that the biggest ticket games occur twice every year. It also adds more meaning for Sydney clubs because now not only are they competing for a finals position but they are also playing to be Sydney’s best club.
If the competition were split into two conferences, one option would be to have top-four finals series from each conference with one team from each going through to the NRL grand final.
Not only does this mean you get the NRL grand final as the battle between the two best teams in the competition. It now means that the preceding games carry even more weight with only one spot on the line. It effectively gives you three grand finals and the ability to pack out Stadium Australia for a game between the Roosters and Panthers with a trophy up for grabs.
The effect isn’t just felt in September but also throughout the season. Crowd averages will be boosted by having guaranteed events each year.
(Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
The Bulldogs would now get to play the Eels, Rabbitohs, Dragons, Roosters and Wests Tigers both home and away, and no longer have to worry about having half of their home games taken up by Thursday night slots in the middle of winter against the Broncos or Storm, attracting small crowds for interstate teams.
Every game now carries more weight. By adopting a conference-based system, the NRL are playing to its strengths. While it may not have a national footprint, the NRL has a parochial supporter base not only in Sydney, but also in Brisbane, regional Queensland and New Zealand.
The NRL can still focus on expanding to Adelaide and Perth in the future but ultimately it is inter-city matches between the Bulldogs and Eels or Broncos and Dolphins that are going to sell more tickets than a game between Perth and Canberra, or Adelaide and North Queensland.
A balance can be created between tradition and expansion, maintaining the heart of the game while still attracting new eyeballs.
Robert Szemeti
Roar Rookie
As far as "Conferences" go, the separation of all clubs need to have a legitimate reason, not just "sydney based clubs" in one, and "the rest" in the other, not only does that create unfairness in the competition as a whole due to the "sydney comp" obviously not travelling out of the sydney area for 16 rounds, but it enures that "the rest" must travel almost the same 16 rounds (i assume the new bris2 and possible NZ2 will still be able to stay at home in their derbies). The only fair solution is to draw a line straight thru Sydney, basically cutting it in half and saying any team north of Parramatta road or River or M4, is in the Northern Conference, and anything South of that line is the Southern Conference. This creates a definitive border, and you can add expansion teams to it, without having newer teams adding into only one conference, aswell as "Sydney comp" not stealing/poaching interstate players, because the less travelled, and probably better branded comp of the old NSWRL, would be more of a stable draw card for a new talented player from elsewhere. Getting Derbies made is ok, if you can cultivate certian teams in each conference. Northern Conference= North QLD, Bris2, Broncos, Titans, Knights, Manly, Tigers, Panthers, Eels.... all north of that border. (tigers being both Ashfield and Balmain) Southern Conference= Souths, Roosters, Bulldogs, Sharks, Dragons, Raiders, Melbourne, Warriors, NZ2. If they go to another 2 clubs, add a Perth/West Coast Pirates to the Southern, and a Cairns/PNG Pride to the Northern. (For example that is, not saying they are the next bids or areas of growth off the rank)
GoGWS
Roar Guru
The Suns/Giants had a mixture of very young players and veterans… but it is true that the the balance overall was very young talented kids playing against seasoned teams with experienced players, and it was a struggle. I sat through many Giants games where we got belted before things turned around and we made a GF. It seems that a second Brisbane side is a foregone conclusion now, and a move to 17 teams with a weekly bye most likely. The AFL had 17 teams for one season when the Suns came in. This will give a weekly game at Suncorp for most of the season but there’ll still only be 8 games for broadcasters..so there will be the expense of funding an extra team which is hopefully offset by having a Brisbane game every week rather than every second week… I’m not sure 17 teams is a great number of teams but you might do that for one round of broadcast deal (5 years) and then move to 18 teams over a longer term horizon if that makes sense… or a club may fold at some point and you drop back to 16. The AFL is facing it’s own dilemma with potential expansion to Tassie which would make 19 teams.. I’d prefer them to add two teams or none at all… or just bite the bullet and send a Melbourne club to Tassie.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
A major reason the expansion AFL teams (Suns/Giants) were badly beaten early on was that they were massively oriented to drafted young players. That gave them very tradeable commodities as time progressed - however - they've rarely attracted quality established players. So that's with a regulated workforce - - drafts, free agents, trading window. I'm not sure how the NRL would manage it?? And you're right - the "top down" model has no guarantee of a pay-off in junior participation. re the Swans - - there's a few layers there. The old South Melbourne that moved to Sydney already had the Riverina region of NSW in their recruiting "zone". That meant they came to Sydney with about 10 NSW born/bred players and a NSW born/bred coach. Over the time - the vast majority of Swans captains have been NSW (and/or ACT) products. Yes - many from Wagga to Albury; however retired captains in Jarrad McVeigh and Kieran Jack were Sydney products. A lot comes down to the structures in place - there was a Sydney scholarship program running previously - and 'graduates' of that include ruckman Jarrod Witts (Sydney born/bred) who was picked up by Collingwood and now plays on the Gold Coast. Not so obvious a Sydney product. The Swans now have a very, very good academy program running - - - however have also made massive gains in access to schools including a lot of the traditional Rugby private schools.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
Dots on a map.
clipper
Roar Rookie
I think a terminally fatigued France and a continual decline in England does not constitute a European competition.
clipper
Roar Rookie
That's correct, hence the plan to play the Sydney clubs against each other to try and increase interest.
GregM
Roar Rookie
look at the NFL and how often teams change cities / states, and yet their fans remain loyal and passionate. the Raiders have moved from Oakland to Los Angeles, back to Oakland and now to Las Vegas. As for West Tigers v Manly – Fibros v Silvertails, that died when the Western Suburbs Maggies left the comp. If we are going to copy the Yanks like we seem to with everything these days re the Conference system (& the w*nky Premiership ring), does it mean the Cheerleaders will make a comeback (NFL still has them)? Just ask the girls who train hard to become cheerleaders, bet every one of them would want to be back supporting their team from the sidelines. I don’t think any one of these women (or their parents) feel like they are being objectified, instead they are proud of the hard work that they put in and the reward that comes from it
GoGWS
Roar Guru
I tend to agree with RL commentators who are concerned about player depth when it comes to adding one or two new teams... the proposed conference structure might work OK but if you’re adding teams at a time where there’s been a long term decline in junior participation then it’s a recipe for lower playing standards and lopsided results. And yes this did happen in the AFL where both expansion teams were badly beaten in the initial seasons, and in the case of the Suns they are only now starting to come good after more than 10 years in the AFL. And even the Swans are only now starting to produce their own local junior talent in any numbers after around four decades In the competition. If the NRL does expand then it’d better be prepared to dig in for the long haul, and it’d also want to reverse or stop the trend of declining junior participation otherwise it could be introducing a step change dilution of playing talent at the wrong time. As with many business decisions, in this expansion strategy there are short incentives and long term consequences.
zonecadet
Roar Rookie
A few of the Sydney clubs do little for the image of the NRL as a professional, vibrant sports league and leaving aside some of the off-field 'antics' of some players in some clubs over the past few years, well, quite a few years, the grounds they play at and the attendances they draw are pretty embarrassing. Namely, Manly, Wests-Tigers, St. George and Cronulla (when they actually have a ground to play at), there's others to be honest but we'll leave it there for now. I do recognise the NRL needs a mid-sized (40,000) stadium centrally located rather than the behemoth at Homebush but, hey they shoulda organised one long ago. I don't see how promoting more games between these clubs actually grows the live audience or enhances the TV product. The number of times I've heard commentators gush about a 'big crowd' or 'full house' of 12,000 people is ridiculous. I was a regular NSWRL goer, usually to whatever was the best game on a Sunday, regardless of the teams, back in the mid to late 70s and early 80s. The Bulldogs used to get 20,000 to Belmore for a big game back then. The place was a dump and they were different times but they won't get those numbers today no matter how good they become. But even then the average attendance at League games was no more that 13,000 or so. It's hardly grown since then and whatever growth has occurred has occurred outside of Sydney. Case in point, the 'Magic' round is in Brisbane not Sydney. Hmmm, wonder why? No, the NRL (and all it's predecessors) ignored growing the live audience in Sydney whilst they raked in dollars from unhealthy sponsorships and then TV deals. Can anyone seriously point to Leichhardt as a first class sporting venue? FFS, they still sell beer in cans!!! No, if the League needs to go to conferences or divisions or whatever they better not make one entirely of Sydney Clubs. it might very well open the door for SuperLeague 2.0 and if just one one of either Roosters or Rabbitohs (or Penrith - previous SL member) defected Sydney will be left with a Scottish Premier League type competition played out by two powerhouses year after year.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
When Rugby League broke away from Rugby it took support from Aussie Rules. The Union clubs are mainly in the North and East of Sydney while League are mainly in the South and West. Rugby League is for the elite while Soccer is for kids whose parents want them to play a safe game or become millionaires playing in cold wet countries. There is no need for RL to take ownership like Aussie Rules in the southern capitals. NSW and Queensland don't have to edge out Union and Soccer and probably couldn't if they wanted to. RL also has the edge in that it is international with countries playing in Europe, PNG, NZ and some Pacific Islands.
Emcie
Roar Guru
I completely get where you're coming from. I honestly can't recall hearing Sydney clubs blamed for that, but I'm not likely to be on the receiving end of that either. The complaints are generally around NSW powerbrokers having too much influence (and using it) at the national level, but I can see how that could be extended to individual clubs by some. And to be fair, a lot of the grievances aimed at Sydney are unrelated to league and get lumped on top of league stuff. Completely agree with you on conferences, and as I'm sure you saw above plenty of non Sydney supporters believe it'd hurt the Sydney sides long term. I just don't get it
Emcie
Roar Guru
I was about to put a "see above" here :stoked:
The Barry
Roar Guru
Don’t worry about responding to this one (if you were) you’ve pretty much answered it above Cheers
The Barry
Roar Guru
Yeah ok thanks mate that puts it in perspective... some great analogy work there too I’m genuinely not trying to argue this stuff, just understand it from a Brisbaners perspective I’m sure there’s heaps of that history that is grating and sticks in the craw, but there’s also this general “stuff you Sydney, you stuffed us” and “it’s your fault my BRL club died” which does the same for me Anyway, I think the conference idea is daft. I don’t see what it offers. I agree it’s unfair on non Sydney teams and overall I think it shrinks the game backwards rather than expand it...
Emcie
Roar Guru
I think you may be reading more into this then is meant. Generalities never represent every individual. Obviously you have your own views but Rellum's comment is a criticism of the authors views, not yours. You can't deny that the article would hit a nerve if you were in our position. I do think you're overlooking a fair bit regarding the Broncos over the BRL situation. The Broncos when created was essentially the QLD side (and would be for about 15yrs or so), the club was always going to draw maximum attention in Brisbane especially from sponsors. How would the Magpies or Steelers at the time fare if they were competing with the Blues for air time every single week? Would you watch the Dogs play over the Blues if it was on the same night and featured an array of your favourite dogs players represented in the Blues? If you did you'd have to admit you'd still be in the minority. No one blames Sydney clubs or fans, they're benificiaries not causes. The overaching organisations drove things. But that doesn't make it less grating to hear some of those fans complaining about potentially losing a club. It's like the rich kid at school complaining about leaving their lunch money at home when you're on the third straight week of uncooked noodles for lunch...
The Barry
Roar Guru
Believe it or not, this is one time where I’m not trying to be argumentative, there’s just something I’m not getting... But if Brisbane fans wanted the BRL over a Queensland based NSWRL franchise, why did they neglect their BRL clubs and pump money into the Broncos? I can completely see how the situation was created by the NSWRL and I get that the national comp became, and still is in a lot of ways NSWRL+ but I just don’t see how it’s Sydney clubs or fans or even the NSWRL’s fault that Brisbane’s fans let the BRL wither on the vine Say the Bulldogs get kicked out of the comp next season and only play at NSW cup level. If I start following another NRL club and sort of go for the Bulldogs, but not go to games or support the club, I can hardly complain if they end up folding
Emcie
Roar Guru
The fact that the ARL took charge of the "national" competition that was basicly just the NSWRL without any intention of including any QRL clubs is hard to overlook for an organisation that's supposed to represent both states. The Broncos and Giants were NSWRL creations. And it's not like every Sydney club was going gangbusters at the time, yet the national comp became NSWRL+ essentially. It's not just the BRL that was relegated, NZRL existed for 85 odd years before the Warriors as well
The Barry
Roar Guru
But who prioritised the NSWRL comp over the BRL...?
The Barry
Roar Guru
The more I think about it, the more it seems like it contracts the game rather than expanding it...
The Barry
Roar Guru
Ok thanks I can only speak for myself but I don’t expect Brisbane people to stick up for Sydney clubs... It’s equally unrealistic though to expect Sydney fans to kick up a stink about Brisbane clubs Wasn’t one of the pros of the Broncos being formed because it was seen as a way to keep Queensland players in Queensland and stop NSW clubs signing Queensland players? At the time the Broncos were formed Brisbane league fans had three choices: 1) follow the Broncos and leave the BRL behind, 2) follow the BRL and ignore the Broncos or 3) follow the Broncos AND the BRL Surely the BRL was damaged because not enough Brisbane fans chose 2) or 3) over 1) It’s not Sydney clubs or fans or even the NSWRL that stopped Brisbane people following the BRL Of course I’m looking at this from an outsiders perspective but something doesn’t add up when it’s being said the Broncos are peoples second favourite team and they’re getting 55,000 at QE II stadium while the BRL is withering on the vine It seems completely revisionist to blame Sydney clubs or fans when Brisbane league fans made a choice... it’s absolutely a shame that traditional Brisbane league clubs went to the wall, but that doesn’t make it “our” fault Anyway, I think the conference idea stinks. It is unfair on teams outside Sydney and it contracts and restricts the game instead of expanding it