After Super Rugby Trans-Tasman, a question is being asked: what does the future of rugby look like in Australia?
It is not hard to understand why doubts are surfacing after the demolishing 23-2 win ratio in favour of New Zealand. With year-on-year poor performances of Australian teams in Super Rugby, Australia is beginning to wonder what benefits there are by staying with New Zealand.
The truth is, Australia may be better off saying haere ra (goodbye) to Super Rugby Trans-Tasman.
Let’s look at the facts. Australian fans want more derbies and less Trans-Tasman matches. This year the Super Rugby AU final between the Reds and Brumbies attracted 400,000 viewers in Australia, one of the highest ratings in Australian rugby for years.
(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
The Super Rugby Trans-Tasman final managed only 75,000 viewers in Australia, which were most likely Kiwi expats. After all, the Blues are the second most supported Super Rugby team in Australia.
More views on television means better-paying broadcasting rights for a cash-strapped Rugby AU. So why seek a less valued antipodean future than an improving domestic one? Surely it’s better to grow the game nationally and improve revenue, rather than watch your teams lose games and viewers week after week.
Last year, Georgia Robinson of the Sydney Morning Herald reported on the findings of the Gemba Group into Australian rugby. The UK-based group has consulted with FIFA, NRL, Tennis Australia, Cricket Australia and Formula One on their commercial and broadcasting rights in Australia. Worryingly, the consultants found some alarming signs based on 15 years of crowd and broadcasting data of Super Rugby.
In Australia, rugby has dropped to the ninth most popular sport, compared to first in New Zealand. Since 2013, spectating has declined by 43 per cent. This raises the issue, what aspiring talent would want to play rugby? No wonder the likes of Angus Crichton, Kayln Ponga and Jaydn Su’A would prefer to have a glitzy NRL career as well as the monetary incentive that union can’t offer.
In conclusion, the consultancy group labelled Super Rugby as a poor investment with 60 per cent of games being low value for Australian broadcasters and of little interest to Australian rugby fans. The Australian derbies were the games that kept food on the table for Rugby AU and what kept Foxtel paying for so long.
So where to now from the end of Super Rugby? The Gemba Group also suggested that Australia should create its own domestic league similar to the English Premiership.
Shute Shield and Queensland Hospital Cup teams, traditionalism, tribalism and private investment would be used to increase rugby’s popularity and broadcast rights. This would then in turn see the current Super Rugby teams become state representative teams, allowing Rugby AU to focus on pathways.
(Photo by Joe Allison/Getty Images)
However, with an already established fan-base, it may be more sensible for certain teams to be promoted and relocated to expand Super Rugby AU. Look at the Fitzroy Lions, who moved north to merge with the Brisbane Bears in AFL. Perhaps one day we’ll see the Gold Coast Marlins or the Western Sydney Two Blues.
Expansion would also allow Australia to broaden the player pool and have the chance to keep more players at home, rather than looking for contracts overseas. New Zealand could even start their own competition with the Fijian Drua, Moana Pasifika and perhaps one day in the future the return of the Central Vikings.
Many disagree with Australia going solo. Often the same fallacy is repeated: you’ll only get better by playing the best. Surely then, after 25 years of playing the best, the Australian teams would have been more competitive, but in the past 19 years, Australian teams have become less competitive.
Then there is the Bledisloe, 17 years of losing in a row. Surely Super Rugby isn’t helping Australian players develop, so why keep playing the best if they aren’t helping you to improve? England played New Zealand once between 2015 to 2018, losing only to come back and knock the All Blacks out of the World Cup semis.
While it is most likely best for Australia to go rogue to secure its own future, it may not be the end of the line for Australian teams to play New Zealand teams.
Bernard Laporte and the Japan Rugby Football Union are both wanting a club world cup featuring Australian and New Zealand teams. The Auckland Blues are also in favour of this according to recent reports.
Perhaps even a trophy similar to World Club Challenge contested between the NRL and Super League may emerge one day, where the best from Australia and New Zealand play each other in a series.
Whatever the future may be, one thing is certain: Super Rugby is broken and not viable for Australia. Rugby AU needs to carefully consider all options and choose the one that benefits Australia. That option may just be to stay at home.
Bludger
Guest
Why even have anything other than the city based club competitions. Let players go overseas to be professional and we pick the Wallabies from that and save a lot of money. I doubt anybody would even notice if Super Rugby was wound up in Australia. We are only doing this for the NZers sake, not ours.
jeznez
Roar Guru
You seem to think the team would be going into a vacuum. There are about 70 rugby clubs in Sydney, over 25 of them in the West.
Yes their does seem to be a few that head to NZ to play NPC. Maybe thats the level where Aus NZ mixing needs to start.
Micko
Roar Rookie
AFL has the cash to fund it though, and it's basically a failure in terms of support. Due to soccer's popularity in the region WSW had huge support from day one due to to that fact that the NSW government rebuilt Parramatta's stadium because of it!
TJ-Go Force!
Roar Rookie
Thanks mate, I was just interested more than anything. For me the salary cap is fine given how little they actually play compared to France and UK where their seasons are much longer. However, I do wonder how these wallabies fringe players continue to earn with no rugby after July. I think more need to sign contracts in NPC while they don’t have an Oz equivalent.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Huge population, largest islander communities in the country that have historic links to rugby. Just need to create opportunities for kids from all walks of life. Why on earth would you not provide a team that represents more than half the city? A-League and AFL both know they have to be out there, NRL is deeply committed but no reason we can't have one team for such a critical area
Micko
Roar Rookie
Why west Sydney though, when the fans aren't there, and presumably the Fijian backed franchise will already be playing a lot of games out of there?
Micko
Roar Rookie
Fair enough.
jeznez
Roar Guru
See above. It’s about which teams you and TJ were suggesting. It like if instead of Freo the new AFL team was called South Freo. It wouldn’t make sense.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Ok, I think I get where you are coming from but got thrown by you and TJF talking about teams in North Sydney and Manly - two spots that already have teams. There is room for Sydney to host North Harbour (which includes both of North’s and Manly), South Harbour (which includes the East and Southern beaches) and a Western Sydney team. They would be the three logical sides if we wanted that many teams from Sydney in a national comp.
Micko
Roar Rookie
We're talking about a proper pro comp Jez. not a development comp. And this is such a weird criticism about the name. And for the record Jez, I couldn't give a stuff what they name it. But common sense dictates some logical geographic identity. Who did people assume you were referring to when you mentioned a rugby side called the "Sharks" in those southern districts areas you inhabited before fleeing to Hong Kong? And what should the Freo AFL franchise have called themselves Jez, considering there was already South Freo & East Freo in the WAFL, and also formerly North Freo too pre-WW1???
Micko
Roar Rookie
The current model is terrible, yet you label more franchises in Sydney "madness". Have you told the AFL, NRL & A League they're doing it all wrong???
jeznez
Roar Guru
What do I insist on? :laughing: Where have I ever once suggested what you call the dopey Kiwi model?
jeznez
Roar Guru
So a new made up team called North Sydney in a city where we already have 121 year old club called Northern Suburbs? Why would that take off when a team called Sydney got shot down by the Shute Shield mafia?
Micko
Roar Rookie
Why madness??? You’ve literally seen just about the worst pro comp in sport for about the past decade or more. You live in Australia and have seen what is successful, yet insist on following the dopey kiwi model that needs foreign money to pay for it!
Micko
Roar Rookie
New franchises Jez. (sorry, thought we had this convo before :thumbup: ).
Sterling Anderson
Guest
Jez, I would say when Micko says "North Sydney", he is referring to a North Harbour franchise. One that geographically covers Manly, Gordon, Warringah and not just the North Sydney Premier club you are refering to.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Mate you said. "They needed to go first to Northern Sydney, a heartlands area, and create a derby in their key heartland area." I'm askingm since Northern Suburbs already exist whether you are promoting a team out of the Shute (in which case what do you replace the local Premier rugby needs with?) Or create a new team which is effectively covering the same North Sydney area that somehow sits above the existing club?
RA would be foolish to risk their fans turning away like they did from old Super Rugby. What fans???? the first year on FTA in 30 years is what you are basing your assumptions on. Do you really believe hanging on to the one game that got 400K on TV is a valid reason to turn down income that is desperately needed? The SRAU rated very similar in numbers to the TT games barring the actual finals but you are blinded by ratings you have no idea whether they are a one off due to being a novelty or are real. If you think RA would be foolish to join a comp that provides them with a whole lot more money than 1 that had ONE GAME rate well then you are somewhat blinded by the fake ratings lights and what happens when reality sets in and RA only earns half what they need to function per year? Will the fans be happy or will it be a case of "What fans"?
They say it takes 10 mil to run a SR team and Ive taken their word for it as Fiji and PM are having to show a 10mil per year budget garranteee before being allowed in to SR. I cant think of a reason to dispute that, particularly if players salaries take half of that.