Super challenges pressuring NZ Rugby to change their game

It would be a wonderful thing if the managers in charge of Australian rugby were all die hards with rugby in their veins. Sadly, this couldn't be further from the reality as many of them have made their careers in industries like media, advertising and broadcasting. These industries aren't at odds with sport of course since it is just another entertainment sector. However, sports each have their own idiosyncrasies which determine the value and appeal that said sport can realistically acquire and retain long term so you can't simply transplant strategies from one sports arena to another and expect the same results. Rugby is no exception. The simple reason for rugby's lack of appeal in Australia has always been two-fold: it is generally perceived as an exclusive game that is only played and enjoyed by the privileged and that it is a sport that we do not win at. Forget that the Wallabies have won the world cup, the premier tier of world rugby, twice and that over more than a century of rugby we are considered one of the powerhouses of the sport. And that's when the haters all get on the bandwagon about the game being too slow, with too few minutes of actual gameplay and rules that are too confusing to follow. The Australian marketplace is highly stratified and largely delineated on socio-economic grounds as well as which state/region you hail from and which state/region you have spent any of your formative years in, whether at school, high school and/or uni, TAFE, etc. That's not to say that it is prescriptive in anyway, that you are defined by this and can't develop your own preferences in life. But as a general proposition, this is the case for most people as simply put, people follow the sport/s they grew up with as it is part of their identity. Since there's a widely held aspiration to be considered 'working class' and an Aussie 'digger' (I mean no disrespect to those for whom the appellation actually holds value namely returned servicemen and women and their families) and all that that notionally entails about a person ("fair dinkum" et al), rugby is always going to be regarded as high brow and elitist. Even though it is a ridiculous stereotype as most of the people who play rugby are not privileged nor do they necessarily come from a well-to-do background. However, that nasty prejudice remains. And if the figures you quoted about what New Zealand has gifted to Australia in terms of funding to underpin the Super franchises is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, as well as what further financing may be forthcoming despite the gross ingratitude, this just adds further to the disdain and contempt that people generally have towards rugby here. Bringing more money men onto to the scene as far as optics goes is only going to hammer those nails more firmly into rugby's coffin, even though the lack of money is the problem that needs to be solved right now. So, on top of being elitist and exclusive, it can't even afford to sustain itself and needs "foreign" help to survive. No doubt you have been as nonplussed as I have by some of the ignorant posts and articles that people have made around the Roar and elsewhere regarding the relevance of rugby and suggesting that any money spent of the game is a waste that could be better spent in NRL or AFL or soccer, since the latter is the only viable international football code next to rugby. It is, dare I say, quite the conundrum and not a situation that I'd want to be responsible for having to resolve as "fixing" public perceptions is always a nigh impossible task. The Hamster is most definitely not the type of person who can "fix" a problem like rugby because he isn't 'one of the people' and has zero cachet with most of the sports market here. Eddie Jones is trying to tap into that kind of spirit by saying things like "smash and grab" but he too lacks the rapport with the broader spectator base as he has always been in rugby so he is not "their" man. Even ex-players who were definite champions for Australia just do not carry any weight outside of the diminishing "brotherhood" that is the rugby supporter base. To get money for the game, there has to be interest in the game as reflected by gate earnings at grounds and viewer numbers for the broadcast network. To get interest in the game, there have to be affirmative positive results to incentivise people to go to games and to watch on tv or stream. However, to get those affirmative results, you need money. It's a textbook catch 22. I don't know how one extricates themselves from such a vicious cycle as this but until Australian rugby does escape, total obscurity is the only plausible trajectory.

To be fair if you have to worry about those teams in your group you aren't in the running to win it. If a team who has never lost a group game is worried about teams who have never got out of their group then problems are alot worse.

Or South African rugby fans have been engaged for longer periods of time during the season with their URC team. It's hard to find stats on SRP attendances. Was the Tahs v Brumbies a normal size crowd for that match or was that above anything for a while. I know the 15k Dura got was one of the biggest games last year.

you're

Promotion helps but if your only winning a couple of games a year it wears off fast. Winning half your games is a lot better from a fans perspective than winning 2 or 3 games a season and to be able to do so without most of their best players remaining is even better.

Bulls and Sharks are still losing half their games this season so not nessicarily down to just their results. The magic is just back and fans want to go. Last season Bulls gave away tickets for less than $1 against Ulster and could only get 19k. SA media are bigging up the league like they haven't done for years in SR. If SRP got more positive media then fans are more likely to buy into it. Bad media is like anti-advertising

Good to see the recovery in SA supporters after the drop in numbers. It is natural consequence of losing regularly then winning regularly. Australia needs to see that and likewise switch to or commit to a competition (i.e. a domestic competition) where they can regularly win games. The fans will follow and in the longer term the sport will strengthen.

You might find fiwi, that many of those of PI heritage were born in Aotearoa & went through the local systems there. Some do come from the PI’s at any early age, & do the same. As it is, those that are born in Aotearoa, many do, go & play for their nation of heritage.

Sadly Murdoch did stuff league up with his invent of Super league, in the mid 90's, as the game was so much better before that, but TBH, I'd rather see the NZRFU, keep the NPC, the way it is now. We don't really need other nations competing in our own provincial competition, as that is what, the likes of SR is for fiwi. Each to their own, as it's the nation that needs these developing games to start developing their own.

If a competition goes from 46m viewers to half that the commercial reality makes the precipice come quicker. By losing 5 teams that account for over half the viewers of SR means any sponsers or advertising gets alot smaller from international companies. Yes the NZ internal deal is good but when SR was the richest it wasn't the NZ market that made it rich, the more NZR have had to rely on its own market the harder its become.

True. It's just disappointing that there are some fans, commentators and 'experts' that assume a blow out scoreline, and anything but is heavily scrutinised. The whole argument for 'oh he's only in the wider squad for these easier matches' is insulting. Was nor aware they play a warm up match? That would be interesting considering their first RWC match is against France (Viva los Bleus!)

According to ‘expert’ Geoff Parkes the All Blacks have a relatively easy Pool to breeze through (again). An insult to Italy and Namibia and Uraguay. Arrogant expectation to simply Smash these need to beware and change things up.

Nice article mate. Sad it got lost in the opening weekend.