To me, it is as a straightforward decision as they come; New Zealand Rugby, Rugby Australia, SANNZAR and the Super Rugby commissioner should be looking into expanding the competition by 2026.
The current playoff structure looks really odd for the competition which makes it boring for the viewers when they already know who is more likely to be in the playoffs every year now – basically, it is the Kiwi sides.
Australian Super Rugby teams are growing weaker as New Zealand-based teams grow stronger. Teams play each other with no meaning, always seeing each other every year which makes it even more boring. So, why is Super Rugby not looking at changing for the better?
NZ rugby teams have basically dominated the past twenty-five strong years in the competition – and they will continue to do so if the playoff structure and amount of teams in the competition are kept the same in the long-term future.
The answer to fixing this issue is by expanding the number of teams on both the New Zealand and Australian sides of the Tasman.
It should be expanding to seven NZ-based teams, with the addition coming from either Tauranga, Napier, New Plymouth or Palmerston North. They could make the next team a Mid-Central North Island team where they alternate venues, such as New Plymouth/Palmerston North, which would make ideal sense. Taranaki Rugby is also producing a lot of internationally capped players and is likely to continue creating more, along with Palmerston North.
The same goes for RA with expansion to seven Australian-based teams, which would give a combined total of 14 in the men’s competition, but I will get to the Aussies a bit later.
The NZ Super Rugby player pool is a huge concern due to too many international cap players going unused. For the likes of Blues, Chiefs and Crusaders, some of the players do not get 15 or more matches under their name a year due to too many internationally capped players or same age level, by having to compete against each other for a spot in the 23 squad match day.
It is time NZ Rugby took more action on this issue by talking and negotiating with their contracted based from Blues, Chiefs and Crusaders to move to Australian-based teams since too much player pool competition going on and see the benefits of making the move to Australia.
It is a good opportunity for NZR players in case they cannot get contracts outside of their home country. The players with less than 10 international caps are the ones very unlikely to be picked up by international clubs, that is unless the player has the capability of changing country allegiance and is very likely to play for the country chosen.
Not only that, the players are unlikely to be picking up game time in NZ super sides due to same age level competition (young internationally capped vs young developing/potential international capped) battling out for a place in match day line-up.
If there was an expansion team for Australia, it would be the perfect place for ‘young internationally capped NZR players’ to be based. The player pool stays the same for RA players meaning opens space for Kiwi players looking towards moving to RA sides, along with helping Aussie-based sides with transferable knowledge and skills.
Tom Hooper of the Brumbies. (Photo by Mark Nolan/Getty Images)
For both NZR and RA, it would open the market for young internationally capped NZR contracted players who want to be given options to either move to Australia or stay in NZ where they are able to play 15 or more matches. All Kiwi players should also look to strengthen their ties with Argentinan rugby (UAR) since they are part of SANNZAR.
NZR and UAR should strike a players deal with each other which would enable UAR-contracted players in NZ Super teams if they cannot find any suitable or experienced internationally capped players willing to come to New Zealand to help uplift knowledge and skills.
Having UAR-contracted players would uplift NZR-contracted players’ skills due to exposure playing with and against them in the competition. Not only that, it would help UAR even more through the development side by creating a pathway since NZ is a ‘rugby nation’ and good at developing its own rugby players.
An expansion to 14 teams would open the player market for NZR-contracted players by giving them more options on their futures.
Vaiolini Ekuasi of the Rebels. (Photo by Kelly Defina/Getty Images)
One problem on the Australian side of the Tasman, I do not believe that RA has the funding for an expansion team. If there was one, it should base a team in either NSW (Penrith or Parramatta) or Queensland (Gold Coast or Townsville). One way around it is joint ownership with UAR, meaning they form a combined team owned by ARU (50-70% owned) & UAR (50-30% owned). That way Argentinian players do not have to travel long distances to play in competition.
Over time Australia and Argentina should look to expanding more teams in the future, as it would improve relations between RA-UAR and SANNZAR-UAR because it would help players entering the professional development market be able to properly develop and compete.
That way, UAR in the future, can compete in professional competitions, just like the UAR-based Jaguares competed in Super Rugby – and teams will be able to compete with each other in their own fully professional competition or representative continent (not like Super Liga Americana de Rugby, which is semi-professional).
Therefore, I believe that Australian Super Rugby sides and RA would benefit hugely from an expansion; the wider access to the player market, improved relations between governing unions, better playoff structure based on the number of teams and lastly improved Super Rugby playoffs.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
I think NZ needs to run 14 teams and the top 4 from the previous season enter Super Rugby in a knockout group-style format like the European Rugby Championship. Australia on the other hand should move back to prioritizing local competitions in Sydney, Melbourne, Queensland, ACT and Perth. Australia should play a similar internal, but shorter tournament between the top 8 clubs in the country from the previous season, meaning an 8-team knockout-style tournament between: 3 Sydney Teams 2 Queensland Teams 1 Melbourne Team 1 Perth Team 1 ACT Team Such a tournament could be split into two pools with the top two in each pool playing the semi and final sometime in the earlier part of the season. In addition, there would be another 8 games to play in a Super Rugby Championship with NZ teams. This means 16 weeks out of a possible 28 weeks is taken up for top level clubs in Australia with high stakes matches. In New Zealand the 14-team NPC can run alongside the same competition and while the top 4 NZ teams would compete in a 8 week Super tournament the rest of the time they would play a single round robin against the other NZ teams. The beauty is that the NZ NPC is quite competitive and there are too many players for just the top 4 teams so the top 4 would potentially change year in and year out. The qualifying teams for each years tournament should strictly be taken from the local competition winners and rankings. The hardest part is finding some other games for the non qualifying clubs in Australia and NPC teams to play. In NZ this would be upto 16 weeks and in NZ 8 weeks. There are various options here: 4 weeks - Additional in-season rest weeks 2 weeks - establish traditional non-competition matches against traditional clubs 2 weeks - two local sevens tournaments 2 weeks - two local tens tournaments 2 - weeks - in-season team tours to other regions of the country or accepting international clubs to visit. Ultimately the non-qualifying clubs in say Brisbane could play a two-match round robin and one match each against the qualifying team. That would be a 15-match season if there were 8 teams, plus the potentially 3 weeks rest, 2 traditional matches, 1 sevens and 1 tens tournament plus 2 matches against a visiting team. That is a 21 match season of interesting games.
Gary Russell-Sharam
Roar Rookie
Your comment has a lot of sense in that I agree with all that you have stated. The conference system is a Do Do and always has been. I like the idea of NZ players playing for Aus Teams and vise versa for the Aus players. The comp would then become an equal competition and would be so much more entertaining. There then could be the avenue of creating a look alike SOO competition at the end or during the season. I know that this would be a copy of League but if they do it successfully, why could we not copy them and be successful at it
Rugbynutter
Roar Rookie
Agree expansion has to be the goal but of course with the right foundations...supporting even the current 12 teams in a flawed super rugby model will be even difficult. Yes creating a more open borders competition that ensures more free flow of players has to be one of the key design constructs given our market dynamics and NZ not able due to support expansion in country due to small market size etc. Hence I don't know if NZ can actually support 7 teams though due to their small market size but given more NZ players opportunities across the super rugby team has to be the win win.
Kevin
Roar Rookie
To start with, SRP should move to a PE system, allowing the unions to use more money in development of the game. Done properly, the unions can still control the competition rules, such as salary caps, max number of games etc, while PE can get the advantage of selling a great product. I would like to see all PI players eligible for any team, without any penalty or restriction, then have a strict salary cap and squad size limit, just like the IPL.
Phil McKraken
Roar Rookie
The competition is dead but the Doctors are too scared to pull the plug. The whole Super Rugby competition needs to be scrapped, declining crowds, declining ratings and declining interest. A better idea would be for a streamlined club competition (Perth and Melbourne and ACT included) in Australia and NZ with the winners of each competition then playing a “Super Bowl” Final. The Australian State teams of QLD and NSW play a three game series.
AZ
Roar Rookie
Threre's no point of a Japanese based side in SRP, since there's already starting up an intercontinental competition between Japan League One vs Super Rugby Pacific by 2026. you would have same Japanese teams versing other teams 3 times a year which is not what fans would like to see. It be better to include an Argentine team instead since they have no professional team (SLAR semi-professional) and are tier one nation without a professional team. Another NZ team would actually help the competition by opening up the player market, Same goes for the AU side, their player market would open up too. AU internationally capped players wouldn't be diminished from their respected clubs cause their nationally representing the country and RA need those players for marketing strategy. For those 'former internationally capped RA players', RA normally has players over 10 internationally caps, they don't pick up players who are likely not going to be in national team fro long period. So they won't have trouble finding another club overseas.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
One issue with increasing the number of teams is that it reduces the quality. It will reduce Super Rugby’s ability to produce players ready for internationals. This is part of the reason why the Wallabies have declined. Getting well beaten most games doesn’t make better players it encourages players to learn to keep the score down. It messes with confidence of players which flows through to internationals. Also, the chance that Super Rugby combinations will be ready to slot into an international side is reduced as the good players are spread over too many teams. Imagine if: Finegan, Gregan, Larkham, and Roff were all in different teams? Their awesome combination wouldn’t have been anywhere as good; that combination was one of the things that made that era’s Wallabies team great. The NZRU makes most of it’s revenue from the All Blacks (probably also the Rugby Australia from the Wallabies), and the All Blacks brand has taken a couple of decent knocks since 2015. Reducing the quality of the All Blacks further, by reducing the talent generated at Super Rugby level, will result in less sponsorship revenue for the All Blacks. New Zealand has trouble finding enough good players for five teams; especially as Moana Pasifika and to a lesser degree the Drua have recruited players that would’ve played for New Zealand teams. Another issue is the NZRU and Rugby Australia will have to find the money to pay the extra players. If this is done by reducing pay of the existing players this will result in more players going overseas as they won’t appreciate getting a pay cut; this will be especially bad for the players in the cusp of international duties as they won’t get their wages topped up by playing internationals; this will be even worse for the Australian players as they don’t have a professional third tier competition that can top up Super Rugby players that don’t get international duties. The NZRU is already in financial trouble and has come to the conclusion that it can’t afford 14 tier three teams. I doubt it can find the money for two additional tier two teams, without all their tier two teams taking a significant pay cut. This proposal seems to leave out the Moana Pasifika and the Drua. The Drua are one of the success stories of Super Rugby Pacific and are part of the reason why the Fijian international side has improved. It has formed a more solid core for the European based players to coalesce around. To get to 14 teams it would seem more logical to either bring in two Argentinian/South American sides, or one Argentinian side and split Moana Pasifika into one Samoan and one Tongan team. One benefit of this approach would be that it would continue to expand Super Rugby Pacific instead of reducing it a trans-Tasman competition. Another potential benefit is that having separate teams for Samoan and Tongan teams is that it will, hopefully, improve their respective national sides. To make the competition more competitive requires the Australian based teams to improve. The best way to do this is for the Australian teams to utilise the talent they have in their systems already instead of wasting it on untested league players and paying out perfectly good coaches to get a train wreak of a coach. If, in the spirit of making Super Rugby competitive, the New Zealand teams need to be watered down. It would far better to share New Zealand players with separate Samoan and Tongan Super Rugby teams, and also having New Zealand contracted players loaned to Australian teams. Once the Australian teams get more competitive the crowds will come back. Many of the NRL teams have lots of New Zealanders and the NRL is still popular. The same idea can work for Australian Super Rugby sides.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
All this constant carry-on about how NZR MUST give up its players to play for Aus sides in SR is rubbish. Aus can RIGHT NOW allow any player to play for an NZ SR side but refuses to open their selection policy. RA has this option right now and can also SIGN ANY NZ PLAYER they want to. Doesnt do it tho does it! JOC was blocked by RA from joining the Chiefs so why would NZR do something that RA already refuses to do? Also these extra 2 teams for Aus and NZ, where does the 10mil per team come from that is required? RA are broke and millions in debt. RA cant afford the interest let alone paying back the loans. This stuff is a bit of a fantasy really. Yep get MP to play a few games a year in western Sydney and thats probably about it.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
Yeah coz the Brumbies, Tahs, Reds, Rebels and Force are so much better geographicly than the Blues, Chiefs, Canes, Saders and Highlanders eh cs.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
Wow 5 extra sides in NZ all from the north Island. What an overload. Thats going to be 8 teams from the NI. Crazy stuff.
FatOldHalfback
Roar Rookie
I agree with 2 more teams but I would just have a Japan based side and another NZ team. The Sunwolves were popular with good home crowds and TV ratings even though they weren't very successful. Another NZ side will dilute the NZ teams a bit and help level the playing field. Each team would play play all the others home-and-away across 2 seasons for 13 games plus a 6 team final series. After the final, while the internationals are on, the Aussie sides could play another set of derby matches (to complete 8 home-and-away games) with points from the first set carried forward before a 3 team final series.
Footy Franks
Roar Rookie
More NZ players less Australian players will improve the spectacle. Chiefs vs crusaders finals again, riveting for OZ spectators.
fiwiboy7042
Roar Rookie
Yep because David Rennie, Rob Penney, Robbie Deans, Daryl Gibson and Robbie Deans worked so well within the RA set-up .... hang on a sec!! :shocked:
Hepcat
Roar Rookie
The Rugby Codes need to have some proper reconciling sessions and then hopeful settle down as one together as AFL and Soccer are the real monsters in the room.
Hepcat
Roar Rookie
Hear we go round in circles again....this madness chat has to stop.
Good Game
Roar Rookie
"The worry about NZ players playing in Australia is the coaching." Indeed...
AZ
Roar Rookie
Lot’s of fans do like the idea of conferences, makes ideal sense for both NZ/AU to have conference ladders. NZ/AU not same country, however we are in the same continent (Pacific). It’s how Super Rugby Pacific came about and should stay that way but have seperate conferences whist adding two more teams to make 14 team Super Rugby Pacific competition, so it fixes the playoff problem it faces. We also both like playing our own clubs domestically rather than internationally since it’s not meaningful compared with domestic. To get ‘Best of Both Worlds’, you’d need less nz clubs vs au clubs and more nz vs nz or au vs au cause that interest viewers more. Every club plays ‘two domestic clubs’ twice a year, then every other teams every one year. Makes more sense to play every domestic team twice a year, in this case if expanded to 14 team Super Rugby Pacific, be 6 teams twice a year. Meaning would need to reduce nz clubs vs au clubs matches. There’s no need for Japan to enter Super Rugby when they’ve got a fully professional competition which is filled with heaps of stars already while Argentina doesn’t have fully professional competition and stars. By doing choosing a nation who already got resources (Japan) you’re abandoning another nation who’s undeveloped resources (Argentina). Also as for Japan, new continental club cup between Super Rugby sides & Japan League One will start in 2026 so there’s no need for Japan to be included in Super Rugby.
piru
Roar Rookie
It's the great what-if isn't it? I wonder if my Force GRR jersey will be worth something one day?
Cam Stokes
Roar Pro
Thanks for the article, it's great to read something about trying to improve SR as opposed to just dumping it. I am completely onboard with the idea of 2 new NZ teams, but I think Aust needs to consolidate our current footprint for a while before we look to expand too quickly. Spreading the NZ talent a little thinner has the potential to tighten the comp up a little bit, which would be great, but I really want Aust to focus on pathways into the current SR sides and developing tribalism with those sides before we reach out much further. Great thinking though.
cs
Roar Guru
Indeed Silent. There's an obtuse explanation based on the non-aligned super v local nz comp. If we're going to expand the number of nz teams, it'd be so much better to align them with specific spaces. All sport is local. Tribal rivalry depends on attachment to place.