The future of Super rugby

[Wally]

In Australia anyway, rugby is under growing threat of slipping into oblivion through the constant aggresive expansion of the other three football codes. This country has one of the most congested sporting markets in the world, if not the most. Rugby therefore faces a huge uphill battle to compete at the same level as rugby league, the AFL, and most recently soccer, at national level.

Rugby has always had the advantage of international competition, but soccer is quickly eating away at the Wallabies position as the no. 1 national football team. Domestically, it is struggling to keep up with the other three codes.

Changes need to be made. I believe these changes will help not only Australia but also the other two SANZAR unions (we have seen a massive player drain from all three countries, especially New Zealand in recent seasons).

Here are some changes that I think the ruling body should strongly consider to ensure rugby is one of the most dominant sports in the southern hemisphere:

• Expansion

- It's not up to me to decide where to expand, but I think the general consensus of everyone in the rugby community is to push into Asia, and give the island nations a go.

- More games need to be played in order for rugby to compete at a domestic level in Australia. While this might seem selfish from a New Zealand or South African point of view, more games means a bigger television deal, which leads to more money. Money keeps players and grows the game.

• Private ownership of teams

- Again, means bigger bucks.

• Imports

- Increases the quality of competition. Although imports would need to be regulated so that they did not impede too much on local talent.

• Free-trade between nations
  

- A free-trade agreement between nations would allow players from all three SANZAR nations to move around with with little or no restriction, not coming under the import rule, making the competition more exciting and helping to stem the talent exodus to Europe. "The big bonus to such a free-trade plan would be in players retaining their Test eligibility. National selectors would still be judging efforts in the same competition just as New Zealand league selectors pick Test players from Australian NRL clubs." Jim Tucker, The Courier Mail.

• Salary cap
  

- As it is there is no across the board salary cap. I think with private ownership and imports a real possibility, a consistent salary cap would need to be introduced to ensure tje level of competition is well balanced. I find one of the major faults of great soccer leagues like the EPL is that only three or four teams ever push for the ***le any given season.

• Deregulation

- I think the national bodies have too much influence, and their power needs to be more limited. I would say Test and domestic player payments would need to be separate in order for this competition to work at its best.

I believe if some or all of these ideas were implemented it would pave to way for a massively successful competition. I'm sure there are loopholes in my argument which many of you will be more than happy to point out, including factors such as national selection, but I think it's a start. Feel free to inject your own ideas.

 

[Hamster]

I reckon the SA teams should make there own domestic comp with the Pumas, then Australia-NZ-Japan comp instead, with 6 AUssies teams (a new GC and VIC TEAM) 5 NZ and 1 Japan. Agree with the most above, aloowing more imports, but basically gotta offer more money to players some how to stop player drain to Europe. Defiently a SC of some sort to stop Crusaders from dominating every year.

 

[Steve-o]

Here are some changes that I think the ruling body should strongly consider to ensure rugby is one of the most dominant sports in the southern hemisphere:

• Expansion

- It's not up to me to decide where to expand, but I think the general consensus of everyone in the rugby community is to push into Asia, and give the island nations a go.

- More games need to be played in order for rugby to compete at a domestic level in Australia. While this might seem selfish from a New Zealand or South African point of view, more games means a bigger television deal, which leads to more money. Money keeps players and grows the game.

[/b]

I'm not sure what you mean by it will be selfish from a NZ or SA perspective? If it's at domestic level it won't affect us. That said, I don't know how they're gonna revive the ARC. It was making massive losses.

Expanding to the island nations seems the way to go expansion wise, but financially it will be a struggle. They aren't very rich nations. Japan has a huge financial potential.

• Free-trade between nations
  

- A free-trade agreement between nations would allow players from all three SANZAR nations to move around with with little or no restriction, not coming under the import rule, making the competition more exciting and helping to stem the talent exodus to Europe. "The big bonus to such a free-trade plan would be in players retaining their Test eligibility. National selectors would still be judging efforts in the same competition just as New Zealand league selectors pick Test players from Australian NRL clubs." Jim Tucker, The Courier Mail.

[/b]

If this is to be implemented AND Australian rugby decides to expand to Asia and the PI's it will be very unfair for the latter 2. They'll be stuck with their small player pools while AUS will have free range options from arguably the 2 strongest rugby nations in the world.

From a SH perspective free-trade will decrease the 'Northern Drift' but from a SA perspective how many players wanna come to SA which is still a 3rd world country? From us it won't be worth it, we'll be giving NZ & AUS a blank cheque.

• Salary cap
  

- As it is there is no across the board salary cap. I think with private ownership and imports a real possibility, a consistent salary cap would need to be introduced to ensure the level of competition is well balanced. I find one of the major faults of great soccer leagues like the EPL is that only three or four teams ever push for the ***le any given season.



[/b]

This is works very well in the NFL and other American sports but is extremely dangerous to implement in a global game like rugby. The Blue Bulls are already putting players like Botha, Olivier and Habana on special contracts just to hold them in SA, putting a salary cap on them will be chopping their arms off. As long as teams in France don't have salary caps this will be a very damaging to rugby in the SH.

I like the private ownership idea, I really do, but you have to go all or nothing if you gonna introduce it. Salary caps are a big no no.

• Deregulation

- I think the national bodies have too much influence, and their power needs to be more limited. I would say Test and domestic player payments would need to be separate in order for this competition to work at its best.


[/b]

Eventually Test rugby is gonna start to take a back seat, it's inevitable. I agree, nation unions should have less say.

 

[ChiefsFan]

An expansion should include the removal of the SA teams, one more NZ team (Northland + Harbour), three PI teams, Japan and two AR teams. Bringing the total to 16. This would allow two pools where each team plays one another twice with the top four from each pool having a Semifinal between themselves with the two champs from each pool playing in a Semi Finals and then Finals. Australia doesn't need more than Four Teams.

 

[Wally]

Here are some changes that I think the ruling body should strongly consider to ensure rugby is one of the most dominant sports in the southern hemisphere:

• Expansion

- It's not up to me to decide where to expand, but I think the general consensus of everyone in the rugby community is to push into Asia, and give the island nations a go.

- More games need to be played in order for rugby to compete at a domestic level in Australia. While this might seem selfish from a New Zealand or South African point of view, more games means a bigger television deal, which leads to more money. Money keeps players and grows the game.

[/b]

I'm not sure what you mean by it will be selfish from a NZ or SA perspective? If it's at domestic level it won't affect us. That said, I don't know how they're gonna revive the ARC. It was making massive losses.

Expanding to the island nations seems the way to go expansion wise, but financially it will be a struggle. They aren't very rich nations. Japan has a huge financial potential.

[/b]

I was implying that Saffas and Kiwis are generally very parochial about their respective domestic competions, ie Currie Cup and Air New Zealand Cup. The expansion of Super rugby to a 21 plus week competition would surely impede on these existing professional or semi professional tournaments.

The subject of adding a pacific island team/s is always going to be a tricky one. I think it would be financially impossible to base a team in Fiji, Samoa or Tonga. Where you would then base such a team with any real success I'm not so sure. New Zealand I suppose, or western Sydney. Your right about Japan, tapping into Asia will bring huge financial windfalls.

 

[Ripper]

An expansion should include the removal of the SA teams, one more NZ team (Northland + Harbour), three PI teams, Japan and two AR teams. Bringing the total to 16. This would allow two pools where each team plays one another twice with the top four from each pool having a Semifinal between themselves with the two champs from each pool playing in a Semi Finals and then Finals. Australia doesn't need more than Four Teams. [/b]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - NO Argie teams below international level. Any half decent Argie player is already snapped up earning the big bucks in Europe - how exactly is two teams made up of Buenos Aires club rugby players facing fully professional squads with All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks going to help the game over there?

 

[BLR]

An expansion should include the removal of the SA teams, one more NZ team (Northland + Harbour), three PI teams, Japan and two AR teams. Bringing the total to 16. This would allow two pools where each team plays one another twice with the top four from each pool having a Semifinal between themselves with the two champs from each pool playing in a Semi Finals and then Finals. Australia doesn't need more than Four Teams.
[/b]

Considering we are a much larger potential rugby market with many areas still to tap I don't see your reasoning...6 NZ teams and 4 Australian teams? As long as the AB's have much more depth we'll be sweet right?

 

[ChiefsFan]

<div class='quotemain'> An expansion should include the removal of the SA teams, one more NZ team (Northland + Harbour), three PI teams, Japan and two AR teams. Bringing the total to 16. This would allow two pools where each team plays one another twice with the top four from each pool having a Semifinal between themselves with the two champs from each pool playing in a Semi Finals and then Finals. Australia doesn't need more than Four Teams. [/b]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - NO Argie teams below international level. Any half decent Argie player is already snapped up earning the big bucks in Europe - how exactly is two teams made up of Buenos Aires club rugby players facing fully professional squads with All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks going to help the game over there?
[/b][/quote]



The thing is, if a competition ran with Argentinian teams in it, the Argentinians who are currently playing in Eurpoe could then play in this competition thus opening up a time for Argentina to play in an expanded Tri Nations

<div class='quotemain'>
An expansion should include the removal of the SA teams, one more NZ team (Northland + Harbour), three PI teams, Japan and two AR teams. Bringing the total to 16. This would allow two pools where each team plays one another twice with the top four from each pool having a Semifinal between themselves with the two champs from each pool playing in a Semi Finals and then Finals. Australia doesn't need more than Four Teams.


[/b]

Considering we are a much larger potential rugby market with many areas still to tap I don't see your reasoning...6 NZ teams and 4 Australian teams? As long as the AB's have much more depth we'll be sweet right? [/b][/quote]



Currently Australia doesn't have enough depth. After a few years when teams are brimming with good players and reserves with good ability then a Gold Coast team (or wherever) can begin. At the moment however they would just get slaughtered. At the moment there is one Oz team with a realistic chance of making the Semis. If we give them another team they should be on par with NZ.

 

[BLR]

Currently Australia doesn't have enough depth. After a few years when teams are brimming with good players and reserves with good ability then a Gold Coast team (or wherever) can begin. At the moment however they would just get slaughtered. At the moment there is one Oz team with a realistic chance of making the Semis. If we give them another team they should be on par with NZ.
[/b]

The problem doesn't lie in the talent, we showed plenty of that in the ARC. The problem lies in the fact that for many years correct talent hasn't been identified, it's an administration problem more then anything. The last few week Luke Burgess has sparked the Tah backline, he wouldn't have been identified if not for the ARC. The first years would be tough but if you have decent admin and coaching then we'll be fine.

 

[ChiefsFan]

<div class='quotemain'>
Currently Australia doesn't have enough depth. After a few years when teams are brimming with good players and reserves with good ability then a Gold Coast team (or wherever) can begin. At the moment however they would just get slaughtered. At the moment there is one Oz team with a realistic chance of making the Semis. If we give them another team they should be on par with NZ.
[/b]

The problem doesn't lie in the talent, we showed plenty of that in the ARC. The problem lies in the fact that for many years correct talent hasn't been identified, it's an administration problem more then anything. The last few week Luke Burgess has sparked the Tah backline, he wouldn't have been identified if not for the ARC. The first years would be tough but if you have decent admin and coaching then we'll be fine. [/b][/quote]



But what good would adding a GC team do? I wouldn't be ARC level and thus, players would be identified exactly the same as now, just on a larger scale, which still isn't much. I didn't know Burgess schone (is that a word?) in the ARC so I'll give you that one. My idea was just an that, an idea, so it obvioulsy needs some nitpicking. The jist was that we need to incooperate the PIs, Japan and Argentina. I can actually see a merged team between somewhere like the GC, Canada and the US. After a few years when more talent has been identified the GC could become a seperate team. That's just my thinking though

 

[Wally]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
Currently Australia doesn't have enough depth. After a few years when teams are brimming with good players and reserves with good ability then a Gold Coast team (or wherever) can begin. At the moment however they would just get slaughtered. At the moment there is one Oz team with a realistic chance of making the Semis. If we give them another team they should be on par with NZ.
[/b]

The problem doesn't lie in the talent, we showed plenty of that in the ARC. The problem lies in the fact that for many years correct talent hasn't been identified, it's an administration problem more then anything. The last few week Luke Burgess has sparked the Tah backline, he wouldn't have been identified if not for the ARC. The first years would be tough but if you have decent admin and coaching then we'll be fine. [/b][/quote]



But what good would adding a GC team do?

[/b][/quote]
Besides the fact it would temporarily stretch the talent of Australian rugby for a few years, in the long run it would create a broader fan base, spread the game to unreached corners, ie Melbourne or Gold Coast, and inject more money into the game. One needs to only look at the success of the Western Force on and off the field to see what a good idea it is.

 

[scuubasteve]

I think what we're starting hear on this thread is the same problem that the SANZAR partnership must be facing at present also.

Each nation is going to want what's best for them first, and then will look to help out others second. It's impossible to ignore, because it's human nature (although I know that you lads also realise this too).

NZ and SA do not want to give up their domestic comps. Aussie wants more teams and an expanded comp to fill the void of no ARC. Argentina, Japan, North America and the PI's want more regular top level game time as well as home based domestic teams.

And everyone wants more money and big crowds, which none are getting presently. Most teams also want less travel to reduce player fatigue and keep their stars at home.

The American style conference system takes Rugby the furtherest from its bread and butter than it's ever been before. I'm not a fan of any of the proposals (on this site or in the media) but I really admire the effort, energy and courage that others have put into trying to resolve the issues that are facing our game.


In the Southern Hemisphere, Rugby has always been associated with National and Provincial unions and the teams representing these unions.

In modern times players have been asked to travel massive distances around the SH to play in the more lucrative Super comps. They have stated that they get sick of the repetition and the time away from home.

The Super comp is also beginning to wear thin on fans and, even after 10 years, there is still little tribalism in supporting these franchises (especially when comparing them to provincial teams).

Of the US$320million News Corp deal, giving contract rights to all rugby in the SANZAR nations through to 2010, 60% is said to be given for International matches, under 30% to Super Rugby and just over 10% to Provincial rugby (this is why Australia gets a smaller piece of the pie).

My question then is: Why are we placing so much effort in using the 60% to sustain Provinicial rugby and Super rugby? If you look at the success of rugby in England at the moment it has a lot to do with the fact that the Guinness Premiership clubs run their own show and sustain the Pro Club game. The RFU can then inject all the profit they make into the amateur game and increase the awareness and number of players (and therefore fans) of the game.

Why then doesn't the ARU, SARU and NZRU get their legal teams onto contract negotiations for the sale of the Provincial pro teams to private investors. We have seen where France and England has gone wrong and right and we should be able to steer clear of these issues.

With self sustaining Provincial comps (like the NRL and AFL) the Unions could spend their massive incomes, earned from the All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks to fund grassroots rugby and to pay each National team player massive match fees if they make the grade.

NZ, Aussie and SA all have many wealthy individuals and corperations who would love to get their rich little fingers on a pro team. These are also people who know and love the game and take pride in their region (like Bob Clarkson and Bay of Plenty).

We need to forget about having pro team based in the PI. It will never work. The GDP per capita is too low to support pro sports teams.

Instead, encourage each pro team to have a quota of Tier 2 eligible players, youth players and home grown players (e.g.In a squad of 35players, 25 must come from the home nation, 5 must be tier 2 eligible and 5 must be Under20).

 

[BLR]

Maybe just take the Super teams out of each respective Provincial competition and make the NPC and Curry cup a relegating and promotion competition into Super rugby. Of course the ARU needs to get of thier arse and bring back the ARC but it'd make it much more fresh if new teams were brought in every year, with the bottom finishing team of each nation being relegated and the winner of the provincial competition coming up. The team coming up would get a large cash injection so they could compete, much like the EPL and the players for the relegated team would obviously be able to be brought and sold by other teams so that it's not the case of the relegated team dominating in the provincial competition.

It keeps the tribalism, as the teams would remain provincial based and not franchised. While at the same time adds a two tier system which would add alot more games for television viewing.

Let's say 18 teams in the top flight, 6 per nation.

Division two would be basically just the teams that didn't make it into Division one, and would be a provincial tournament, with the winners going through.

South Africa
Division one
Natal, Free State, Golden Lions, Blue Bulls, Western Province, Griquas(They came sixth in the Curry Cup last year)

Division Two
Leopards, Pumas, Border Bulldogs, Mighty Elephants, Griffons, Boland Cavaliers,Eagles, Falcons

Maybe some teams for Namibia would be good to add as well into thier competition to make up more numbers.

New Zealand
Division One
Otago, Auckland, Waikato, Wellington, Canterbury

Division Two
Bay of Plenty, Counties Manukau , Hawke's Bay, Manawatu, North Harbour, Northland , Southland, Taranaki,
Tasman.

Also maybe keep the Heartland Championship in place as a relegation system into Division Two.
Australia
Division One
Perth, Brisbane, Canberra, Sydney, West Sydney, Gold Coast.

Division Two
Central Coast, Melbourne, Adelaide, Hobart, Cairns, East Sydney(Maybe)

The Australian teams in the second division will probably be split down more to keep the NSW club tribalisms, which was the main complaint over the ARC. And the development teams could go into Division two as well.

Anyway, how does that sound? Integrates the provincial tournaments into Super rugby while keeping the tribal rivalries plus the relegation system adds a bit of romance and freshness each year to the competition. Also a cup competition should be added, much like the FA cup which will include all divisions, this is where the 'romance' comes in.

 

[Steve-o]

BLR, I like the idea that teams have to work to be in the Super 14, and not just given it every year.
I for one, don't mind sacrificing the tradition of the Currie Cup (the oldest rugby competition in the world) for the greater good of Super Rugby.
BTW in your plan are you counting, for instance, the Sharks and Natal separately?

 

[BLR]

BLR, I like the idea that teams have to work to be in the Super 14, and not just given it every year.
I for one, don't mind sacrificing the tradition of the Currie Cup (the oldest rugby competition in the world) for the greater good of Super Rugby.
BTW in your plan are you counting, for instance, the Sharks and Natal separately?
[/b]

Well the Currie cup could still continue but as a division two competition, like how in English Soccer the old First Division trophy was given to what is now the First Division, the championship, while the EPL is a league upon itself....

I thought the Sharks where Natal? They were when Super rugby first started up...but yes, the Franchises as they stand wouldn't exist as much, besides maybe the original names for marketing and continuation purposes, as the focus would be on making it a true provincial competition where everyone knows where each team comes from. Basically making it like the Heineken cup of the south but a league obviously...the seperate yearly cup with all divisions in SA, NZ, and Australia would be the Heineken cup of the south...but better of course.

 

[Steve-o]

Oh I thought the structure would be: S14 --> D1 --> D2.
Like you said Natal and the Sharks are basically the same, I thought you were counting them separately, which would cause problems.

 

[BLR]

Oh I thought the structure would be: S14 --> D1 --> D2.
Like you said Natal and the Sharks are basically the same, I thought you were counting them separately, which would cause problems.
[/b]

Nope, I think the best thing is to integrate it all in, so that there is no 'Auckland Blues' and Auckland NPC type schitzophrenia...basically go back to club level like up north but instead integrate all three countries top levels with the other provincial divisions branching out from there on a national level...

I think SANZAR made the Super teams somewhat soulless, case in point, because the Highlanders contain Southland they were forced to change thier theme song chorus from 'Otago Highlanders', to something along the lines of 'Go-oh Highlanders'. Although a little thing it just shows how they are trying to put too many areas into one provincial team...plus if Otago goes back to being the big O and have a chance of being relegated they'll get thier act together and stop the a-holes whinging about their suitability to top level rugby. :%#%#:

 

[Steve-o]

Yeah, some of the S14 team names are a bit 'Hollywood'and like say, trying to cover huge areas. Like the Sharks are technically the Coastal Sharks, since it covers the Eastern Cape as well now. I think that's why people in SA love the Currie Cup so much, that sense of provincial pride and patriotism is still there.
I think this is a better alternative to expanding the S14 to other countries. You should send this to SANZAR! Don't forget to add that it's TRF endorsed lol

 

[BLR]

I think this is a better alternative to expanding the S14 to other countries. You should send this to SANZAR! Don't forget to add that it's TRF endorsed lol
[/b]

Considering how much we talk about the expansion we may as well brainstorm a proposal to the individual unions....I'm sure we could get better then what they get, hell, after we made Chabal a world phenomenom they probably look on here to find out what the people want.

 

[Steve-o]

Lol true, I say give it crack. What's the worst they can say, 'No, you silly goose!'