SA to push for bigger Super Rugby
24 Jan 2013
MARK KEOHANE writes South Africa will this year support an expanded Super Rugby competition to accommodate the Kings and Lions. But Pacific Island teams will again miss out.
Any expansion can only happen in 2016 but take it as a given Super Rugby will comprise more teams, but they won’t feature teams from the Pacific Islands because there is no financial gain to be made.
Sanzar CEO Greg Peters told the media Sanzar’s three partners Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would make the decision to expand or not later in 2013.
Argentina, Canada, Japan and the United States are seen as the primary targets. Japan because of the cash cow it promises to be, Argentina as a commitment to the expanded Rugby Championship that featured the Pumas for the first time and Canada and the United States because they are seen as potential cash cows, especially the United States. The word is to have one team from each of those countries.
It is one of the reasons Canada and the United States will play in the Pacific Nations Cup, which again shows how poorly the Island representation of Tonga, Fiji and Samoa are treated within Sanzar.
South Africa has always been seen as the big brother to Samoa in terms of value attributed to playing against Samoa and giving the country’s rugby side as much playing opportunity as possible.
New Zealand and Australia do nothing to promote the virtues of any of the Island teams because financially they offer nothing in terms of broadcasting deals.
‘We are considering whether or not we will include new territories in Super Rugby and one of the factors we’ll be weighing up is their [Canada and United States] competitiveness,’ Peters told The Australian.
‘Super Rugby in its present form is a pretty successful model … and we are not going to water it down. But we’d be derelict in our duty if we didn’t consider expanding into areas. The United States is a very big market and so is Japan and Asia generally. Ultimately it all comes down to what is in the best interests of the three Sanzar parties.’
Peters said player welfare would be a consideration but an expanded competition may allow for the tournament to be split into two pools of 10 teams each, although Australia will definitely not want to lose the conference system and the double-header local derbies. It is proving massive in Australia and the current format gives Australia everything it has wanted in a rugby union tournament that competes with the AFL (Aussie rules) and rugby league’s NRL.
Television audience figures and match attendance were highest in Australian Super Rugby for derby matches and because Australia has no provincial domestic competition Super Rugby doubles as their domestic competition. Just how South Africa and New Zealand agreed to give up so much for Australia to have so much gain is a question that can never be answered by those who did the surrender. If it could they would not have done so.
Ideally South Africa should be playing in a Super Rugby tournament with the best from England and France. Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands and Japan should have their own Super Rugby tournament. Geographically that makes more sense, but the Celtic nations (Scotland, Ireland and Wales) remain the stumbling block to any South African participation in Europe.
New Zealand knows it can’t do justice to more than five teams, Australia is at its maximum and South Africa’s only need is to ease the political tensions and have all six regions represented. Then it is a matter of which new territories can make the existing Sanzar partners the biggest financial net gain.
Sanzar’s counter argument to the Pacific Islands is that it is the responsibility of the IRB to develop those countries. I don’t buy it, but then Sanzar has never been big on a purchase of morality.
540 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Show All
24 Jan 2013, 10:35 am
@NZINCHINA-137:
@Hurricane-139:
why is it so hard for you to accept only one or two Kiwi teams are ever likely champs?
honestly, i dont see how this is a disservice, at all.
@PissAnt-140:
we’ll keep the tests more or less as they are, if anything there’s an argument for playing against them more often at provincial/franchise level in fact being detrimental to our game at national level.
the value of interest and viewer numbers would not go down as far as the SA rugby fan/subscriber base is concerned. combining the three largest and richest rugby markets (plus a few others) easily implies increases in revenue and wealth across the board.
all i see are win-wins, everywhere i look.
24 Jan 2013, 10:36 am
Yep…catch you up Hurricane,China Pops….Houston,Ufo and RL…KA KITE ANO
24 Jan 2013, 10:37 am
The criticism of NZ and Samoa is not aimed at the people of New Zealand but at those running NZRFU who have not embraced Samoa as a brother in the game.
24 Jan 2013, 10:40 am
@keo-153:
Keo…you’re all good…Look after youself…sorry for the bad words…Good topic though. I do agree we can do more for Island Rugby.
24 Jan 2013, 10:41 am
@Hurricane-145:
hehehe
you know it, i know it, everybody knows it, Hurri
you guys fiddle far too much for anybodies liking at times.
i enjoy healthy competition but flip man, where do you draw the line..?..
@Te Rangatira-146:
hahaha
glad you’re listening to me too, TR.
yes, i welcome stringency… at ALL LEVELS OF WHAT WE DO..
@Hurricane-147:
@NZINCHINA-150:
cheers Boys.
24 Jan 2013, 10:42 am
@Te Rangatira-152:
cheers TR, have a good one bud.
24 Jan 2013, 10:44 am
@keo-153:
Fair enough…we all know how most the Rugby Unions can be failures.
24 Jan 2013, 10:44 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-151: Well, in 2013 there are 3 NZ title contenders: Chiefs, Saders & Landers …
& the Landers franchise is the best value for money bet for outright Super XV victory
you betta believe it …
24 Jan 2013, 10:46 am
Keo has mollified the keewee contingent.
Peace is restored.
24 Jan 2013, 10:53 am
@gunther-159:
24 Jan 2013, 10:59 am
This is too much. Just keep it at 15 teams and play a 16 week tournament lasting from Febuary until May. That keeps people interested and makes sure each team plays the others once. Thats all we need. The only expansion could be a team from Argentina and adding both Lions and Kings.
That is it. Keep it where its at.
Stormers, Sharks, Bulls, Cheetahs, Kings
Blues, Cheifs, Hurricanes, Highlanders, Crusaders
Reds, Waratahs, Brumbies, Force, Rebels
With option to include Lions + Argentine team.
24 Jan 2013, 11:06 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-118: Bakkies. I am saying that teams like the Lions and Cheetahs have not exactly set super rugby on fire – ever. A mid table finish would beahugeachievement, a miracle.
If they won more than what they lost over the years, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
No Kiwi or Aussie team has performed as badly as some of our teams. No-one can deny this. It’s out there for all to see (and yes, it is sad.)
24 Jan 2013, 11:07 am
SA doesn’t deserve 6 teams.
for all the vaunted depth you guys apparently have, you struggle getting 4 competitive teams
24 Jan 2013, 11:08 am
@the curse-163: True
24 Jan 2013, 11:10 am
@Angostura-158:
i’ll be following the Landers progress with interest then, Ango.
i do think they’re gonna be a little hard done by with the conference format as it is and the 10 point free lunches for SA teams added in, throw in the scrap between them in their local derbies and i would say its possible only one at best two NZ teams will make the playoffs this season.
24 Jan 2013, 11:12 am
For the good of the game we should be shrinking not growing this format.
But I understand that this is a business and they see the opportunity to make some money over the next 3 or 4 years,. Long term there will be a payoff in terms of other competitions. Including internationals.
24 Jan 2013, 11:13 am
you can tell the season is almost upon us
24 Jan 2013, 11:14 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-165:
i mean, seriously… when’s the last time the Crusaders won a title?
one Kiwi win in five seasons so far
expect more of the same
24 Jan 2013, 11:15 am
@the curse-163: Pops, I agree with you. SA should be fielding 4 teams and not one more. Bulls, Stormers, Sharks and a Recce team with the remaining players.
24 Jan 2013, 11:16 am
those days are over
tighter rules and wiser saffa teams have seen to that
24 Jan 2013, 11:17 am
Just sharing it around Bakkies
8 titles more than our partners means we have to throw a few to build your guys hopes some
24 Jan 2013, 11:17 am
Todd Blackadder you beaut! …
24 Jan 2013, 11:19 am
we are no ‘big brother’ to those NZ born Samoan thugs…farkem…they play vuilgat rugby when they pitted against us.
24 Jan 2013, 11:20 am
if they expand then a two tier conference system is the only way Imo
or alternatively a top six after conference playoffs, top two from each who play each other team once and after round robin top two play the final. only concern would be location of games
24 Jan 2013, 11:20 am
Bring back the S12 I say.
That was the greatest rugby comp in the world. Every single game a humdinger.
24 Jan 2013, 11:22 am
oh, and a heartfelt thank you goes out Transformation and Mark
for their tireless campaigning of the Kings cause
i can honestly say
rugby… has been the winner…
24 Jan 2013, 11:23 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-165:
Apart from their impressive list of player acquisitions, the Landers this year have the most accommodating fixture list & travel schedule of all franchises:
And they don’t play the Stormers, who I think might just be tops at the conclusion of the log-stage.
fwiw
24 Jan 2013, 11:24 am
@The Sharks rugby pedigree is packaged as dog food-162:
and i am saying that only one or two Kiwi teams are ever likely super champs, at any time.
where are we missing each other, Pedi..?..
24 Jan 2013, 11:25 am
@the curse-171:
really?
do you mean it, Pops..?..
you dont sound like you do…
24 Jan 2013, 11:27 am
@Transformation-173:
Keo says that sometimes little brothers can be ungrateful vuilgat thugs.
Has the KING10 EP arrived yet?
I have a new Piccanto being delivered in Bulls livery next Thursday.
24 Jan 2013, 11:27 am
Reading some of the post on who is the better teams in super rugby i went and counted log positions over the last 17 years per team and dived it by the amount of years that team participated to get an average log position for that team.
Please note that this is for all games played before the playoffs.
This only indicates how successfull teams are through the year and not how many trophies they have won.
So here are the teams in order with their average log positions.
1. Crusaders – 3.59
2. Brumbies – 5.29
3. Blues – 5.82
4. Waratahs – 6.24
5. Sharks – 6.29
6. Stormers – 6.44
7. Bulls – 6.65
8. Hurricanes – 6.82
9. Chiefs – 7.00
10. Reds – 7.29
11. Highlanders – 7.76
12. Cheetahs – 10.75
13. Force – 10.86
14. Lions – 10.88
15 Rebels – 14.00
24 Jan 2013, 11:28 am
of course
it was good a new team in the chiefs won it last year. or do you disagree? you’d rather the same teams won it year after year?
24 Jan 2013, 11:31 am
rebels shouldn’t be in the list. they haven’t competed long enough imo
24 Jan 2013, 11:33 am
@Mr Black-181: that proves my earlier contention that the Bulls franchise is on average a mid-table team (with wild swings in both directions)
farken crazy deviation from the mean bru
24 Jan 2013, 11:38 am
@the curse-174:
basically the loss comes where some teams will never get to play others so fans of those regions lose out on seeing their teams play against such or other teams.
by rights, a few teams shouldn’t be playing anyway.
a promo/releg format also excites me.
@Angostura-177:
ok thanks.
seems reasonable i guess.
the Blues dont play the Kings this season fwiw.
24 Jan 2013, 11:39 am
@Angostura-184:
the bulls are the only side to have won the s12,s14 and s15.
only the crusaders can match them…but they keep choking.
24 Jan 2013, 11:49 am
crusaders choking?
hahahaha what are you smoking?
24 Jan 2013, 11:49 am
@gunther-180: next week Friday…might drive up to Cape Town for our away fixture & park it slap bang in front of thar Newlands Cubana!
24 Jan 2013, 11:50 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-178: But over the years, the Saders, Blues and Chiefs have won it.
We have the Bulls (well done on that
Aussie have the Brumbies and Reds.
24 Jan 2013, 11:56 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-185:
Yes (re the Blues/Kings omission), but conversely the Landers play all of the likely weakest teams (i.e. the teams most pundits will most likely place in the bottom 5 at the conclusion of the log-stage; alternatively, in the betting, the 5 longest odds franchises for outright victory)
24 Jan 2013, 11:58 am
@Transformation-188:
You’ll get a ticket there.
24 Jan 2013, 12:03 pm
@gunther-191:
ja, if some oke comes out and tells him not to park there…….he’s probably “hitting” on you.
becareful Transie.
24 Jan 2013, 12:09 pm
@gunther-191:
no, they’ll probably tow it
24 Jan 2013, 12:10 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl-192:
The police?
I think they are just looking for cool drink money.
24 Jan 2013, 12:16 pm
RL @ 76 – you PLONKER!!
Mils Muliaina came to NZ when he was just ONE YEAR OLD – his parents immigrated to NZ as have almost 200 000 other Samoans wanting a better life for their young children. Mils’s entire upbringing and everything he can remember is NZ, but you say he has been poached?? Are you aware that Gary Teichmann was 14 when he arrived in South Africa from Zimbabwe? There is no difference other than that Mils arrived at a much younger age than did Teichmann, Bobby Skinstad,, Beast, Chavhanga, Corne Krige, Ian Macullum, Kevin Putt, Steve Atherton, Christian Stewart, Nick Mallett and a host of other foreign born Springboks.
Similarly Joe Roco was just FIVE YEARS old when he arrived in NZ, Lauaki and Sooialo were both 8, as for Ben Franks he was born in OZ to Kiwi parents and returned to NZ, how is this a poach?
Wake up and smell reality young man!
24 Jan 2013, 12:22 pm
@NZINCHINA-112: Yes, that would be interesting.
24 Jan 2013, 12:22 pm
@gunther-191: it’ll be worth it…i can’t park it in the school yard opposite the place as noone will see it.
24 Jan 2013, 12:23 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl-186:
I’m sorry to say, the Bulls never won the Super 12. As a matter of fact no Saffa ever did. The closest we got, was the Sharks in ’96 and 2001.
24 Jan 2013, 12:27 pm
@The Sharks rugby pedigree is packaged as dog food-189:
yes, but two of those three teams have 10 of the 11 titles so i think its pretty clear that for the most theres been two likely teams to win it for the NZ’s. even last season it was just the crusaders and chiefs who looked like winning.
also, if you refer to Mr Black’s table for success at winning (and not for titles) it clearly shows two Kiwi teams at or close to the top and test are mid-table or lower.
@Angostura-190:
yes thanks.
i dont see it happening but will follow it with interest.
in my opinion only ONE Kiwi team will make the playoffs and if not then its the Crusaders and Chiefs again ( but any of the Blues, Landers or Canes could swap places with one of them).
24 Jan 2013, 12:29 pm
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-118:
“we are closer to the europeans than we are the anzacs.”
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.