2016 Super Rugby Expansion

[p.Tah]

SANZAR boss Greg Peters has welcomed the International Rugby Board's decision to shake up the Pacific Nations Cup this year by bringing in Canada and the US, nations on the shortlist for an expanded Super Rugby competition in 2016.

The three SANZAR nations, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, will decide later this year whether to effectively go global with Super Rugby when the next broadcast deal starts in 2016, with North America, Japan and Argentina all under investigation at present.

"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 competitiveness," Peters told The Australian yesterday.

"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."

Super Rugby already involves more travel than any other regular sporting contest in the world and Peters acknowledged that adding destinations in Asia and North and South America would not be done lightly.

"Player welfare is a big consideration. That said, the conference system does provide us with a degree of flexibility, either in terms of adding new conferences or adding new teams to existing conferences."

The travel would certainly be tough but an interesting proposition nevertheless.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...p-to-super-rugby/story-e6frg7o6-1226560407257

 

[emuarse]

If SANZAR were to expand their competition they would have to:

1. Change their name (South Africa New Zealand Australia Rugby to say SAZARPI if for instance the Pacific Islands was an extra entry).
2. Probably do away with the derbies whereby each conference side plays the four other conference sides in its own country but does not play two of the other countries teams.

 

[kronic]

If SANZAR were to expand their competition they would have to:

1. Change their name (South Africa New Zealand Australia Rugby to say SAZARPI if for instance the Pacific Islands was an extra entry).
2. Probably do away with the derbies whereby each conference side plays the four other conference sides in its own country but does not play two of the other countries teams.

1. No. We haven't changed it for the inclusion of Argentina. The body is still run by the three countries, Argentina is simply included
2. Peters and co have stated this won't be the case. The conference system allows expansion, where you'll simply play 8 teams outside of your conference.

If Argentina don't have a team, can't see the USA etc. getting one.

 

[The Red Baron]

Even with the conference system, the logistics and travel will have a toll. If/when Super Rugby does expand, you can bet that the SARU will be pushing for a 6th South African team. Potential teams from Argentina, the US or Japan will have to look very attractive financially for SANZAR to seriously consider their inclusion.

 

[louie]

Teams from US, Canada, Japan, etc are going to bugger all in helping Rugby get stronger in Australia.General sports watching public couldn't care less.

 

[Braveheart81]

Teams from US, Canada, Japan, etc are going to bugger all in helping Rugby get stronger in Australia.General sports watching public couldn't care less.

If it makes Super Rugby more lucrative then it will benefit rugby in Australia. The more money the ARU gets from Super Rugby TV deals the more competitive we can be with other football codes and overseas markets.

 

[BDA]

Quality of rugby must be paramount when considering expansion. The competition has 15 teams competing this year and there are at least a few that dont seriously have a chance of making the finals. I don't want to see SANZAR further dilute the quality of the competition more than it already is. Its possible that teams from the US and Japan could afford to attract some decent talent but I'm not sure theyd produce teams capable of challenging for the title. As Red Baron points out, any expansion talks will be seen by SARU as a god given right to add a 6th team, despite the fact that they've never put out 5 competitive teams in a season. I don't want to see a Southern Kings mark 2 (Northern Kings?).

So I'm against further expansion unless we can be assured that the new team/teams will live up to the high quality of Super rugby.

At the end of the day the extra travel factor is something that SANZAR probably cant get around and will be the proverbial nail in the idea of expanding to the Northern Hemisphere.

Although it is hard to speculate on these things until someone puts an actual proposal on the table with details of how the expanded competition would play out. For now i'm enjoying the current conference system and would like to see it run its course until 2016.

 

[No.8]

Wont make a difference to rugby in Aus and honestly I think it could hurt Super Rugby and weaken it - I do agree maybe 1-2 teams from Arg could join the comp considering they are in the Rugby Championship now - but America and Pacific islands? No way - 1. Most Pacific inlander players who could play super rugby are already playing in the comp and 2. the players that dont would prefer to play in Europe and make the big bucks...

America simply does not have enough good players to field a team that could challenge - again the players that are good enough will play in Europe where they can make good money and the rest would get destroyed in Super Rugby.

Also Japan has a strong enough comp and stand alone - maybe more Internationals with SA/NZ/AUS/ARG would be good - i.e tours at the start of the year.

 

[emuarse]

'Its all in the money really'.
I'd imagine Foxtel would love to have a much larger audience, and they'd be prepared to pay for it.
A combined Yank/Choonook Super 16 side (including a number of marquee players) would see the potential of a very large North American market.
I'm sure if the $$$ were there SANZAR would be very flexible in coming to the party.

 

[TOCC]

I'm against their inclusion in the super rugby comp.... Travel is to far, it would reduce the value of their existing comps and its almost a case of dancing with the devil..

Travel would be horrendous and be at the detriment of the players..

The best thing for US rugby would be to develop their own competition and promote international rugby through higher caliber oppositions. Likewise for Japan.. Introducing one team to the west coast of the USA is unlikely to attract any interest at all in the East Coast..

As for dancing with the devil, introducing a single team into a unregulated market runs the risk of a wage explosion and the pilfering of players from other super rugby teams..

 

[Desy Clark]

What about a playoff series between the top 2/3 Super sides and the top 2/3 Heineken Cup teams. This would attract a massive audience both north and south of the equator. I think pay TV would scramble for the rights to show such a series. I know the logistics would not be easy - but things that are worthwhile are never easy!

 

[Dan54]

I personally think that there has to be conversation kept going with USA,Japan etc, as until we see what replaces Heineken Cup, we could see outcome and if SA look to join a comp there we could be back to Super 10?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Even with the conference system, the logistics and travel will have a toll.

I think you're right: to make it work you would need to find a region where you could (maybe) add 2 teams so that you could spread the travel cost/time over 2 games.
However, for the team(s) from that region they would be travelling 2/3 or 3/4 of the season.
Really has to be Argentina otherwise you're looking at playing Jap or Us teams in their summer.
Argentina's best already play in Europe - do they not?
A toe hold in the US could be the introduction to a big money spinner - but you need to get to the East Coast for the really big money - and that's close to the Heineken Cup & 6 nations - which (though the Europenas dont seem to have noticed) is very doable to them.
I suspect I'll be actually in heaven watching the game they play there by the time any of this gets off the ground but I like the thinking.

 

[Quick Hands]

Sounds like the IRB has done the right thing bringing the US and Canada into the Pacific Nations Cup, that seems a win for all involved in that competition. Short term, I can't see super teams coming in from those countries.
I'd say any expansion on a rugby basis would first look to Argentina, but nothing should be ruled out.
One of the issues with TV rights etc, as I understand it, is that the biggest PayTV market for rugby in SANZAR is Aust even though SA and NZ have stronger rugby culture. Foxtel in Aust hate SA matches because of the time difference. That being the case the most attractive expansion for Foxtel would be Japan as it is on a similar time zone to Aust.

 

[emuarse]

The problem with Japan is that they already have their corporation backed clubs which take their rugby very seriously and have developed tribal followings.
How do you get a Super Rugby team(s) to fit into that structure?

 

[The Red Baron]

Sounds like the IRB has done the right thing bringing the US and Canada into the Pacific Nations Cup, that seems a win for all involved in that competition. Short term, I can't see super teams coming in from those countries.
I'd say any expansion on a rugby basis would first look to Argentina, but nothing should be ruled out.
One of the issues with TV rights etc, as I understand it, is that the biggest PayTV market for rugby in SANZAR is Aust even though SA and NZ have stronger rugby culture. Foxtel in Aust hate SA matches because of the time difference. That being the case the most attractive expansion for Foxtel would be Japan as it is on a similar time zone to Aust.

I agree with most of your post, but I think that the largest pay tv market is South Africa. As far as I am aware, SA contribute the most revenue in both gate takings and pay tv figures. On the strength of that alone, the SARU will be pushing like mad for the inclusion of a 6th SA team in an expanded comp.

Funny thing is that I would suspect that both SA and NZ have reached market saturation, or are very near it. Australia has a lot of room for growth, but we are in no way able to sustain another franchise. So really the only other viable option for expansion is Argentina. The games played in Argentina would be on at a reasonable viewing time for the SA audience as well.

I don't think that Japan or North America are the right option. Japan has their own comp, and that should be nurtured. As IS mentioned, expansion into the West Coast of the US would be a money spinner, but it is the East coast you want to get a slice of. And that is just too far for Super Rugby. The US really needs a national comp of their own, a token Super Rugby team on the West Coast is not the answer to growing the game there.

Plus I would prefer Super Rugby to remain Southern Hemisphere comp!

 

[Quick Hands]

I agree with most of your post, but I think that the largest pay tv market is South Africa. As far as I am aware, SA contribute the most revenue in both gate takings and pay tv figures. On the strength of that alone, the SARU will be pushing like mad for the inclusion of a 6th SA team in an expanded comp.

Funny thing is that I would suspect that both SA and NZ have reached market saturation, or are very near it. Australia has a lot of room for growth, but we are in no way able to sustain another franchise. So really the only other viable option for expansion is Argentina. The games played in Argentina would be on at a reasonable viewing time for the SA audience as well.

I don't think that Japan or North America are the right option. Japan has their own comp, and that should be nurtured. As IS mentioned, expansion into the West Coast of the US would be a money spinner, but it is the East coast you want to get a slice of. And that is just too far for Super Rugby. The US really needs a national comp of their own, a token Super Rugby team on the West Coast is not the answer to growing the game there.

Plus I would prefer Super Rugby to remain Southern Hemisphere comp!

Happy to be corrected on the pay tv market, I'm by no means an expert, it was just something I thought was mentioned during the last broadcast negotiations.

Totally agree with your thoughts on market saturation and depth issues with current SANZAR countries - 5 teams in each seems the way to go.

Ditto for travel problems to US.

Keeping it in southern hemisphere has many benefits and South America in general and Argentina in particular should be where expansion and development occur.

 

[Braveheart81]

The biggest advantage Japan has as a place for expansion is that the time zone works well for Australia and New Zealand.

The travel also isn't too bad. 9 hours from Sydney to Tokyo with only a two hour time difference is a much easier journey than going to South Africa for example.

The biggest challenge would be dealing with the different hemispheres. By June/July it would be very hot weather for rugby in Japan. In February it would be very cold. You could limit the effect of that by getting a Japanese side to play as many of their home games as possible in the middle of the season where the weather will be mildest.

 

[Sully]

I'm not sure the south Africans would be as keen on Japan. They already travel more than anyone else and this would only add to it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Braveheart81]

To make it worthwhile for SARU, any further Super Rugby expansion would presumably have to add one more South African team and also guarantee that the SARU were going to make substantially more money out of the whole thing.

South Africa's biggest issue as far as I can tell is the number of players they lose to Europe. Putting South African rugby in a position where they can keep more of their players on home soil would seem to be the one incentive that could make extra travel worthwhile for them.