Australian Rugby / RA

[Slim 293]

A serious question - how popular was Shute Shield and the other state comps in comparison with the NRL and AFL before Super Rugby?

Personally speaking...

Living in Canberra, the NRL back then, particularly because of the Raiders, was a big deal...

Although I didn't follow it, the AFL did have a reasonable local following and with their one FTA match per week I was familiar with the teams and some of the star players of the time...

I couldn't name a Shute Shield club except for Randwick, and only because of the ACT's biggest rugby product of the time, David Campese, apparently played for them when he wasn't in the Wallabies.

At the time it was all about the Wallabies, and the state teams.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I couldn't name a Shute Shield club except for Randwick, and only because of the ACT's biggest rugby product of the time, David Campese, apparently played for them when he wasn't in the Wallabies.

At the time it was all about the Wallabies, and the state teams.

I do think people in Sydney don't really get that even that comp, great as it is/was, was basically unknown out of Sydney, even amongst huge rugby fans. It wasn't televised in Queensland let alone anywhere else. There was no way to follow the teams etc. Like you, I knew the NSW players, but had no idea of the Sydney clubs

Unlike SS, QPR was never televised at all as far as I'm aware, so had even less of an impact.

From memory, the QRL games had the ABC timeslot broadcast timeslot that SS had in NSW

 

[Slim 293]

I do think people in Sydney don't really get that even that comp, great as it is/was, was basically unknown out of Sydney, even amongst huge rugby fans. It wasn't televised in Queensland let alone anywhere else. There was no way to follow the teams etc. Like you, I knew the NSW players, but had no idea of the Sydney clubs

Unlike SS, QPR was never televised at all as far as I'm aware, so had even less of an impact.

From memory, the QRL games had the ABC timeslot broadcast timeslot that SS had in NSW

Shute Shield GF may have been shown on the ABC, but I honestly can't remember...

Also, it's a comp that was, and really still is, only followed in a narrow demographic of Sydney.

 

[Braveheart81]

Ultimately, we have used Super Rugby to have as many full time pros as we could "afford". A club comp would never have been able to be full time pros level. That was seen as too big an impact on the Wallabies

Ultimately professionalism and Super Rugby resulted in the best x number of players making rugby a profession in Australia. I don't think it can be dismissed as not being a central tenet of the reason for Super Rugby existing from its start.

It's all well and good to suggest that something different should have been done at the start or at later points in time but that was the only serious option at the time and moving on from that is very difficult if the alternative is anything that doesn't involve the players being paid as much or more than previously. RUPA and the players in general are a core aspect here. It's all well and good to suggest that we need to go in a totally different direction and that it would be better for the long term health of rugby in Australia but the players wanting to continue their professional career and get paid next season have far greater sway than anyone suggesting something different that may take a long time to come to fruition.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Ultimately professionalism and Super Rugby resulted in the best x number of players making rugby a profession in Australia. I don't think it can be dismissed as not being a central tenet of the reason for Super Rugby existing from its start.

Yep. We worked out a way to afford to have 100ish pros in 1996. We tried to get 160 pros for a while there, but it seems pretty clear we can't afford that many.

Any proposal for a domestic comp needs to present it's maths.

# of teams x squad size x average salary x 2 for coaches/travel etc.

This number, for any kind of fully pro rugby comp is too large for the revenue we earn.

 

[Bullrush]

So, for those who think an Aussie- only competition is the only way forward, are we looking at a national ‘Shute Shield’ with clubs having the resources to pay globally competitive rates to attract the best players in the world?

 

[dru]

I couldn't name a Shute Shield club except for Randwick, and only because of the ACT's biggest rugby product of the time, David Campese, apparently played for them when he wasn't in the Wallabies.

Though I'm guessing that you are familiar with the Vikings and possibly some of their competitors (which certainly I cant name without looking it up).

 

[Bullrush]

I would argue that we don't need the money to attract northern hemisphere players, but only retain the talent that we grow in Australia

OK - so is there any country that dominates a truly global sport - unlike league or aussie rules - with a focus largely on a domestic comp with domestic only players?

 

[Goosestep]

OK - so is there any country that dominates a truly global sport - unlike league or aussie rules - with a focus largely on a domestic comp with domestic only players?

Brazil comes to mind

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Brazil comes to mind

Argentina would be in with a solid shout.

 

[Derpus]

Brazil haven't dominated in years. I would say France are more dominant at the moment in footballing terms, despite losing the last final. But every footballing nation in the world has a domestic league so I'm not sure what that tells us...

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

OK - so is there any country that dominates a truly global sport - unlike league or aussie rules - with a focus largely on a domestic comp with domestic only players?

I've supported a domestic comp not because I wanted to cut NZ out but because being the bigger market I've long wanted more emphasis placed on catering to it. People talk about SA Rugby money which is largely accurate but what no one ever wanted to acknowledge was that if they got the mic right and actually looked to engage with the Australian market Super Rugby and the SANZAAR Unions themselves could have been the better for it. Which is partly why I want to see whatever comes next focus on expanding the season to not only cover the loss of Rebels games in terms of content but also look to provide more of the higher value games (as they go in terms of SRP (Super Rugby Pacific)) in Australia.

I actually thought if implemented correctly the conference system could have worked really well in achieving just that. In Super 15 it could have home and away in conference plus one game against each of the 10 teams from the other conferences giving each of our teams 9 home games. But that's not what happened. If SA wanted the Kings involved so bad then they could have done so in their conference, we could have taken the Sunwolves in ours and the Jags could have gone into NZ's (there were direct flights at the time between Auckland and BA) and played between 18 to 22 games but instead they shoehorned both the Jags and Sunwolves into a franken-conference and screwed it up further.

The A-League got a higher overall broadcasting deal than us 5 years ago because despite offering lower ratings (which were discussed on here) they offered more content catering to domestic audiences.

 

[Slim 293]

Though I'm guessing that you are familiar with the Vikings and possibly some of their competitors (which certainly I cant name without looking it up).

Oh, most definitely...

And that's where the problem with rugby's state club comps lie - unlike, the NRL and AFL, or rather their earlier incarnations as NSWRL and VFL respectively, they've never had any reach outside of their borders.

 

[Slim 293]

Brazil haven't dominated in years. I would say France are more dominant at the moment in footballing terms, despite losing the last final. But every footballing nation in the world has a domestic league so I'm not sure what that tells us...

Yeah, while Brazil are certainly up there the last five FIFA WC winners have been Argentina, France, Germany, Spain and Italy...

 

[Goosestep]

Brazil haven't dominated in years. I would say France are more dominant at the moment in footballing terms, despite losing the last final. But every footballing nation in the world has a domestic league so I'm not sure what that tells us...

Point being - Brazil are still a world class side , and there domestic comp is full of talent and highly competitive it’s also like 99.99999% domestic …

 

[dru]

Oh, most definitely...

And that's where the problem with rugby's state club comps lie - unlike, the NRL and AFL, or rather their earlier incarnations as NSWRL and VFL respectively, they've never had any reach outside of their borders.

Slim, I don't think that the NSWRU had any great reach outside of NSW prior to the Broncos joining either. We (Qld-ers) didnt know the clubs in NSW at the time, unless you followed a Qlder following the sheckles into Sydney. Certainly I ha no idea of the VFL prior to them expanding.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Personally speaking...

Living in Canberra, the NRL back then, particularly because of the Raiders, was a big deal...

Although I didn't follow it, the AFL did have a reasonable local following and with their one FTA match per week I was familiar with the teams and some of the star players of the time...

I couldn't name a Shute Shield club except for Randwick, and only because of the ACT's biggest rugby product of the time, David Campese, apparently played for them when he wasn't in the Wallabies.

At the time it was all about the Wallabies, and the state teams.

It's partly why I don't support the idea of the clubs making up a professional domestic competition. I can see them forming a largely east coast 'domestic' competition based largely off RA covering the costs of travel etc. but the squads remaining largely the same but not anything full time unless the clubs themselves source it. And that's outside of an even narrower demographic of fans most would struggle to name all the teams in the other state comps. So there's little to no name recognition there. That and having actually been part of one of those clubs. They just aren't set up to be full time.

 

[Bullrush]

Brazil comes to mind

From a quick glance, it seems there are quite a lot of players in the Brazilian league with the foreign quote being lifted a couple of times.

The trend seems to be moving towards more international players.

Brazil’s Serie A lifts foreign players quota to nine - Inside World Football

March 7 – Teams will be allowed to field a maximum of nine foreign players in Brazil’s topflight following a unanimous vote by the Serie A clubs. It is the second time in a row that the clubs voted for more foreigners in the league. In 2023, the limit was raised from five to seven with the clubs...

www.insideworldfootball.com

 

[Goosestep]

From a quick glance, it seems there are quite a lot of players in the Brazilian league with the foreign quote being lifted a couple of times.

The trend seems to be moving towards more international players.

Brazil’s Serie A lifts foreign players quota to nine - Inside World Football

March 7 – Teams will be allowed to field a maximum of nine foreign players in Brazil’s topflight following a unanimous vote by the Serie A clubs. It is the second time in a row that the clubs voted for more foreigners in the league. In 2023, the limit was raised from five to seven with the clubs...

www.insideworldfootball.com

Might be, but traditionally aka the last 100years it’s been very nationalistic and a huge football nursery

 

[Highlander35]

If selection is opened up to include overseas there's no reason that whatever competition comes next has to be restricted. While the remuneration might not be great, no reason that NZ or PI players (or the hordes of UK backpackers etc.) play here "increasing standards".