FORMER Australian rugby boss John O’Neill, one of the original architects of Super Rugby, says the “wheels have come off” since the competition expanded to 18 teams and has called for Argentina, Japan and the sixth South African team to be dumped.
With a review of Super Rugby underway and the ARU contemplating cutting a team as part of a compromise solution, O’Neill called on the ARU to stand up and fight for the best interests of Australian rugby instead of trying to please SANZAAR and World Rugby.
The first step out of the mess, according to O’Neill, is to return to the successful Super 15 format, with five teams each from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
That should be followed by renewed dialogue with the Kiwis about a trans-Tasman competition, which would omit South Africa but open the door for a sixth Australian franchise in western Sydney and eventual Japanese re-entry
It will take some very bold decision making,” O’Neill said.
“But you just can’t tug the forelock to please IRB or please our joint venture partners. You have actually got to save Australian rugby.”
O’Neill was ARU chief executive between 1994 and 2004 and again from 2007-2012, creating the A-League in between in a stint as CEO of the FFA.
He oversaw SANZAR’s birth, the Super 12s competition in 1996 and pushed for Super Rugby’s growth to 15 teams with Melbourne’s entry in 2011.
Super Rugby’s expansion last year created teams from Argentina, Japan and a sixth South African franchise — the Kings — but after one season, the complexity of a four-conference model was widely panned, and fans walked away, sending franchises into financial tailspins.
It is so unworkable SANZAAR began a review to change the structure again next year.
“Those that say we should cull one of our franchises, I can’t possibly agree with that,” O’Neill said.
“It is not the fault of the five Australian franchises that this Super 18 competition is a disaster.
“You can ask questions how the hell this 18-team competition came into existence but the hard cold question now is ‘what’s the solution?’.
“It is time, in my view, for a very serious rethink. What is the best competition structure that is ultimately and unambiguously in the best interests of Australian rugby?”
O’Neill said he would have opposed the inclusion of three extra teams and unwinding that mistake should be SANZAAR’s first priority. Argentina were included after lobbying by World Rugby and South Africa’s government pushed for a sixth, black-majority franchise. Japan were added to create a balanced 18 teams.
“Personally, I would not have agreed with South Africa going to six teams. That’s a domestic issue that they should have been told to sort out,” O’Neill said.
“Bringing the Pumas into the Rugby Championship, I was massively supportive of that. I would have never agreed to bring an Argentinian team into Super Rugby.”
O’Neill’s successor as ARU boss, Bill Pulver, held a different view. Asked in 2014 about his backing of Super Rugby’s expansion despite warnings of financial peril, Pulver told the Daily Telegraph: “We don’t always make decisions exclusively for the good of Australian rugby. On occasion you make decisions for the good of all rugby.”
O’Neill stressed the ARU’s “overriding objective” job was to act in the best interests in Australian rugby.
“The ARU’s job is not to save world rugby. It is to fundamentally look after the game in the toughest, most competitive sports market in the world,” he said.
“Latitudinal competitions — east/west competitions — do not work.
“What Australian rugby needs is prime time content. Everyone knows content is king. The version of Super Rugby before they went to 18 teams, where we had 15 teams in three conferences and everyone played home and away in your conference, that was a terrific outcome for Australian rugby.
“For the life of me I can’t understand why we moved away from that. The broadcasters loved it, the sponsors loved it, the crowds loved it, the players loved it.
“Those people responsible for decisions regarding the competition can’t afford to forget that tribalism is a non-negotiable requirement.”
O’Neill said it was impossible for Australian rugby to succeed in winning the “battle for hearts and minds” if a team only played sporadically in its own city.
He believes the ARU should “at the earliest opportunity pursue the trans-Tasman option and look at engaging the Pacific Islands, Japan and a sixth Australian team in western Sydney. Playing out of Parramatta Stadium, we have seen in football with the Wanderers just how successful it could be; particularly with a cross-town derby against the Waratahs.
“Am I suggesting it’s an easy solution? No, it’s not. But you cannot continue with an 18-team competition, which isn’t even a genuine competition.”
O’Neill said when South Africa were being difficult in SANZAR broadcast rights negotiations in 2009, the ARU and NZRU modelled a trans-Tasman competition.
Total broadcast revenue was valued at less than a 15-team competition but costs were also dramatically cut, leaving a similar financial position but with far more local, prime-time content. Due to their desire to play against the Africa in teams, the breakaway threat ended when NZRU “blinked” and voted to stay in.
With Australian rugby in a decline that worries some senior Kiwi rugby officials, however, O’Neill says the same discussions should be explored again.
“I am hearing from some of my New Zealand friends that they’re concerned Australian rugby within 15 years could be a minority sport,” O’Neill said.
“It is in New Zealand’s best interests that Australian rugby is strong.”
