Where to for Super Rugby?

[half]

I've had a crack at proposing my Pacific Championship concept on the front page: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/the-future-of-super-rugby-the-pacific-model/

It's fairly light on detail but a good starting point for discussion.

"What's needed is the move that does least damage to the bottom line but allows room for the game to regenerate and grow that bottom line"

Barbarian & Joe

Bar when we last exchanged posts, I suggested that the US model was good for rugby in Australia and in particular the MLS model.

The following link is a long and detailed analysis of how the MLS works. For your next podcast it would be interesting especially Alan Jones of what some say well heeled rugby would think of this model. As I said I think its dead set how to replace Super Rugby and finance the change.

PS this link is mega long and has a lot of data so could take a couple of goes, but it certainty has enough detail to show how it works. Joe I think it clearly demonstrates how to set up a new competition with the slightest effect while providing a system to grow.

https://medium.com/@isaac_krasny/unpacking-the-major-league-soccer-business-model-827f4b784bcd

 

[half]

Barbarian

Further to my constant banging on about using private capital to establish a new competition.

Today is the day all bidders must submit their bids to join the A-League, 12 have and it could be more.

I mention this to highlight there are people willing to invest in sporting teams... Manly [NRL] with the Penn family.

For me this is a no brainier but seems such a chasm to jump for many, Twiggy is IMO but the tip of an iceberg.

Today is FFA's official deadline for Expressions of Interest and up to 12 expansion candidates are reportedly set to submit their bids.

Among the eager throng are familiar bids from former NSL heavyweights South Melbourne, Wollongong Wolves and Brisbane City, but there's going to be a lot of new faces at the first day of school.
Bids from Dandenong's Team 11, Southern NSW's Southern Expansion, Fremantle City, Canberra, South West Sydney, Geelong's Victoria Patriots and West Melbourne are also on the table, while there's also a rumoured bid from Tasmania.
City's major rival, Brisbane Strikers, recently withdrew their bid due to "uncertainty" regarding FFA's expansion criteria, however they are, so-far, the only club to do so.
Between four and six bids will be shortlisted by FFA next month and asked to submit detailed proposals, which will allow FFA to scrutinise funding and board arrangements, among other factors.
FFA will then announce the decision in October, allowing two successful clubs one-year in preparation before the commencement of the 2019/20 A-League season with 12 clubs.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Barbarian

Further to my constant banging on about using private capital to establish a new competition.

Today is the day all bidders must submit their bids to join the A-League, 12 have and it could be more.

I mention this to highlight there are people willing to invest in sporting teams. Manly [NRL] with the Penn family.

For me this is a no brainier but seems such a chasm to jump for many, Twiggy is IMO but the tip of an iceberg.

The South West Sydney bid is from the Macarthur. They've been advertising the bid locally for the past few weeks.

 

[Omar Comin']

Barbarian

Further to my constant banging on about using private capital to establish a new competition.

Today is the day all bidders must submit their bids to join the A-League, 12 have and it could be more.

I mention this to highlight there are people willing to invest in sporting teams. Manly [NRL] with the Penn family.

For me this is a no brainier but seems such a chasm to jump for many, Twiggy is IMO but the tip of an iceberg.

I think this would certainly be possible for Australian rugby too. I have little doubt we could have an 8-10 team professional domestic comp (or mostly domestic) using an MLS type model. Whether it would generate enough income to keep top players in Australia is doubtful though, and even if it could the level of competition would be below what Super Rugby is now.

And that's why something like this probably isn't going to happen for a while, if ever. It'd lessen the ARU's control of the game, and be a move away from prioritising high performance. If Super Rugby's popularity in Australia remains where it is right now then even 4 teams is probably financially unsustainable for the ARU, especially if broadcasting revenues decline. But even then I think the ARU would rather go back to 3 or even 2 teams to maintain control and keep Wallabies players based domestically and getting world class preparation for test rugby. I think it's the wrong priority for the long term myself, but there are arguments in favour of it. And because the ARU make so much money from test rugby they'll always be able to keep at least 2 or 3 elite teams afloat with wages that compete with European club rugby.

 

[Joe King]

I think this would certainly be possible for Australian rugby too. I have little doubt we could have an 8-10 team professional domestic comp (or mostly domestic) using an MLS type model. Whether it would generate enough income to keep top players in Australia is doubtful though, and even if it could the level of competition would be below what Super Rugby is now.

And that's why something like this probably isn't going to happen for a while, if ever. It'd lessen the ARU's control of the game, and be a move away from prioritising high performance. If Super Rugby's popularity in Australia remains where it is right now then even 4 teams is probably financially unsustainable for the ARU, especially if broadcasting revenues decline. But even then I think the ARU would rather go back to 3 or even 2 teams to maintain control and keep Wallabies players based domestically and getting world class preparation for test rugby. I think it's the wrong priority for the long term myself, but there are arguments in favour of it. And because the ARU make so much money from test rugby they'll always be able to keep at least 2 or 3 elite teams afloat with wages that compete with European club rugby.

What if it was a combination of the MLS type model for a domestic comp, and Super Rugby - with a reduced amount of Australian teams (maybe state of origin style rep team, centrally run by RA)?

My thinking is, I feel like it would cause close to a revolution for RA to reduce our Super Rugby teams to 3 (let alone 2)… unless the trade off was to make Super Rugby a shorter competition, and allow room for Australia to have their own domestic comp (or mostly domestic comp) with our current 4 Super Rugby teams + WA Force + ?

Hence, my question.

This is why I keep ending back with separating the local derby component from the international component in the current Super Rugby model, and forming them into two shorter competitions.

 

[Bandar]

What if it was a combination of the MLS type model for a domestic comp, and Super Rugby - with a reduced amount of Australian teams (maybe state of origin style rep team, centrally run by RA)?

This is why I keep ending back with separating the local derby component from the international component in the current Super Rugby model, and forming them into two shorter competitions.

I see what you're trying to do but I think we need to keep it as simple as possible. One 10 team competition made up of 7 or 8 Australian teams, Drua, Sunwolves and/or Hong Kong.

Top 5 qualify for Super Rugby, bottom 5 for Mediocre Rugby (against teams from NZ, SA & South America)

Home & Away for 18 matches with another 5 Super or Mediocre matches

We get the best of both worlds here with international content and people are following their team/club/province/franchise for the year.

Australian team:
ACT & SNSW Brumbies
NSW Waratahs
Melbourne Rebels
Queensland Reds
Western Force
Western Sydney Wombats
Brisbane Bandits
(& Maybe) Adelaide Black Falcons

I would love to have NSW Country but unless it is based in Newcastle it isn't feasible.

 

[Omar Comin']

What if it was a combination of the MLS type model for a domestic comp, and Super Rugby - with a reduced amount of Australian teams (maybe state of origin style rep team, centrally run by RA)?

My thinking is, I feel like it would cause close to a revolution for RA to reduce our Super Rugby teams to 3 (let alone 2)… unless the trade off was to make Super Rugby a shorter competition, and allow room for Australia to have their own domestic comp (or mostly domestic comp) with our current 4 Super Rugby teams + WA Force + ?

Hence, my question.

This is why I keep ending back with separating the local derby component from the international component in the current Super Rugby model, and forming them into two shorter competitions.

I think the problem with this is if you need 6-10 weeks for a rep version of Super Rugby then you'd struggle to get investors interested in buying into a domestic competition that could only run for 10-12 weeks - and the domestic comp would be clearly overshadowed by the Super Rugby tournament. Even if you could, unless those investors were willing to lose tonnes of money it would be a semi-professional competition for those who aren't centrally contracted or making the rep teams.

The other way is to have more of a champions league concept, with a 2nd tier challenge cup as well. Where you play the domestic league or conference and afterwards the top half teams go into the former and the bottom half the latter - against the corresponding teams from New Zealand and South Africa. Or it could be 3 tiers.

I think to go to an MLS type competition would have to mean just having the 1 Australian based comp and avoiding playing NZ and SA teams outside of test matches (you still can have some international element by having greater allowances for foreign players in the league). There could be a short state of origin type series in the middle or at the end but I think the competition would need to be a proper home and away season with 8-12 teams. 2 or 3 teams in Sydney, 2 in Brisbane, 1 Perth, 1 Melbourne, 1 Canberra, 1 Fiji, and other possibilities being Newcastle, Gold Coast, North QLD, Adelaide, and various places in Asia. But for this to happen the ARU would have to give up some control and do something that isn't the best move in regards to high performance. So I predict they won't.

 

[hoggy]

I think this would certainly be possible for Australian rugby too. I have little doubt we could have an 8-10 team professional domestic comp (or mostly domestic) using an MLS type model. Whether it would generate enough income to keep top players in Australia is doubtful though, and even if it could the level of competition would be below what Super Rugby is now.

And that's why something like this probably isn't going to happen for a while, if ever. It'd lessen the ARU's control of the game, and be a move away from prioritising high performance. If Super Rugby's popularity in Australia remains where it is right now then even 4 teams is probably financially unsustainable for the ARU, especially if broadcasting revenues decline. But even then I think the ARU would rather go back to 3 or even 2 teams to maintain control and keep Wallabies players based domestically and getting world class preparation for test rugby. I think it's the wrong priority for the long term myself, but there are arguments in favour of it. And because the ARU make so much money from test rugby they'll always be able to keep at least 2 or 3 elite teams afloat with wages that compete with European club rugby.

Excellent post.

Sadly this is the exact scenario that is playing out, due to the reliance and importance placed on test rugby here, the RA will shift the deckchairs even as the ship goes down. The tipping point will be when ultimately support for the game here declines that much that revenue for tests is affected.

It is truly depressing to think that the game here needs to collapse for genuine change to occur.

 

[barbarian]

I don't know how we can bemoan the 'importance placed on test rugby' when the time most people point to as our high point (98-03) was the time when the Wallabies were at their very best.

I think it's possible to do two things at once, as other sports have - put adequate time and resources into the grassroots, while keeping player salaries competitive.

It's hard, but it's possible. And it has as much to do with effort and emphasis as it does money.
.

 

[Omar Comin']

The tipping point will be when ultimately support for the game here declines that much that revenue for tests is affected.

It is truly depressing to think that the game here needs to collapse for genuine change to occur.

That or European club rugby becomes so rich that the unions can't possibly compete. Though even then I guess there's the option of just contracting one full time national team.

Actually maybe that could work? RA contract 20-30 players per year on full time contracts, and then endorse a full season MLS style competition that is run by the clubs/franchises and is either not subsidised by RA, or only minimally. Each nationally contracted player could be assigned to a club and play occasional matches for them.

 

[Omar Comin']

I don't know how we can bemoan the 'importance placed on test rugby' when the time most people point to as our high point (98-03) was the time when the Wallabies were at their very best.

I don't think anyone would say that test rugby is not extremely important. From my perspective at least the problem is prioritising test rugby / high performance so much that the success of the sport as a whole is so dependent on it. It worked out great for the sport when the Wallabies were the best team in the world, or in the argument for best team in the world. But it hasn't worked out great when we've clearly not been the best team in the world, even when we've been in the argument for 2nd best team.

And the cost is that rugby doesn't compete with the other codes in this country that have far greater reach, access and tribalism. The popularity of soccer and cricket in Australia used to be completely reliant on national team success too. The fact that's no longer the case (through the A League and Big Bash) is a good thing for those sports. And neither the A League or Big Bash has hurt the national teams, nor the importance placed on them. They just create more access and give more reach to the sport at a professional level, with more links to the grassroots.

 

[Braveheart81]

The big difference between rugby and soccer in trying to shift away from the reliance on the national team is access to players. Soccer internationals are played in specific windows and due to the way the professional game is operated, every decent country is in a pretty similar position where their players are playing around the world and have to assemble for each match.

Whilst rugby has international windows, all the top nations largely have their national team based domestically and are able to access them outside of that window both for planning purposes and also generally an additional week of training before each series which is the most important.

It would be a huge thing to give up to not have our players largely based locally when all the major sides we are competing with have that advantage.

In terms of cricket, the BBL has been really successful but Cricket Australia is still unbelievably reliant on the international game. Series every year against India and Ashes every second year against England account for a huge amount of Cricket Australia's revenue and the game and players would take a serious haircut if those were diluted.

 

[hoggy]

That or European club rugby becomes so rich that the unions can't possibly compete. Though even then I guess there's the option of just contracting one full time national team.

Actually maybe that could work? RA contract 20-30 players per year on full time contracts, and then endorse a full season MLS style competition that is run by the clubs/franchises and is either not subsidised by RA, or only minimally. Each nationally contracted player could be assigned to a club and play occasional matches for them.

Something like that could possibly occur, RA contract say 30 players, these are then spread evenly over a domestic league (a draft system would be required), ex: 10 team domestic league, each franchise has a max 3/4 test players (you cannot allow a situation when one team buys 10 or so test players) at least not until the leagues is well established.

The other main issue is season timetable, in Aus you cannot have a domestic season that effectively ends before winter really starts. you cannot just have Test rugby from July on-wards.

 

[half]

BH

Three years ago, I was almost a sole voice on this site calling for an end to Super Rugby as we have it. Today most even if they want Super Rugby, want change.

Equally I am almost the opposite of the site when I say, I would prefer a well working national competition to a successful Wallaby side. For me everywhere around us all successful competitions are rooted in strong national competitions.

This has lead me to seeking what I consider "best practice" models to run national domestic competitions. This is my mindset.

You have a different mindset to me, My genuine question for you is,

“”” Do you believe there is anyway using our current operating methods we can survive the next 20 years????””

 

[wamberal]

The Wallabies are the major contributor to the game's revenue in this country. Not to mention all the free publicity, goodwill, and other intangibles.

My honest question to you, Half. Do you believe that the game can survive if the Wallabies die out as a serious entity?

 

[Braveheart81]

“”” Do you believe there is anyway using our current operating methods we can survive the next 20 years????””

Yes. Things will change as they have always changed but the professional game will continue to exist in Australia and the Wallabies will be the chief driver of revenue.

 

[half]

BH & Wam

Thanks for your replies, and deep down in my soul I think your thoughts are the thoughts and beliefs of those running rugby.

We will never agree, we are light years apart in our thinking.

I hope you are right. Because if you are wrong we may never be able to recover opportunities forgone.

 

[dru]

BH & Wam

Thanks for your replies, and deep down in my soul I think your thoughts are the thoughts and beliefs of those running rugby.

We will never agree, we are light years apart in our thinking.

I hope you are right. Because if you are wrong we may never be able to recover opportunities forgone.

I started completely opposed to your thinking half, but man have I changed.

If we were to lose any form of national game bar the WBs, I'm out. Or down at the club rugby anyway. Give me a domestic comp or at least a second tier comp with a national footprint and I am in, whatever it is called.

Personally I believe that is our best chance at a competitive WBs long term as well.

 

[Omar Comin']

How much revenue does the the A League generate and how does that compare to the amount of revenue the FFA makes from the Socceroos and RA makes from the Wallabies?

The Wallabies play 6 or 7 home tests per year, and usually not all of them are huge drawcards. A double round robin domestic competition with 10 teams would have 90 games plus finals all in ideal time slots. If average crowds were around 10,000 and average ratings around 70,000 would this not be worth more than 6 or 7 Wallabies home games averaging 30-40k crowds and half a million viewers? And then add on a state of origin game or 3, or a champions league, or an all stars game.

Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Force, Rebels then take another 5 from West Sydney, North Sydney, Brisbane 2, Newcastle, Gold Coast, North QLD, Adelaide, Fiji Drua, Sunwolves, Wild Knights, Hong Kong, Pacific Warriors.

 

[sunnyboys]

Omar, Test revenue comes from being able to sell TV rights internationally - as well as twice domestically courtesy of anti-siphoning laws. as you would expect Test rugby has good value in overseas TV markets.