RugbyDump RugbyDump
Monday Apr 10, 2017

Super Rugby teams face emotional cut with another restructure

Super Rugby teams face emotional cut with another restructure
6
Comments

SANZAAR has announced that the Super Rugby tournament has been restructured and will kick-off in 2018 with a three conference, 15-team format: five teams from New Zealand, four from Australia, four from South Africa, one from Japan; and one from Argentina.

The Australian Rugby Union (ARU) has since announced that either the Western Force or Melbourne Rebels will be cut from the competition. A decision will be made in the next few days.

SA Rugby, who will probably choose to cut the Southern Kings and the Cheetahs, have said that less teams will create a stronger domestic setup, which is better for the Springboks in the long run.

CEO Jurie Roux said the large number of South Africans now playing overseas had hastened the decision: “There are about five or six Vodacom Super Rugby squads’ worth of South Africans playing overseas.

“In 2015, 257 South Africans appeared for leading teams overseas; last year it was 313 – including 65 Springboks. There were eight Van der Merwes, seven Du Preez’s and six Du Plessis’s alone! That has got to have had an impact on our competitiveness.”

This restructuring by SANZAAR represents a crucial step in its strategic planning process that has included a comprehensive assessment of the economic and sporting environment under which its tournaments (Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship) are currently operating.

This assessment highlighted a need to adjust and strengthen Super Rugby in the short-term to ensure a robust and sustainable tournament meets the requirements of all stakeholders in terms of high performance pathways, game development, commercial revenue and fan engagement.

The change sees an overall reduction of three teams from the current 18-team format, two from South Africa and one from Australia. The Sunwolves will move into the Australian Conference. The teams from Australia and South Africa that will compete in Super Rugby will be confirmed in due course by the respective National Unions.

New Zealand Conference
Blues, Chiefs, Crusaders, Highlanders, Hurricanes

Australian Conference
Four Australian teams (TBC – either Rebels or Force will be cut), Sunwolves

South Africa Conference
Four South Africa teams (TBC), Jaguares

SANZAAR Chairman, Brent Impey stated, “The decision to revert to a 15-team format reflects a consensus view of the mandated SANZAAR Executive Committee that met in London recently. It was not the determination of any one Union or stakeholder and follows a thorough assessment and review of the tournament over the last nine months.”

“SANZAAR is delighted that its major broadcast partners have after due consideration agreed to the restructured format within the existing broadcast agreements. Our broadcast partners are an important stakeholder and their vision for Super Rugby moving forward is the same as ours.”

“This decision has not been an easy one and we recognise the difficulty associated with reducing the number of teams in Australia and South Africa. Naturally we understand that there will be some very disappointed franchises but the tournament’s long-term future and the economic reality of the business at present is something that had to be addressed.”

“The decision to retain the Sunwolves is linked directly to SANZAAR’s strategic plan for the future. The potential for growth of the sport in Asia off the back of the establishment of the Sunwolves and the impending RWC in 2019  is significant. It remains an obvious focus for the organisation and a Japanese Super Rugby franchise is key to that strategy.”

SANZAAR CEO Andy Marinos stated, “This has been a long and complex piece of work and we make no apology for that. Super Rugby is unique in world rugby in that it is played in six countries across 15 time zones and has numerous stakeholders.”

“SANZAAR cannot continue to ignore the extensive feedback that it has received from fans, stakeholders and commercial partners around the integrity of the competition format and performances of the teams. We want to see an engaging, vibrant and competitive competition that delivers a strong high performance pathway in all markets that will have a positive flow into the international game.”

“It became clear during our strategic assessment that there are two facets to the future of our tournaments. The first is a requirement to react to existing market forces within the sporting business environment and to implement short-term change to Super Rugby. This is what we have done.”

“The second is the longer term vision, through a strategic plan, to build the brand that in the future can maximize further development of the game, commercial revenues and the ongoing sustainability of the tournaments. This work is presently ongoing and details will be released in the coming months.”

Tournament Details

  • 120 match regular season plus seven match finals series
  • 15 teams
  • Three conferences (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa)
  • 18 rounds [16 matches per team, two bye weeks]
  • Each team will play eight matches within its conference (four home and four away)
  • Each team will play eight cross-conference matches – against four of the five teams from each of the other two conferences (four at home and four away)
  • Each team will play 12 of the other teams within the season (85% of opposition teams which is up from 70% in 2016).
  • Eight team Finals Series: Three Conference winners and; five wild card places – the next best performing teams based on competition points after the Conference winners regardless of Conference. Conference winners and fourth-placed team on competition points will host quarter-finals.

View the full ARU press conference below (57 minutes)

    6 Comments

    •  jeri
      jeri

      Western Force had a good run, would be sad to see it go

      Reply
    •  drg
      drg

      Shame they don't have a tiered structure perhaps.... For instance in the UK I know any team has the chance to get into the championship, I know getting into the premiership is a lot harder (it's not just on promotion I hear)... but that sort of thing...

      Reply
    •  gonzoman
      gonzoman

      I'm not suggesting that we use on-field performance as the yardstick here - if (just as an example) the Brumbies are losing money, I would advocate for disbanding them. The people responsible for creating the winning culture there (including the academy) could be moved. The draft should be structured such that teams pick in reverse order of quality (based on a couple of seasons of results). So hypothetically, and using the same random example as above, if the Brumbies were disbanded then the draft order might look like this: Rebels, then Force, then Reds, then Waratahs. That prevents a top team (i.e.: 'Tahs) from taking the top 3 players, but also prevents weak team (i.e.: Rebels) from taking all the top talent and thereby essentially duplicating the team that was removed. To your point about a team not being removed simply because they feature top talent: it's not as though the talent would disappear from the league - they would be drafted by other teams in their conference. So if the Reds were to be folded, then your Coopers and Higganbothams would simply be drafted by other Australian teams. P.S.: I'm not suggesting the Brumbies be disbanded.

      Reply
    •  dancarter
      dancarter

      The Reds have been garbage the last couple of seasons but in fairness, they won it in 2011 and made it to the semi-finals in 2012. They have a fairly decent squad with players like Slipper, Moore, Douglas, Simmons, George Smith, Higginbotham, Frisby, Cooper and Kerevi too, so it is hard to see them being removed. I have some sympathy for the Rebels. As the newest of the Australian team, I don't think they have the same academy set up as the established Aus sides which will make up most of the squad. They do have the financial backing to bring in a marquee signing like Beale, O'Connor, Higginbotham etc but these players never seem to stick around that long and their squad is pretty poor at the moment. If you compare the Rebels squad to teams like the Brumbies and Waratahs then their poor super rugby performances are not that surprising. I like the idea of the draft. I am nervous that disbanding teams will mean the top clubs in SA and Aus will poach the best players, improving the best teams and only increasing the gap in quality between the best and worst teams.

      Reply
    •  gonzoman
      gonzoman

      Truth be told, I thought expanding to 18 teams was a mistake. Adding teams in Argentina and Japan is worthwhile experiment (I'd love a PI team, but financially the rationale isn't there) but adding the teams should have involved axing teams to keep the number around 15. Adding the Kings was a terrible idea, and in fact chopping a SA team would have made sense at the time instead of adding a team. Australian Super Rugby teams could benefit from a cull - the Rebels have never really been competitive on the pitch, and the Force and Reds have been rather hit-or-miss. In both Aus and SA, pick the team(s) in the weakest market (worst attendance figures, lowest apparel and spin-off sales) and chop'em. Have a draft at which the remaining teams take it in turns to pick players - start with the team with the worst record in the last two seasons and take it in turns. That will make sure the financially viable teams stick around, and the talent from the axed teams gets selected to surviving teams in a way that helps increase the overall competition. If SANZAR wants to do right by the players, it will have to take it on the chin and pay out the contracts of the players affected - I'd like to see a deal in place where players have the option of terminating their contract early in order to sign with an overseas club or where they can remain with a Super Rugby club and SANZAR picks up the tab for whatever is left on their contract. That way, guys who are fringe/substitute/training squad-type players have financial security for the remainder of their contract and the clubs aren't stuck footing the bill for a larger number of players that they need. It also allows flexibility for players who find themselves superfluous to their team's needs to active pursue foreign contracts without penalty.

      Reply
    •  drg
      drg

      .....well, welcome to pro rugby, millions of dollars, businessmen at the helm... Quite sad to see..

      Reply

    Great Tries

    View All

    Big Hits & Dirty Play

    View All

    See It To Believe It

    View All

    Funnies

    View All

    Training Videos

    View All

    Player Features

    View All
    Super Rugby teams face emotional cut with another restructure | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos