More Super Rugby depression as Sanzaar meets
NEXT year’s revamped Super Rugby competition started to take shape this weekend.
Sanzaar delegates met in London over the last two days, aware they cannot arrive at the final product before they engage other key stakeholders, including broadcasters.
They said they met to “assess the economic and sporting environment in which its tournaments (Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship) operate and to review the planning process that started in May.
Sanzaar chief executive Andy Marinos called discussions “robust”.
He said: “Sanzaar will make a formal statement on the future of the organisation, Super Rugby and the tournament format in the coming days once these further meetings have been concluded.”
The way forward may not have been entirely crystalised but Sanzaar’s three big players, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, would have agreed that the current format is untenable.
The latest incarnation of Super Rugby was launched last year but it was soon apparent that the convoluted format and sheer breadth of the event time-wise and geographically was unpopular.
South African delegates were guarded about the nation’s position.
“As far as I’m aware, we as franchises haven’t been consulted so I don’t know of a particular position we are likely to take. Maybe at SA Rugby they have formulated a position,” said a franchise boss who didn’t want to be named.
The Australian delegation, however, has been clear about what it seeks in a new deal.
Despite the fact that three of their franchises are battling for financial survival, the Aussies are keen to retain the current 18-team format, but with structural changes. They are proponents of a six-team, three-conference system, that will ensure home and away derby matches, while New Zealand will benefit from hosting more play-off matches.
Last year, one of the quirks of the current 18-team system was that despite having four teams in the playoffs, New Zealand only hosted knockout matches in Wellington, the home of the eventual champions.
Opponents of the six-team, threeconference system will argue that it is merely applying lipstick to the ghastly swine.
The reality, a local franchise boss argued, is that the competition simply cannot sustain 18 teams.
“If sanity prevails, the culling will start sooner rather than later. The sooner we realise that the competition cannot sustain 18 teams the better,” said the executive who didn’t want to be named.
“I think the general sentiment is that the competition is too big, cumbersome and needs to be streamlined. There is an acceptance that less is more. Viewership is down and we need to regenerate interest in the competition.”
Another franchise boss advocated fewer teams. “What is apparent is difficult to fund this operation. There is just so much broadcast money around. By reducing the teams, the remaining teams can operate better.
“If it weren’t for equity partners, teams would be in the dwang.”