Spectators lose interest in Super Rugby

[smartcooky]

Australia's selection policy is a bit better; but frankly the depth of NZ rugby that we maintain by keeping our policy as it is, means we can simply bring in great players to replace great, older, departing players. It would never be in the NZRUs interest to compromise this. And it's been tested. We entered a World Cup final with Stephen Donald over Nick Evans. We went without the best TH prop in the world in Carl Hayman, for some of his best years, instead having guys like Tialata. Because even hypothetically if every single player in the current All Blacks squad took a deal overseas, we have the depth to still be competitive without compromising our entire rugby setup.

Not to mention the disaster of bringing back Luke McAllister in 2010. He was a long way off the pace after his skillset atrohopied and his fitness dropped playing for Sale Sharks

 

[TRF_heineken]

Everything that @TRF_nickdnz said is true, and I wish SA Rugby was being run better.

The reason why there is this peak all of a sudden in unhappiness by fans, teams, players, franchises and even the organizing committee's, is that everyone is fed up with being disadvantaged. During Super 12/14 it was just South Africa that were complaining about being disadvantaged by the tournament. Some of our teams ended up touring for 5 weeks and that usually had a negative effect on the team, not only by results but also morale and finances. So by doing the conference system, they evened out the playing field with regards to travelling and having long tours. But NZ and Aussie teams still haven't experienced what the SA have already experienced with those long tours, and they never will. It's something that I can live with, because at least now, every team is on a level playing field.

So the frustration shifted, and I think rightfully so to more important issues that everyone face. Funds, keeping the best players in the SH, having an equal shot at the ***le etc.

But by fixing one thing, they went and break other things that was working so well.

The player exodus in South Africa is not new, and we're kind of used to it by now. The problem is though that it's becoming more frequent and that we are losing more players per season that we did in the past. Especially now that Japan is also a more lucrative destination for the players. In the past it was between 10-15 players per season going abroad, and teams managed to keep their core team in tact to build on for the next season. Now it's 5-6 players per franchise, that's between 30-60 players per season going away. Some teams will have no choice but to start from scratch and go from there. But this isn't the only problem, with politics interfering too, teams have to select a certain amount of players of colour, which means they lose out on getting sometimes more talented players in the same position to play for them, and that leads to our talent being drained, not just the number of players moving abroad. This is a direct effect on why SA's standards are dropping, and that is why most Saffas are so frustrated.

NZ is the best team in the world, and their programmes are brilliant, and how they get all their players to become total rugby players, is something I am in awe of. I get why they are frustrated, they are basically playing against weakened opposition outside their own conference, and by playing twice against their fellow NZ teams, they definitely have a tougher road to the final than the others. But isn't that ironic? In the past SA had the tough road to the final, and we were overruled on several issues at SANZAR meetings, and now, that our opinions matter and we get more benefits from it, another nation is being disadvantaged...

 

[User1245]

Don't underestimate the general deterioration of South Africa as a whole and its effect on the rugby. Can anybody say the standard of living for taxpayers in SA has increased in 20 years? Our players travel a lot and see what life is like in a first world country. Add to the mix the weak Rand, how hostile the ANC government is towards whites and the white population being the only demographic group that's population is shrinking.

Don't forget the crap time differences in countries like Australia. Imagine getting up at 1am on a Sunday morning to see your team being beaten by a team that had a 14 players for 60 mins. You only make that mistake once!

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Would 26 years be long enough?
)

Given how much things have changed outside NZ, i d say no, it's not even remotely close to enough.

Again, the system works in NZ because the gap between what players get paid there and in, say, the top 14, is not that big. I m inclined to believe that gap will grow and only then we will see if the salary cap in NZ works or not.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

ETA
If you want to see what a salary cap can do to make a competition exciting and less predictble

English Premier League - No Salary Cap
Established 1992
20 teams
Number of unique Premiers 6
Highest number of individual Premierships 13 (ManU)

Australian Rugby League - Salary Cap
Cap established 1990
14 to 16 teams (currently 16)
Number of unique Premiers 13
Highest number of individual Premierships 5 (Brisbane)

Two points about this comparison:

1) The comparison is not really fair. One of the most popular sport in the planet, where salaries are astronomical in places like Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Rome, Moscow or Beijing. That is not the case with Rugby league. The options a player has are very limited (relative wise). A top player (say a starter in his national team) has more options (and therefore bargaining power) in football than in rugby.
In economic terms: the job market for a football player is the world, while for Rugby league is a handful of countries, at best.

2) Let me give you another example of what the salary cap can end up causing.

Eredivisie (Dutch top football league). Until 10 years ago, they were not the best league around but a well respected one. Their teams could give the best from other leagues a run for their money. Top teams start implementing salary caps (Ajax, PSV, etc.). Now you have players leaving earlier and the overall level of the league has dropped, a lot. The dutch teams that qualify to the champions league now are happy if they make it out of the group stages while years ago they were fighting for the final.

So yes, a few less popular teams have managed to squeeze a win every 10 years or so, but at the expense of the top dutch players leaving because they can earn more money elsewhere. They ended up having a league that is a tad fairer but much, much worse in terms of quality.

There is an amount of money, lets call it premium (amount of money on on top of what they could earn at home) for which players will chose playing outside of their home country. If you do not keep up with what they are being offered from other leagues, sooner or later players will leave. A temporary way out would be to make SR more popular by expanding but that comes at a cost (more teams, probably worse, tighter schedule, more travelling, etc.).

I would LOVE for things to work the way you describe. I sincerely believe they do not.

 

[riffraff]

Salary caps only make sense when you need to ensure parity in a league that allows open player movement (not bound to a team when your contract ends) and that is already the highest paying league for the sport, if a small minority is spending significantly more than the rest and dominating as a result. It makes no sense to limit total spend and therefore lose some of the best talent to other leagues to put a cap in place where those conditions don't exist. Encourage the best talent to flock to the league playing for teams rich enough to pay. Elevate the league to the point that more TV and sponsorship money makes its way to the other teams so they can also attract top players with additional money. Eventually if the league becomes increasingly popular and has even the lowest salaries competitive with top positions in other leagues you might need to add a salary cap, but even then only by setting a minimum salary and ensuring that the cap allows every team room to bring in the best players from around the world.

 

[smartcooky]

Two points about this comparison:

1) The comparison is not really fair. One of the most popular sport in the planet, where salaries are astronomical in places like Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Rome, Moscow or Beijing. That is not the case with Rugby league. The options a player has are very limited (relative wise). A top player (say a starter in his national team) has more options (and therefore bargaining power) in football than in rugby.
In economic terms: the job market for a football player is the world, while for Rugby league is a handful of countries, at best.

And it not the case with Rugby Union either, which is why it works

2) Let me give you another example of what the salary cap can end up causing.

Eredivisie (Dutch top football league). Until 10 years ago, they were not the best league around but a well respected one. Their teams could give the best from other leagues a run for their money. Top teams start implementing salary caps (Ajax, PSV, etc.). Now you have players leaving earlier and the overall level of the league has dropped, a lot. The dutch teams that qualify to the champions league now are happy if they make it out of the group stages while years ago they were fighting for the final.

So yes, a few less popular teams have managed to squeeze a win every 10 years or so, but at the expense of the top dutch players leaving because they can earn more money elsewhere. They ended up having a league that is a tad fairer but much, much worse in terms of quality.

There is an amount of money, lets call it premium (amount of money on on top of what they could earn at home) for which players will chose playing outside of their home country. If you do not keep up with what they are being offered from other leagues, sooner or later players will leave. A temporary way out would be to make SR more popular by expanding but that comes at a cost (more teams, probably worse, tighter schedule, more travelling, etc.).

I would LOVE for things to work the way you describe. I sincerely believe they do not.

Dutch Soccer is a small fish in a big tank. That's why it might not work for them. There is an element of NZ being a Big Fish in the tank as regards playing standards and skills, the odd thing with Rugby Union is that the best paying Rugby competitions are of a lower standard. The additional element that keeps players in NZ is the prospect of playing for the best national team in the world. Players are not up for selection unless they play in this country, and long may that continue to be the NZRU Policy.

Given how much things have changed outside NZ, i d say no, it's not even remotely close to enough.

Again, the system works in NZ because the gap between what players get paid there and in, say, the top 14, is not that big. I m inclined to believe that gap will grow and only then we will see if the salary cap in NZ works or not.

That's wrong. The gap between SR player wages and Top 14 player wages is already huge. Players like SBW and Dan Carter can earn in one season what they might earn in three or four seasons in NZ.

You do that a Salary Cap is not a cap in what individual players get paid, its a cap on the overall spend that Clubs are allowed to pay wages?

Salary caps only make sense when you need to ensure parity in a league that allows open player movement (not bound to a team when your contract ends) and that is already the highest paying league for the sport, if a small minority is spending significantly more than the rest and dominating as a result. It makes no sense to limit total spend and therefore lose some of the best talent to other leagues to put a cap in place where those conditions don't exist. Encourage the best talent to flock to the league playing for teams rich enough to pay. Elevate the league to the point that more TV and sponsorship money makes its way to the other teams so they can also attract top players with additional money. Eventually if the league becomes increasingly popular and has even the lowest salaries competitive with top positions in other leagues you might need to add a salary cap, but even then only by setting a minimum salary and ensuring that the cap allows every team room to bring in the best players from around the world.

NPC does exactly this. Super Rugby players in NPC get their SR salaries to play but non-SR players (who are usually amateurs; they have jobs in real life outside of the roughly 16 weeks they are training and playing NPC) are on a retainer. I think it was around NZ$65,000 last year.

NRL has a minimum wage as well, AUD$80,000.

"The NRL is one of the few major leagues to implement a salary cap in a sport that has competing leagues in other countries where there is either no salary cap or a much higher cap per club. As a result, there has developed a tradition of players from Australia moving to Europe where salaries for the elite, and even for average players, were considerably higher. The NRL chooses to continue with the cap, believing that any reduction in quality of the sporting product due to the loss of these players is less than allowing richer clubs to dominate"

This is pretty much the same reasoning for the NZRU selecting only players playing in NZ. The departure/retirement of a few top players with a total of over 600 test caps between them (Smith, Nonu, Slade, Mealamu, Carter and McCaw) would have made an irrecoverable dent in the national sides of almost any other country, but it hardly made any difference to us. The reason for that is the NZRU policy. Without it, the majority of their likely replacements would be playing in Europe, and if that happened the standard of our local competitions would fall such that we could no longer develop the talent was well as we currently do. If the policy was changed to allow All Blacks to be selected from players playing in Europe and Japan, it would be an unmitigated disaster for at ALL levels of rugby in New Zealand.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

And it not the case with Rugby Union either, which is why it works

You brought up the football example.... because it wasn't relevant to the point you were making?

Dutch Soccer is a small fish in a big tank. That's why it might not work for them. There is an element of NZ being a Big Fish in the tank as regards playing standards and skills, the odd thing with Rugby Union is that the best paying Rugby competitions are of a lower standard. The additional element that keeps players in NZ is the prospect of playing for the best national team in the world. Players are not up for selection unless they play in this country, and long may that continue to be the NZRU Policy.

What matters here is how many people watch that games and how much money are willing to spend on related products and services. That is a structural "problem" with NZ rugby and will limit the amount of money you can pay. Not that different from the dutch league.
Skills will follow money. Sure, you've got palliatives like playing for the ABs, Springboks, etc, or the implicit cost of moving away, but as much as i hate to say it, people will be willing to sacrifice all of those for the right price. The bigger the gap between SR and other leagues, the closer we get to that point.

The additional element that keeps players in NZ is the prospect of playing for the best national team in the world. Players are not up for selection unless they play in this country, and long may that continue to be the NZRU Policy.

I think this is where you and i disagree. You apparently believe that players will continue to do that regardless of how big the salary gap between say, Top 14 and SR, becomes. I do not believe that.
The current gap is probably not big enough (you mentioned 3/4 times) but my gut feeling is that the gap will get bigger.

That's wrong. The gap between SR player wages and Top 14 player wages is already huge. Players like SBW and Dan Carter can earn in one season what they might earn in three or four seasons in NZ.

It's not. Huge is a relative term. The difference although intuitively big, is still not big enough to bring guys like Carter or SBW at their peak. If the difference in salary between SR and Top 14 was 10 or 20 times instead of 3 or 4 times, i'm pretty sure more than one NZer would leave way before Carter did.
That's the way this is heading and no salary cap will stop it. The salary cap will actually acts as a catalyst.

You do that a Salary Cap is not a cap in what individual players get paid, its a cap on the overall spend that Clubs are allowed to pay wages?

Yes, i do thanks to someone posting it here (not this thread, but chances are it might have been you).
Still, a cap on a team ends up affecting individual players.

Just to be clear, I don't think we disagree on where we stand. We do disagree on where this is heading and whether the salary cap will help or not to NZRU in the future.

 

[Jaguares]

NZ has the best grassroots rugby in the world, the best local competition (ITM Cup) and the best elite athletes. Also they have the luck that the larger economy in Oceania is not interested in Rugby Union.

I have no doubts that if the NRL structure was for Rugby Union, Australia would be the best rugby nation. They are consistently at the top 3 nations with their current "weak" structure, with 500k more registered players they would be unstopable. Just look at the difference between the NRL structure and the ARU structure. The State of Origin is the game between QLD and NSW in RL, meanwhile in Rugby Union that game is Waratahs vs Reds, both are the teams of their states like Blues and Maroons. The State of Origin is 50 times bigger than Tahs vs Reds. The SOO is bigger than the Bledisloe Cup and also is bigger than the ABs vs Boks tests.

It's a pity for our code that we can't see super athletes like Johnathan Thurston, Cameron Smith or Greg Inglis playing test rugby. These guys are pure gold, I'm a HUGE Rugby Union supporter but I have a big respect for the NRL players, especially the Origin players, they are fantastic. I bet that Semi Radradra could make the ABs XV easily, he's a beast and they have so many wonderful athletes that could play at test rugby like Israel Folau or SBW.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I think there just has to be a reality check that the top French and English leagues are going to be able to pay more than Super Rugby probably for the short and medium term at least. The Aussie teams fading badly is really bad for future TV revenue as they are your biggest TV market but they'll bounce back at some point and if the game catches fire in Japan then you could be laughing in terms of TV deals.

We have near panic in the Pro 12 up here for the same reasons about losing top players and being unable to compete financially. The head of the Irish Union is making noises about ripping up what is a perfectly acceptable format that is seeing significant growth of attendances because despite this the TV money isn't large enough. There are mutterings about trying to get the US on board (I'd argue that's a pipe dream) or dumping the Italians (ironically by far the largest potential TV market within the Pro12 if you think long term).

Sometimes you just have situations where there is no solution and you just have to accept things and focus on making the best of what you have. The top leagues in England and France can only pinch so many players from the rest of the world and there is a conveyor belt of talent in NZ, SA, Ireland and Argentina so there will be plenty to go around for years to come. I think there is way too much pessimism and panic on the eve of what promises to be a pretty thrilling Super Rugby playoffs.

 

[Jaguares]

I think there just has to be a reality check that the top French and English leagues are going to be able to pay more than Super Rugby probably for the short and medium term at least. The Aussie teams fading badly is really bad for future TV revenue as they are your biggest TV market but they'll bounce back at some point and if the game catches fire in Japan then you could be laughing in terms of TV deals.

The SANZAAR and especially the World Rugby are losing an important market like Australia. They MUST to invest in OZ or could be to late for our code there. Instead of investing in weird markets like USA or China, they must to secure Australia, a traditional rugby market. OZ is the largest economy in Oceania and could be the future of our sport. The NZ market is too limited, the 2011 RWC is the best example, almost all the games were sold-out and despite that the World Rugby lost money, NZ is a small market for a sport who wants to be a worldwide sport.

Even the Americans are interested in Aussie market, the MLB played some games there. Without a big invesment there, our code can't survive. Of course there is a lot of rivalry so Kiwis and Saffas won't want to invest in their enemies but the reality is that OZ is a first world country, 5 times bigger than NZ and SA is a developing country with many problems. OZ should be the base for our sport in the SH, the SANZAAR could earn big money if the code grows there, NZ is limited and SA is a developing country like any Latin America country.

In the next 10 years the World Rugby MUST invest in these markets:

Australia
Scotland
Romania
Georgia
Russia
Spain
Germany
Brazil
Colombia
Chile
Uruguay
Mexico
And some countries in Africa, I have not idea about the current status of African Rugby

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Argentian players are eligible for the national side if they play Super rugby. I think seeing a few Argentinians in Australia would greatly benefit both countries. It'd mean more than 15 Argentines a week were starting a match and it'd be a relatively cheap source of good raw talent for the Aussie squads to make them more competitive as it's clear they don't have enough native talent for five teams at this precise moment in time. Longer term obviously thenre probably needs to be a review of what is going on with Aussie rugby and how to fix it.

Watching the Lions second fifteen and also the fact the game is slowly attracting and developing athletes from non-white communities I'd be a lot more optimistic about their long term prospects if their countries political situation does not deteriorate.

 

[Nubiwan]

The SANZAAR and especially the World Rugby are losing an important market like Australia. They MUST to invest in OZ or could be to late for our code there. Instead of investing in weird markets like USA or China, they must to secure Australia, a traditional rugby market. OZ is the largest economy in Oceania and could be the future of our sport. The NZ market is too limited, the 2011 RWC is the best example, almost all the games were sold-out and despite that the World Rugby lost money, NZ is a small market for a sport who wants to be a worldwide sport.

Even the Americans are interested in Aussie market, the MLB played some games there. Without a big invesment there, our code can't survive. Of course there is a lot of rivalry so Kiwis and Saffas won't want to invest in their enemies but the reality is that OZ is a first world country, 5 times bigger than NZ and SA is a developing country with many problems. OZ should be the base for our sport in the SH, the SANZAAR could earn big money if the code grows there, NZ is limited and SA is a developing country like any Latin America country.

In the next 10 years the World Rugby MUST invest in these markets:

Australia
Scotland
Romania
Georgia
Russia
Spain
Germany
Brazil
Colombia
Chile
Uruguay
Mexico
And some countries in Africa, I have not idea about the current status of African Rugby

well, in all of these countries you are competing against football as the number one sport. An argument could be made that your money is better invested in the worlds largest market -the USA. I realize that is an uphill battle, and competing against numerous other entities, but not sure those markets you intimated would drastically increase the popularity of union. Years away from that eventuality all the same.

As for comparisons above with the EPL, I hail from a football town in Britain. The best team in its day. For me, the advent of the premier league, whilst certainly filling the pockets of the players and clubs, does nothing for the country as a national side. In fairness, I've grown sick of seeing my team filled with players from anywhere but Britain, and they are largely overpaid and useless. Effectively, the clubs can overpay for many players. Personally sick of football. Not least of all the incessant diving and cheating and gamesmanship that is rather rewarded by the system, than shunned. Enough of that ****. One thing is for certain, despite being rubbish for nigh on 20years, the stadium in my town is brimmed to the rafters each weekend. EPL is a success, but with a new set of selfie snapping fans.

great to see a couple of top matches in the NZ conference to end the season. The lions get the crusaders in the first round, thanks to resting their boys. They must feel a right bunch of ***s.

 

[ianw16]

NZ has been helping to keep alive Australian rugby almost since time immemorial. Not sure what else they can be expected to do. They were giving them test matches and tours whenever they could to help them financially, many, many years ago. The precursor to Super Rugby, from memory the AIG 6s, was a boon for NSW and QLD (and a warm up tournament for Akld, Cant and Wgtn). Without it they essentially had no meaningful competition, except against themselves. The fact that we are still talking about the problems in Australian rugby just shows that they have not really come that far, infrastructure wise, in a very long time.
Maybe a couple of Aussie teams in an expanded NPC? Would very much depend on the benefit that NZ would receive from such an arrangement. The NZRFU is far from being the richest union in the world, and is not a charity. Much of the income it does derive is due purely to being home to the most marketable team in world rugby by far. Hence why various tests have been played in places like Japan and Hong Kong. Generally speaking, the Australians have benefited from that NZ marketability.

 

[User1245]

The SANZAAR and especially the World Rugby are losing an important market like Australia. They MUST to invest in OZ or could be to late for our code there. Instead of investing in weird markets like USA or China, they must to secure Australia, a traditional rugby market. OZ is the largest economy in Oceania and could be the future of our sport. The NZ market is too limited, the 2011 RWC is the best example, almost all the games were sold-out and despite that the World Rugby lost money, NZ is a small market for a sport who wants to be a worldwide sport.

Even the Americans are interested in Aussie market, the MLB played some games there. Without a big invesment there, our code can't survive. Of course there is a lot of rivalry so Kiwis and Saffas won't want to invest in their enemies but the reality is that OZ is a first world country, 5 times bigger than NZ and SA is a developing country with many problems. OZ should be the base for our sport in the SH, the SANZAAR could earn big money if the code grows there, NZ is limited and SA is a developing country like any Latin America country.

In the next 10 years the World Rugby MUST invest in these markets:

Australia
Scotland
Romania
Georgia
Russia
Spain
Germany
Brazil
Colombia
Chile
Uruguay
Mexico
And some countries in Africa, I have not idea about the current status of African Rugby

What's killing it in Australia is the time zone. Games are at stupid times in the morning. I get up to watch the Bok games in South Africa only. I've lost track of what's going on in Super Rugby.
In SA I would watch games from 7am in the morning to 8pm at night. It was glorious.

The Aussies love their league, I dunno how Union would crack it with those time differences. Plus Union is a private school thing for the most part and there are too many bogans in Australia, especially Queensland!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

What adding to the tournament being a joke is SANZAAR ruling that Liam Messam and Pat Lambie can't play for their respective franchizes due to not having played enough rugby for them. What a joke especially in Lambie's case where he was the designated captain for the Sharks this year. Both players have been playing for their teams for years now and Messam also captained the Chiefs. We, the paying public want to see the best compete and competitive matches. I expect the Chiefs won't be all that less of a team without Messam but the Sharks could've been hugely boosted with Lambie's inclusion. Surely they can make an exception to their rule taking into account the fact that these players are fixtures in their respective teams and not mercenaries signed up for the play-offs which is what the rule wants to prevent.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRugby/messam-not-allowed-to-face-stormers-20160718

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRugby/lambies-season-over-for-sharks-20160718

Its not enough to keep me away from Newlands but I would've prefered Messam to be there. The 7s this year has really detracted from this particular SR QF. The Chiefs lose SBW and Messam and the Stormers lose Senatla, Kolbe and De Jongh. I just hope Du Plessis is okay and De Allende and Jones can take some momentum into the QF though its difficult to take any sort of result against the Kings seriously. We are running a 2nd string backline as is and don't need further disruptions.

 

[Nubiwan]

What's killing it in Australia is the time zone. Games are at stupid times in the morning. I get up to watch the Bok games in South Africa only. I've lost track of what's going on in Super Rugby.
In SA I would watch games from 7am in the morning to 8pm at night. It was glorious.

The Aussies love their league, I dunno how Union would crack it with those time differences. Plus Union is a private school thing for the most part and there are too many bogans in Australia, especially Queensland!

And a bogan is what, exactly? Something from Harry Potter?

- - - Updated - - -

With the exception of the stormers and Chiefs game attendance at the 3 quarter final has been pathetic. The canes have needed a smaller venue for years. Embarassing seeing all the empty yellow seats at their home games? Did they not win the overall standings? **** poor fan effort. Brumbies might have benefitted in those last 10 minutes if there'd have been more than 1500 fans in attendance. Well, that's what it looked and sounded like. Same for lions home to crusaders. Place was empty. Odd considering I live in a tier 2 rugby nation, and I am sure we'd at least equal some of these attendances, given the quality on display. Says a lot considering SH rugby is the flagship of the sport.

 

[nickdnz]

Ohhh man, I think a bogan might be a SH specific term. It's a dude who has a mullet, drinks a lot of beer, listens to heavy metal etc.

 

[Nubiwan]

Like this beauty?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Aussie redneck, ay it?