What if Aus leave Super rugby?

[TRF_heineken]

Doesn't a lot of it have to do with Europe than just South Africa? The European market combined with the SA market gives the beef to that time zone.

Having been a super rugby fan in the SA time zone and the AU time zone my 2 cents is the AU scheduling is horrendous for interest in the sport. It's a vicious cycle that is not helping Australian rugby.

By default, you'll miss loads of matches. Not a good start from the get go. It's hard to get into a competition when you don't get to see a good chunk of the matches. An 11am match is a pain but a Sunday 1am match is impossible. And it's the case like every weekend.

The time zone difference is a massive barrier to get new fans to follow Super Rugby. Only hardcore fans really follow it here. It is dying here but most people don't even notice because nobody follows it!

As much as I'll miss watching by beloved Sharks, I think Australia need to go with Japan and NZ, SA go with Europe. That makes a lot of sense to me.

To an extent, yes. But that's just one part of the complexity of the issues. Nothing prevents us from having delayed airings of the matches on tv. In SA we get a lot of delayed airings of Pro 14 and other NH games, simply because we only have so many channels that can show live sport at a given time, especially when some games coincide the same time as others.

But Australia is the only country that regularly host games on Sundays, they are then shooting themselves in the foot. In SA we've had a few on Sunday as a test run or due to other events preventing us from having the game on a Saturday on Friday.

I think that's why SANZAAR introduced the Thursday matches last year, to see if more viewers will be attracted to those games.

But we should also not kid ourselves in that some regions fans have already made up their minds of teams they'll watch if their own team isn't featuring. I for one am not bothered in watching the Reds play any Aussie team, and would rather watch something else when that game is on. And the same goes for fans in Australia and NZ. I know my team, the Bulls, are not a fan favourite by many abroad.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Again, who are these people explaining these things to you or to the people in Oz and NZ? That isn't the info we are seeing in articles or discussions on tv and so on.



Yet there is always a day game in South Africa, sometimes all of them are in the day. I would much rather prefer the SA games later in the day than the dreaded 3 pm kick-off time. But then again, we have to be as accomodating as possible.



You are trying to oversimplify this issue, which has been discussed at length in several threads. Point is, nobody likes the conference system, and there are way too many problems with it. And that is why SANZAAR is revoking it.



I'm usually still awake at 1 am to catch the Jaguares game. And it doesn't bother me that much. I accept that not everyone will be able to watch every game every weekend. Luckily there is something like recordings and highlights.

The most difficult time for me to watch games are between 8 am and 12 noon. And on Fridays it's impossible because I'm then at work.

Everyone no matter where in the world you are, will miss out on games, there are just too many to catch them all live.

I just don't think there is a conspiracy theory here where South Africa is the puppetmaster. Especially since we were the nation that was always deemed the most disadvantaged by the scheduling...

Let's just agree to disagree, I can't see how you can't see my side and vice versa

 

[User1245]

To an extent, yes. But that's just one part of the complexity of the issues. Nothing prevents us from having delayed airings of the matches on tv. In SA we get a lot of delayed airings of Pro 14 and other NH games, simply because we only have so many channels that can show live sport at a given time, especially when some games coincide the same time as others.

But Australia is the only country that regularly host games on Sundays, they are then shooting themselves in the foot. In SA we've had a few on Sunday as a test run or due to other events preventing us from having the game on a Saturday on Friday.

I think that's why SANZAAR introduced the Thursday matches last year, to see if more viewers will be attracted to those games.

But we should also not kid ourselves in that some regions fans have already made up their minds of teams they'll watch if their own team isn't featuring. I for one am not bothered in watching the Reds play any Aussie team, and would rather watch something else when that game is on. And the same goes for fans in Australia and NZ. I know my team, the Bulls, are not a fan favourite by many abroad.

Having sport on days other than Saturday seems a well established thing in Aus. Rugby league have Thursday and Sunday matches somewhat regularly so that change wouldn't have been as big an adjustment. The move was probably because Saturdays are so choked with sport as the AFL and NRL season overlaps with the Super Rugby competition.
Like in film or gaming the smaller guys launch around the big launches (for example Call of Duty) because they'll be drowned out otherwise. Rugby union has lost so much of a foot hold that it can't compete head to head.

That's the negative feedback loop I've been talking about.
Let me put it this way... If things don't change Rugby in Australia will continue lose fans without being able to attract an equal amount or more new ones because compared to the other codes (AFL and NRL) the product is complicated: the format is always changing and the time of most matches is ****.

Now I don't know if this is nostalgia but the aussies I've spoken to speak of the Super 12 fondly, just like I reckon SA fans preferred that format too. Super 14 was okay because they got a new team. But It's like after the Super 14 changed to 15 teams (and conferences) that was the tipping point. It now had more negatives than positives.

Edit: Here's a good example actually. I would say with high certainty that more people follow the NBA than do Super Rugby. All NBA games are on during the day here and a lot are on during the week.

Another difference I've noticed here is that nobody follows the English Premier League or Champions League, whereas in SA it gets a lot of interest. Again the timezone is favourable.

Now there is of course cultural differences involved but I think it's a good example of how people will follow a sport outside of their traditional timezones if it's not too extreme. Sunday 1am, 3am and 5am is extreme and for there to be a big base of support the competition would have to be of a very high quality. Which Super Rugby is not.

IMO Either we through the dice on something like the super 12 again or Australia and South Africa go their separate ways for the good of the game.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rugb...y-following-revelation-of-devastating-figures

One step closer to being a reality

"The report recommended that Rugby Australia should move its focus from Super Rugby to instead rebuild its domestic game, where traditional rivalries still appeal to fans. Super Rugby can then act as a champions-league style tournament at the end of the season."

Although this is kind of what I'm talking about

 

[The Seeker]

Seriously? Conferences??? The main thing everyone is currently complaining about? Everyone from New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, Argentina & Japan have had the issue of the conference system and that's the main reason why we are reverting back to a strength vs. strength round robin tournament.

I agree. If it's not working, why would you want to go back to it?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I agree. If it's not working, why would you want to go back to it?

I did explain that

a Comp spread over such a huge area is also not working, so seperate comps, one is Aus/nz and another in rsa...so two "conferences" that only meet for finals would simplify things (loose the cross conference games) and Mean less travel for the teams and cheaper to run

 

[TRF_heineken]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rugb...y-following-revelation-of-devastating-figures

One step closer to being a reality

"The report recommended that Rugby Australia should move its focus from Super Rugby to instead rebuild its domestic game, where traditional rivalries still appeal to fans. Super Rugby can then act as a champions-league style tournament at the end of the season."

Although this is kind of what I'm talking about

I think that research team forgot about a few things when they did the research.

1. South Africa and New Zealand already has a well structured domestic competition that has a prominent fanbase, even though the numbers in those tournaments also took a knock the past couple of years.

2. By ditching Super Rugby, wouldn't Australia lose even more money due to the broadcasting revenue they are getting? Should they ditch, all that will happen is SA and NZ will get a bigger slice of the pie, and will use that to make their pools even stronger, then Australia will be left behind and drop down to a tier 2 or 3 side.

Again, there isn't just a simple answer here. To simplify things as some are, for their own best interest, is not making sense, and they don't see the bigger ramifications it could have.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

2. By ditching Super Rugby, wouldn't Australia lose even more money due to the broadcasting revenue they are getting? Should they ditch, all that will happen is SA and NZ will get a bigger slice of the pie, and will use that to make their pools even stronger, then Australia will be left behind and drop down to a tier 2 or 3 side.

i dont know the actually numbers but say they get $50m from the broadcasting deal...does that matter if theyre still making an overall loss?

or alternatively, are they just anticipating that loss in interest will lead to loss in quality players so they'll start getting thrashed every week as as much money as south Afrcia has they wont want to keep paying for rubbish teams

you realise to justify the boardcasting deal they need to have good teams...no ones going to keep paying for shell teams that will have to be made up of mercenaries because they dont have the structure or support behind them

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03...a-staring-at-massive-loss-in-revenue/12107506

us Rugby are estimated to lose $120M....thats with the current broadcasting deal when the aus teams are just a bit rough...imagine how poor a deal they'll get when they are rubbish and what the loss will be then

 

[rugby rulz]

The report to RA only suggested that they should "opt out of Super Rugby in its current form". Thus, they acknowledged what most rugby supporters have been saying since 2016 about scrapping the conference system and returning to a strength v strength round robin format.

I struggle to see how abandoning Super Rugby and focusing more on a domestic competition will improve attendance and viewership in Australia, given that attendance of Australian derbies in Super Rugby for the past 5 years were already poor (as is the case in both South Africa and New Zealand, though to a lesser extent).

Also, if they choose to focus more on a domestic competition, I don't see how that will entice their best players and Wallabies to remain in the country. Players want to test themselves against the best players of other countries. This is also a problem in South Africa where the better players opt to play in Japan during the Currie Cup season. You also need to have strong secondary competitions and structures (i.e club rugby, varsity rugby, etc) in place to ensure that the talent pool for your domestic competition is big enough to provide good quality rugby and upcoming superstars which can still attract large crowds and viewers.

Instead of leaving Super Rugby, Rugby Australia should rather focus on improving rugby participation at grass roots level and by improving their marketing of the sport. Infighting within its organization also does not help the overall reputation or the functioning of the organization.

Hopefully when Super Rugby's structure goes back to the round robin format next year, attendance and viewership will increase not only in Australia, but in SA and NZ as well. If all participating countries can work together like they used to and start focusing on the basics that made Super Rugby such a respected competion around the world, then it will benefit ALL of us.

 

[TRF_heineken]

i dont know the actually numbers but say they get $50m from the broadcasting deal...does that matter if theyre still making an overall loss?

or alternatively, are they just anticipating that loss in interest will lead to loss in quality players so they'll start getting thrashed every week as as much money as south Afrcia has they wont want to keep paying for rubbish teams

you realise to justify the boardcasting deal they need to have good teams...no ones going to keep paying for shell teams that will have to be made up of mercenaries because they dont have the structure or support behind them

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03...a-staring-at-massive-loss-in-revenue/12107506

us Rugby are estimated to lose $120M....thats with the current broadcasting deal when the aus teams are just a bit rough...imagine how poor a deal they'll get when they are rubbish and what the loss will be then

$50m is not petty cash. I don't see how a domestic tournament will generate that kind of revenue to surpass that, and in doing so keep viewership numbers up, and keep their teams stronger and competitive.

There is just not enough reasoning to compensate them leaving. They are already in financial trouble, to leave a cash cow like Super Rugby completely would be more detrimental to them.

And IMHO Australia only have themselves to blame for this predicament. They were the ones who recommended the conference system that has brought this loss in numbers in viewership and the general unpopular views from the average fans. They were the ones to recommend more derby matches, which on one hand was a good idea, but they over-emphasised it's importance, and all that happened was that South Africa and New Zealand's derby games got more interest, and Australia's derby games got less.

And that is because the people from NZ and SA don't want to watch the Aussie derby games.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

$50m is not petty cash. I don't see how a domestic tournament will generate that kind of revenue to surpass that, and in doing so keep viewership numbers up, and keep their teams stronger and competitive.

There is just not enough reasoning to compensate them leaving. They are already in financial trouble, to leave a cash cow like Super Rugby completely would be more detrimental to them.

And IMHO Australia only have themselves to blame for this predicament. They were the ones who recommended the conference system that has brought this loss in numbers in viewership and the general unpopular views from the average fans. They were the ones to recommend more derby matches, which on one hand was a good idea, but they over-emphasised it's importance, and all that happened was that South Africa and New Zealand's derby games got more interest, and Australia's derby games got less.

And that is because the people from NZ and SA don't want to watch the Aussie derby games.

but it not about the $50m...its more that even with that the current comp means they loose $120M...thats basic maths...you could double the broadcasting rights and Aus Rugby would still loose $20M!

Loosing $120m mean the comp isn't a cash cow for them, the idea is a domestic comp wont HAVE to generate the same kind of money because it should be cheaper to run

 

[User1245]

There is just not enough reasoning to compensate them leaving. They are already in financial trouble, to leave a cash cow like Super Rugby completely would be more detrimental to them.

And IMHO Australia only have themselves to blame for this predicament. They were the ones who recommended the conference system that has brought this loss in numbers in viewership and the general unpopular views from the average fans. They were the ones to recommend more derby matches, which on one hand was a good idea, but they over-emphasised it's importance, and all that happened was that South Africa and New Zealand's derby games got more interest, and Australia's derby games got less.

And that is because the people from NZ and SA don't want to watch the Aussie derby games.

Yep, Rugby Australia went for the quick money option and it's burnt them, just like fans knew it would. TV ratings and audience numbers were going down before the conference system was introduced.

Nobody seems to be saying that Super Rugby is good for sport other than it provides revenue, so what is the solution?

 

[User1245]

The report to RA only suggested that they should "opt out of Super Rugby in its current form". Thus, they acknowledged what most rugby supporters have been saying since 2016 about scrapping the conference system and returning to a strength v strength round robin format.

I struggle to see how abandoning Super Rugby and focusing more on a domestic competition will improve attendance and viewership in Australia, given that attendance of Australian derbies in Super Rugby for the past 5 years were already poor (as is the case in both South Africa and New Zealand, though to a lesser extent).

Also, if they choose to focus more on a domestic competition, I don't see how that will entice their best players and Wallabies to remain in the country. Players want to test themselves against the best players of other countries. This is also a problem in South Africa where the better players opt to play in Japan during the Currie Cup season. You also need to have strong secondary competitions and structures (i.e club rugby, varsity rugby, etc) in place to ensure that the talent pool for your domestic competition is big enough to provide good quality rugby and upcoming superstars which can still attract large crowds and viewers.

Instead of leaving Super Rugby, Rugby Australia should rather focus on improving rugby participation at grass roots level and by improving their marketing of the sport. Infighting within its organization also does not help the overall reputation or the functioning of the organization.

Hopefully when Super Rugby's structure goes back to the round robin format next year, attendance and viewership will increase not only in Australia, but in SA and NZ as well. If all participating countries can work together like they used to and start focusing on the basics that made Super Rugby such a respected competion around the world, then it will benefit ALL of us.

You make a lot of good points and I pretty much agree with your entire post.

Rugby Australia has burnt down so many things in order to artificially prop up Super Rugby. Grassroots got no attention or adequate resourcing.

It's hard to know what structure would work in Australia because of the competition from the other contact sports. There's a lot of cross code poaching and Union sees net outflows. How do arrest that flow so you can build is the question.

Despite all the doom and gloom there is one constant... Rugby Union is a better sport

 

[The Seeker]

A few months ago I was so excited about the 25th anniversary season of SupeRugby. Now I'm so starved for sports that I'd happily watch old guys play shuffleboard at the park...if it were open.

 

[rugby rulz]

You make a lot of good points and I pretty much agree with your entire post.

Rugby Australia has burnt down so many things in order to artificially prop up Super Rugby. Grassroots got no attention or adequate resourcing.

It's hard to know what structure would work in Australia because of the competition from the other contact sports. There's a lot of cross code poaching and Union sees net outflows. How do arrest that flow so you can build is the question.

Despite all the doom and gloom there is one constant... Rugby Union is a better sport

Unfortunately, the current Rugby Union product also makes it difficult for people to follow it or get excited by it due to the abundance of laws and inconsistent application thereof by referees. I do like the proposal by the Aussies that a scrum time-limit be applied, as scrums are a total mess at the moment as it is being used as a time wasting strategy and let's not get started on referees interpretation of the scrums !

I am not from Australia so I can't comment on what exactly the situation is there, but what makes rugby strong in South Africa (and I would guess NZ) is that most boys grow up idolizing their rugby heroes and dreaming of running out for their national team, thus the higher participation levels at school. Most people in SA and NZ will have had some exposure to Rugby Union somewhere in their life and that keeps the sport alive. If you tell someone your political ideology you might not even get a response, but tell them who you think should be the starting xv for the all blacks or the springboks and suddenly everyone starts giving their opinion.

I agree that I like Rugby Union more than Rugby League. Yes, Rugby League is a "cleaner" and faster sport due to there not being any rucks, lineouts or contested scrums. But more people (i.e body types, speed levels, etc) can be accomodated in Union due to the requirements of different positions, than say your usual tall and lanky AFL player or your typical loose forward, centre type of player in League.

In terms of safety, I have never played league so I can't really comment from experience, but simply from watching it I would say that Union is a bit more safe than League. Yes, rucks and scrums are where most injuries in Union occur, but the type of tackles that League players dish out seems a lot more bruttish and dangerous and since League encourages a more open and free flowing game, those types of hits are more common than in Union. So if a parent is concerned about safety, that can be a way to market Union to them and their kids as well as that anybody (fat, skinny, small, tall, fast, slow, etc) can play a part in a Union team.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Some scary Stats if true, what ever they do the need to raise the profile and engage with the fans

 

[User1245]

Unfortunately, the current Rugby Union product also makes it difficult for people to follow it or get excited by it due to the abundance of laws and inconsistent application thereof by referees. I do like the proposal by the Aussies that a scrum time-limit be applied, as scrums are a total mess at the moment as it is being used as a time wasting strategy and let's not get started on referees interpretation of the scrums !

I am not from Australia so I can't comment on what exactly the situation is there, but what makes rugby strong in South Africa (and I would guess NZ) is that most boys grow up idolizing their rugby heroes and dreaming of running out for their national team, thus the higher participation levels at school. Most people in SA and NZ will have had some exposure to Rugby Union somewhere in their life and that keeps the sport alive. If you tell someone your political ideology you might not even get a response, but tell them who you think should be the starting xv for the all blacks or the springboks and suddenly everyone starts giving their opinion.

I agree that I like Rugby Union more than Rugby League. Yes, Rugby League is a "cleaner" and faster sport due to there not being any rucks, lineouts or contested scrums. But more people (i.e body types, speed levels, etc) can be accomodated in Union due to the requirements of different positions, than say your usual tall and lanky AFL player or your typical loose forward, centre type of player in League.

In terms of safety, I have never played league so I can't really comment from experience, but simply from watching it I would say that Union is a bit more safe than League. Yes, rucks and scrums are where most injuries in Union occur, but the type of tackles that League players dish out seems a lot more bruttish and dangerous and since League encourages a more open and free flowing game, those types of hits are more common than in Union. So if a parent is concerned about safety, that can be a way to market Union to them and their kids as well as that anybody (fat, skinny, small, tall, fast, slow, etc) can play a part in a Union team.

I get what you're saying about making rugby more attractive to other fans of contact sports (limiting scrum times) but I disagree.

One of reasons why Super Rugby is in trouble is because it kept trying to attract people who didn't care about rugby anyway. "Easy come, easy go" is an appropriate saying for the situation. The laws of the game are fine, as evidenced by it's appeal in SA and NZ. Fixing any issues during scrum time is an officiating thing.

The issue in Australia is grassroots and fan engagement. Both of which haven't got the adequate resources/attention.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I get what you're saying about making rugby more attractive to other fans of contact sports (limiting scrum times) but I disagree.

One of reasons why Super Rugby is in trouble is because it kept trying to attract people who didn't care about rugby anyway. "Easy come, easy go" is an appropriate saying for the situation. The laws of the game are fine, as evidenced by it's appeal in SA and NZ. Fixing any issues during scrum time is an officiating thing.

The issue in Australia is grassroots and fan engagement. Both of which haven't got the adequate resources/attention.

Yeah, it's about the fundamentals, not the product.

The decline in viewership in South Africa is not because of the same reason as in Australia. In SA it's more because of the socio-economic issues we have, and how people are struggling to pay the ticket prices for the stadiums. Yet if you go to a high school game, the place is packed to the rafters.

In one way, I think this pandemic is doing sport a favour. By the time the lockdowns are over, and everyone can go back to normal, they will be hungry for sport and to go out and have a day out (those that can afford it). Me and my friends have been having quite a few zoom meetings during this lockdown in arranging a group trip for next year's B & I Lions tour and are going to try and watch the 2 games in Joburg.

As for Super Rugby, depending on when the SA teams take to the field again, I plan to go to Loftus Versfeld and watch the Bulls in action.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Yeah, it's about the fundamentals, not the product.

The decline in viewership in South Africa is not because of the same reason as in Australia. In SA it's more because of the socio-economic issues we have, and how people are struggling to pay the ticket prices for the stadiums. Yet if you go to a high school game, the place is packed to the rafters.

In one way, I think this pandemic is doing sport a favour. By the time the lockdowns are over, and everyone can go back to normal, they will be hungry for sport and to go out and have a day out (those that can afford it). Me and my friends have been having quite a few zoom meetings during this lockdown in arranging a group trip for next year's B & I Lions tour and are going to try and watch the 2 games in Joburg.

As for Super Rugby, depending on when the SA teams take to the field again, I plan to go to Loftus Versfeld and watch the Bulls in action.

and i would hazard any fall in interest in NZ is for different reasons again, I know friends fro invercargill that dont really follow super rugby, the dont feel the connection to the Highlanders but are hard out supporters of the Southland Stags

I for example support, Otago Boys High School, Dunedin RFC, Otago, Highlanders and the All blacks, just the cost if i wanted to get jerseys every few years or go to games etc...its expensive, time consuming and complicated

Its noticeable when compared to football i the UK for example...club team through all levels and the national team...maybe a "second" team in the prem, if your team isn't, but only casually

There is definitely not a "Silver Bullet" that will fix the comp for everyone

 

[TRF_heineken]

and i would hazard any fall in interest in NZ is for different reasons again, I know friends fro invercargill that dont really follow super rugby, the dont feel the connection to the Highlanders but are hard out supporters of the Southland Stags

I for example support, Otago Boys High School, Dunedin RFC, Otago, Highlanders and the All blacks, just the cost if i wanted to get jerseys every few years or go to games etc...its expensive, time consuming and complicated

Its noticeable when compared to football i the UK for example...club team through all levels and the national team...maybe a "second" team in the prem, if your team isn't, but only casually

There is definitely not a "Silver Bullet" that will fix the comp for everyone

Well over here, it's high school rugby, then Varsity Cup (which is on Monday nights) then Currie Cup teams, then Super Rugby then the Springboks.

I know a lot of people that only watch the Springboks, who aren't really rugby fans. But because Rugby League is nearly non-existent here, the people watch Soccer (mostly followed by the black people), cricket and rugby union.

Rugby has had a stigma attached to it in that it's the Sport of Apartheid, and has been trying to get more and more black people to become fans.

Hopefully this trend will grow even more after Siya Kolisi lifted the trophy...

Bottom line is, every country has their own set of issues and problems.