Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Itchy investors agitated over SANZAAR deliberations

(Photo: Getty Images)

The various private ownership interests in Super Rugby clubs are becoming increasingly frustrated with the ongoing SANZAAR debate around the future shape of the tournament, with some now calling for an independent tournament commission to safeguard their investments.

ADVERTISEMENT

As it stands, no decision has yet been made on the exact future make-up of Super Rugby but, as reported in the Watercooler two weeks ago, New Zealand Rugby has made a recommendation to the other SANZAAR partners to cut two South African teams and one Australian team in order to simplify the conference format.

Australian club CEOs met on Tuesday to discuss the proposal but have been gagged by the Australian Union which still has not formulated an official response to the recommendations. It is also believed the NZ CEOs were briefed on Wednesday with explicit caution issued regarding private owners opening a dialogue with their Australian equivalents.

The ARU does not seem to be in a great position to negotiate, having spent millions in recent seasons propping up the balance sheets of its teams. As one insider said “the entire proposal feels like McDonald’s telling Burger King to get rid of three of their restaurants.”

[rugbypass-ad-banner id=”1473723684″]

The South African governing body, SARU, is also in a parlous financial position. According to sources inside the discussions, SARU has not dismissed the proposal out of hand, and is seriously considering culling two of its teams. Cheetahs boss Harold Verster claimed on Monday that his club was safe from the cull, sparking widespread speculation that a ‘Super 16’ was still very much on the cards.

Regardless of where negotiations lead, private interests in the competition have discussed the possibility of forming an NRL-style commission. SANZAAR as a governing body is the centralised tool of the various member unions, rather than an independent voice solely promoting the interests of the competition.

Private owners say it is imperative that, like the NRL, A-League, and AFL, Super Rugby can stand on its own feet as a competition, rather than operating as a feeder system for the international game, which remains under the auspices of the unions that constitute SANZAAR, and out of the hands of outside investors.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

The Antoine Dupont Interview

Ireland v New Zealand | Singapore Men's HSBC SVNS Final Highlights

New Zealand v Australia | Singapore Women's HSBC SVNS Final Highlights

Inter Services Championships | Royal Army Men v Royal Navy Men | Full Match Replay

Fresh Starts | Episode 3 | Cobus Reinach

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

B
Bull Shark 3 hours ago
Speeded-up Super Rugby Pacific provides blueprint for wider game

I’m all for speeding up the game. But can we be certain that the slowness of the game contributed to fans walking out? I’m not so sure. Super rugby largely suffered from most fans only being able to, really, follow the games played in their own time zone. So at least a third of the fan base wasn’t engaged at any point in time. As a Saffer following SA teams in the URC - I now watch virtually every European game played on the weekend. In SR, I wouldn’t be bothered to follow the games being played on the other side of the world, at weird hours, if my team wasn’t playing. I now follow the whole tournament and not just the games in my time zone. Second, with New Zealand teams always winning. It’s like formula one. When one team dominates, people lose interest. After COVID, with SA leaving and Australia dipping in form, SR became an even greater one horse race. Thats why I think Japan’s league needs to get in the mix. The international flavor of those teams could make for a great spectacle. But surely if we believe that shaving seconds off lost time events in rugby is going to draw fans back, we should be shown some figures that supports this idea before we draw any major conclusions. Where are the stats that shows these changes have made that sort of impact? We’ve measured down to the average no. Of seconds per game. Where the measurement of the impact on the fanbase? Does a rugby “fan” who lost interest because of ball in play time suddenly have a revived interest because we’ve saved or brought back into play a matter of seconds or a few minutes each game? I doubt it. I don’t thinks it’s even a noticeable difference to be impactful. The 20 min red card idea. Agreed. Let’s give it a go. But I think it’s fairer that the player sent off is substituted and plays no further part in the game as a consequence.

3 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE How Gonzalo Quesada is driving the Azzurri revolution How Gonzalo Quesada is driving the Azzurri revolution
Search