Nations Championship a hard sell for SANZAAR
The SANZAAR unions may be in complete agreement on World Rugby’s Nations Championship, but trickle-down economics may be a hard sell for their constituents.
The dollars are on the table for World Rugby but the dinner bell has yet to ring for the southern hemisphere’s rugby collective, SANZAAR. The regional body, originally a joint venture between Australia, New Zealand and South Africa which has expanded to include Argentina, is responsible for the running of The Rugby Championship, one of the key components of World Rugby’s Nations Championship grand vision – a vision that appears to have been created in response to an offer, rather than to attract one. It is also responsible for Super Rugby, and that could yet prove to be a sticking point.
We’ll get to that, but before we do let us just take a moment to remind ourselves of the rugby landscape in the southern hemisphere. New Zealand and South Africa came into the professional age more than two decades ago each boasting an incredible domestic provincial league that fed talent upwards to the international game. Australia had its ultra-competitive club scene and the age-old interstate rivalry, predominantly between NSW and Queensland, to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Fast-forward to 2019 and by any relevant measure the NPC is a shadow of its former self, despite the best intentions and hard work of the provincial unions; the Currie Cup draws a fraction of the interest it once did; and Australian Rugby is still finding a way to fertilise the grassroots of the game, aided – it must be said – by a rejuvenated interest in club footy. All this has happened after the “game-changing” creation of the Tri-Nations and Super Rugby. And take one guess as to what World Rugby’s Nations Championship is being described as in this neck of the woods.
Yep. A game changer.
It was the very same line used at the formation of the SANZAR (as it was originally known) and at the formation of the first iteration of ‘Super Rugby’. It was the line used to describe the new Tri-nations tournament which has expanded to include Argentina and will, if plans proceed, grow again to include Japan and Fiji. These were all “game-changers” and, interestingly, they were reactions to the same perceived threat cited during the current negotiation: the need to protect southern hemisphere players from the big money clubs. In 1995 that big money was supposedly on offer in rugby league. Today that big money is on offer in Europe.
So here we go again. Different big bad wolf, same Red Riding Hood.
On the surface, a collective such as SANZAAR should wield enormous power, and in many respects it does. Super Rugby has worked despite the challenges around union self-interest (something that appears to have been put to one side in the discussions regarding the Nations Championship) and the unenviable logistic challenges posed by time zones and flying times. It has, however, come at a cost to the provincial and club game. The enthusiasm for World Rugby’s plan must be tempered by the lessons of history. Creating a new product above the current domestic or regional offerings does not necessarily lead to better outcomes for the lower levels. In fact, some would argue it has the opposite effect. The money is poured in, but it never leaked past the upper echelons.
The broadcast dollars on offer were never enough to sustain the game at every level, and the increasing demands for cash from Super Rugby franchises began to consume what revenue gains had been made. Alongside that, Super Rugby – in each of the countries represented in the SANZAAR arrangement – replaced provincial rugby as the test selection platform, subjugating the provincial unions or major clubs, and greatly impacting on their ability to earn. When they couldn’t earn, the hand went out, and even more of the broadcast revenue was consumed in bailouts and top-ups.
Which gets us back to the problematic nature of the Nations Championship with respect to Super Rugby. Ostensibly this move is a direct assault on the power of the private club owners – of that there can be little doubt. However, in introducing an annual test championship, do we not run the risk of turning test teams into the new clubs, and test tournaments into the new leagues? We have already seen domestic competitions decimated by regionalism, what chance regional competitions can withstand internationalism? At what point does Super Rugby follow the National Provincial Championship into the marginal enterprise basket?
It is a genuine question and one the power brokers of the southern hemisphere and their constituent provincial unions and stakeholders would be asking themselves. The investigation of a collective strategy around a global rights package is a worthy endeavour for rugby union but it naturally comes with caveats. Yes, there are dollars on the table, but only – in this instance – for the international game. As a result, each of those teams will require more players, added resources, and greater investment. That arrangement will soon start to devour more than a fair slice of the bigger pie. The ability of the unions to make money from their own domestic leagues will be further challenged. The broadcast interest in a carved up domestic landscape possibly reduced.
Whatever the outcome, most observers would say the Nations Championship has the potential to have the same kind of far-reaching impact of the creation of the Rugby World Cup in 1987 and the move to professional tournaments in 1996. Both of those historical landmarks were indeed game changers for rugby, but not all of those changes have been kind to the game.
Comments on RugbyPass
Also, looking at the data from last year, it seemed like by far the two biggest predictors of success were (1) kicking more than your opponents, and (2) having a higher rate of line-out wins than your opponents. I haven’t gone through the stats this year with a fine tooth comb, but the increase in kicks per game and the increase in tries from lineouts would suggest that these two metrics are only getting more important. England’s move away from a kick-heavy game to win against Ireland was seen by some as evidence that running rugby is on the rise. Alternatively it could be taken as evidence that if one team kicks more, and the other team wins more lineouts (as England did) a match is bound to be close to a draw.
2 Go to commentsI have been finding it odd that points per 22 entry has become such a talked about stat, given that your points per entry can be driven down by having more entries. These data would seem to confirm that it isn’t a useful metric, or at any rate is less useful than total entries.
2 Go to commentsI think the last two games England have played is some of their best rugby they have played under Borthwick. There has been a lot more attacking instinct and as a reward have created some well worked tries. Ollie Lawrence is a good foil at 12 as he offers the hard direct lines whilst the rest of the backs can play open. As much as it pains me to say but I do hope England keep playing this way. On a side note my favourite try of the weekend was Lorenzo Pani’s for the nice loop play that put him away and his finish was excellent. Thanks as always Nick.
39 Go to commentsMost exciting player on the planet right now, worth the price of a ticket.
1 Go to commentsBen Smith and Ireland live rent free in Safa’s heads. Their comments only triggers because its true. If the Boks had dismantled a 14 man AB’s, then there would be more respect. But they didnt, in fact quite the opposite, the 14 man NZ were clearly better. And the Bok have always been ordinary between RWC’s, thats why their supporters are now ‘only RWC’s matter’. They know thats BS. Its BS to both AB’s and Bok’s due to their history. But now its all the Safas have. Now we’ll hear excuses when they lose “oh we didnt have all our players available, the ABs/France/Eng/Irel were at full strength”, forgetting for a minute that its because of their own dumb policy. Oh well, makes a change from blaming ‘cheating refs’.
23 Go to commentsNo Nick, they did not, in fact, justify any ‘probables’ label. At no time did they seriously compete for the championship. Ireland led from start to finish and in the end, as a result of glaring referee errors, were never under serious pressure to lose their crown.
39 Go to commentsMoney for him, and his family, has been the sole motivator since he signed for Queensland aged 17. Why else sign for Melbourne. Tupou is poorly advised. If he’d stayed and developed in NZ he would have had a long Test career. If Leinster offer him a few more coins than he’s currently earning, he’s goneburger.
4 Go to commentsFinn. No one would say Ford had played well up until the last game. One standout performance in 5 is hardly in form . It should be a given that a 10 will control play . Not in Fords case be praised for suddenly doing so. Where was he against Scotland ,Italy. The pundits were saying how far away from play he was standing and one even said that the Ireland game was his last chance saloon to perform . Not exactly top form catching anyones eye. If he can play like this game after game then great. Keep him in . But after 90 odd caps we all know he just doesnt keep it going . By all means keep him there but the issue is that Borthwick will persist even when he plays poorly. Which is more often than not. Thats why i am concerned that Smith ,despite fab form , cannot get a game at his preferred spot. Can you imagine Ford at full back .
5 Go to commentsI do not really get why put Ollivon at 6 when he’s a 7, while Cros was the best Frenchman of the tournament, playing at…6. His only game replacing Aldritt at 8 doesn’t change much in terms of his impact. Lamaro was also outstanding in that brilliant Italian side, probably better than Reffell. So putting 2 Welsh players from the wooden spoon holders, and none of the 4th nation (Scotland) is also strange. Is it about showing that in this harsh transition Wales is, there were some standouts…?
6 Go to commentsThe events at this year’s six nations should undermine many of the arguments made against promotion and relegation between the six nations and the REC. If Italy had been allowed to yo-yo between divisions it conceivably could have really hurt their development, but if Italy, Wales, and Scotland are all at risk of relegation, with none of them being relegated more often than once every 3 or 4 years, you’d have to back all of them to muddle on through it, especially when you factor in the likelihood they’ll still be guaranteed world league matches against tier 1 opponents. Another way of looking at italys resurgence would be to say that the development model of adding an extra team to the six nations has worked, and now must be done again. Georgia could join to make it a 7 team round robin, and if and when Georgia demonstrate an ability to consistently win games, Portugal can also be added to make it an 8 team 2 conference competition. Frankly at this point I think it falls to world rugby to demand that the 6N act in the interests of the game. If the 6N won’t commit to expansion then the 6N teams should be handicapped in world cup draws (i.e. world cup seedings would not be based on their ranking points, but on their ranking points minus a 5 point penalty).
6 Go to commentsSteve Borthwick deserves credit for releasing the shackles on his England side and letting them play in a manner that somewhat resembles the top sides in the Gallagher Premiership. Will they revert to type in New Zealand in July.?
39 Go to commentsJames Lowe wouldn't get in any other 6N team. He's a great example of Farrell’s brilliance, and the Irish system. He is slow. His footwork is poor. But he fits perfectly in that Irish system, and has a superb impact. But put him in another team, and he'll look bang average.
6 Go to commentsCrusaders reached their heights through recruitment of North Island players, often leaving those NI teams bereft of key players. Example: Scott Barrett and Sam Whitelock robbed the Canes of their lineout and AB locks. For years the Canes have struggled at lock. This rabid recruitment was iniated by rule changes by a Crusader dominated NZR Head Office. Now this aggressive recruitment has back-fired, going after young inside back Hamilton Boys stars. They now have 4 Chiefs region 10s and not one with the requisite experience at Super level. Problems of their own making!
2 Go to commentsOver rated for a long time…exposed at scrum time too.
4 Go to comments“Firing me” should have been Gatland’s answer.
2 Go to commentsFinn Russell logic: “World” = 4 countries. Ireland may be at or near the top. FR’s bigger concern should be he and his fellow Scots (incl. the Bloemfontein ones) sliding back down to below top 10
42 Go to commentsMind games have begun. Ireland learned their lesson after saying they could beat England with 13 players or whatever. Still, if they win at Loftus, that would be impressive - final frontier etc.
58 Go to comments$950k for a Prop that isn’t fit enough to play 10 mins of rugby? Surely there is someone better to replace Big Mike with
4 Go to commentsFour Kiwis in that backline. A solid statement on the lack of invention, risk-taking and joy in the NH game; game of attrition and head- banging tedium. Longterm medical problems aplenty in the future!
6 Go to commentsGood article, I learnt quite a lot. A big sliding door moment was in the mid 00s when they rejected Steve Anderson's long term transformation and he wrote Ireland's strategy instead.
2 Go to comments