Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Super Rugby CEO issues statement addressing future of the competition

Crusaders final

Following a report issued by the Sydney Morning Herald that suggested the competition will cull more teams, Super Rugby boss and SANZAAR Chief Executive Andy Marinos has issued a public statement to address concerns.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The recent reports in the media around the next iteration of the Super Rugby tournament are nothing more than speculative.

“As a business we are presently looking at our future competition structures from 2021 onwards, a matter that has been widely reported in the media. We have not reached any definitive decisions around our future competition including the number of teams that will participate in the future structure.”

“We will continue to engage with our stakeholders specifically the national unions (Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) and our broadcasters, as we plan ahead for the future and the next broadcast cycle that commences in 2021.”

“If there are any changes to our structure we will communicate this at the appropriate time,” added Marinos.

Just last month Marinos stressed in an interview with Fairfax the need to ‘get the right mix’ to drive the competition forward.

“What we’ve got to realise is that Super Rugby was established originally in order to slip that one level below test matches and the yield that it’s given is being able to deliver three and now four countries that are seriously competitive on the international stage and have dominated the World Cup since its formation,” Marinos said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“That value can’t be underestimated as a breeding ground for international rugby, which does drive a fair portion of revenue in the game.

“The essence of the product is very strong and we still get the best players in the world playing in that comp. Our big challenge is to get the right mix together to use it as a platform to drive forward.”

The Sydney Morning Herald report proposed a 14-team revamp is one of several models discussed by the SANZAAR unions following recent World Rugby meetings in Dublin last month.

The Japan-based Sunwolves – who have won just five matches across their first three seasons – are believed to be at risk should the competition return to 14 teams. SANZAAR’s international competition – The Rugby Championship – includes Argentina which suggests it would be foolish to take away their Super Rugby team, the Jaguares.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Sunwolves could be saved should another South African side follow in the footsteps of the Cheetahs and Southern Kings in joining the northern hemisphere’s Pro14 competition.

Rugby World Cup City Guide – Fukuoka:

Video Spacer
ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

Japan Rugby League One | Verblitz v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Fresh Starts | Episode 2 | Sam Whitelock

Royal Navy Men v Royal Air Force Men | Full Match Replay

Royal Navy Women v Royal Air Force Women | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 4 hours ago
The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific

I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.

16 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE Makazole Mapimpi: 'My life is somewhere I never thought it would be.' Makazole Mapimpi: 'My life is somewhere I never thought it would be.'
Search