The elephant in the room with the Super Rugby model

Don't even bother “asking South Africa back”. Not interested

Aside from my emotional rant about free market economics - the real solution lies in someone or someone’s coming up with a business model that makes more sense.

NZ’s tiny population of potential consumers of their product internal to their own border is the market that is just not big enough to compete with global level salaries.

On their doorstep is one of the largest economies in the world with a population 20 times bigger, increasingly passionate about rugby. Certainly more so than the Americans who will never shift eyes to rugby. Yet America sees to be the desired prize. Makes me sick.

If NZ could just wake up, approach Japan and set up a new competition with teams from League one - peppered with well payed international stars - problem solved.

Easy. If you swallow your pride.

Whilst reading this - I can’t quite understand how Hamish thinks paying players less is going to happen, let alone work.

If people are good at what they do, their earnings should reflect that - up to a limit set by the free market.

Is it sustainable? Of course it isn’t.

It’s why free market capitalism is slowly (or very quickly depending on how far up your own a$$ your head is lodged) marching us towards our own demise as a civilization. Species.

Sounds like Hamish needs to enlighten us as to what could be done to replace free market economics - and rather quickly. Because saving rugby from it is at the bottom of the list of priorities.

It’s all very well advocating to pay players less so that teams, franchises, unions have a better chance of balancing the books, but it’s not going to happen. As Geoff Parkes so eloquently described last week in an interview, rugby is a global game and the salaries for players are set globally. And currently the salaries are being set by France - who as we all know are being bankrolled by billionaire sugar daddies. In a global talent market those with the most money will pay for the best talent. If NZ and the Super Rugby franchises wish to play in this market, they have to pay what the market determines.

If we had a draft, where a portion of the signing fee reimbursed the union/franchise/club that the talent was signed to (as per soccer around the world, NBA, NFL etc) then maybe NZ’s rugby income would better reflect NZ’s talent playing around the world, and balance the books in a more equitable fashion.

Open the borders within Super for Kiwi players and not lose their eligibility for ABs I reckon this could help even out the competitiveness of the comp and create more revenue with bigger piece of sporting pie in Oz and higher engagement right across on all games would save NZR some coin cap it at say 50 Suoer games all the Oz teans could do with a player here and there and would the Drua say want Bower for a season to keep it Fiji

The thing with free market economics in rugby is that if you arent willing to pay your players high sums someone else will. In order to keep the best players in NZ you have to pay them competitive rates. So you could let them go overseas and get them off the books domestically, pay them at rates that keeps NZR in the black and keeps NZR healthy but that may not keep NZR in the black for long because rugby is already losing interest domestically and if the big names go the fans may turn up even less leading to lower revenue. Grass root structures may decline, less kids may play rugby, interest in the sport may decline etc. and this will have a feedback affect to the AB’s who may decline further as the quality of players decline leading to lower sponsorship and revenue and a decline in the AB brand.

The thing is NZR contracts have to be relatively competitive in comparison to overseas offers, everyone has a price. One day NZ will be forced to pick anyone from anywhere though, it’s only a matter of time this happens.

Super Rugby can work, provided everyone’s happy to take a significant haircut.

What is “Super Rugby”?

which would only become worse when revenue gets slashed next season.

Just the lose of CL revenue you mean?

Obviously this is a garbage article (NZR spend %37 on players lowest of most sources, though the governance model is different everywhere) but I really do think NZRs expenditure needs to be better used to keep rugby at the top in NZ (or get there, w/e). I don’t think the All Blacks need 5 players (SR spots) of international standard in every position, I would reduce NZRs payment pool down to three regional teams (your “super rugby” teams or w/e). That will still provide great depth for the ABs, while saving a chunk of money.

Obviously this is a two part idea, less teams means a much smaller window, and so to fill the season out is where you bring in this ‘sustainable’ model that this article hints at. It’s irrelevant to me if that is a union spending most of it’s money on it’s provincial team, or on its grass roots/development base. It is a organic market where whatever works works. If having the biggest budget team keeps rugby popular in your province, and the foundation of it’s future teams remains strong because of it, so be it. If instead it’s spent on staff or facilities and the team has better players coming through as a result, great, but I don’t by the current argument that a union like Northland is going to be worse off at NPC level because its put its funds into kids participation etc. I think that’s nonsense.

That is of course with a holistic view, one of perpetuality. I don’t doubt short term measures would be in order if things were to change competition wise (and even still from the various NPC restructures.

But I would like NZR to try a different model, far more niche star focused model, one based on bring players back to NZ than holding onto them, and then below that and organic and sustainable game where club rugby is pitted against provincial rugby, and you can even have wealthy owners funding clubs teams good enough to enter Super Rugby, or NPC sides where the unions players want to represent their home so much that they also end up better than most SR sides.