Super Rugby expanding to Japan and USA

http://www.espnscrum.com/super-rugby-2012/rugby/story/159744.html

"Greg Peters, the SANZAR chief executive, has admitted that the possibility exists for Super Rugby to expand into Japan and the United States of America.

The tournament - currently contested by franchises from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa - will be subject to a new television deal in 2016 and organisers are seeking to tap into new markets.

With Sevens' admission into the Olympics coming in the same year, reports suggest that SANZAR is keen to capitalise on the growth of rugby in new regions.

The conference system would allow new teams to drop in with little fuss, although there appears to be little scope for a proposed sixth South African side."

(Continued on ESPN)

Anyone know if this is true?

Would love to see USA and Japan get their clubs into a high quality league but I can't see many Southern Hem fans being happy with their league being somewhat diluted with weaker teams.

Maybe if the America's (USA, Canada and Argentina) created franchised teams they'd be more competitive? Any thoughts?

It seems sensible, they need to generate money and there is a lot of it in Japan and the USA.

Rugby in the USA is about to boom because the Americans love Olympic Gold and it has been reported several of the NFL Collegue stars have expressed an interest in taking up rugby to go to the Olympics, especially those not quite making the cut for Pro NFL. Rugby will be in the 2016 Olympics.

Rugby is big in Japan already, with a lot of money floating about, the problem is how is it all going to work. they already have 15 teams how on earth do you help the USA and Japan teams bridge the gap?

I guess they'd have to do a Heinaken Cup style competition, but it will dillute their quality of rugby and weaken the Tri Nations a lot. the gap is already starting to close now if were being honest.

Ireland beat Australia, Wales were unlucky against South Africa and a very shambolic French team reached the World Cup final.

The Japanese Top Legaue finishes in January and Super Rugby starts in mid Feb, so a superclub composed of the best Japanese and ageing SH players in search of a payday might work to all's benefit.

AlynDavies wrote:
Wales were unlucky against South Africa

As I was told, you use your chances or you lose.

As much as I agree with you Biltong, let's not turn this into a Wales vs South Africa debate.

Maybe Super Rugby should be a tiered competition if it continues to grow and include other teams. A relegation/promotion system could potentially strengthen the league.

this may also open doors for pacific island teams to join. Just imagine how dangerous they could become with a solid structured league...

This is just speculation. I can't see Japan being interested in joining a failing competition like Super rugby. Their top league is doing fine and will only grow.

Why failing?

CurlyOsp wrote:As much as I agree with you Biltong, let's not turn this into a Wales vs South Africa debate.

Maybe Super Rugby should be a tiered competition if it continues to grow and include other teams. A relegation/promotion system could potentially strengthen the league.

this may also open doors for pacific island teams to join. Just imagine how dangerous they could become with a solid structured league...

curly. I also agree that the super rugby comp should be tiered.

The situation is Murdoch wants to increase revenue, and the way he sees it is more games. He doesn't care about the fact that squad depth is watered down as talent gets spread thinner and thinner to accommodate more sqauds.

Irrespective of how many teams get involved in a tiered system, It has been shown all across the world that most countries can field a 3 team strong group of players.

The other problem I have with any round robin competition is that if it isn't home and away based, it isn't fair. All teams should play all other teams on a home and away basis.

When this current flawed model comes to an end, SANZAR must prepare the current teams that a two tier system will be launched and only the top 9 teams will qualify. A second tiered competition can then add other nations team's if they do wish to enter super rugby.

Then there after a promotion relegation setup can be put in place at the end of every season.

This will also help the SANZAR nations wih centrally contracting players and ensuring the talent is spread the right way.

Trouble with the pacific islands will always be money. They have nowhere to stage home matches nor the population to support tbe matches.
The travel is already ridiculous. You just shouldnt have to travel thousnds of miles that often just to play a game of rugby each week.
The focus on money first is wrecking the game at this level. Every year the aim seems to be to get another franchise squeezed in for reasons that only serve to create more revenue.

Can't fault what you're saying there Biltong, but I think any of the new joining teams would benefit more from starting in the bottom tier than the top, just to have that season to "gel" and build momentum. The Rebels certainly could have done with starting off in a lower league.

As for the Pacific Islands taylor, I agree that money is a huge issue, but I think investors will be hugely interested in Pacific Island teams due to the massive, somewhat untapped, potential there.

Maybe a team based in New Zealand for players of Somoan/Tongan decent could work. Would I be wrong in assuming that this is how teams like London Irish started out?

very shambolic French team reached the World Cup final..

Shambolic in terms of organisation but in terms of talent then they were rather brilliant. They were the better team for the majority of that final but the ruthless All Blacks made sure to capitalise at the right times to nick the win.

As for the Pacific Islands taylor, I agree that money is a huge issue, but I think investors will be hugely interested in Pacific Island teams due to the massive, somewhat untapped, potential there

If Japan get a franchise they'll be plenty of tapping of that PI market. The Japanese teams utilise a good portion of foreign talent at the minute but some of that won't be available to their franchises as they'll head home to their native country and represent a franchise there. It will force the Japanese into looking either to the European market or to the likes of Samoa and Tonga.

If Japan, America, Canada and Argentina had two franchises each and played in a second tier competition with play offs and the winner taking on the bottom placed Super 14 franchise for the opportunity to win promotion that could work.

We'd probably be better off merging the Heinaken Cup and super 15, rather than looking to include Japanease and USA teams.

6 pools of 6 would probably work out ok = 36 teams

5 South African, 5 New Zealand, 5 Australian, 5 French, 5 English, 3 (or 4) Irish, 3 (or 4) Welsh, 2 Scottish, 2 Italian.

Thats crazy

AlynDavies wrote:We'd probably be better off merging the Heinaken Cup and super 15, rather than looking to include Japanease and USA teams.

6 pools of 6 would probably work out ok = 36 teams

5 South African, 5 New Zealand, 5 Australian, 5 French, 5 English, 3 (or 4) Irish, 3 (or 4) Welsh, 2 Scottish, 2 Italian.

In a wierd way it makes for an interesting debate, but your first requirement for that would be a global rugby season.

biltongbek wrote:

AlynDavies wrote:We'd probably be better off merging the Heinaken Cup and super 15, rather than looking to include Japanease and USA teams.

6 pools of 6 would probably work out ok = 36 teams

5 South African, 5 New Zealand, 5 Australian, 5 French, 5 English, 3 (or 4) Irish, 3 (or 4) Welsh, 2 Scottish, 2 Italian.

In a wierd way it makes for an interesting debate, but your first requirement for that would be a global rugby season.

Familiarity breeds contempt. The top nations already play each other too often that facing the haka or a brusing SA is not a unique or special event anymore. Having the top players playing each other week in week out for their clubs will only erode that further. I think there are also serious logistical and travel issues with a global club competition. Super 15 are asking too much from their players in this regard already.

Islingtonv2 wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

AlynDavies wrote:We'd probably be better off merging the Heinaken Cup and super 15, rather than looking to include Japanease and USA teams.

6 pools of 6 would probably work out ok = 36 teams

5 South African, 5 New Zealand, 5 Australian, 5 French, 5 English, 3 (or 4) Irish, 3 (or 4) Welsh, 2 Scottish, 2 Italian.

In a wierd way it makes for an interesting debate, but your first requirement for that would be a global rugby season.

Familiarity breeds contempt. The top nations already play each other too often that facing the haka or a brusing SA is not a unique or special event anymore. Having the top players playing each other week in week out for their clubs will only erode that further. I think there are also serious logistical and travel issues with a global club competition. Super 15 are asking too much from their players in this regard already.

I agree with that.

The way I think Super Rugby shoould develop is in leagues, AUS/NZ 10 team league, SA/ARG 10 team league and maybe a JAP/PI/HK league for a domestic trophy Maybe only 8 teams depending.

top few teams in each play of against each other for a cup, next few in each for a plate and next few for a shield.

should cut out a lot of travel, plenty of domestic games.

Yea i agree Kingshu that makes much more sense.
Expect maybe SA should go it alone with the Currie Cup, while Argentina then joins up with the US and Canada.

I would prefer if we go it alone again.

I really don't want our Currie Cup to be diminished.

It would be better if we play test matche sgainst the other nations only and our currie Cup can retain its core strength here.

Don't think so Biltong.
Super Rugby (as it is presently) is a bit of a step up from local comps so helps prepare players for Internationals.
Its a big jump up from NPC to ABs.

I can't see how Super Rugby can include more countries without killing the players with travel. I would like to see a NZ A team tour USA Canada, Russia etc playing lots of clubs and national teams.

nganboy, the step up is diminished every time they expand the competition, they are diluting team quality.

I agree totally.
Note NZ has not added a team to the Super 12.
I think it should be SA -4 Aus -3 and NZ-4 - Super 11
Fewer games someone gets a bye top players concentrated into reasonable number of teams.
Probably dump the Cheetahs, Rebels, Force, Chiefs. Can't dump my Hurricanes even if they are useless.

Probably have to created a secondary tier though to keep Aus and SA admin happy and to grow the game

formerly known as Sam wrote:If Japan get a franchise they'll be plenty of tapping of that PI market. The Japanese teams utilise a good portion of foreign talent at the minute but some of that won't be available to their franchises as they'll head home to their native country and represent a franchise there. It will force the Japanese into looking either to the European market or to the likes of Samoa and Tonga.

Wrong sorry mate, the Japanease are allowed only 3 non Japanease players in their match day squads, and from next season will be allowed one extra Asian player, i.e. Korean, Hong Kong, etc. Though out of these 4 players at least one of them must be capable of representing Japan through residency.

Generally it is only Tri Nations players and the odd islander who go and play in Japan, but the non native players in their squads is very minimal.

Despite the fact some of the best players in the world have been offered a reported £500,000 a year to go there, you'll find this is very rare and the Japanese Union do not want any old player blocking spaces for home grown talent, though they are happy to have a few famous players to bring some prestige to their squads.

I don't think Japan can compete in any kind of expanded Super 15 tournament at the moment, not without some horrific beatings which would devalue the tournament.

The USA could potentially compete, if USA Rugby asked for government help and started targeting younger NFL athletes that get cut, then progress should be quite swift and some of the club games are reportedly attended by crowds of 50,000 spectators which is brilliant. The problem with the USA is of course which states have the competing teams? New York would certainly get one, and possible the LA Blackjacks. then you have the question of would they be willing to seperate from their Blue and Red (East and West) conferences? the Americans prefer to compete against other Americans, I cant think of ANY sport where they really go further than Canada for international competition.

Rugby is already the fastest growing sport in america, but what is more important to the Americans, the national team or an interstate world series, full of the worlds best (american obviously) players? They would probably focus on that, and the Olympic sevens. What the rest of the world considers important would probably be irrelevant to the americans.

A global league doesn't make any sense. I wouldn't read too much into this its just another pie in the sky idea

gowales wrote:A global league doesn't make any sense. I wouldn't read too much into this its just another pie in the sky idea

I agree probably a bit like the Rainbow Cup that was announced a few years ago, which consisted of 9 South African, 4 Italian, and the Celtic League teams... It was announced in 2005, but the European sides couldn't find the finances for the travelling.
Though to be fair anytime the contract for for the Sanzaar comes up for renewal the SARFU seems to let loose with these rumours, we had the same in 2009 too.

This can only work if it is tiered.

Tier one: NZ: Crusaders, Blues, + highest two finishers in a given year
Australia: Waratahs Reds + highest two finishers
SA Stomers Bulls + highest two finishers

Every team plays one another. Disagree Biltong home and away as that´s too many games. Top qualifying teams to play each other in knockout phase and bottom qualifying teams play for relegation (2 sides to potentially go down). i.e. top six play play semis and finals and bottom six play to see who competes for relegation. 1 plays 6 at home and 7 plays 12 at home.

Then Tier Two: Remaining SANZAR teams who finish last to play against Argentina, Japan, USA sides. Top qualifying teams play in a knockout phase to challenge the two teams in tier one and bottom teams play for a plate or bowl like final so cellar dwellers can derive some special meaning at the end of the season. Concentrate games into mini-tours so teams are not travelling round the globe willy-nilly.

Did everyone see that fend on Fruean on Weepu today? That was like the Matrix!

That was a beautiful fend

With the assistance of blubber Piri bounced..

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:This can only work if it is tiered.

Tier one: NZ: Crusaders, Blues, + highest two finishers in a given year
Australia: Waratahs Reds + highest two finishers
SA Stomers Bulls + highest two finishers

Every team plays one another. Disagree Biltong home and away as that´s too many games. Top qualifying teams to play each other in knockout phase and bottom qualifying teams play for relegation (2 sides to potentially go down). i.e. top six play play semis and finals and bottom six play to see who competes for relegation. 1 plays 6 at home and 7 plays 12 at home.

Then Tier Two: Remaining SANZAR teams who finish last to play against Argentina, Japan, USA sides. Top qualifying teams play in a knockout phase to challenge the two teams in tier one and bottom teams play for a plate or bowl like final so cellar dwellers can derive some special meaning at the end of the season. Concentrate games into mini-tours so teams are not travelling round the globe willy-nilly.

Kia, there are currently 15 teams in the super rugby tournament.

Realistically you may be able to add one more to NZ and SA.

NZ and Japan if they want to improve their rugby with the quality of their own players can realistically only add one team each and at the most 2.

Argentina over time will be able to add 3 teams, but for now you would look at one team maximum.

Thus:
NZ 6 team
SA 6 teams
OZ 5 teams
ARG 1 team
USA 1 team
JAP 1 team

that leaves 20 teams in total.

By splitting them into two groups, you have 10 teams per tier.

that means 9 home and 9 away matches. Which leaves you with only 18 weeks, currently the comp takes 24 weeks to complete.

I don't think the 6 semi final play off system benefits any one at all. It only extends the period of the tournamnet becuase the top two teams sit out anyway whilst the others have their play offs.

you need a semi final and final from the top four team.

In total that will bring the 10 team Super sugby comp to 20 weeks, still 4 weeks short of the current format.

Even if it grows to 24 teams in the two tier system it will still only take as long as the current flawed system is taking.

biltongbek wrote:
Thus:
NZ 6 team
SA 6 teams
OZ 5 teams
ARG 1 team
USA 1 team
JAP 1 team

That's probably very sensible, though I can't see how New Zealand can afford a new team they are struggling for money as it is.

You could probably add in the Southern Kings, with maybe Buenos Aires and Tucaman from Argentina, then maybe a New York team from the USA, Suntory from Tokyo, or maybe droppin one of the Argentina teams and adding Ontario Blues from Canada, who are Toronto based.

Hong Kong might be another interesting choice, because the Chinease market could potentially be massive.

Alyn, you may be right, but the way I see it is currently you have a 24 week long tournament where NZ and everyone else is trying to pay 5 squads of 30 odd players top dollar.

If it is borken into 2 tiers, you will have 10 teams earning top dollar and 10 teams earning a lesser purse.

Add to this the fact that each team in the top tier will still have the same number of home matches the gate money won't reduce. Becuase it is still roughly the same number of games the television revenue will remain the same. Plus add the additional income from the second tier.

So if you only have 3 teams in the top tier, you will be able to stretch your money further.

Instead of paying 5 squads top dollar per country you may pay as little as 3 teams top dollar, and most likley 4 teams at most.

The 2nd tier teams will obviously be on a lesser amount.

A super rugby side in Hong Kong would be a waste of time. Trust me.

Some good ideas floating around here. It's a pity, though, that SANZAR/Super rugby decisions are not made primarily for the good of Rugby or its players but rather for TV income and politics (Esp. SA, ie the ridiculous proposal of a Southern Kings team.) For my 2c Super 12 was the best format.

gowales wrote:A super rugby side in Hong Kong would be a waste of time. Trust me.

Why do you reason that?

Hong Kong is now part of china, rugby is an olympic sport, the Chinease take the olymics very seriously. There are 1,300,000,000 Chinease people and they have one of the worlds biggest economies.

We already have the Hong Kong sevens which is the most prestigious 7's competition in the world. They already have a brilliant 40,000 seater stadium there which rugby is played in.

Hong Kong are not that far away from countries like Portugal, USA and Russia.

Because i lived, worked and played rugby there.

There would be no support for a super rugby team. The Hong Kong 7s is a party, 90% of the people that go there don't care about rugby. You'd be lucky to get 2000 people to a full 15s game, especially the product that is (not so) Super rugby.

AlynDavies wrote:

gowales wrote:A super rugby side in Hong Kong would be a waste of time. Trust me.

Why do you reason that?

Hong Kong is now part of china, rugby is an olympic sport, the Chinease take the olymics very seriously. There are 1,300,000,000 Chinease people and they have one of the worlds biggest economies.

We already have the Hong Kong sevens which is the most prestigious 7's competition in the world. They already have a brilliant 40,000 seater stadium there which rugby is played in.

Hong Kong are not that far away from countries like Portugal, USA and Russia.

I see lots of posts in threads about Rugby being in the olympics leading to the expansion of rugby in new countries. I think some posters are missing a critical point.

Rugby 7's is in the Olympics from 2016 not Rugby.

Lots of countries have already shifted funding from Rugby to Rugby 7's. Its a much simpler game to play, coach and doesn't require anywhere near the same amount of funding or info-structure.

IMO what will actually happen is that lots of counties will take up 7's without the need or desire to play actual 15man RU. The USArugby site actually says they are targeting 7's now.

Also, don't forget that the 7's tournament will be a minority sport at the Olympics only lasting a few days. Take a look at the venues for Rio2016 and you'll see what I mean!!

Whilst the introduction of 7's will undoubtedly grow 7's, talk of professional RU leagues popping up all over the world is very optimistic!

andyi wrote:I see lots of posts in threads about Rugby being in the olympics leading to the expansion of rugby in new countries. I think some posters are missing a critical point.

Rugby 7's is in the Olympics from 2016 not Rugby.

Lots of countries have already shifted funding from Rugby to Rugby 7's. Its a much simpler game to play, coach and doesn't require anywhere near the same amount of funding or info-structure.

IMO what will actually happen is that lots of counties will take up 7's without the need or desire to play actual 15man RU. The USArugby site actually says they are targeting 7's now.

Also, don't forget that the 7's tournament will be a minority sport at the Olympics only lasting a few days. Take a look at the venues for Rio2016 and you'll see what I mean!!

Whilst the introduction of 7's will undoubtedly grow 7's, talk of professional RU leagues popping up all over the world is very optimistic!

Fair enough, but surely any player wanting to chase gold at the Olympics would still want to earn a living at rugby if he could?

Rugby being at the Olympics would trigger public interest and government investment at grass roots, which would have the knock on effect of stronger and better athletes appearing from developing countries. Those athletes would then ideally want to be professional to become better so would want to play in the 15 man game to achieve this.

Surely the long term key would be the investment in rugby at grass roots level.