Should SARU rethink their deal with SANZAR?

For the past number of years prior to the Super XV expansion South Africa’s premier rugby competition the Currie Cup had 8 teams competing with the other 6 provinces competing in the B division. With the newly formed Super XV the Currie Cup had to take a back seat where it has now been reduced to only 6 teams.

Now as many of you will have undoubtedly read before, I am not in favour of the Super Xv in its current format, mainly for two reasons, firstly the Super Xv conference system is flawed, but mainly due to the fact that the Currie Cup now seems but a mere afterthought. Since the introduction of the Professional era, rugby in South Africa has migrated to where only 5 teams earn any significant money to sustain true professionalism and the other 8 teams have to live of scraps and have there for no finances to hold onto their star players.

To illustrate the migration of top players away from traditional strongholds of the Currie cup, here is a list of the teams who made the Currie Cup semi finals in the seventies:
Natal (Sharks), Transvaal ( Lions), Northern Transvaal (Bulls), Freestate (Cheetahs), Western Province (Stormers), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Eastern Province (Kings), Griquas.

List of teams who made the Currie Cup Semi-Finals in the eighties:
Natal (Sharks), Transvaal ( Lions), Northern Transvaal (Bulls), Freestate (Cheetahs), Western Province (Stormers), South West Africa (Namibia), Eastern Province (Kings), Griquas, Northern Freestate, Western Transvaal (Leopards), Eastern Transvaal (Pumas)

When considering that there will now be only six teams in the Currie Cup it shows that our feeder systems are dying a slow death and at best struggle to maintain a semi- professional league. I do not believe this is good for SA rugby, and the situation needs a revamp.

From information I gathered and also assumptions that need to be made on the basis that some figures are just not available to the public, I want to create a hypothetical scenario.

1. Supersport is the largest rugby broadcaster in the world (source wiki)
2. Supersport paid 1.6 Billion rand for the domestic football broadcasting rights the PSL for a 5 year period
3. Local tickets for Derby matches in the Super XV is 20%-25% more expensive than when overseas teams tour which proves local derbies are more popular.
4. Top teams such as the Stormers, Sharks and Bulls get more than 30 000 spectators to a match.
5. Provincial rivalry in SA is as strong as ever.
6. The average ticket for a Super Rugby match is R120.

So based on this.

If SARU were to go on their own and withdraw from the super rugby tournament it stands to reason that Supersport will pay a similar amount of money (if not more) for the Currie Cup as for the PSL which because of affordability in the mass population has a smaller television audience than Rugby.

If we look at an average crowd attendance of 20 000 per Currie Cup match, this would mean 1120 000 spectators at an average ticket price of R 120 = R 134 000 000 earnings. So broadcasting rights per year R 320 000 000, Ticket revenue R 134 000 000. Total (excluding merchandising and sponsors) R 454 000 000.

If you divide that by 8 teams it would provide each Province with R56 000 000 or 4.5 million pounds.

Now I accept I don’t have enough concrete information to go into any further depth. But to me at a quick glance it seems viable.

You still have to consider, Sponsorships, revenue from stadium refreshments, the hospitality boxes, merchandising and revenue SARU earns from the IRB, The Rugby Championship and test broadcasting income. This would result in a bigger base of development, more players can be retained and our top players will play 14 round robin Currie Cup matches, a semi -final and final, and 12-14 tests. This will In turn provide better management of players, less fatigue and fewer injuries.

So going back into isolation voluntarily?what you suggest does`nt
mean it would follow.Sky sports or whoever want to see Australian and new Zealand stars too.
Form your own Super squads,dilute them if you wish,Nz and Australia can stand alone they did so before.
Pull out of the tri-Nations[quad nations? too],South Africans will support the Currie cup they always have.BUT will the sponsors pay for a diluted product.
Surely the answer is a reorganized Super Comp,with LESS not more teams,do away with the current system.Revert to 4 Strong sides each of 3Ns,because patently they are unable to support more.

Alan the Currie Cup won't be diluted. We currently have over 40 top quality plaers playing in France because only 5 squads have money. goodness knows how many are in the UK.

It isn't isolation either, it is about saving the domestic structure and reviving it.

biltongbek wrote:It isn't isolation either, it is about saving the domestic structure and reviving it.

You mean at the cost of exposure to the sxv level at all?

This would almost guarantee SA drop back in quality come 4N time.

Your Currie cup will be the same as our ITM first division and if its doubtful even a fully available ITM format would provide the test team standard of today.

Our ITM has been reduced to the end of season blues as well but its a good feeder for players who wouldnt otherwise be playing there if not for the presence of our sxv players.

Given the 4N and sxv window is the same for both NZ and SA why wouldn't the Currie cup fit in our ITM window? Havn't looked at the timings but we seem to have long enough been though the very best players are not always available.

I think the Bulls might have to reconsider their SANZAR away playing strip.

I just couldnt understand why some players then went on and wore pink boots as well.looked like Hugh Hefners team.

Taylorman, the Super XV isn't so Super anymore. The way I see it, the only net effect it has at the moment is limit our resources to 5 teams. When it expands to more teams it will reduce the Super even more.

In all honesty I don't think the Currie cup quality will suffer if we withdrew. W should have suuficient funds to retain more quality players, which will not dillute quality.

Familiarity breeds contempt. This way it will be special to see NZ players in SA for a one off test.

aucklandlaurie wrote: I think the Bulls might have to reconsider their SANZAR away playing strip.

I just couldnt understand why some players then went on and wore pink boots as well.looked like Hugh Hefners team.

I suspect now that the "manly" Bulls wore pink, you will find some closet doors open in Pretoria over the next few weeks, seeing that pink is now aproved for the "men" in pretoria.

Biltong, please dont tell me that the Currie cup teams are going to start wearing pink as well? No wonder Victor said stuff this.

What can I say Laurie, have no idea why they are wearing it in the first place.

Biltong,I am all for your countries having a strong structure Currie Cup ,ITM,etc.
BUT also a strong Super comp,the idea of an layer between Club and test is excellent.
With respect it is only South Africa,that has broken with tradition and selected
overseas based players.Aus and NZ have drawn a line in the sand IF you want to be capped stay in Country.
The Boks have done themselves no favours by picking NH based players,I would go further it cost them the 2008 3Ns.
Your solution is fine in theory,and certainly you could form an alliance with the NH.It could be argued with your RWC record your way is correct,after all Bok coaches .Deliberately set the precedent by putting them before 3Ns,perhaps had you not your 3Ns record would be as good or better than the AllBlacks.
It would also deter some of your best players going overseas early to the detriment of your National side.

To be honest I wouldn;t want SARU to get into bed with the NH either. Thier domestic competitions remind me of a chameleon in a smarty box.

Any way putting pink jerseys aside, I must say that I do find myself watching games which I have absolutely no connection and have been impressed with the standard of play(and pace) especially from teams that a couple of years ago were the "easybeats" The Cheetahs eg have been a revelation.

In some ways it probably is refreshing to see teams like the Reds,Blues and Bulls struggle,it brings up a new layer of players that we mighnt see usually.

Biltong IF,I thought by doing away with the Super Comp,things would go back to the way they were.PROPER Tours with lots of provincial matches as well as a 3 or 4 test Series.I would be the first to advocate it.
BUT I am a realist,THAT would mean the RWC would become just another tournament.There is far to much HYPE over that for it ever to happen,what passes for a tour now. 2 or 3 tests maybe the odd Provincial match and a Barbarians style one.Are pathetic by comparison,Tours of old meant ALL the squad got starts and young hopefuls there chances.sadly that is no longer the case.It is South Africa who wants to upset the apple cart by introducing more Super franchises.Frankly the conference system sucks,and there are far too many teams already.

biltongbek wrote:Taylorman, the Super XV isn't so Super anymore. The way I see it, the only net effect it has at the moment is limit our resources to 5 teams. When it expands to more teams it will reduce the Super even more.

In all honesty I don't think the Currie cup quality will suffer if we withdrew. W should have suuficient funds to retain more quality players, which will not dillute quality.

Familiarity breeds contempt. This way it will be special to see NZ players in SA for a one off test.

So the Currie cup will be able to compete with elite player offers from NZ and Oz teams as well as NH teams while its on?

If we only had the ITM it would certainly make our season more boring now that we're spoilt by the SXV.

Interesting though...

Taylorman. SA needs 16 weeks minimum to complete an eight team Currie Cup home and away tournament.

currently the Currie Cup loses quality becuase of the Super XV and the now Rugby Championship. So half the time it plays without it's Springboks.

SARU are fools for allowing this to happen. They should consider that 4 weeks in June are for tests. For practical purposes the Rugby championship will take up 8 weeks.

If the June test matches vs the NH is played in June and the Rugby Championship directly after it would take June, July and August out of the eqaution as tets take the priority. Then you have the end of year tous which takes up November and some of December.

Considering this. There are two windows of opportunity for Domestic rugby.

January to May, considering teams prepare in January and part of February it leaves probably 12-14 weeks for a rugby tournament.

The other window of opportunity for a domestic competition is September and October. At maximum only 9 weeks.

As things stand now, The SuperXV goes on for 21 weeks and even with 6 teams the Currie Cup this year will require 12 weeks for completion. So effectively the Currie Cup is similar in quality to the Vodacom cup when all the to players are removed.

The Currie Cup will fit nicely into the Early window and if SARU wants to get involved with a Super Rugby trounament they can use September October.

As things stand at the moment our players are fatigued and injred when we tour the NH, I can't remember when was the last time we even sent our best teams to play 3-4 tests in November.

Agree with your views on the laughable format of the S15 but do have one pedantic issue to raise regarding the CC semi-finalists in the 70s & 80s as this was also due to a flawed format. The CC at the time consisted of a top tier of 6 teams of which 2 (NTvl & WP) invariably made it to the semis and a second tier of teams who bizarrely received two places in the semis as well. Thus for the 3rd placed team it was season over after the pool games while the 7th & 8th placed teams had a shot at the final. The player strength at the time was very much pooled in Pretoria (due to the defence force) & Cape Town (due to Stellenbosch University).

So,correct me if i`m wrong Biltong what you are saying is this.Super 15 and presumeably 3Ns are the cash cows.Withdraw from them and that money would
automatically be poured back into the Currie cup?
That Internationals would be less frequent between the former Sanzar Countries,thus re creating the mystery and be a bigger draw with perhaps more
Tier2 Internationals.
I will tell you this,Currie Cup/ITM was THE big thing once BUT TV wants spectaculars.Are CurrieCup Crowds dropping because of TV?if so less coverage
MIGHT mean more seats sold.
Super rugby I agree,has grown to big but it`s primary function of strengthening
the national side is good.A Super 9 with 3 REALLY strong sides playing home and away,perhaps a 2 tier one with a further 3 sides from each competing too.
Promotion/relegation would be a spur too,TV is interested in INTERNATIONAL sport.
You can`t turn the clock back,i`m accused of rose coloured glasses but I think my solution is more realistic than yours.Tv will support local teams YES,BUT overseas punters want to see ALL the stars not just SA`s.
At the end of the day,you will have a very strong Domestic Comp,but probablty a less competetive National side.
The Super System allows players to be exposed to a higher level than local rugby.It could be argued that the present system ruins some players that understudies for stars .Moved to a lesser Franchise ,or go abroad to progress.
IF for example SA returned to the NZ/AUS ethos of not picking overseas players.
That MIGHT dim there ardor to play abroad,BUT will there ever be a shortage of
potential BOKS etc.
Tv isn`t interested in Sport perse but Business,TV worldwide is based on Viewing figures,advertising etc.IF every local match is available on pay -per -view
how does that help the clubs.The successful ones will draw TV,the small guys NOT.
TV wants a PRODUCT,it needs Quade Cooper,or Dan Carter being scragged by your local hero it`s GOOD TELLY.Local tv isn`t where the big bucks are sadly International TV is.
THE AllBlack vBok is still THE event for many not the RWC,it is more difficult to
win a 3Ns or 6Ns than one.IF all sides play there FULL sides in every match,yes Super Rugby has become unwieldy.
BUT it is still a better option properly treated than your solution,and the trickle down option WON`T follow withTV coverage.Worldwide Orange Free State v Western Province would not be the draw.A Crusaders v Stormers match would etc.

True, but these other provinces got the opportunity to compete at that level, regardless of how they got there. Remember that was the amateur era, so player talent were more spread.

Now you find Bulls, sharks and Stormers buy all the talent. Top players migrate away from the Lions as soon as they make a name for themselves and the Cheetahs simply doesn't have the money to compete with the financial strength of the other three.

This means you ma as well only have three teams in the Super rugby competition if you are going to take part in it.

If you move back to a Super 9 at least the competition will be shorter and the currie Cup won't suffer as a result.

The problem here is the current financial model is killing the other provinces. This can have and has already had a negative impact on rugby as a whole. The sport's popularity will take a dive in those regions that used to develop a lot of players.

PRECISELY my point Biltong a Super 9 Home and away,2 tier if must means local comps still see there heroes sometimes.

Yes alan, super 9 will be SUPER in quality.

I don't mind the Super Rugby , but I don't like what it is doing to our development.

The way I see it is we have the Varsity Cup which has been great, we have our top club competition which is great.

But something is lost when we go from Vodacom cup which essentially is a lower tier competition without all the big names.

But then the curry cup should be a step up and a focused step up by not being an afterthought, so to take 14 vodacom cup teams to at least half say 7-8 temas in a fully focused currie cup, then halve them again into 3-4 Super teams, yes.

But not the way it is now.

Gents,
Your discussion is a great read!

When we drank from the partially poisoned chalice of professionalism, there was no turning back. A lot of what we valued previously, is now devalued, going or gone. Sadly, this includes some of the local competitions. But there are new institutions popping up instead. We are still in the early days of professionalism and are still evolving.

Professional sport means our new bedmate is TV money, and this drives a lot of the decisions. Pro Rugby needs money to grow, and TV needs more Rugby on a Global scale to make money. It is a circle which feeds itself.

There is no telling in which direction Rugby will evolve in the future. But I believe we will see closer integration between UK/Ire/European Rugby and Southern Hemisphere Rugby. And for the simple reason that it sells tickets and, more importantly, adverts.

But back to your point, Biltongbek, this kills some of the traditional competitions with which we were raised. But it is hard to see Rugby in any country surviving by playing less against other countries.

Hi Doc, I accept that, the whole purpose of this article was perhaps more for myself than others to justify whether our rugby can financially survive without the Super Rugby competition, to that extent I found that it would be able to.

Supersport is BIG in rugby, our spectators wit their provincial rivalry is BIG. That means we have the means to go on our own if need be.

As much as we might not want to accpet it the face of rgby is changing and perhaps me being a traditionalist finds it hard to see old things go.

I accpet that I need to embrace change, but in my view the new way is negelcting the fndamentals of what made SA rugby great.

So a compromise needs to be found. Test level is just that, and whether it is tournamnets such as the RWC or Rugby Championship, six nation or just test series, there is a more vital need now than ever before for a GLOBAL rugby season.

Professional rugby needs to be formulated into pockets.

Test Rugby
Super Rugby/Heineken rugby
Top level domestic competition
Development squad competitions.

In the case of SA it will be.
Test Rugby
Super rugby
Currie Cup
Vodacom Cup
Amateur club rugby and Varsity Cup.

The importance however is that each must represent wat it says on the can.

Test rugby is self explanatory
Super rugby should be SUPER, hence 3-4 squads of your absolute top class players, any further expantion means it is no longer a SUPER competition but merely a global provincial torunament. In that I think lies the conundrum.

Remover the Super out of the equation, then make it the SH provincial tournament and encompass the NPC/ITM and Currie CUP as part of that. Hence it now means NZ and SA can bring 8 teams into it. This way there is no need for a Currie Cup or ITM Cup. Problem is, you then wlak away from the SUPER part of rugby.

The solution is very simple.

Create a global season and break it down into pockets;

Three months of the year are test rugby, no matter whether it is RWC, one off tests, tours or tournaments.

3 months of the year are SUPER tournaments, HC and SUPER rugby, BUT with less teams.

4 months of the year is there for Currie Cup, ITM, Aviva, PRO12 etc.

...and 2 months rest and recovery.

I empathise with your concerns Biltong and the contraction of the Currie Cup in particular. It's something us Aussies have always envied - the quality and intensity of your Currie Cup... and the ITM Cup across the Tasman too.

I also see that with the continued expansion of Super Rugby - it is NZ and SA who are most affected by the dilution of players across more and more teams. Yet you still seem to breed the right stuff in good numbers.

Ironically, Australia has probably benefited most from the professional Super Rugby era. We had no comparable competition ('pro' in the proper sense of the word), yet we have been dragged upwards with what little we have through our Super Rugby participation.

I still think the inclusion of the Force and the Rebels was stretching things a bit too far for us. There is barely any Rugby 'tradition' in Melbourne and Perth and those franchises have had considerable $ pumped into them (and heavy marketing) just to keep them afloat. Whether they can be sustained over the long term is the big question. I may be wrong but time will tell whether they both survive.

We have a grand history of sports clubs folding - sometimes even after successful years. (i.e. rugby union, league, aussie rules, football, basketball & baseball) - many teams have come and gone; then been resurrected; then failed again... and again.

Even in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra the union code is totally overshadowed by the mighty NRL and more recently the AFL in terms of attendances at games and media coverage. It's only at international level (and the odd occasion like in SXV 2011) that we get a few days a year when there seems to be a groundswell of support for the code.

So I would probably like to see something like a Super 10 (4 NZ, 3 SA, 3 OZ) or at most a S12 (5 NZ, 4 SA, 3 OZ). It's going against the expansion trend... but like you - I think that would be best for all 3 nations.

Hi, LB, yes I am definitely in favour of reducing the teams in the Super rugby comp.

I do however believe it has to be equal numbers from all three countries otherwise again it will be skewed.

You can't have SA and OZ having to travel overseas more becuase they have lesser number of teams.

It should be 3-4 each in an ideal world.

We're phoked then!

NZ deserve at least 4, probably more and we don't really deserve 4.
SA would have Sharks, Stormers, Bulls and Cheetahs or Lions out?

Well the Lions suck big time. I can only assume that the administrators of the Lions rugby union messed up somewhere along the line. Players like Jaque Fourie, Bryan Habana, Jano Vermaak and a myriad of others walked away from the Lions not wanting to play there.

I think it has to do with the fact that there is no longer a culture of pride or association there.

As for deserve. Well when you bring three countries together it isn't really about who deserves the most teams, is it?

It is about setting up a comp that is fair.

What's the situation in J'burg? Is it more of a soccer city in addition to the player exodus?

Deserve - in the sense that rugby is the primary sport in NZ and SA, whereas in Australia it is about 6th or 7th. So already it is skewed from our perspective.

I understand the concept of equilibrium - but in our case, we will always be struggling to field 4 strong sides - even 3 is stretching things as I said above.

The universal season was My idea,HOW DARE you nick it? At a push NZ can support 4,SA,and Aus 3,[on results historically not physically].The Super Series was originally an Australian idea,and there sides were successful initially.
Wasn`t the original idea there were X number of sides involved in each country plus a Pool of players who could be drafted in.
Also why not abandon AIs and July tests,and have a midi-tour to the Uk instead
3 tests,a number of about 6 provincial/club plus a Barbarians.Each 3Ns sides touring in turn,RWC. 4th year..
More 2 tier tours for slack to SH sides not touring,money spinner plus development for tier 2.

Well to be honest they won't redcue the numer of tests played, simply becuase those are the BIG money spinners.

But planning is cerntainly needed.

When it was your idea originally to have a global season, I went and patented it in every rugby playing nation in the world.

Personally I always thought that SA was wrong to go with AUS & NZ as they are far weaker markets than themselves, the time zone difference lowers potential TV & sponsor revenue due to some matches being played at 7am SA time and the players themselves lose often to jetlag etc etc.

Now, what would happen if SA aligned themselves in a league with FRA & ENG for instance…

Here you would plot the 3 largest unions in the world with the most secure finances, the largest markets for TV and revenue generation, 150MM people to market to directly and all within 2 time side by side time zones.

The jet lag would be none existent and the flying time for players wouldn’t be an issue as they would be able to fly through the night as anyone who has travelled between the continent and SA will know).

You could play matches on Saturdays & Sundays at peak times for TV which would certainly increase revenues currently seen from super rugby.

The added benefit would be that SA players could play in both FRA & ENG and still be available for the Boks as they would have the same rugby schedule and SA coaches could easier mark their performance against like for like opposition.

From a financial point of view it would be beyond doubt a far better situation then that gained in Super Rugby where SA is the cash cow.
From a rugby point of view given the relative depth of FRA & ENG it wouldn’t fall too much and from a Bok point of view we would see more Bok players available to the coach and the health & conditioning of the players would be far better due to less travelling, less issues with time zones etc.

Added to this it would cause NZ & AUS rugby to go backwards given they rely on the SA market and financial contributions for much of their current existence... so whilst that would be sad... it would help the boks in terms of their performances on the global stage.

I could see many NZ & AUS players heading to Europe to play in this type of league because the financial rewards would be just too good to turn down.

ONLY,if you want to be a big fish in a small pool,YES you would probably win most of there matches.Australia /Nz of course would become terminally poor
what a wonderful idea not bother to meet the teams that beat you most.
Perhaps you could kid yourself you were THE best in the world still,THAT hasn`t been true since 1956.Certainly not since you couldn`t exclude a third of the Nz population.

It makes a lot of sense FA.

emack2 wrote:ONLY,if you want to be a big fish in a small pool,YES you would probably win most of there matches.Australia /Nz of course would become terminally poor
what a wonderful idea not bother to meet the teams that beat you most.
Perhaps you could kid yourself you were THE best in the world still,THAT hasn`t been true since 1956.Certainly not since you couldn`t exclude a third of the Nz population.

alan, what are you on about here. big fish in a small pond? Not meeting the teams that beat you most? Kidding myself about being the best team in world? and excluding a thrid of the NZ popualation, the reverse is happening now my friend. Our best players leave, just this weekend alone from what I could pick up there are almost 100 South africans that played this last month in Japan, the Aviva, the top 14, and the Rabo 12.

biltongbek wrote:Alan the Currie Cup won't be diluted. We currently have over 40 top quality plaers playing in France because only 5 squads have money. goodness knows how many are in the UK.

Forget it Biltong you're not getting Ruan and Muller back!

roddersm wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Alan the Currie Cup won't be diluted. We currently have over 40 top quality plaers playing in France because only 5 squads have money. goodness knows how many are in the UK.

Forget it Biltong you're not getting Ruan and Muller back!

I take it they are doing well over there? By the way your jab needs work.

True,BUT that is there choice,IF they felt they could`nt be capped for there Country would`nt they think twice?Isn`t that true of NZ and Australian players too?Post 2007 RWC the AllBlacks lost the equivalent of a whole squad,not just fringe players.Players like Carter,Robinson,Oliver,Mauger,Hayman ,Howlett,Evans,Collins,Mcalister,Kelleher,Jack.to name a few.THAT was the tip of the iceberg,play games against whom you invariably beat.Not your traditional opponents the other 2 best sides in the World.
How does playing in Europe help your national game,of course money is in Europe.THE best players are STILL in the SH and your beloved Franny Steyn is heading home now.
Do You REALLY think,3Ns and Super Rugby was a mistake,would you think differently if SA teams had 10 titles each under there belts,besides there 2 RWC titles.
My respect for SA Rugby and the Boks is second only to that of NZ Rugby,BUT to espouse a course where most years you would win most if all of matches,Versus softer[historically ]options just for money makes me feel sick to my stomach.
IF ain`t broke don`t fix,if it is FIX IT don`t throw out a near century of tradition for vulgar gain.

The very best Biltong... they're Ulstermen now so hands off!

Alan, this is not about the titles. The titles will take care of themselves if the strucutres are in place.

Currently SA rugby is killing its feeding system and that is what I am concerned about.

I am concerned about the fact that we subsidise income to countries with smaller spectator markets than we have.

I don't care which countries lose players, I care about the SA system.

To add, no I don't think initially super Rugby was a mistake, I do think the way it is now is wrong though.

roddersm wrote:The very best Biltong... they're Ulstermen now so hands off!

Well it brings a tear to my eye to know we are spreading the entertainment value and quality.

Pienaars the best SH around Biltong and Muller is a legend!

Pedre's a great player too and Terblanche.... what a guy!

We love our springboks in Ulster

To think terblanche is an old man! I think he is 35 years old by now.

do you remember the 4 tries he scored against Ireland in 2003/4?

I have to say Ruan Pienaar and Terbalnche has been two of my favourite SA rugby players.

37 Biltong and plays like a 25 year old!

...actually no I can't recall those... but now you mention it... maybe I don't like him so much after all...

It's the quality of the man.

Yeah id hate to guess how many we have. Every line up i see seems to have nz names in it up there let alone in japan and france as well.Couldnt imagine how strong wed be if all kiwis came back for our itm or super series. Many would still push for ab positions if they wanted to.

I think a nz oz only series would survive. We do it with league netball and football with fair success even though we only have one team in two of those.

Agree 3 or four teams would be best. For us teams would be near test strength with 3 say if highlanders and crusaders were to combine sort of thing.

In NZ these teams now have their own identity so it will continue where possible regardless.
Just not sure the picture youre painting about the SA scene is as bad as it seems. Just yet anyway. At least not while the super series keeps throwing up some fantastic rugby. Not from all quarters but most.

It isn't bad yet, but it will become worse. That is my concern, it was until a few years ago mostly New Zealanders overseas with the odd south African, now you see big numbers of south africans straight from under 21 dissappear to Europe.

They don't even wait around anymore, and they are now starting to qualify to represent a number of teams in the six nations, or will soon.

It is a concern when Visser's, Botha's, Dirksen's etc start showing up on the team sheet for countries reserved to have Jones, McDonald, smith etc.

There have been more NZers playing professional rugby outside NZ than in it for a while, it wouldn't surprise me if the same was true for Saffers now too

I think it is getting pretty close now. I did a quick check on this weekend with some South africans resting that played last weekend I counted over 40 South Africans in France on match day 22's, didn't check the wider sqauds though.

Aviva just under 10
Rabo 12, about 14

Not sure about wider squads here either, and not sure of Japan.

In total probably close to 100.

There are ~180 full time professional players in NZ, across Super XV and INL Cup. A year or two back I read an estimate of 300 or so NZers across France, Japan, England, Ireland, Italy, Wales & Scotland. Note that includes players in the French and English 2nd/3rd tier.