South Africa rumoured to ditch Rugby Championship for new 7 Nations Competition

I suppose there's already a theme song.

South Africa are set to leave the Rugby Championship and form a seven-team Six Nations after the next World Cup in a move which could radically alter the international landscape of the sport, according to reports.

The Daily Mail has reported that behind-the-scenes negotiations have taken place and there is a "sense of inevitability" that the Springboks will drop out of the Rugby Championship which they currently compete in against Australia, New Zealand and Argentina.

The move would cause huge ructions in the southern hemisphere, leaving the Rugby Championship (consisting of Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and South Africa) in crisis.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12306986

The world league is now inevitable...

Might help SA retain more players at home if a) there is extra income from the 6N and b) European teams might be less inclined to sign a saffa if they're going to miss a big chunk of the season with the 6N. Currently they're desirable because they're excellent players but also available during the 6N window. So great for SA player retention potentially.

There’s just more money in the North and it’s only going to get more lucrative with all the tournaments and leagues set to have a unified broadcasting partner in the years to come, logistically obviously it also makes a lot of sense but it will cut NZ adrift along with OZ so not so sure it will be good news for the global game to be honest in terms of competition and crowd attendance. Personally I’d love to see it happen just can’t help thinking it’s an I’m alright Jack sort of situation and not for the global betterment of the game.

For selfish reasons, no. I would not like this. The top 3 or 4 when France sort themselves out countries are all at similar levels. South Africa are on a level above anything in Europe. It would change the dynamic of the tournament very quickly and Ireland and Wales would probably never win a title again as it would become even more about attrition and player depth.

Also the six nations feels very European. Adding Italy might have changed the competiiveness in some peoples' eyes but it also added a great away trip and holiday for fans, and Italian rugby fans are great people. They haven't felt out of place.

Apart from the obvious location issue, which has hurt the Pro14 in my opinion by having the Cheetahs and Kings and creating two conferences, South Africa doesn't feel like a European country at all. It feels less Anglocentric than the other big two in the south for obvious reasons, but I think it would change the 'feel' of the tournament as being about the best in Europe. I don't think you can overlook how damaging it would be to mess up the 3 games a week issue, and having to travel to South Africa to play games eventually, but that cultural side of things matters. I'm not saying the south africans aren't graet blokes or fans but it just wouldn't fee right in terms of how the six nations fees at the moment. It's what makes autumn internationals and six nations games so special and the northern hemisphere should protect the six nations at all costs and not just think of money.

But I think this has more to do with aligning the club games and a sign that south africa are done with super rugby and new zealand than it is anything else.

I also think we've just had the golden age of professional rugby. From here on out it will be commercial to the point of boring. International rugby is already national only in name. This is like the Premier League moment in football. The 'product' might get a lot better but the toll on players, the connection to the grassroots, and everything else is about to disappear.

NOOOOOO!!!!...

Everyone knows the 6 Nations is the pinnacle of rugby, the tournament that every rugby fan looks eagerly to every year. The World Cup is special, as are Lions tours, but they are every 4 years. The 6 Nations is special very very special.

If they increase this to 7 Nations, including the Boks, it will be the end of the tournament.

Only accountants and businessmen who have an interest in the bottom line would want this as true rugby fans want the thrill of the tournament not the clinking of coins.

Like the World league, the most stupid idea ever.

It'll be good for England to be able to finally have another side capable of winning the RWC to test ourselves against regularly

Depends which side of the fence you are on

Would be great for SA. It would be great for Eng and Fra.

Tricky for Ire and Wal

Bit of a stinky for Sco

A waste of time for Ita

Absolutely honking for NZ and Aus

It could mean a PI team or Fiji Samoa and japan getting in to fill the gap SA leave which could be good for them.

For me this shows that teams are rapidly getting fed up with NZ trying to change the seasons and tournaments to suit what’s best for NZ (inc NZ getting their hands on the revenues of NH rugby). This has now spectacularly backfired on NZ as SA have turned around and said they are off to get a slice of the NH pie, but that they are happy to change their set up to fit in with the NH calendar.

Its a difficult path to take. SA is in much the same time zone but still a long way away. So much about the 6N is having so many fans who are also neighbours. Short travel distances meaning significant away fans at all matches.

We are not going to see huge numbers of SA fans up North for the SA games and visa versa down South.

Both Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship are dead so it's not a case of filling in the gaps. There will be wholesale reconstruction going on across the rugby world. We need to have a global season and go from there but no one can agree or compromise.

South Africa have paid for NZ and Australia for too long and having won the world cup they're probably now less worried about European expansion following Rassie and his impact after learning with Munster and with so many of their players in the north.

Professionalism itself has backfired on Australia and New Zealand in general. It is very simple. If the money isn't there you need to stop spending it or find a way of generating more. Neither seems capable of doing that despite trying and so all they have left is propaganda against 'the six nations' (as if Italy really dictate to NZ) or if you're australia, trying to make rugby more like league. Eventually change will be decided for them. All NZ have left is boycotting unions by not touring there which NZ have done to England and the RFU by staying away.

Super Rugby is dead though. It was great 15-20 years ago but it is now largely meaningless. The Crusaders dominate, the referees deliberately ignore laws for the sake of spectacle, the stadiums are empty, and there is no history or meaning to it. It is broadcast at a time where the TV audiences across the world wont see it live, it is no longer vastly better than the French, English, and even Celtic leagues, so what does it have going for it? NZ and Australia should put their lot in with Japan but their lack of foresight there has been stunning. They dropped the Sunwolves and now they want them back as if the world cup was the first time they realised what was happening there commercially.

If SA join the six nations it will open the door for a 6 v 6 competition with relegation and promotion and, at the moment, Italy and Scotland swapping places. It won't be immediate but Georgia and Romania are knocking on the door and an uneven number of games means the tournament is extended by at least 2 weeks.

Honestly I don't think this will happen, it seems like one of the more extreme potential ideas that gets leaked to generate headlines and make money. The things to change are the november internationals (no longer friendlies, the creation of a proper tournament) and the june/july tours.

It is all about the money.

SA has 400 professional players in Europe and a similar number back home, Japan and America (soon) will be milking our system as well.

Only way for SA is to get a slice of a big pie somewhere, and even though financially they will benefit, adding a team to the Six/Seven nations that has won three RWC’s should add a lot to the table.

Many will reject this as change isn’t easy to accept, hell I am not sure I like it, but something has to change, Australia has been wanting SA to leave SANZAAR for so long, their wish seems to have born fruit.

If commercially this could benefit al seven nations then you can bet your bottom dollar it might just happen.

At least this way SARU can assess their players head to head rather than take the risk of selecting players that don’t go head to head with the best domestic players.

There's a bizarre obsession with changing things that has the capacity to ruin rugby. Making things bigger does not make them better. The Six Nations determines the best team in Europe. We know who the five best teams are in Europe by some clear distance. Has the Pro14 been dramatically improved by the addition of the Cheetahs and by the Italian teams? No.

The Southern Hemisphere teams have been enviously glaring at the Northern Hemisphere for years eager to get in on the comparative wealth. Certainly the standard of rugby is higher, generally speaking, in South Africa and New Zealand. It is not our responsibility to do what suits them, especially not to the detriment of our own traditions. A world league would damage international rugby. If South Africa join the Six Nations how long before New Zealand follow? They won't stick about in a vitiated Rugby Championship. As a product, New Zealand swotting aside Argentina and Australia annually will not last. Then all the arguments about time zones and travel will be completely moot.

Professional rugby is stagnating in the South. But it is booming in the North. Our tournaments are getting better, attendances getting larger. Super Rugby was ruined by over-expansion. Teams did not play each other regularly enough to create rivalries. The format barely made sense. Franchises coming and going meant that victories did not mean as much. The solution to that issue is not to get European rugby to bale them out by doing the same thing to their own competitions. If they want Super Rugby to be successful they should look to what made it successful to begin with, not seek to muck about with the successful rugby tournaments to find a solution. There are things we could do to make it better. Finding a way for the Champions Cup winner to play the Super Rugby winners would be a start.

It's the intangibles that make the Six Nations better. The historic rivalry between the established teams. The iconic cities. The away support too. Adding South Africa would diminish that. If we are to go to a 7 Nations format I would much, much rather have Georgia in there than South Africa.

123456789. wrote:There's a bizarre obsession with changing things that has the capacity to ruin rugby. Making things bigger does not make them better. The Six Nations determines the best team in Europe. We know who the five best teams are in Europe by some clear distance. Has the Pro14 been dramatically improved by the addition of the Cheetahs and by the Italian teams? No.

The Southern Hemisphere teams have been enviously glaring at the Northern Hemisphere for years eager to get in on the comparative wealth. Certainly the standard of rugby is higher, generally speaking, in South Africa and New Zealand. It is not our responsibility to do what suits them, especially not to the detriment of our own traditions. A world league would damage international rugby. If South Africa join the Six Nations how long before New Zealand follow? They won't stick about in a vitiated Rugby Championship. As a product, New Zealand swotting aside Argentina and Australia annually will not last. Then all the arguments about time zones and travel will be completely moot.

Professional rugby is stagnating in the South. But it is booming in the North. Our tournaments are getting better, attendances getting larger. Super Rugby was ruined by over-expansion. Teams did not play each other regularly enough to create rivalries. The format barely made sense. Franchises coming and going meant that victories did not mean as much. The solution to that issue is not to get European rugby to bale them out by doing the same thing to their own competitions. If they want Super Rugby to be successful they should look to what made it successful to begin with, not seek to muck about with the successful rugby tournaments to find a solution. There are things we could do to make it better. Finding a way for the Champions Cup winner to play the Super Rugby winners would be a start.

It's the intangibles that make the Six Nations better. The historic rivalry between the established teams. The iconic cities. The away support too. Adding South Africa would diminish that. If we are to go to a 7 Nations format I would much, much rather have Georgia in there than South Africa.

You are completely ignoring the two most important challenges for the SH, all the while blowing smoke up Europe’s arse.

Population density, and therefor economics, and travel.

Those two factors will hamper SH rugby always.

Yet you have no issue with the fact that SH players and coaches have elevated the quality of European rugby.

The old fart is 100% right.

It’s money. And money follows the people.

If the 6nations didn’t have England and France with their 100m people collectively, then there’d be no money in the 6ns either. Simple as that

I don't agree that any of the 6N teams would be worried about playing South Africa.  It pushes up standards but they are the equal of the top 3 in the 6Ns and France are improving.  Italy and I think Scotland have both beaten SA in the last 4 years.

If aligined with Europe SA get many benefits.
1. They can have their 8 team tiered structure allowing them to make Currie Cup the domestic pinnacle and the teams bread and butter
2. They come in as an equal partner into the European Cup which means they aren't giving their money way to their competitors to make them viable.  As the addition of the eastern Russian team has shown we already have a system in place.  Also because of the Cup structure they would need a year or two to adjust so would struggle in mid winter games in Belfast or Glasgow.
3. No more 3 am games on Friday or Saturday for fans to have to worry about.

NZ & Oz need to set up a Pacific Nations Cup both at domestic and Club level.  Each Country/Region would have their own league with the top number going to the champions and challange cup.
Australia could easily run a 10 team league
NZ have the Mitre 10
The PI region could be one with with two teams per country. Or they could do the Ireland of the 90s and have a domestic league and two representative teams. Fiji already has a representative team in the Oz league.
South America, they are already setting up their version of the MLR with two teams from each of Agentina, Uruguay, Chile and Brazil (though they are struggling)
North America has the MLR
Japan - setting up their own league
International could be 2 divisions of 6
Div 1 New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, Japan, Fiji, USA
Div 2 Tonga, Samoa, Uraguary, Canada, Chile, Brazil
New Zealand and Australia can carry on playing there many games v each other.

I would like to see the 8N in Europe with the 8th team being a non member of the 7 Nations but would earn plenty of money from their own tv deal and bump in gate receipts.  Could be done on a 2 year up down system. European teams struggle in world cups because they never play every week.

tigertattie wrote:The old fart is 100% right.

It’s money. And money follows the people.

If the 6nations didn’t have England and France with their 100m people collectively, then there’d be no money in the 6ns either. Simple as that

Old Man wrote:

123456789. wrote:There's a bizarre obsession with changing things that has the capacity to ruin rugby. Making things bigger does not make them better. The Six Nations determines the best team in Europe. We know who the five best teams are in Europe by some clear distance. Has the Pro14 been dramatically improved by the addition of the Cheetahs and by the Italian teams? No.

The Southern Hemisphere teams have been enviously glaring at the Northern Hemisphere for years eager to get in on the comparative wealth. Certainly the standard of rugby is higher, generally speaking, in South Africa and New Zealand. It is not our responsibility to do what suits them, especially not to the detriment of our own traditions. A world league would damage international rugby. If South Africa join the Six Nations how long before New Zealand follow? They won't stick about in a vitiated Rugby Championship. As a product, New Zealand swotting aside Argentina and Australia annually will not last. Then all the arguments about time zones and travel will be completely moot.

Professional rugby is stagnating in the South. But it is booming in the North. Our tournaments are getting better, attendances getting larger. Super Rugby was ruined by over-expansion. Teams did not play each other regularly enough to create rivalries. The format barely made sense. Franchises coming and going meant that victories did not mean as much. The solution to that issue is not to get European rugby to bale them out by doing the same thing to their own competitions. If they want Super Rugby to be successful they should look to what made it successful to begin with, not seek to muck about with the successful rugby tournaments to find a solution. There are things we could do to make it better. Finding a way for the Champions Cup winner to play the Super Rugby winners would be a start.

It's the intangibles that make the Six Nations better. The historic rivalry between the established teams. The iconic cities. The away support too. Adding South Africa would diminish that. If we are to go to a 7 Nations format I would much, much rather have Georgia in there than South Africa.

You are completely ignoring the two most important challenges for the SH, all the while blowing smoke up Europe’s arse.

Population density, and therefor economics, and travel.

Those two factors will hamper SH rugby always.

Yet you have no issue with the fact that SH players and coaches have elevated the quality of European rugby.

It's not so much that I have ignored them as much as I don't consider them particularly pertinent. Rugby, on it's own, can't change those factors. European rugby is the cash cow of international rugby. That's why the players and the coaches come. Precisely the reason why they should not start mucking about with it for short term gain for just one or two external nations. You don't solve the problems of failing tournaments, or at least the aspects that can be fixed, by breaking up or damaging the successful ones.The Six Nations is worth money because the fans love it. The Champions Cup is worth money because because the fans love it. Will the Six Nations be that same tournament that people fell in love with if South Africa join? Probably not. I have no qualms in saying that wins over Ireland, France, Wales and, especially, England mean more to me than wins over Australia or South Africa because of the history and the proximity. I am certainly not alone in that, whenever the conversation has come up in rugby circles about potential expansion outwith Europe it's met with confusion at best and normally derision.
You're right that I have no issue about Southern Hemisphere players coming to Europe. But let's not pretend that they are doing us all a favour. It isn't a missionary trip. They play rugby for clubs and, often, nations. They get paid by clubs and nations. I do believe the traditional rugby nations have a responsibility to the developing rugby nations. I do not think we have a responsibility to rugby in South Africa or to rugby in New Zealand or Australia. They certainly are not wanting to join to help Scotland, so why should we act against our own interests to help them? The argument seems to hinge on a fairly large dose of solipsism on the side of the Southern Hemisphere giants. Slamming us for not "growing the game". How often have South Africa played Fiji, Samoa, Georgia or Tonga? These are the countries we should be looking to help. Talking about economics, the Tongan nation's GDP was less than the RFU's turnover in 2015. So let's find a way to help their rugby flourish. I think Rugby should be changing to help out them The New Zealanders never go to the Pacific Islands. We aren't the bad guys of international rugby for not wanting to gamble our position and standing because the other traditionally strong rugby countries have not got pro rugby right in the last few years. We did not get it right for the first decade of pro rugby. We could not buy a win. We were deep in debt. The SARU and the NZRU did not run in to save us. We've had three pro teams collapse for lack of funds. With that people lost their jobs and careers were ended, there was no major restructure of world rugby to sort out Scotland. I don't doubt that money follows money. I do question whether South Africa joining will improve the product on offer. and increase the money on the table long term. It won't hugely change rugby anywhere, most of the teams already play South Africa every other year they just don't play in the tournament. Effectively changing of the timing of the fixtures and adding them to the table, I think would be more likely to damage than bolster the Six Nations and for that reason I don't see any reason that we should do it.

tigertattie wrote:The old fart is 100% right.

It’s money. And money follows the people.

If the 6nations didn’t have England and France with their 100m people collectively, then there’d be no money in the 6ns either. Simple as that

There are a few more issues than just population

1. The average attendance for 6 Nations matches in 2018 (don't have 2019 but would be about the same) is 66k if Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy were in a 4 Nations they would still.get 50-60k average. RC on the other hand gets about 38k. When Italy are already getting bigger attendances than two of the RC teams.
2. Cost would be alot less. If you consider NZRU get a much bigger than the WRU or IRFU yet can't compete in terms of financial when it comes to wages.

The main problem for SR and RC is their main selling focus of the last 25 years is no longer true. They focused on these are the best international tournament and club/Region tournament in the world. They didn't bother to work on anything else. Atmosphere didn't matter, falling attendances didn't matter, falling TV viewers didn't matter. Now that the RC and SR are not the best in the world they have nothing.

The European cup is built on the collision of different cultures of rugby where you rarely play the same team two years in a row (unless you are Tigers you go to Italy). Everyone who travels want to go and experience the French away day. Falling TV viewing has resulted in some games being freeview. One sided games brought around the resturcture which unlike SR did not mean teams destruction of the professionalism in the regions that lost out. It does have problems but I would say that it is growing as a product. Will it last forever who knows

Brendan wrote:

tigertattie wrote:The old fart is 100% right.

It’s money. And money follows the people.

If the 6nations didn’t have England and France with their 100m people collectively, then there’d be no money in the 6ns either. Simple as that

There are a few more issues than just population

1. The average attendance for 6 Nations matches in 2018 (don't have 2019 but would be about the same) is 66k  if Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy were in a 4 Nations they would still.get 50-60k average.  RC on the other hand gets about 38k.  When Italy are already getting bigger attendances than two of the RC teams.
2. Cost would be alot less.  If you consider NZRU get a much bigger than the WRU or IRFU yet can't compete in terms of financial when it comes to wages.

The main problem for SR and RC is their main selling focus of the last 25 years is no longer true.  They focused on these are the best international tournament and club/Region tournament in the world.  They didn't bother to work on anything else. Atmosphere didn't matter, falling attendances didn't matter, falling TV viewers didn't matter.  Now that the RC and SR are not the best in the world they have nothing.

The European cup is built on the collision of different cultures of rugby where you rarely play the same team two years in a row (unless you are Tigers you go to Italy).  Everyone who travels want to go and experience the French away day.  Falling TV viewing has resulted in some games being freeview.  One sided games brought around the resturcture which unlike SR did not mean teams destruction of the professionalism in the regions that lost out.  It does have problems but I would say that it is growing as a product.  Will it last forever who knows

How do you expect them to work on “something else”? Instead of criticise provide suggestions

Could it be as simple as not really needing to have cross border competitions in their current forms? The Italian teams and the South African teams record the smallest average attendances in the Pro14. Probably because there is literally no passion for the games. Do people from Bloemfontein really care if they beat Glasgow? The proximity of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish teams and their longstanding competition has allowed genuine rivalries and enmities across borders to develop. There's also the history and cultural connection that goes beyond rugby. So being the best Celtic team is a genuine and legitimate target for the players involved and an aspiration for the supporters. If the Cheetahs win the Pro14 it doesn't even prove they're the best side in South Africa. Manufactured tournaments with no roots are always up against it. Manufactured tournaments that are constantly chopped and changed have no hope whatsoever. Manufactured tournaments that are constantly chopped and changed across thousands of miles might as well not even bother. So perhaps Super Rugby should be condensed and then left as it is for a determined period of time. Or perhaps they should resort to national competitions.
It is incredibly obvious that simply shifting the focus of the cross border tournament will have no benefit whatsoever. What's the appeal of winning the Six (Seven Nations) for South Africa? To prove they're the best team in Europe and a bit of Africa. The current model is not working for South Africa so there's no reason to think that it would work but with different components. There is however the risk of taking the Six Nations down with it.

123456789. wrote:Could it be as simple as not really needing to have cross border competitions in their current forms? The Italian teams and the South African teams record the smallest average attendances in the Pro14. Probably because there is literally no passion for the games. Do people from Bloemfontein really care if they beat Glasgow? The proximity of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish teams and their longstanding competition has allowed genuine rivalries and enmities across borders to develop. There's also the history and cultural connection that goes beyond rugby. So being the best Celtic team is a genuine and legitimate target for the players involved and an aspiration for the supporters. If the Cheetahs win the Pro14 it doesn't even prove they're the best side in South Africa. Manufactured tournaments with no roots are always up against it. Manufactured tournaments that are constantly chopped and changed have no hope whatsoever. Manufactured tournaments that are constantly chopped and changed across thousands of miles might as well not even bother. So perhaps Super Rugby should be condensed and then left as it is for a determined period of time. Or perhaps they should resort to national competitions.
It is incredibly obvious that simply shifting the focus of the cross border tournament will have no benefit whatsoever. What's the appeal of winning the Six (Seven Nations) for South Africa? To prove they're the best team in Europe and a bit of Africa. The current model is not working for South Africa so there's no reason to think that it would work but with different components. There is however the risk of taking the Six Nations down with it.

Neither the Cheetahs nor the Kings are manufactured teams, they are two of the Six provinces that were core to a Currie Cup system that is more than a hundred years old.

During the isolation years the Cheetahs (Vrystaat) and the Kings (Eastern Province) were part of the premier top six Currie Cup sides.

Their woes in recent years escalated purely due to lack of funds and both being milked by the udders for talent.

I am not for or against the move to Europe, my preference is in fact to make our 14 provincial teams play in a tournament whereby all 14 provinces get an equal share of the money. Sadly it won’t happen due to lack of revenue.


All tournaments are “manufactured”

The five nations became the six nations and the reason? Revenue.

I think 123456789 makes perfect points for why this shouldn't happen. It might benefit South Africa in the short term but at what cost? The cost isn't worth it for the rugby fraternity. There is a tipping point where the balance between commercialism and history, passion, and culture gets crossed. The Premier League having a '39th game' in the USA was over the line where foreign ownership and now even academies filled with foreign players is not. For rugby it is a lot less rigid than football because it is less powerful. The South Africans joining the Pro12 was the death of that league in my opinion as it would open the door to more and more change. That might be a European league, it might not. The most obvious solution is to have a real Celtic League for Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, while they focus on their national leagues as well. The Italians joining the French leagues also made more sense as their two superclubs could make the switch and if we have a European superleague breaking it in to 3 - Celts, English, and French/Italians - makes the most sense. But rugby isn't built on sense so we have South Africans in a Celtic-Romano conference competition. Adding South Africa to the 6 nations would be the beginning of the end for the 6 nations and a move to a global league system as well. 6 nations works well as it means everyone plays on the same weeend and the Italians deserved a place while being practically neighbours. It was an easy decision to make and despite the last decade worked very well at the start. It still works well having 5 rounds with each team playing each week. 7 would be a nightmare, 8 would be too many as well.

Yeah I think it is hypocritical to say, “we want to keep it a European tournament, so we don’t want your teams, but we will take your players”

Hopefully that will stop for internationals but freedom of movement and the right to work means players can move if they want. 123456789 makes a great case why any sense of retribution for that would be detrimental.

I for one hope SA go back to their roots, build the Currie Cup to its former glory, we can’t compete with overseas salaries even whilst we have Super Rugby, so why concern ourselves with salary competition.

Rassie proved we can still win World Cups, even with the situation we have now.

Would prefer we keep domestic rugby internal and not join the Pro 14, Super rugby or any other format.

Good. Agreed. South Africa have proved you can still win world cups when key players play outside your country. Australia reached a world cup final in 2015 because of it and when they tried to win back home fans with Cheika talking about their style of rugby and 'the way we play' they got dumped out at the QFs and lost a group game. The football world champions are full of French players playing in England, Spain, Germany, and Italy. If you cannot pay then you adapt and South Africa have the right idea. Super Rugby and SANZAAR forced South Africa to lose 2 teams so that made sense to include them because the Pro12 needed money and they needed a league. But that's not the case with SA and the six nations.

Old Man wrote:

Brendan wrote:

tigertattie wrote:The old fart is 100% right.

It’s money. And money follows the people.

If the 6nations didn’t have England and France with their 100m people collectively, then there’d be no money in the 6ns either. Simple as that

There are a few more issues than just population

1. The average attendance for 6 Nations matches in 2018 (don't have 2019 but would be about the same) is 66k  if Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy were in a 4 Nations they would still.get 50-60k average.  RC on the other hand gets about 38k.  When Italy are already getting bigger attendances than two of the RC teams.
2. Cost would be alot less.  If you consider NZRU get a much bigger than the WRU or IRFU yet can't compete in terms of financial when it comes to wages.

The main problem for SR and RC is their main selling focus of the last 25 years is no longer true.  They focused on these are the best international tournament and club/Region tournament in the world.  They didn't bother to work on anything else. Atmosphere didn't matter, falling attendances didn't matter, falling TV viewers didn't matter.  Now that the RC and SR are not the best in the world they have nothing.

The European cup is built on the collision of different cultures of rugby where you rarely play the same team two years in a row (unless you are Tigers you go to Italy).  Everyone who travels want to go and experience the French away day.  Falling TV viewing has resulted in some games being freeview.  One sided games brought around the resturcture which unlike SR did not mean teams destruction of the professionalism in the regions that lost out.  It does have problems but I would say that it is growing as a product.  Will it last forever who knows

How do you expect them to work on “something else”? Instead of criticise provide suggestions

Please look back up the thread.
If South Africa joined Europe I would bring back in the Currie Cup with 8-10 teams with them playing in the Euro Cup aswell.

There should be a Pacific Nations league for the other teams in Super Rugby. You are free to review it. Oz and NZ need to focus developing their domestic league

Old Man wrote:

123456789. wrote:Could it be as simple as not really needing to have cross border competitions in their current forms? The Italian teams and the South African teams record the smallest average attendances in the Pro14. Probably because there is literally no passion for the games. Do people from Bloemfontein really care if they beat Glasgow? The proximity of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish teams and their longstanding competition has allowed genuine rivalries and enmities across borders to develop. There's also the history and cultural connection that goes beyond rugby. So being the best Celtic team is a genuine and legitimate target for the players involved and an aspiration for the supporters. If the Cheetahs win the Pro14 it doesn't even prove they're the best side in South Africa. Manufactured tournaments with no roots are always up against it. Manufactured tournaments that are constantly chopped and changed have no hope whatsoever. Manufactured tournaments that are constantly chopped and changed across thousands of miles might as well not even bother. So perhaps Super Rugby should be condensed and then left as it is for a determined period of time. Or perhaps they should resort to national competitions.
It is incredibly obvious that simply shifting the focus of the cross border tournament will have no benefit whatsoever. What's the appeal of winning the Six (Seven Nations) for South Africa? To prove they're the best team in Europe and a bit of Africa. The current model is not working for South Africa so there's no reason to think that it would work but with different components. There is however the risk of taking the Six Nations down with it.

Neither the Cheetahs nor the Kings are manufactured teams, they are two of the Six provinces that were core to a Currie Cup system that is more than a hundred years old.

During the isolation years the Cheetahs (Vrystaat) and the Kings (Eastern Province) were part of the premier top six Currie Cup sides.

Their woes in recent years escalated purely due to lack of funds and both being milked by the udders for talent.

I am not for or against the move to Europe, my preference is in fact to make our 14 provincial teams play in a tournament whereby all 14 provinces get an equal share of the money. Sadly it won’t happen due to lack of revenue.


All tournaments are “manufactured”

The five nations became the six nations and the reason? Revenue.

I haven't said that the teams are manufactured. I've said that an ever extending Super Rugby is manufactured with no roots in cultural clashes or connections, or history. Same as the Pro14 is increasingly manufactured. That very much includes the bizarre suggestion that American teams are included too (which has been mooted in the past). What would winning that tournament mean? That you're better than some teams from some countries.
In many ways you've underlined my point, the affection you feel for the Currie cup is rooted in your respect for its history and tradition. The indignation you've expressed at what you considered (wrongly) to be my dismissal of the Cheetahs and the Kings is exactly the same as the attachment we have to the Six Nations. All tournaments are manufactured, but they have to be built on genuine feeling.
I don't agree with you that revenue was the key with Italian entry. They were a European team that beat four of the five nations prior to joining. The 6 Nations determines the champions of Europe, watch the prelude to the 1990 Grand Slam decider. Bill McLaren states that the match determines the Champions of Europe. The Tournament began as the Home Nations championship. French entry was a natural expansion. It's just 26 miles from England. Scotland and Ireland are historically intertwined with the French. It's right next door. It's a natural expansion. Over the years that followed distinctive rivalries have formed. Italian entry was equally straightforward. It borders France. It's part of the same, historical, cultural sphere. The revenue does not come from the Italian ability but the holistic package. The city of Rome, the anthem. I am pretty sure that most rugby fans consider the most important part of Italian participation to be the opportunity to couple a rugby weekend with a romantic getaway. I'm also pretty sure that if they'd had a crystal ball in 1999 there would be no Six Nations.
In the long term I don't think that South African participation would improve the financial value of the Six Nations or rugby generally. It would take away from the European element. It would take away an element of the travelling support. It would be culturally incongruous in general and rugby terms. The Lions would take a hit from it also.
So accepting that we won't be agreeing on the revenue element I would say that outwith that. We have no moral obligation to include South Africa nor should we be expected to. In fact I would consider Scotland's rugby position tenuous enough that we would be wrong not to oppose seismic changes simply to benefit nations that, more often than not, are stronger than us.
My preference would be the same as yours, I just don't agree that the rest of rugby should shuffle to provide an alternative. I think rugby should change. I don't think it should change what is working because it needs all the money it can get and it can't gamble the support it has. When it does change those who are genuinely in need are the pacific nations, Georgia (and to a lesser extent Romania and Russia) not South Africa and not New Zealand. If America ever stops being rugby's 'sleeping giant' will we all fold into their tournaments or will we continue with our structures irrespective of their success? I would hope the latter.

Let's be honest Italy are a complete waste of time in the 6 Nations. How many years it since they last won a game? As for the argument that Rome is a nice away trip for a weekend away, well we may as well bring Bali into the 7 Nations.

So lets move Italy and possibly Scotland out to a second division tournament and make a really good annual 5 Nations. The TV money will be great - believe it or not rugby is a professional game and money is important. Plus the rugby standard will be much better. Plus a weekend in South Africa is something to be looked forward to after many year s in Cardiff and Edinburgh.

Other than "I don't like it" and "I am a traditionalist and this isn't traditional" I can't see any arguments against South Africa becoming part of the 5 Nations.

nlpnlp wrote:Let's be honest Italy are a complete waste of time in the 6 Nations.  How many years it since they last won a game?  As for the argument that Rome is a nice away trip for a weekend away, well we may as well bring Bali into the 7 Nations.

So lets move Italy and possibly Scotland out to a second division tournament and make a really good annual 5 Nations.  The TV money will be great - believe it or not rugby is a professional game and money is important.  Plus the rugby standard will be much better.  Plus a weekend in South Africa is something to be looked forward to after many year s in Cardiff and Edinburgh.

Other than "I don't like it" and "I am a traditionalist and this isn't traditional" I can't see any arguments against South Africa becoming part of the 5 Nations.

Why move Scotland out? England can barely beat them. So far this year they have been a good challenge. They also finished 3rd 2 years ago.

nlpnlp wrote:

So lets move Italy and possibly Scotland out to a second division tournament and make a really good annual 5 Nations.  The TV money will be great - believe it or not rugby is a professional game and money is important.  Plus the rugby standard will be much better.  Plus a weekend in South Africa is something to be looked forward to after many year s in Cardiff and Edinburgh.

But sure you might as well say - 'and the Five Nations would be even better in terms of TV Money if we could get Australia, New Zealand and possibly even Japan to join. An eight team Five Nations! ....... ? After all, the bigger joined audience, the more money.
But then that World International Competition was rejected not so long ago by some concerned operators.
I think this might be the initiated Plan B to get that World event back on the drawing board using a different starting reference.
You are right - money men won't be dissuaded from trying to make more money. They'll try all avenues over and over and over again.

nlpnlp wrote:Let's be honest Italy are a complete waste of time in the 6 Nations.  How many years it since they last won a game?  As for the argument that Rome is a nice away trip for a weekend away, well we may as well bring Bali into the 7 Nations.

So lets move Italy and possibly Scotland out to a second division tournament and make a really good annual 5 Nations.  The TV money will be great - believe it or not rugby is a professional game and money is important.  Plus the rugby standard will be much better.  Plus a weekend in South Africa is something to be looked forward to after many year s in Cardiff and Edinburgh.

Other than "I don't like it" and "I am a traditionalist and this isn't traditional" I can't see any arguments against South Africa becoming part of the 5 Nations.

Why should Scotland move to the Second Division? The Six Nations is our tournament as much as it is anybody else's. A higher standard of rugby will not straightforwardly result in a higher revenues. The game yesterday was atrocious. It was also watched by millions on television and attended by a full house. The sizeable travelling contingent (larger than it ever would be for a game, home or away, against a home or away side) which would have provided a boost to the local economy. England have played South Africa 25 times in the last 20 years. England have played Scotland 21 times. So a change in formatting won't impact on the capacity of fans to watch tests between South Africa and England. So the real question is whether removing Calcutta Cup, the oldest rugby match in history, from it's annual position will help anyone financially? I think it's hard to make a serious, intellectual case for that.
Scotland have played South Africa eight times in the last decade, so have Ireland, France have played them seven times England have played them eleven times, so have Wales. So it's not a lack of matches against the wealthier rugby nations that's hamstringing South Africa. It's whether inserting them into the competition to determine the European champions makes any sense whatsoever. It reminds me very much so of Real Madrid and Barcelona looking enviously at the Premier League and thinking they have a right to the money invested in it. Without realising that the parochial nature of the tournament and it's rivalries between old clubs makes is what makes it worth so much. If you fundamentally change the Six Nations then you change what the tournament represents. You have a whole new tournament and there's no guarantee that the new entity will have the same financial worth.

That is another good comment.

Interesting idea. Maybe same time zones but whole different seasons. So we will have never win in SA matches from Italy and likely Scotland, and rare wins for Wales and Ireland. SA is getting stronger for sure and there’s no way they’ll give up matches they do at AI time as easily. Especially at home.

But what happens with the SA Super rugby sides? They all play Pro 14 as well, a surge of travel backwards and forwards to SA at both club and test level? Currie cup season gets played when?

All sounds a bit too complex but I think SA are ready to test new frontiers with their rugby. Going north seems logical, and they’re all ending up there one way or another.

Taylorman wrote:Interesting idea. Maybe same time zones but whole different seasons. So we will have never win in SA matches from Italy and likely Scotland, and rare wins for Wales and Ireland. SA is getting stronger for sure and there’s no way they’ll give up matches they do at AI time as easily. Especially at home.

But what happens with the SA Super rugby sides? They all play Pro 14 as well, a surge of travel backwards and forwards to SA at both club and test level? Currie cup season gets played when?

All sounds a bit too complex but I think SA are ready to test new frontiers with their rugby. Going north seems logical, and they’re all ending up there one way or another.

At this point it is really just rumours. In my opinion Super Rugby has had its day, all the experimentation growing to 14, then 15, then 18, then 16 has broken the tournament.

Yet moving the Franchises to Europe doesn’t make much sense for me either.

If SA can get their Currie Cup to its former glory and have the fourteen provinces compete on equal footing and a drafting system whereby one province doesn’t collect players like stamps it can be more competitive and likely become a mirror of the Gallagher Premiership or French top 14 , albeit with less revenue.

Then either let the top 4 Provinces play in the European Champions cup or a shortened version of Super rugby.

I think Super Rugby should follow the Champions Cup format.

small pools, play offs, finals, all done and dusted in 9 weeks

Good shout by the old man!

Just have the 15 sides currently in Super rugby. Have your three conferences. Each team plays the other in the conference once (home/away in alternate years)

Each conference has a winner with a best runner up from the 3 conferences making the 4th semi finalist.

Then play home and away 2 leg semis. Winners go through to a one off final.

tigertattie wrote:Good shout by the old man!

Just have the 15 sides currently in Super rugby. Have your three conferences. Each team plays the other in the conference once (home/away in alternate years)

Each conference has a winner with a best runner up from the 3 conferences making the 4th semi finalist.

Then play home and away 2 leg semis. Winners go through to a one off final.

Sound like a plan.

However I would suggest you have four pools, 4 teams per pool, one team from each country SA, NZ and OZ, the other four teams from Arg, Japan and pacific islands.

Six weeks of round robin, then qf’s and then semis and final.

Old Man wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Good shout by the old man!

Just have the 15 sides currently in Super rugby. Have your three conferences. Each team plays the other in the conference once (home/away in alternate years)

Each conference has a winner with a best runner up from the 3 conferences making the 4th semi finalist.

Then play home and away 2 leg semis. Winners go through to a one off final.

Sound like a plan.

However I would suggest you have four pools, 4 teams per pool, one team from each country SA, NZ and OZ, the other four teams from Arg, Japan and pacific islands.

Six weeks of round robin, then qf’s and then semis and final.

And a 3rd/4th place playoff!

Sorry couldn't resist!

Super Rugby can't become the SH version of the champion and challange cups.

SA have 8 professional ready to go teams that could play Currie Cup and be a decent standard and be able to keep hold of players.
New Zealand have the Mitre 10 but could keep hold of any of the stars on that model
Oz would have 5 teams including the force. They have no money and looks like the TV deal could be down 40% so no money fund 8-10 professional teams when they can keep current stars.
Argentina would lose all their home players if they had to use the new South American league as their domestic.
Japan could do it and are looking to grow their domestic league which would hoover up the best talent not in Europe

The Oracle wrote:

Old Man wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Good shout by the old man!

Just have the 15 sides currently in Super rugby. Have your three conferences. Each team plays the other in the conference once (home/away in alternate years)

Each conference has a winner with a best runner up from the 3 conferences making the 4th semi finalist.

Then play home and away 2 leg semis. Winners go through to a one off final.

Sound like a plan.

However I would suggest you have four pools, 4 teams per pool, one team from each country SA, NZ and OZ, the other four teams from Arg, Japan and pacific islands.

Six weeks of round robin, then qf’s and then semis and final.

And a 3rd/4th place playoff!  

Of course, anything to build revenue

Old Man wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Old Man wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Good shout by the old man!

Just have the 15 sides currently in Super rugby. Have your three conferences. Each team plays the other in the conference once (home/away in alternate years)

Each conference has a winner with a best runner up from the 3 conferences making the 4th semi finalist.

Then play home and away 2 leg semis. Winners go through to a one off final.

Sound like a plan.

However I would suggest you have four pools, 4 teams per pool, one team from each country SA, NZ and OZ, the other four teams from Arg, Japan and pacific islands.

Six weeks of round robin, then qf’s and then semis and final.

And a 3rd/4th place playoff!  

Of course, anything to build revenue

Winners of the SH comp could also play the winners of the Euro comp in a champions of champions game

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51436659

Eddie Jones' take on it. Comparing it to the evolution of Super Rugby and probably drawing on all the same threads we have been here. Culling Super Rugby back to 12 teams wouldn't really work now, because it was based on the state of play in the mid-nineties. The Champions Cup was founded at the same time and has evolved in a markedly better way. So why not use the Champions Cup as the model and look at Super Rugby's evolution. Before Super Rugby there was the Super 10. That had teams from the SANZAR nations and each year a team from the Pacific Islands. Moving back to a 'Super 10' to which teams had to qualify may be the future.
The Franchise system has been relatively successful in New Zealand and is probably the most viable option for rugby in Australia which realistically could not support a full size league. So why not move to a 10 team pacific based league, with five New Zealander teams, four Australian and one pacific Islander? The top four automatically qualifying for a new 'Super 10' on the same basis that teams qualify for the Champions cup. The fifth team going to the play-offs.
If South Africa reverted to the Currie Cup as the predominant competition with the Jaguares participating (potentially ineligible to play in the finals to maintain its status as a South African competition). With the top four qualifying automatically for the 'Super 10', the same as the first two years of the original Super 12. The fifth team going to the play-offs. If the Jaguares finished outside the top four, they would automatically receive that spot.
Japan has a fully fledged league and has a system capable of centrally contracting players. So depending on their preference of the Japanese rugby union they could either field a Sunwolves type team in the play-offs or the top team from their domestic set up. The play-offs then being a three sided round-robin with the top two qualifying for the Super 10 the next season.

In effect if this was done on the basis of last years standing in Super Rugby:
From the Aus/ NZ/ PI Domestic Set-up: Crusaders, Hurricanes, Brumbies and the Chiefs
From the Currie Cup (I know it's more complicated once the Super Rugby/ Pro14) sides are factored in: Cheetahs, Lions, Griquas and the Sharks

Play-Offs: Jaguares, Blues, Sunwolves/ Kobelco Steelers

The Super 10 then being divided into two seeded groups of five, each team playing it's opponent once. The top two qualifying for a semi-final and then obviously a final after that. The benefit of the competition being a smaller, genuinely elite tournament that's easy to follow. That recognises South Africa's place as the cash cow of Southern Hemisphere rugby and also New Zealand's place as the highest performing. While maintaining significant Australian involvement and catering for their eventual revival as a rugby force. Providing an outlet for Pacific Islander representation. Including Argentina and also the potential to tap into significant Japanese economic power. Over time if the respective strengths of the nation's involved altered dramatically then the allocated spots per nation could be altered. Because it is a smaller competition the travelling requirements of the players would be drastically reduced. The whole tournament would amount to a maximum of six games per side with four being the norm, with a limited number of long haul flights, especially with sympathetic scheduling.

As a similar tournament it could claim heritage from the successful elements of Super Rugby (similar to the Champions Cup and Heineken Cup). While learning from its mistakes of over expansion too quickly. In the long, long, long term, if MLR picks up properly there would be the opportunity to engage with that competition very easily. First through a spot in the play-offs for example. It would have to be done on merit, gradually and in a way that was not through a charitable act from the traditional sides but a move that was in their interest. It could however be the embryonic stages in a move to marry the traditional rugby powerhouses like the Crusaders, Bulls and the Brumbies with the raw talent of the pacific Islanders added in with the emerging rugby economies of Argentina and Japan maybe with , one day, the added allure of a competitive team from New York in a way that does not dilute domestic competition or flog players beyond belief.

The issue with that 123 is funding. What will Australian funding look like if they now have only one team in the premier tournament instead of 4? The Pro14 is bad enough with cross border issues and the UK media covers Ulster, Scotland, and Wales as well as England to make it less of an issue in terms of expenditure based on representation i.e. they will pay whoever qualifies. But Australians won't pay for a tournament they're barely in and even they aren't one of the best teams. South Africa won't go for it either as there's less money and it doesn't solve the problem, so you're left with Japan and NZ which seems to be the way things are going anyway. It needs to change but it also needs minimum representation from each country or leage i.e. how the Champions Cup was a few years ago. Let Japan grow and then see what happens.

Ahhhhh...

This old cheshnut of a story....

Ok basically heres what happens, the South Africans use this threat as leverage before any 4 Nation tv deals as due to their population they often provide the bulk of the TV money.  This tactic is often used to keep the All Blacks ego in check.  Eventually a new deal will be done and South Africa will stay in the 4 Nations.  With New Zealand and it's over sized ego firmly beaten down.

Then some genius in New Zealand will have a brain wave, that it would be a fantastic idea if teams split the gate recepit money from games 50/50.  So New Zealand with their 20,000 stadiums will share 50/50 their gate money with visiting teams, and oh wait, england, ireland, scotland, wales and france will have to share their money money 50/50 using their 70,000-80,000 stadiums.  Wales, ireland and scotland will kick off saying that they use the international game to fund their professional game and they won't do it.  England will say thats it's unfair that they made the effort to build such a large expensive stadium as opposed to new zealand who build tiny stadiums all over the place, and everyone tells the All Blacks to shove it.  

Skip ahead 4 years and a new 4 nations tv deal is due.....

Please go back to top of post.

Shifty hit gold dirt. Close this thread now. No more contributions required.

Shifty wrote:Ahhhhh...

This old cheshnut of a story....

Ok basically heres what happens, the South Africans use this threat as leverage before any 4 Nation tv deals as due to their population they often provide the bulk of the TV money.  This tactic is often used to keep the All Blacks ego in check.  Eventually a new deal will be done and South Africa will stay in the 4 Nations.  With New Zealand and it's over sized ego firmly beaten down.

Then some genius in New Zealand will have a brain wave, that it would be a fantastic idea if teams split the gate recepit money from games 50/50.  So New Zealand with their 20,000 stadiums will share 50/50 their gate money with visiting teams, and oh wait, england, ireland, scotland, wales and france will have to share their money money 50/50 using their 70,000-80,000 stadiums.  Wales, ireland and scotland will kick off saying that they use the international game to fund their professional game and they won't do it.  England will say thats it's unfair that they made the effort to build such a large expensive stadium as opposed to new zealand who build tiny stadiums all over the place, and everyone tells the All Blacks to shove it.  

Skip ahead 4 years and a new 4 nations tv deal is due.....

Please go back to top of post.

Sounds feasible, until you realise agreements have already been signed up to 2025. Doesn’t make much sense to rock the boat if you are already committed for the next five years.