Don't Miss

Super derbies to get the boot?

SANZAR are hoping to finalise their plans for the restructuring of Super Rugby early in the new year, with local derbies shaping up as a bone of contention.

With the current broadcast deal expiring at the end of next season, speculation is rife about the form that Super Rugby will take in 2016 and beyond.

At this stage the only certainty is that there will be six South African teams involved after SARU gained assurance from SANZAR in that regard, although it is unclear whether there will be any further expansion.

There have been suggestions that teams from Argentina, Japan and the Pacific Islands could join the party, although there is nothing concrete as yet.

One hot topic will be whether the current format, which features home and away local derbies, will be retained.

The reasoning behind this format is that local clashes draw bigger crowds, which in turn means more revenue.
Super Rugby

However, New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) chief executive Steve Tew told Fairfax Media NZ that he is not convinced that doubling up on local derbies really does increase the viewership numbers.

“It appears looking at the numbers from this year’s competition that we haven’t increased the total number of people watching games, we’ve just moved them from some games to others,” he said.

Tew said that the players themselves are certainly not big fans of the current demanding format, as the derbies are notoriously physical.

“If you ask the high performance guys and the players, they aren’t enamoured with the idea of bashing each other up twice a year before they get together in an All Blacks side,” he said.

The derbies are particularly tiresome in the South African conference, as all of the same players are involved in the latter stages of the Currie Cup as well.

“I think the Stormers and Sharks played each other something like five times this year and we don’t want to get to the point where that’s the case here. Although I think we have a much greater differentiation between our Super Rugby teams and our NPC teams,” said Tew.

The NZRU chief said that while the way forward is unclear at the moment, there is major pressure to reach a conclusion that suits everyone as soon as possible.

“We are committed to getting this nailed early in the new year so we can present to the broadcasters on time, which is in June. Next time they meet they will almost lock themselves in a room and not come out until they’ve nailed it,” he said.

Source: Rugby365

Facebook Comments


  1. avatar


    December 15, 2013 at 8:11 am

    The 2016 broadcast deal and how SANZAR will change will be the single biggest event in rugby in SA since 1996.

  2. avatar


    December 15, 2013 at 1:09 pm


    Meantime were stranded with the same shit
    for the next two years.
    :Rule 9:

  3. avatar


    December 15, 2013 at 2:46 pm


    Indeed. Nothing will change till then.

  4. avatar


    December 16, 2013 at 12:29 am

    Morne, instead of teasing us, provide some details please.

  5. avatar


    December 16, 2013 at 2:45 am

    Hope the 2016 deal keeps SA super teams ( who knows how many )
    together with Aus/Nz

  6. avatar


    December 16, 2013 at 9:21 am


    Well it depends on a lot of things really, one of which is what they can come up with as a Super Rugby structure. But SA seems determined to do things on their terms for once.

  7. avatar


    December 16, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    Rugby’s biggest problem is MONEY.
    Interesting piece I saw re the role
    of TMO’s and refs making the sport less and less
    Will see if I can put an extract together.

  8. avatar


    December 16, 2013 at 3:33 pm


    There is a shit lot of money on its way in 2016. But I get a sneaky feeling the 2015 RWC will be one for those who want to be ‘entertained’.

  9. avatar


    December 16, 2013 at 7:59 pm

    So the players will be playing
    48 games per year?

    Nobody will play “entertaining”
    rugby when the risk is losing.

  10. avatar


    December 16, 2013 at 9:30 pm


    No I am talking about the directive handed down to the RWC specifically. Like the one handed down in 2011 (NZ MUST WIN)

  11. avatar


    December 17, 2013 at 1:42 am


    Can you shed more light on exactly what you believe our terms are please?

    I know we want six teams, is there more you can tell us?

  12. avatar


    December 17, 2013 at 7:36 am


    Commercially representative slice of the pie.

  13. DavidS


    December 17, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    SA represents commercially about 60% of SANZAR’s income…

    SA is requiring a 60% say in matters… whereas at the moment it’s 33/33/33…

    SARU is saying (as I wanted them to some three years ago when the 2011 deal was negotiated) we bring the most money so we get the most say… somewhat like France and England dominate the Heineken Cup management.

  14. avatar


    December 17, 2013 at 7:29 pm


    Who gets the other 1%

  15. DavidS


    December 17, 2013 at 9:28 pm

    It’s repetitive..

    33,3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333% each

    That will create 99,99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% collectively

  16. avatar

    Cheetah Glory

    December 20, 2013 at 6:42 pm


    Does that mean The Boks and England wont be allowed to partake?


You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply