Canada back-row: Jebb Sinclair
Related links
Teams
Also see
SANZAR boss Greg Peters has spoken of Super Rugby considering possibly including new teams from Canada, the USA, Argentina and also Asia in 2016.
Both the Canucks and Eagles were this week named as new competitors in 2013's Pacific Nations Cup, which Peters believes is positive.
And with a call pending on whether to expand Super Rugby when the next broadcast contract begins, the next step may see wider participation.
"We are considering whether or not we will include new territories in Super Rugby and one of the factors we'll be weighing up is their competitiveness," Peters told The Australian.
"Super Rugby in its present form is a pretty successful model and we are not going to water it down. But we'd be derelict in our duty if we didn't consider expanding into areas. The United States is a very big market and so is Japan and Asia generally. Ultimately it all comes down to what is in the best interests of the three SANZAR parties."
Peters added though that travel considerations could become a stumbling block in the decision.
"Player welfare is a big consideration. That said, the conference system does provide us with a degree of flexibility, either in terms of adding new conferences or adding new teams to existing conferences," he said.
Comments
Rugby_rockstar says...
Well I suppose they're desparate to find someone the melbourne rebels can actually beat.
Seriously though, I supose you could put together a "Samoan Warriors" francise and base it in Auckland. I think you'd need a proper feasibility study carried out prior to based a super francise in any of the South Sea Islands, an american state or a Canadian province. Funnily enough, I reckon Japan would pull it off with a cast iron business case, projected profits for the first three years and all. TEAM GODZILLA!!!!! throw in the blue oyster cult classic rock song and you have instant marketing too!
Posted 14:27 01st February 2013
jmanngod says...
@hellovanite - I didn't say: ""Super Rugby has basically turned NZ's Itm Cup into a c-grade development tournament".
I agree that is a bit harsh... more like B-grade :) Maybe something akin to the Premiership.... but enjoyable to watch.
Posted 18:09 27th January 2013
hellovanite says...
jmanngod..."Super Rugby has basically turned NZ's Itm Cup into a c-grade development tournament". Really mate that's a bit harsh
Posted 12:52 25th January 2013
GoWalesGo says...
I've heard that there are 3 different parties trying to set up pro rugby in North America (whether this includes super rugby i'm not sure). They would build the competition organically and from the ground up.
The Americans wouldn't catch on with a multi-continental league/competition/whatever the superugby is. It needs to be American/North American. Never mind the fact that the travel would be RIDICULOUS and the teams would just be filled with SANZAR + ARG players.
Super rugby would just be a quick fix for pro rugby in america and wouldn't be good for their future, very short-sited.
Posted 11:51 25th January 2013
markpat says...
We're not talking about international teams here, we're talking about club teams and club finances.
Argentinian club sides won't make it in Super Rugby, because they don't have the finances to keep their players, despite the popularity in rugby.
Japan is a realistic option, as they already attract a decent amount of quality players, but not the others.
At best, for US and Canadian teams, have their league champions compete in the European competition (the US are already intent on setting up an NFL side in London, so US/UK travel isn't really an issue), but I'm not convinced that is currently doing much for the expansion of rugby in Romania, etc.
Posted 11:51 25th January 2013
hellovanite says...
I cannot see this working and as for your commentsd was4before, Argentina is a strong rugby nation and have been for some time. I would fancy them any day to comfortably beat either the US or Canada, so the argument on quality is valid on a case by case basis. The mere fact that distance was a debate prior to the Super rugby competition starting is hardly a good case for expanding further. I'm in favour of the commercial viabilty and the growth of the Global market this would represent, but logistically it's not viable. You can't just keep expanding tournaments like the years calendar has turning into some kind of Tardis. This isn't the ATP, this is hard pounding graft and as physically demanding as a sport can be. What about player welfare? Not to mention how do you fit it in, and you mention quality? Lets face it North American sides would have to recruit outside of their borders big time to compete, otherwise who benefits from weekly routs, again the US is not Argentina so don't compare the expansion of the Tri Nations to this. They will get there one day but they don't have the support yet and would be better served in the Pacific nations cup, than the Super rugby comp.
Posted 10:51 25th January 2013
GCP_jones says...
I just want to commend the posters here, for once a good debate, without the usual small minded comments, a pleaseure to read the various points of view.
I do think most people would agree that rugby union does really need to expand to embrace the huge potential globally it should be the IRB's number 1 priority.I really hope in 10 years time we're not here talking about the same sides and test teams, that would potentially kill the game IMO.
Posted 09:41 25th January 2013
Waz4before says...
I think some of the negative comments against this idea do reveal some of the underlying problems with this concept yet also reveal a significant amount of short-sightedness in their response. In fact, many of the counter-arguments proposed (distance, quality) were originally used to argue against both the Super Rugby competition being started in the first place & expansion of the Tri-Nations. Both have been a success so opponents should think twice before using them !
The fact is Rugby needs to expand, both in Europe & Asia, its a necessity as it exists in a competitive world with other sports competing for the same commercial dollars and bums on seats and many sports have similar international expansion plans - in Europe American Football in coming and so is the NBA, in Asia NRL is planning its international expansion including expansion in NZ, PNG and possibly other areas of Asia and has a plan for a semi-pro league in the USA. So the argument must focus on how to expand and not if, North America's place is best aligned to Asia not Europe surely as Europe is already expanding (if the Anglo-French HEC ideas get adopted at least) and the Tri-Nations lack the commercial clout domestically to grow much further so need to tap into larger. overseas markets.
Sure I can see challenges in making this the right quality but it is only a concept and wont happen overnight, but could i see a USA team competing effectively in LA, or a Canadian Team in Vancouver, certainly yes, along with a couple of domestic Argentinian sides it would open up a new dynamic that commercially could redress the SH's shrinking financial clout compared to the NH. What about the Pacific islanders? I agree with posters here that they're too small to host a side domestically but with proper planning and imagination I can see them given more opportunity in this set up (may even pull a few back from NRL)
Posted 05:07 25th January 2013
BillyMutt2 says...
And by the way, Sanzar and the IRB should get out of the dark ages and change their ridiculous atttitude towards TV coverage in general.
They don't seem to realize that they are choking themselves to a slow death globally by not exposing the game to bigger television and online audiences. This is the primary reason why rugby will never catch on in the truly big markets like North America - too many artificial barriers for the average Joe to even know that the game exists. What a pity.
Posted 03:25 25th January 2013
BillyMutt2 says...
@moolooman8 makes an excellent point. The only possible way to create any sort of awareness of rugby in North America would be to showcase the absolute top tier matches, for example NZ vs Aus or SA. And even then it would be a major stretch.
Case in point: BBC America's partial coverage of the Six Nations every year in recent times has failed to register as even the slightest blip, except for the very small group of existing rugby followers living there. Super Rugby matches, especially if it involves the US or Canadian teams getting hammered by foreign teams, will make no impact at all.
Posted 03:17 25th January 2013
flyman says...
Sounds like another money grab or so they think! Are SANZAR bosses on some sort of revenue generation bnous scheme?
The S15 is already too big!
Posted 02:08 25th January 2013
5Lock4ward says...
As much as the USA and Canada would benefit from pro rugby I don't think this is a feasible answer. Super Rugby should be more worried about getting Argentina involved. If for no other reason than the money already involved in including Los Pumas in the 4N. They need to start getting the Argentine players down into the SH so they can be on the same physical calendar as their SANZAR counterparts and get both sides more acquainted with one another. It would also help increase the development of local Argentine players. The USA and Canada are too far behind at the moment. If anything they should be focusing on 2 teams each in the RDP12 where the travel would be less strenuous. And in reality the focus should be on developing a combined North American pro league for the long term benefit of both.
Posted 01:50 25th January 2013
fiwiboy says...
This is where the conference format comes into its own.
You can have a NH conference where Super teams from Japan, Canada, US (both likely to be west coast based) and Argentina can play each other. I concede the possibility of a second US team; you can't afford to ignore New York!
The finals will be more problematic but it can be done. The current system of a mandatory conference qualifier in the finals will help as well.
This will also allow TV broadcasters in these countries to pick up the tab for travel.
As for a Pacific Islands-based team. Not a chance. Neither Samoa, Tonga or (perhaps) Fiji could afford to host a team. It would have to be either in Auckland (world's biggest Polynesian city) or Hawaii (American yet also Polynesian)
Posted 01:32 25th January 2013
tha_mai says...
Another reason why Fiji, Samoa, Tonga cannot be included - look at the flight accessability. Eg for the Reds to fly to Apia, Samoa from Brisbane - Between 38 and 53 hours travel time. No direct flights. Simply couldn't work. SA teams would have to fl to NZ or Oz first for stopovers.
Posted 23:26 24th January 2013
LeftRightOut says...
Expansion is a good idea as long as:
a) the existing unbalanced derby system is abolished
b) there is a two pool system with promotion/relegation to avoid massive score blowouts
c) the "mighty" Kings go straight into pool two to save some embarrassment (see point b)
Posted 22:42 24th January 2013
Tamjon says...
Agree with JayStarr, the Pacific Nations comp is where the USA & Canada need to stay. If they can develop into more popular sports in their countries in 10 years time, then look at a similar SR torunament throughout North & South America.
Posted 22:34 24th January 2013
Melkiwi says...
@lawynd apologise mate. Unfortunately with the island nations financially they can't afford too, hence why most would go to oz, nz or Europe. Rugby is now a business and money needs to be made and sorry to say the islands do provide that financially stability. As a Samoan kiwi I would have love to see an island team
Posted 21:39 24th January 2013
Isograford says...
Dear God no. Like the Southern Hemisphere players don't already have long years with far more distance travelled then their Northern counterparts.
Top 4 teams from each countries domestic comps would be far better. Or it would be if Aussie ever developed a proper domestic competition. Super Rugby has basically turned NZ's Itm Cup into a c-grade development tournament.
Posted 21:37 24th January 2013
Demers says...
Little revenue from tiny grounds and small crowds in the Pacific Islands, hence they won't get a look in. And the 15-man game is a non-starter in North America.
Vancouver & Victoria get maybe 2,000 fans at a top level club date if that. Toronto weather February to March/Mid April is freezing.
Posted 20:54 24th January 2013
JayStarr says...
@ those wanting the Pacific Islands included: do you know how big (small) they are? It's amazing they can put a competitive national side together... now you want a club team? Their club team would basically be their national side. Or national B side. And the same goes for the USA and Canada at the moment - just not enough players.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion Tonga, Fiji, USA, Canada and Japan should stay in the Pacific Cup and far away from Super Rugby or the Rugby Championship for at least another 10 years. You won't improve the game of rugby by lowering the quality of it's top tournaments. These teams need to take the next step first, and that step is to develop into a consistently competitive nation in the Pacific Cup. To those who say you can't do that, I give you Samoa. I would say they should be considered for the Rugby Championship in 2016. To include a club team of theirs in Super Rugby would just be silly.
Posted 20:47 24th January 2013