Super Rugby to go global?

2013-01-24 21:53

Cape Town - SANZAR boss Greg Peters says Super Rugby could consider including new teams from Canada, the US, Argentina and also Asia in 2016.

Canada and America were this week named as new competitors in the IRB's 2013's Pacific Nations Cup, which sees them join the likes of Japan, Fiji and Tonga - a decision Peters lauded.

And according to the website, the three SANZAR nations, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, will decide later this year whether to effectively go global with Super Rugby when the next broadcast deal starts in 2016.

"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 did add 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.

The decision though is likely to be unpopular amongst South African rugby administrators, as it is well-known that SARU wants to field six South African teams in order to accommodate both the Lions and the Kings.

The 2013 Super Rugby season kicks off on February 15.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Would you like to see this global expansion of Super Rugby? Or should the tournament only feature teams from South Africa, Australia and New Zealand? Send your thoughts to Sport24.


  • gavin.simpson.0 - 2013-01-24 22:06

    Hell no!

      bryan.nicholson.33 - 2013-01-24 22:11

      I like the new move. A positive step forward for the game of rugby.

      gavin.simpson.0 - 2013-01-24 22:14

      I cannot agree. It will weaken the competition, so it will no longer be the top competition in the world, more like 'just another one'.... and europe will have the world's strongest.

      charlesbronson.bronson - 2013-01-24 22:24

      Hell No! We do not want another boring mini world cup where the score is 101 -3! It blows my mind too...

      andre.knipe.9 - 2013-01-24 22:47

      I understand that the competition will get watered down and the rugby won't be as exciting but think of the opportunities for our young players that aren't getting picked for the sides that might get a shot at playing for another nation. There other nations have the bucks and the backing to develop the young players and even up coming coaches. I say give it a shot we might be pleasantly surprised with the outcome of the results.

      byron.matthews.562 - 2013-01-25 00:14

      I'm sure it won't be as straight forward as inviting all the teams and there you go. They're probably (or should) consider a 2nd tier tournament/qualifier where the winner and runner-up (or however much they decide) get to play in the super rugby tournament. This could apply to all new teams wanting to join from within sanzar as well.

      TimTheTanker - 2013-01-25 01:15

      It will be great for rugby if it does happen. Im definitely up for the idea. The only problem is the new teams will need to be competative. One possible solution could be to make a sort of barbarians team in the americas where all the best players from America, Canada and Argie gets selected for one side. Same with Asia and the Pacific. That will mean only 3 new teams and im pretty sure they will be competitive aswell.

      inky.pinky.56 - 2013-01-25 01:24

      The travel/jet lag will have a negative effect on the players. Rather look towards Europe/UK and eliminate the huge time differences.

      hannesenbrianda - 2013-01-25 05:04

      New markets for TV rights, more money, more players - should be a no-brainer if the teams can be competitive. Can only be good for rugby. You have to be narrow minded with vested interest to oppose this.

      dewald.botha.50 - 2013-01-25 11:07

      "Super Rugby in its present form is a pretty successful model... and we are not going to water it down." SA did this by giving the Kings a free ticket into S15. Why dont the play relegation games for S15. If a team in Japan qualifies on merit, no problem!

      jaco.groenewald.731 - 2013-01-25 12:15

      Maybe the Lions were blessed!!! Becoming a circus now!

      carl.debeer.52 - 2013-01-25 14:41

      When club sides could beat national sides...then rather just keep it the way it is!

      Rodney - 2013-01-26 21:13

      lets not be too conservative ..will be good for rugby ,current format has lost its appeal to the intelligant supporter

  • gavin.simpson.0 - 2013-01-24 22:08

    This blows my mind.....

  • thomas.cannon.712 - 2013-01-24 22:08

    They have the Pacific Nations Cup, leave it as that!! Super rugby is as big as it can get without bringing more teams that are never going to be able to compete!! Trust me the fans in SA, Oz and NZ don't wan't anymore tinkering with this competition!!!!!

  • rhyno.vermaak - 2013-01-24 22:09

    Easy to implement with new conferences. Would be great.

  • chris.booise - 2013-01-24 22:11

    Oh no!! I hope this is not going to happen.

  • kyle.white.39750 - 2013-01-24 22:18

    Great!! More depth!

      gavin.simpson.0 - 2013-01-24 22:20

      Like the titanic has more depth, yes?

  • arthur.j.ware - 2013-01-24 22:20

    It all comes down to what is in the best intrests for the three sanzer nations, what of the players do they get a say in this?

      tyron.bains.5 - 2013-01-25 09:22

      Players dont have a say. They get paid enough.

  • denese.newby - 2013-01-24 22:27

    I say NO. South Africa also has June and December International matches, castle Rugby Championships, Curry Cup (Which is still enormously popular). This is all about money!!! Just now the Rugby bosses will be asking - who knows who? - if they could have a 13 or 14 month year. Squads would have to be enormous. We are dealing with humans here! I believe the 3 countries in the Super Rugby must also only submit 5 teams. The competition gets too long otherwise. It's already a bit too long with too much travel for the players. The other rugby nations can start their own Super Rugby competition. There will not be time for everything that is important to South Africans otherwise. The World Cup comes round every 4 years. They could start that with a broader base to include more nations. At least the World Cup is played in one country and travel is minimal compared to Super Rugby.

      chrisin.oz.1 - 2013-01-25 00:21

      denese, it's the Currie Cup. A Curry Cup sounds more like an Indian take-away.

      christopher.collings.9 - 2013-01-25 03:11

      shut up twat in Oz we know what she means, does this look like a spelling bee????????

      chrisin.oz.1 - 2013-01-25 03:45

      I'll shut up when I want to.

      denese.newby - 2013-01-25 13:00

      HEY YOU BLIND OZzie. Where do you see "A Curry Cup" in my article? Here we just say "Curry Cup" and we all know what it means. Anyway this is not a grammar lesson!

      Rodney - 2013-01-26 21:15

      i say lets expand ! Will good for the global game

  • frankylouw - 2013-01-24 22:27

    Go back to a super 12. The new conference system blows. Australia has become diluted and uncompetitive.

      wayne.vandriel - 2013-01-24 22:44

      Yet they hold a S15 title and we don't. But agree with you on bringing back the old format.

      chrisin.oz.1 - 2013-01-25 00:42

      frankylouw, if anything it has strengthen Australian rugby and made Super Rugby easier for them. They have 3 to 4 weak teams which their strongest team plays twice. Plus their top team gets an automatic entry into the quarter finals. Then there's the games against the South African teams: they get to play a guaranteed 5-point game against the Kings/Lions and they get one game off against a strong SA side (unless they are unlucky and their off-game is the Kings). So only 3 difficult games against SA opposition of which they play at least one at home - and if it's the Bulls then it's onother easy game - we know how poorly the Bulls travel. They now also have a larger player pool with Super rugby experience to pick from. But I agree with you, pull it back to 12 teams. I would even suggest have three 4-team conferences who plays each other twice, home and away. The top 2 from each conference goes through to a Top 6, who plays each other once or maybe even twice. They don't play against the one team that was with them in the innitial pool, but carry those points against that team through to the Top 6. Then the top 4 plays the semi's. I haven't done the maths, but I'm sure this could probably give you more games or at least roughly the same, in a shorter time period. But financially for the SANZAR bosses this would probably not make sense.

      selma.botha.9 - 2013-01-25 10:12

      Go back to Super 10. 3 OZ 3 SA 3 NZ 1 ARG. There is too much rugby.

  • - 2013-01-24 22:35

    In general, I'd say this is a bad idea. If they insist on broadening the scope of the competition, why not have regions like asia, america, sanzar and have them play their own super tournament, then at the end of the season, make the winners of each region have a playoff for the ultimate title. Although I don't see where there would be time in the season.

      wayne.vandriel - 2013-01-24 23:08

      Not a bad idea. They could also make it a 2 year tournament. They create a tournament for each region, as normal...we have the S15, a tournament for the Americas, tournament for Asian teams and whatever region also wants to join, for year 1. Then the top 2/3 teams from each tournament can play in a different tournament the following year...with less games involved than the previous year. With the remaining teams playing in a separate tournament in their respective regions...with 2/3 lower ranked teams from each region joining them in that tournament. The top 2/3 in the "2nd ranked tournament" can then qualify for the restart of the original tournament in the third year alongside the top 2/3 teams from year 1. Bit confusing I know... hopefully you get my drift.

      wayne.vandriel - 2013-01-25 11:08

      Guess that idea sucks. Hahahaha

      denese.newby - 2013-01-25 13:02

      Well said,

  • - 2013-01-24 22:46

    While you're at it sommer bring in teams from Japan, China, Kenia & Mauritius the whole shabang the more the merrier awesome...not!

      noeln.petzer - 2013-01-25 08:10

      Actually ... why not? Make Super Rugby Global ... but have a premier division, first division ... as many divisions as you want with promotion and relegation matches ... then all 6 SA teams could play with the Kings starting in a lower division and having to work their way up ... You could have a max of 12 teams in each division so it would be like the S12 was while still giving everyone a chance (even Uzbekistan) ... to get a top rated team into the premier league ... I predict a Japanese club full of NZ professional will dominate ... and I predict that only 3 SA squads will retain their places in the Premier division ...

  • duncan.gill1 - 2013-01-24 23:22

    Would rather see a 2nd tier super rugby tournament featuring the best players in one franchised side from all rugby playing nations not in the top 10 of the world rankings!The winning team of his tournament should occupy a guest slot in the super rugby 1st tier tournament, as we know it today, every following season.

  • jcoetzee1975 - 2013-01-24 23:59

    First setup a proper league system with proper rankings, where you have at least 2 divisions (premier and 1st div), then enforce promotion and relegation rules. Then, if a country's politici meddle in club rugby / quotas etc etc.... ban that team for a season.

  • chrisin.oz.1 - 2013-01-25 00:16

    Yes let the rugby bosses make more and more money. With total disregard to player fitness. As long as this global competition results in less games for the players, I'd be happy. Then include as many teams as you'd like, just kick out the Kings.

  • chrisin.oz.1 - 2013-01-25 00:19

    I suggest a Super Rugby system where teams are grouped into cross-country conferences with one team from each country/region. We do not need the current set-up where too much emphasis is placed on local derbies. We have the Currie Cup for that. At least that way the Bulls fans will never again see their team lose to the Stormers, except if they meet in the knock-out games.

  • shawnappel - 2013-01-25 02:22

    Dilute it down till its just mediocre rugby vs mediocre rugby < Back to Super 10 Quality Rugby every game

  • gerry.pelser - 2013-01-25 03:00

    Super rugby is irrelevant, and has been so for about 5, 6 years. it used to be a "champions league" when it was introduced back in the early 90's, now its just a free-for-all fracas that doesn;t really mean much. IF we go back to a "champion;s league" style, with MAXIMUM 3 teams from each country, then yes, else - super 16 to ebcome what, Super 57 eventually with al teams from all countries playing each other? Hell, Gerry, stop now before you give them ideas and muck up rugby forever!

      christopher.collings.9 - 2013-01-25 03:14

      super rugby is irrelevant u clearly dont know what the hell ur talking about, Idiots like u are not even worth the effort.

      chrisin.oz.1 - 2013-01-25 03:47

      christopher. You should not forget to take your heart medicine. Or are you just stuck in Joburg traffic? Relax, boet, you're going to hurt yourself. Jeez, what an idiot. And by the way, if gerry is not worth the effort, why did you take the effort to answer him?

  • nico.eksteen.7 - 2013-01-25 03:57

    No, in fact the Super series should return to the old format with only 3 or 4 teams each of Aus, NZ and SA competing. This will allow more time for proper CC and tours.

      chrisin.oz.1 - 2013-01-25 04:59

      Nico, you are so right. I just loved the proper tours where the Boks went to NZ or Australia and play against the provincial/state sides and playe three or four tests. Even pure European tours would be great. I can still vaguely remember the tours to France just after re-admission. Those were great. I'd much rather watch tour games than watered down super rugby games.

      nico.eksteen.7 - 2013-01-25 05:40

      Yes, the super series should end during May as in the past. Having tours from the Northern hemisphere is great and can then be expanded to include more tour games. The four nations then played over a single round like the six nations which will give time to tour either NZ, Aus or Arg every year with more tour games and perhaps extra 2 tests against that particular southern hemisphere team for that particular year (or one of them touring here). At the end of the year again proper tour to northern hemisphere playing club sides as well.

      denese.newby - 2013-01-25 13:07

      YES YES!!!

  • tebohopm.joala - 2013-01-25 06:15

    I don't think adding the likes of Canada and US will add any value in terms of competition, instead it will be cumbersome and difficult because of different climate as they are in the northern hemisphere. I think we should consider adding Argentina first and see how it goes.

      chrisin.oz.1 - 2013-01-25 06:39

      There's a lot of money in sport in the US and Canada. They should form their own Super 15-type competition, with big name signings from clubs in Europe especially where I believe a foreign player cap needs to be introduced. This will lift the profile of rugby in North America and improve their standard.

  • mark.booysen - 2013-01-25 07:06

    Wonder if Chippy has his finger in this pie!

  • gary.doyle.520 - 2013-01-25 07:26

    Sanzar just want to sell more tv rights.

  • jeancollinsmulivha - 2013-01-25 07:32

    I think SuperRugby should accommodate SANZAR nations only,if they feel expinding the competion to global,then they must create a new competition which will feature,the world best clubs,provicial team,and franchise,equivalent to FIFA WORLD CLUB CUP

  • josias.smith.7 - 2013-01-25 07:35

    Leave it as it is, we don't need those weaker teams to ruin a contest that works just fine.

  • jeanlouis.naude.1 - 2013-01-25 07:46

    How about a B leauge so to say that runs concurrently with the Super 15. And then promotion/relegation at the end of the season ... Just a thought

  • luna.moon.5243817 - 2013-01-25 07:59

    So, super rugby will change into a mini world cup every year? It will take more than a year to complete all the matches

  • Mandy Casey - 2013-01-25 08:18

    Greed, they just want more money from Tv rights and so forth. ZA does not need 6 teams, for one we don't have 6 competitive strong teams.

      tyron.bains.5 - 2013-01-25 09:13

      MANDY u are so right, that why the LIONS is out.

      louis.bensch.31 - 2013-01-25 10:08

      @Tyron, only for 1 year, we'll be back!!

      tyron.bains.5 - 2013-01-25 12:44


      louis.bensch.31 - 2013-01-28 09:18

      Jip Tyron, I am crying after the Cheetah's game, still crying.......of happiness!!!!!!!

  • joe.massa.92 - 2013-01-25 08:41

    Interesting concept - but would rather see SA teams compete in Northern Hemisphere competitions.

  • tsekere - 2013-01-25 09:22

    A great initiative if the idea is to further develop rugby globally, and of course to maximize profit taking. But the rugby season is already hectic with all the competitions that are in place, especially for the guys involved with their national teams. Not to mention the traveling times to a place like Japan or the USA.

  • francois.cilliers.313 - 2013-01-25 09:33

    I think they've messed up forcing the Lions to start the Lions Challenge. This could pave the way of SA teams to go with the Heineken Cup teams into a new competition. This will have similar time zones and a lot more money. Most of the Superrugby viewers are SA viewers. They could rather include the Top 5 Heineken Cup teams as a new conference. This would be better competition that the small nations.

      jeancollinsmulivha - 2013-01-25 09:41

      Yea! SARU must better,leave SANSAR,to join north hermisphere,before the English and Franch change thier mind

      paul.armstrong.58367 - 2013-01-26 00:22

      Anyone watched a northern hemisphere club game recently? Pretty bland stuff! I for one don't think joining forces with the north would do anything for the quality of South African teams game.

  • louis.bensch.31 - 2013-01-25 10:06


  • graham.barnes.984 - 2013-01-25 10:33

    The only thing Greg Peters sees is $$$.

  • - 2013-01-25 10:59

    4 more teams in GLOBAL rugby.,. Yoooo hoooo .. Ever heard of Super Golf, Super Tennis, super soccer.. NO .. Why? Coz they are already great sports...

  • dwayne.oneill.5 - 2013-01-25 11:32

    bad idea,super 15 is unique and it should stay that way,the tournament is long enough as it is,usa exct should rather join europe

  • Bazzpete - 2013-01-25 15:25

    Then the only games being watched involve existing derby games or games between NZ, Oz & SA teams as the rest of the rugby will be crap!

  • steve.haag1 - 2013-01-25 16:48

    time for sa teams to move to uk big tv bucks and travel considerations

      paul.armstrong.58367 - 2013-01-26 00:14

      .....And really rubbish English club rugby!

  • pages:
  • 1