South Africa’s rugby teams have been waging bloody Super Rugby war for two weeks now but the battles we have seen at Loftus Versfeld, Newlands, Ellis Park and the Free State Stadium will seem like Sunday school picnics compared to what is going to unfold off the field later this month as the country’s administrators fight for the lives of their unions.
At a Saru meeting in January it was agreed that the Southern Kings would be guaranteed inclusion in the 2013 competition.
It was also agreed at that meeting that a resolution on how this was to be facilitated would be deferred to a meeting on March 30, and with no answer having been proffered since then as to how this could happen without one of the existing franchises making the dreaded (and fatal) drop into the Vodacom Cup, sweat is mounting on boardroom brows, and the governing body is irredeemably up S**t Creek without a paddle.
On March 16, a Saru deputation is visiting Sanzar counterparts in Auckland and Sydney in what amounts to one last roll of the dice on persuading their partners to bail them out by agreeing to a sixth SA team.
Sanzar CEO Greg Peters has on a number of occasions claimed that Sanzar’s hands are tied by a television broadcasting deal that locks Super Rugby into a programme of five teams in each of three local conferences for three years. Peters has argued that a 16th team cannot be added at the drop of a hat and suggested that a problem of SA’s creation must be solved in-house.
But SA is not going to go quietly – not when it has the loaded gun in its holster of being the financial heavyweights of the Sanzar deal, raising a massive 73 percent of the broadcasting revenue. This financial clout, by the way, is why New Zealand and Australia invited SA to form Sanzar in the first place, otherwise they would have been quite happy for Sanzar to have remained Anzac (their historic, war-time alliance).
The deputation that is about to depart for the Antipodes has been considerably beefed up by a contingent of CEOs from the affected franchises, and there is some serious rugby intelligence and experience amongst these mostly long serving administrators who know what it requires – and costs! – to run a Super franchise and, it has to be said, know what the horrific ramifications will be if one of their unions is relegated.
If it came to that, the union concerned might as well turn off the lights as they say goodbye to sponsors, television and marketing revenue, and gate money.
Apparently the delegation has a proposal as to how a sixth SA side can be added without disruption to the Aussie and Kiwi conferences, and if Peters & Co still say no, the delegation could whip out that six-shooter and suggest that when it comes to re-negotiation time in 2016, SA – and its TV revenue – will not be at the table and quite possibly in Europe, which is a heck of a lot closer and in just about the same time zone.
But even if it came to that, what would SA do for the next three years? As it stands right now, one of the current teams would have to drop out, and you would expect that it would be the team that finishes bottom of the SA Conference.
But this rationale is fraught with problems and possible contradictions to what the entire exercise is about – transformation and assuaging the concerns of the government. For example, what if the Stormers finish last (unlikely but not impossible)? They are the one union that is fully “transformed”, if you like, given the strength of coloured rugby in the Western Cape. The union regularly produces black Springboks (entirely on merit) and you only have to look at the exceptional turn-out of blacks and whites for every Stormers game to see that this a model union in the eyes of the government.
But if the Stormers were relegated, transformation would take a serious step backwards even if the Kings were coming in, and to take it a step further, how black are the Kings going to be? Will coach Alan Solomons back the emerging talent from Port Elizabeth, East London and George or will he seek to bring back from Europe white former Springboks and Super Rugby players?
Can Saru literally afford for affluent unions like the Bulls and the Sharks to go down – the Sharks for instance, were promoted into the Currie Cup A section in 1987 (after five years in the B section) by a boardroom decision because the Natal Rugby Union was a money-spinner.
The Bulls are an outright powerhouse and nurture countless schoolboy prodigies through their age-group systems.
The Lions are finally emerging from the Dark Ages and the common refrain is that SA rugby has suffered for too long because of the poor standard of rugby emanating from Joburg.
SA rugby needs the Lions to be strong once more. It has been pointed out that the Lions would deserve to go because they have been so appalling in Super Rugby over the last decade (they once suffered 17 consecutive defeats), but this is about what is good for SA rugby going forward, not castigating those who failed in the past.
The Cheetahs? They are the favourites to finish bottom this year but where would the richer unions be without the hand that feeds them? The Free State is a cradle of SA rugby talent – just look at what Grey College produces annually – and the Cheetahs are the transit camp for so many stars of the Sharks, Stormers and Bulls. The Cheetahs might not like it being put that way, but it is fact.
We could produce a telling argument for each of the five unions to remain in Super Rugby, but as things stand right now, one of them is history in 2013. (For the record, the Lions and the Cheetahs have declared extreme unwillingness to resume the unholy alliance that was the Cats).
In short, when that Saru deputation departs later this month, every SA rugby supporter should wish them luck as they wave them good-bye. – The Mercury