Rugby: Turning the game upside down

Already, early dispatches on the new era for rugby refer to a longer Super Rugby season (including during the Tri Nations window), more teams and no All Blacks or Super Rugby players in the Air NZ Cup. There appears to be little inclination to be innovative or bold, to reinvent.

It is only 15 years ago that All Blacks were criticised for playing only a handful of club games a year. Frankly, adding more teams, more rugby, more live TV coverage to a market that does not want more is barmy.

The event and entertainment market is considerably more active than in 1995 and New Zealanders have many more choices for their entertainment time and dollar.

In Auckland alone last month, people could go to live performances of Billy Connolly, Coldplay, The Who, Eric Clapton, a New Zealand cricket ODI featuring Sachin Tendulkar and Virender Sehwag, the Warriors in the NRL, the Pasifika Festival, Round the Bays, the Crusty Demons, the Kings of Leon, the Whenuapai Airshow and of course the Blues.

And rugby's answer - more Super Rugby. Are they kidding? Is the thinking so myopic that the answer is more of the same more often?

What should happen?

IN THE context of being innovative, the first thing to do is turn the key principles established in 1995 on their head, to paint a picture of the game based on the opposite of the establishing principles. Let's take the non-negotiables referred to last week:

Instead of giving the broadcaster what they want, sell them what we want, which is less live rugby at a higher rights fee (less is more).

Instead of the All Blacks brand being sacrosanct, our competitions are sacrosanct and all structures, strategies and decisions protect the strength and integrity of our competitions (domestic rugby strength was the foundation of All Black success for the first 100 years or so).

The problem being addressed here is that the All Blacks have gone beyond sacrosanct and have strayed into the realm of total dominance. Maybe this is natural, as the NZRU controls the All Blacks.

But it is only one-third of Sanzar. Switching these priorities will lead to a focus on the competitions and a platform for passionate loyalty to be built at franchise level. In the long run, this increases the revenue to the NZRU through having commercial strength in both the professional competition and the All Blacks.

All Blacks can base themselves where ever they want in New Zealand - if they are good enough to move from Timaru to Christchurch for rugby, fine.

Therefore you do not need regional teams to create the pathway artificially. This has not worked anyway - for example, Norm Maxwell did not stay in Northland when he was a Crusader and countless others moved to the franchise unions.

Instead of having to play in New Zealand to be eligible for the All Blacks, the criteria is simply that you are good enough, no matter where you play.

Instead of the professional competition being positioned as entertainment, reconnect with the roots and culture of representative rugby - a genuine point of difference for rugby.

Also, stop tinkering with the rules. Is it just me or were the rules okay under which Jeff Wilson, Christian Cullen, Andrew Mehrtens, Zinzan Brooke, Frank Bunce, Michael Jones and Ian Jones were able to play attractive rugby? Keep the distinctiveness of rugby.

The regional structure served its purpose to get us through a time of crisis with new revenue streams. Maybe it is time to establish new control structures that do not necessarily have all brands and players owned by the NZRU.

SO HAVING turned the principles upside down, what might the structure of professional rugby look like in New Zealand? Some concepts which emerge include:

Establish different controlling bodies for amateur and professional rugby. There would be formal agreements or deeds that establish the obligations of each to the other including the 'trickle down' we promised in 1995 from professional rugby earnings to the grassroots of the game.

Clearly defined lines between professional and amateur rugby. Sorry, Northland et al but you should not be paying players; take whatever income you have and invest it in club and school rugby. This means the pool of professional players will be smaller - and rugby would be rewarding those who bring in the revenue.

Drop South Africa and have an Australasian professional rugby competition of 12 teams - six each in New Zealand and Australia. This will shorten the competition, lower costs and increase value. You want people wanting more, not swamped with too much. Play from mid-March to the end of May. Spread the talent to ensure an even competition.

Super Rugby has had only four winners since 1996 and one team has been in the final nine times. It has become predictable, patterned. In the same period, eight teams have won the AFL and eight have won the NRL.

So, in those competitions, twice as many franchise communities have experienced the joy of victory and have the memories of their era and the hope of another title.

In New Zealand, the six teams would be the five current provincial unions that manage NZRU franchises - with North Harbour becoming the sixth franchise.

I have an obvious stake in this argument but the facts speak for themselves - Harbour is the fourth largest union by player numbers, has a population of 220,000 (nearly twice Dunedin's) and is growing fast.

Disregard the recent years of Harbour rugby; they dug their own holes but have also been a victim of the franchise system. Consider the pre-franchise years and how many All Blacks they have continued to produce even from the bottom half of the table.

You cannot ignore the demographics and numbers and New Zealand rugby cannot afford to constrain the potential of the large Auckland regional market.

Drop the regional team concept. We need to get back to provincial pride and all that goes with it. The teams would be the provincial union representatives, re-branded with heavy emphasis on the geographic name.

For example the Blues become the Auckland Blues. If a player from Hawkes Bay is good enough, he will find a path to Wellington or Dunedin or wherever, just as they have always done. Do not try to artificially protect Hawkes Bay - their role is at amateur, feeder level.

The professional unions and the new competition would be controlled by a new Australasian executive administration body which would have solid agreements with the ARU and the New Zealand amateur and professional rugby management bodies as to the rights and obligations of each party.

It would not be a political entity like Sanzar. It involves political representatives from national unions - producing territorial thinking which acts as a straitjacket on responding to the marketplace and competition.

Instead of a divided Sanzar, you have a united New Zealand and Australia as they have the same number of teams and the same vested interest in building the best rugby competition in the world.

Package this and sell it to News Ltd on a 'less is more' basis. If they want a piece of the heritage of New Zealand rugby and the All Blacks, of two-time world champions Australia, and the toughest and most attractive rugby in the world, then the NZRU and ARU have to lead them to the vision, the possibilities, the points of difference and the value.

They cannot allow News Ltd and Sky TV to commoditise and devalue rugby in this part of the world by insisting on more and more live coverage.

Follow successful professional sports and ensure controls on live TV coverage so fans are motivated to attend games. And, yes, insist on improved services at venues.

Develop a new amateur representative competition in New Zealand involving the non-professional unions. Be smart about it - you don't need Northland travelling to Southland in round robin play. Call it the NPC. Kick off games at 2.30pm. Players should not be paid.

It will need to be supported in part by the professional administration and competition income. That is good; it creates a dependent relationship both ways.

Play it in September and October. Non-All Black Super 12 players would be available - the distribution of these players would be managed under agreement by the amateur body.

Don't select All Blacks playing overseas, tempting though it is. The risks of the majority of elite players being based overseas are high. Eventually they could choose club over country, just as New Zealand league players in the UK have done for years, as that is where their money comes from.

The All Blacks could be a real B or C team except at World Cup time. Instead, restrict eligibility to New Zealanders playing in the new professional competition.

This would add excitement to the competition and assist with getting 12 competitive teams. It protects the strength of the All Blacks and the amateur and professional competitions.

GOING BACK to 1995, while it was not planned, the NZRU got it right when the game was facing a genuine crisis.

They established some simple principles and created a professional rugby structure which was executed so well that, at its launch in March 1996, it was a success from the start.

There were no consultant reviews, and innovative decisions were made and executed swiftly; lessons were absorbed along the way.

This was driven by crisis. Is the game in crisis now? I hope so.