Andy Capostagno
An end to the Tri-Nations might not be such a bad thing for South African rugby
Just three more years remain of the broadcasting contract between South Africa, New Zealand and Australia Rugby (Sanzar) and Newscorp. It was signed amid much acrimony during the final week of the 1995 World Cup and effectively gave the game of rugby union as it is played in those three countries to Rupert Murdoch to do with as he wished.
The first fruits of the contract were the Tri-Nations tournament and the expansion of the Super 10 to the Super 12 and both products were an immediate success.
The Tri-Nations featured the first three winners of the Rugby World Cup (RWC) providing in-your-face Test rugby, while the Super 12, with less of the pressure of history weighing on players’ shoulders, gave a tantalising glimpse of how the game could and perhaps should be played.
Unfortunately, familiarity has bred contempt. The Sanzar executive that stood together against the perceived conservatism of the northern hemisphere is no more. Gone are the lofty ideals of creating a global season to bring the best of the north together with the best of the south. Gone, too, is the Super 14.
Instead the Sanzar nations are scrapping among themselves, arguing about the structure of the domestic season and who should host the 2003 World Cup. Australian critics with short memories have even questioned whether the game in South Africa is strong enough to compete in either the Tri-Nations or the Super 12.
So what’s going on? Could it be that the Sanzar executive has acquired a technicolor dreamcoat that has enabled them to see past the seven fat years since 1995 to the seven lean ones on the horizon?
It is logical in the continued fallout from September 11 last year to assume that bad times are just around the corner. Crowds are dwindling to the extent that certain Super 12 franchises are running at a loss and inflation-proof items like Test matches are no longer filling stadiums as a matter of course. The unthinkable has happened: the Springboks versus the All Blacks is no longer news.
Consequently the Sanzar executive has fragmented and it has become a dog-eat-dog world again.
Even before New Zealand made such a meal of co-hosting the 2003 Rugby World Cup, Australia had offered the New Zealand Rugby Football Union R50-million for its semi- final.
That deal was presumably on the table prior to New Zealand’s about-turn on the Super 14 at a meeting in London in February. After that meeting Rian Oberholzer, the managing director of SA Rugby, said, “What goes around comes around” and made it clear that South Africa would side with Australia on issues from now on.
The principle issue was that of structuring the season. Because rugby union is only really played in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia’s players were forced into two months of inactivity after the Super 12, leaving them unprepared for the challenges of the Tri-Nations (not that it seems to have done them any harm).
The solution was to move the Tri-Nations forward and play the Super 14 at the end of the season. South Africa were happy to move the Currie Cup to accommodate Australia, but New Zealand were not willing to do likewise with their National Provincial Championship, so they voted against the Super 14.
Consequently, when the RWC shenanigans began last month there was less goodwill from their Sanzar neighbours than the NZRFU was led to expect. As ever the key issue is money. Sanzar has grown fat on the annual windfall from Newscorp and with three years to go can suddenly sniff a change in the wind, and with it the likelihood that their product might be worth less now than it was in 1995. So it’s every man for himself.
Instead of signing a new deal in 2005 to continue the status quo, it’s not impossible that Sanzar will be dissolved so that the three unions can go back to their core business of running the game in their own countries. That would mean a return to the days before the game went professional, scrapping the Tri-Nations and the Super 12 and inviting touring teams to the country on a mutually beneficial basis.
Sacrilegious as that may sound, that’s the way it was for over 100 years and it worked. No Super 12 and no Tri-Nations would certainly solve the dilemma about top players playing too much rugby and it might even provide a much-needed boost for club rugby before that form of the game disappears altogether.
We could go back to hosting the All Blacks once every four years on a three- or four-Test tour, fitting in Australia as and when, thereby recreating the illusion that everything in the garden is rosy. And if that all seems far-fetched, that’s the kind of thought that creeps up when South African teams get thumped every week in the Super 12.