u/Background_Mode_5460

It’s time to wrap it up, these commentators are terrible, how are they the most dull people in the box. Nisbo is a legend but he is done, Marshall sounds just as bored, let some younger voices take over and make the game sound at least interesting. Compare it to league, who could make the most boring try sound hype, but when a flankers kicks a chip over to a halfback, they couldn’t even commentate for the replays, geniunely washed

TLDR at the bottom

Mind any grammatical errors, I wrote this in between Uni lectures, Please give thoughts and opinions but keep it respectful, Thanks for reading

Over the past few years Super Rugby’s popularity has been on a decline, Teams failing (Rebels and Moana), and less teams maintaining a surplus, and the Force relying on a Billionaire to prop the team (Force currently lose $5 million a year). In the past few years Super Rugby has tried to make a marketing difference to get back into public popularity, hosting concerts, running super round and changing the rules for a better product. There is still one key defining fault with the league which will cause it to stumble into irrelevancy, The lack of fan capture. The number of teams that people can identify with is barely any, when you compare it to the NRL, Sydney has the same amount as all the super rugby teams in NZ and AUS. This captures everybody in a city when you compare it to just the Waratahs, its mainly just inner-city Sydney. Furthermore, when you try to identify with your team, its hard to when you have no connection, it’s genuinely hard to identify a culture to these teams that Fans can get behind. How does someone who is from Auckland connect with the Blues, a team named after a colour. A team who plays in a empty grey behemoth of a stadium, or fans connect with the Waratahs, a team named after a flower which the average person looking in from above doesn’t even know. People can’t identify with these teams, which means these teams don’t get the support they need for the league to be successful. This is also a reason why the Drua is financially the best team in Super Rugby right now, their fans identify with their team the same New Zealand connects with the Wahs, they feel a connection to the team culture.

 

So what can we do to fix this, what is the way to build back domestic rugby in Aus and Nz back to greatness. Unfortunately, I do not believe with the current fan capture, that this league is sustainable, and we must move to split the competition. While yes this is an extremely aggressive and potentially expensive move, it is needed for our domestic survival. In New Zealand’s case, we open 5 new Franchises, a second in Auckland, One in Taranaki, one in Bay of Plenty and a final one in Southland. We need to retarget in smaller communities and build up public support for Rugby Union and increase professional player pathways. To remain as unbiased as possible, I had (and unfortunately) to use AI write a pros and cons list about this proposal

 

Pros

The Pros: Why this could work

• Restoring Tribalism: The current franchise model (Blues, Chiefs, etc.) is often seen as "corporate." Bringing professional rugby back to Taranaki, Bay of Plenty, and Southland taps into deep-seated provincial loyalty. People in New Plymouth or Invercargill are far more likely to fill a stadium for their own "Franchise" than they are to travel or tune in for a distant regional hub.
• Auckland Rivalry: A second Auckland team is a massive untapped commercial opportunity. Most major cities globally (London, Sydney, Melbourne) thrive on "derby" culture. Splitting the 1.7 million population base could create a "South vs. North" or "City vs. West" dynamic that drives ticket sales and broadcast hype.
• Stopping the "Brawn Drain": With five more rosters, you’re adding roughly 150+ professional contracts. This provides a legitimate pathway for the "next tier" of talent who are currently fleeing to the Japanese League One or the NRL before they even hit their prime.
• Broadcasting "Volume": A split competition with more teams means more games per weekend. For a broadcaster like Sky, content volume is king. A purely domestic NZ league with 10 teams (current 5 + your 5) creates a consistent, high-frequency product for the NZ market.

Cons

The Cons: The "Reality Check"

• Dilution of Quality: NZ’s greatest asset is its "best-v-best" intensity. If you spread the current talent pool across 10 teams, the gap between the top (e.g., the Blues/Crusaders) and the bottom (e.g., a fledgling Southland or 2nd Auckland side) could lead to 50-point blowouts. This eventually kills fan engagement.
• The Financial Chasm: NZR is currently navigating a deficit despite record revenues. Setting up a franchise requires massive capital for high-performance hubs, medical staff, and marketing. Taranaki and Southland are great rugby nurseries, but their commercial sponsorship bases are significantly smaller than the current "Big Five" hubs.
• Losing the "Trans-Tasman" Scale: While the Australian teams are struggling, the combined NZ/AU market is more attractive to international sponsors and global broadcasters than a "NZ-only" league. Splitting the competition might make the TV rights less valuable overall, even if there are more games.
• The All Black Preparation Gap: Many argue that the only reason the All Blacks stay at the top is that our domestic players are constantly tested against different styles (like the physical Australian or Pacific Island styles). A purely domestic league risks becoming "incestuous," where everyone plays the same way, potentially softening the national team's edge.

I know this is aggressive, but it also allows us to set up on our own schedule, run different NZ based events like the coveted North Vs South game, give more younger players a shot to become play more regular rugby like they do in France, England and South Africa. We could also set up a Champion’s League style competition with Australia, Japan and South America to prepare ourselves for more international competition. And finally, we can also add a proper draft and trade system which adds offseason hype and keeps super rugby on people’s mind during the offseason. This will also turn eyes to the NPC as the NPC becomes a feeder college football like competition for players.

TL;DR: The "New Deal" for Rugby

• The Problem: Super Rugby is failing because it’s "corporate" and lacks "tribal soul." Fans can't connect with generic colors or flowers; they connect with their own communities and there is not enough teams per area to capture a proper fanbase.
• The Solution: Split the trans-tasman competition and expand the NZ league to 10 domestic franchises (adding a 2nd Auckland team, Taranaki, BOP, and Southland).
• The Mechanics:
  • Domestic Focus: Use these teams to rebuild local support and player pathways.
  • Champions League: A secondary tournament with Australia, Japan, and South America to maintain international standards.
  • The "NFL" Flip: Rebrand the NPC as a "College-style" feeder and introduce a Draft/Trade system to dominate the off-season conversation.
• The Goal: Move away from a struggling regional league and toward a sustainable, high-engagement domestic product that captures the "Wahs-style" magic across the whole country.