Canada back-row: Jebb Sinclair
Related links
Teams
Also see
SANZAR boss Greg Peters has spoken of Super Rugby considering possibly including new teams from Canada, the USA, Argentina and also Asia in 2016.
Both the Canucks and Eagles were this week named as new competitors in 2013's Pacific Nations Cup, which Peters believes is positive.
And with a call pending on whether to expand Super Rugby when the next broadcast contract begins, the next step may see wider participation.
"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 added though 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.
Comments
JayStarr says...
SANZAR needs to slow down, take a deep breath and remember what has happened to every empire that has ever existed...
There are some critical questions SANZAR needs to ask during these discussions... How big is too big? Where do we want the balance between quantity and quality? To which of these will provincial/club teams from Canada, USA, Argentina and Japan contribute? Because at the moment they resemble a run-away train.
I would love to see these countries get involved in international tournaments and grow as rugby nations (especially Japan and the USA where there is so much potential for the sport). However, we also don't want to devalue the sport by watering down one of the top tournaments with weak teams.
And I'm afraid that is what will happen if we include them in 2016. Because at the moment not even their national squads can compete with the likes of the Crusaders, Chiefs, Stormers, Sharks, etc...
Except for Argentina of course, who will be the only logical inclusion in Super Rugby after their successful inclusion in the Rugby Championship. How they will do this though, with most of their players playing in Europe, and an already unfair conference system, I don't know.
The inclusion of Canada and the USA in the Pacific Cup is the logical next step for those countries at the moment. They simply do not have the club level ability to compete in Super Rugby. Having teams like the Kings, Force and Rebels in Super Rugby is already diluting the quality of the tournament. And having a tournament where all teams are not playing each other is already tarnishing its legitimacy. The last thing we want to end up with is two different divisions... Rather start another competition then.
Super Rugby should remain Super - i.e. the best. And despite what SANZAR might think, bigger is not better.
Posted 20:32 24th January 2013
jmanngod says...
Just NO to this in a big way. Go back to 12 teams in the original format and let those other countries find their own way - The distances to travel are already obscene and NZ already props up the Oz conference as it is.
Posted 19:11 24th January 2013
BokAvenger says...
As usual my comments are censored by Planet Fairyland
Posted 17:52 24th January 2013
GCP_jones says...
@moolooman8...
I've read that rugby is one of the fastest growing sports in the States?. As I said in a previous post, you could have the States and Canada compete in say the Heineken Cup.
Do you not think that if the likes of say Leinster played over there it would'nt generate interest from the media and the paying punters?. With the amount of Irish people living in the States I reckon you could fill Yankee Stadium :-)
Agree with a lot of posters here on the exclusion of Samoa,Tonga and Fiji. After Tonga's and Samoa's performances in the last World Cup and the Novemeber tests they should be in the rugby championship.
Posted 14:53 24th January 2013
KoolJay says...
good and very valid point by moolooman8..totally agree big market to tap into the americas however a lot of important considerations and careful planning need to be administered in order to succeed...
Posted 14:53 24th January 2013
Dan_James says...
Inclusion of Pacific Islanders is always a difficult one, with the small economies of the islands. With the population of people of Pacific Island extraction it would make most sense to hold their games in Auckland or Manukau, but I can't see Australia, Argentina or especially SA agreeing to that! The conspiracy theorists would have a field day!
Posted 14:23 24th January 2013
moolooman8 says...
@fozza - as far as Canada - Vancouver and Toronto are the strongholds of the game, and for the US, I'd have to say California and New York/Boston.
I don't think this would fly at all in North America. Rugby is not even on the landscape when it comes to sports reporting. When the Maori came to Toronto ten years ago, less than 4000 turned out to watch. When Italy came last summer, there wasn't even a mention about it on sports news stations. Rugby will always struggle here.
The only way around it is to start staging big time test matches here and see what kind of crowds they can generate. Hold the third Bledisloe Test in LA or NY. Then entertain the thought of Super Rugby.
Posted 14:00 24th January 2013
passtheball says...
lawynd -- Pacific Island players, NZ born especially, are in the NH now - there's more money and they can play for Samoa / Tonga. Also you need to be aware of the sensitivity to poaching hints about NZ, whether intended or not, as its been decades long, tedious, inaccurate and especially now with the massive hypocrisy of British teams re poaching
The amount of travel by this format suggestion is stupendous - NH fans love the idea but European teams travel all the way to Italy - wow - 2+ hours! Try trips to Sth Africa, SA, Japan, Canada and ... Canada is closer to the 6 nations anyway!
Posted 13:41 24th January 2013
KoolJay says...
shock!!!!!!!!!!!!! still no pacific islanders side...samoa now has at least a good mini competition this year(grateful to SA for that one, still no NZ and Australia involvement...mmmhh wonder why) but what happens after that. Islanders have been voicing their need to field a team in super rugby for ages now and what do they do? answer that with a USA and Canada option, no offence to the eagles and cannucks fans...I simply believe that the Islanders deserve to be recognised and included first....
Posted 12:43 24th January 2013
lawynd says...
@Melkiwi - you misunderstand. I'm referring specifically to Super Rugby, not the national sides. If there were even just a single Pacific Islands team I suspect a number of the franchises might have their noses put out of joint when their squads suddenly thin; of course it could have the same effect up here in Europe, too.
Posted 11:31 24th January 2013
GCP_jones says...
I think the points raised about how much Super rugby teams is a valid one. While its great to see efforts being made to expand the game, you have to consider how much this takes out of the players who are already overly stretched.
I think it would be a good idea if the the unions of Australia and Argentina agreed to co- finance 2 of the super rugby teams say the Western Force and Rebels, with 30 to 40 % of squads made up of player from Argentina?.
This way the Puma's would'nt be playing all year round!
The likes of the USA and Canada could play in a european league as the journey times are about 5 hours if the teams were to be based on the Atlantic/East coast.
Any way as I said its great to see the issue of strengthening the game globally being discussed.
Posted 11:15 24th January 2013
Herbman says...
I don't know how they will pull this off... most people agree that the S15 is already too big.
Posted 10:38 24th January 2013
jontheref says...
Great idea in theory, and let's hope it benefits the emrging nations, and not super rugby's bank balance.
Having a decent league in each of those contries that gets exposure worldwide would be great.
But agree, why no Pacific Islands?
Posted 10:37 24th January 2013
kinkster says...
interesting idea but hard to see how it would work with the likely difference in standard. Maybe a two tier competition with promotion / relegation would be interesting.
Posted 10:34 24th January 2013
Waz4before says...
yes, Yes, YES !!!
This is a great idea (and necessary given NRLs stated international expansion plans) but it will be tough for new countries to adapt but it makes sense on so many levels not least commercially.
Posted 10:26 24th January 2013
Waz4before says...
yes, Yes, YES !!!
This is a great idea (and necessary given NRLs stated international expansion plans) but it will be tough for new countries to adapt but it makes sense on so many levels not least commercially.
Posted 10:26 24th January 2013
lawynd says...
@letsgoboks - if enough teams are in the tournament then it would be perfectly reasonable to have local conferences which feed into a regional tournament instead, sort of a pre-qualifier. In that event it may actually lead to less rugby overall, just spread further.
Posted 10:17 24th January 2013
Melkiwi says...
@Lawynd you should pay a visit to south auckland or porirua and then tell me if nz need to look at the pacific islands for players.
Posted 10:10 24th January 2013
ben7 says...
Definitely a good idea to include argentinian teams as wll as japanese (the japan top league is actually pretty good). They also need a team from the south pacific. Canada are pretty useless at rugby and usa are even worse so i say leave them out.
It then needs to have a pool system like the heineken cup.
Posted 10:06 24th January 2013
letsgoboks says...
I'm not a big fan of this. There is already too much rugby(yes I said that)...
Those teams should set up their own conference.
The simple fact that the kings have been included this year is ridiculous. Good teams thumping weak teams does not make good rugby.
Posted 09:41 24th January 2013