'SA's Super 15 deal a joke'
May 28 2009
Former South African Rugby Union (Saru) president Brian van Rooyen has accused his successors of "handing SA's crown jewels on a platter to its Sanzar partners" after agreeing to compromise on the Super 15 deal and described the new agreement as "laughable".
Under the new Sanzar deal South Africa will have their previous percentage of the funds generated cut by 5 per cent from 38 per cent to 33 per cent.
South Africa bring the biggest numbers in TV viewers to the Sanzar deal which justifies the extra 5 per cent revenue share.
This 5 per cent reduction works out at R137 million (£10,6 million) in reduced revenue for South Africa over the next five years - if the deal stays at the same value which is unlikely given the expansion of the Super 14 to a Super 15.
SA Rugby however say that they have never been better off financially as they were able to un bundle the Currie Cup and June Internationals from the deal.
The Sanzar deal will now only include Super Rugby and the Tri-Nations.
In the last deal SA Rugby included the Lions tour and as the next Lions tour will be in Australia they will be able to sell those rights off as they will retain the rights as all rugby outside of Super Rugby and the Tri-Nations is excluded from the Sanzar deal. This alone will be an enormous windfall for Australia given that South Africa has shared the current rights in the currently running deal.
Van Rooyen says that South Africa should have called Australia and New Zealand's bluff following their threats to break away from the Sanzar alliance and form a new trans-Tasman competition with Japan, saying they would never have followed through with it.
"This new deal has cost us R137m and it has buggered up our domestic competition (the Currie Cup), the domestic tours and our rugby calendar," Van Rooyen told Business Day.
"They (Saru's bosses) have no clue what they have done in this deal."
"They have also given up the sixth franchise because Australia has made it clear that they would not allow SA to have it.
"New Zealand and Australia are laughing all the way to the bank."
SA Rugby MD Andy Marinos, however, disagreed with Van Rooyen's views in a statement and said with the domestic rugby rights having been sold to SuperSport, the new Sanzar deal included only the Super Rugby and the TriNations rights.
"Contrary to some ill-informed reports, the manner in which SA Rugby's broadcast rights have now been parcelled and sold has resulted in the organisation being in the best position it has ever been financially, in respect of its television rights," Marinos said.
"SA Rugby was in favour of and agreed to the distribution in three equal parts of the revenues from any future sale of rights to the Sanzar properties of Super Rugby and TriNations as part of the Dublin agreement.
"Previous Sanzar agreements included other domestic South African rugby competitions such as the Currie Cup and Vodacom Cup as well as our June Tests, and the former distribution model reflected that.
"The rights to those properties have already been sold to SuperSport for R700m (£54m, a 100 per cent increase in value) for the period 2011-15. The removal of those properties from the basket of Sanzar properties rendered it inequitable for SA Rugby to continue to receive the largest proportion of the rights fees flowing from Super Rugby and the TriNations alone."
"The reports of a R150m (£11.5m) loss are simply false. The new deal has doubled the value of our domestic rugby and we are in a healthier state."
While Marinos says that South Africa are better off financially there are two facts that cannot be overlooked.
They are -
1.) South Africa still bring the biggest value in viewer numbers to the Sanzar deal which justifies a larger percentage of the deal.
2.) New Zealand like South Africa have retained their rights of their domestic rugby product which they are able to sell on BUT New Zealand picked up an extra percentage point from what was formally South Africa's share. New Zealand gave up nothing extra and had their share increased not decreased like South Africa.
There was no need for South Africa to give up the 5 per cent and for doing so they have received nothing in return.
In return for giving up R137 million (£10.6m) SARugby did not even get a guarantee of the sixth Super 15 team which would be the Southern Kings - who do not have a single fixture that can be confirmed by SA Rugby following their launch match against the British and Irish Lions. What are they actually launching?
Marinos has trumpeted the sale of the rights to the Currie Cup but that deal will surely have repercussions as the deal was done before it was agreed to expand the Super 14 to a Super 15. With the expansion to a Super 15 the Currie Cup will have to be reduced to include six teams in the top level which is a reduced product.
One expects that Supersport will hardly be happy with agreeing to buy a product with a set size and then for the product to be reduced when they get the product.
The Presidents of the Unions who will be cut from the Currie Cup will hardly be happy either.
In addition, it is understood that there is an agreement in the deal that states a minimum amount of participation in the Currie Cup for the Springboks.
If those Springbok players are forced to play in every round of the Super 15 (with extended play offs), June Internationals, Tri-Nations , Currie Cup and the end of year tour, it will not be humanly possible for them to play at their peak for what could be 37 matches in a year. Something has to give and the lowest tier in that list of events is the Currie Cup - they will have to be pulled out of something.
Van Rooyen says the controversial Australian Rugby boss John O'Neill, who was the instigator of the threats to break away from the Super 14, had succeeded in bullying SA into giving in to their demands.
"O'Neill has rescued Australian rugby at the expense of South African rugby," said Van Rooyen.
"When we negotiated the last broadcast deal in 2004, the Australasian unions wanted us to move the Currie Cup and settle for less than the 38% of the revenue.
"But we refused and walked out of the meeting and immediately boarded a plane to Singapore. By the time we arrived there, they had sent a fax saying they accepted our proposal.
"They told us the last time they wouldn't break away because the broadcasters would not sign a contract without SA's participation."
Van Rooyen pointed out that there was plenty of time for SA to reach a more favourable settlement with its Sanzar partners before the June 30 deadline to present the new agreement to the potential broadcasters.
He added that there were options available to SA if Australia and New Zealand decided to form their own competition. One such option was a series involving teams from Argentina and the Pacific Islands.