Iain Payten and Jamie Pandaram reveal their radical solutions to fix Super Rugby mess

A SUPER Rugby “Superbowl”? How about just blowing the competition up? Iain Payten and Jamie Pandaram reveal their radical plans to fix Super Rugby shambles.

A SUPER Rugby “Superbowl”? How about just blowing the competition up? Iain Payten and Jamie Pandaram reveal their radical plans to fix Super Rugby shambles.

JAMIE PANDARAM: SUPER RUGBY NEEDS A SUPERBOWL

A SUPER Rugby Superbowl is the answer to reinvigorate the game in the southern hemisphere.

Enough with having to deal with South African politics, insane travel schedules and inane finals formats.

Whatever decision is made for the Super Rugby structure for 2018 and 2019 will not be the solution for the future.

I believe Super Rugby in 2020 and beyond needs to mirror the NFL with two clear conferences and a huge Superbowl style final to determine the ultimate champion each year.

Split the competition into Super Rugby Tasman (including Japan) and Super Rugby Africa (including Argentina).

But sell the broadcast rights as a package so none of the SANZAAR nations is worse off, and use the Superbowl final as a cash generator unlike any club rugby game in the world.

Ireland ended the All Blacks record win streak at Soldier Field last year.

My proposal means Australia and New Zealand form one conference and play each other. Under this system there will be no conference winners from each country, so if an Australian team fails to finish in the top four of the Tasman conference bad luck, they don’t get a playoff game.

Same applies in the African conference, which can be expanded to include other Currie Cup teams and even beyond to Namibia, Kenya or Uruguay.

Travel costs would be drastically slashed for all involved.

READ ON FOR IAIN PAYTEN’S SUPER RUGBY SOLUTION

To align with the coming global calendar, fewer round robin games will be played to allow for a blockbuster finals.

The conferences will play finals that will generate revenue for the top teams, who get to host them.

The Superbowl is the richest sporting event on the calendar.

Then, the eventual champions from Tasman and Africa battle it out in the Super Rugby Superbowl, a game that should be taken to different grounds around the world to maximise rugby’s audience and the competition’s appeal.

The Superbowl should not have an exclusivity arrangement as part of the broadcast deal, which means it can be onsold to the highest free-to-air network and digital bidders in each country.

PAYTO & PANDA PODCAST: Super Rugby’s expansion plans and round 4 tips and teams

Stadiums across the globe can bid for the spectacle, so you could potentially have this showpiece final at Twickenham or Chicago’s Soldier Field, although every second year it must be played in a city of one of the participating nations.

The two finalists would reap financial windfalls, but a significant amount would also be siphoned back to all participating SANZAAR unions.

This model would mean no regular round games between Tasman and African teams. But look at how that’s working out now.

Twickenham would be another option for a ‘Superbowl’ venue under Jamie Pandaram’s model.

And ask players who are playing from February to December whether they’d appreciate less travel early in the year.

This is a model that delivers more derbies and home games for struggling franchises across the competition and keeps television eyeballs on every local team, every week, because of more fan-friendly time zones.

SILENCE: Australia Super Rugby CEOs go to ground

SA POWERBROKERS: Aussie rugby a super mess

The SANZAAR partnership remains and each nation can still benefit from home and away Tests in The Rugby Championship.

Whether there are 15 or 18 teams next year, Super Rugby will still face the same issues of time zones, travel and fan growth.

The two-conference, Superbowl model is the best way to excite and engage the next generation of sports fans; an opportunity rugby cannot afford to miss.

IAIN PAYTEN: WHY PACIFIC SOLUTION IS THE BEST SOLUTION

IF you squint hard enough, there is one positive to be spied in the hot mess that is the Super (Blank Space) Rugby in 2018.

Look right in behind all the baffling secrecy, the unfair limbo of 120 Australian players from three under-threat franchises (and their many staff), the daily damage it’s doing to the game and accusations the ARU are fiddling while Rome burns.

The positive is all of the above. The positive is the whole ungodly mess.

Why? Because it is overwhelmingly clear SANZAAR is now an unworkable entity and needs to be blown up.

With each wandering turn into nowhere, the Super Rugby review (and expansion before it) has shown that the SANZAAR alliance not only compromises the best interests of Australian rugby, it is now actively damaging it.

A Pacific Island team would be included in Iain Payten’s model.

That feeling has been held for a while in many parts of Australian rugby.

Since 1995, it has always been a tempestuous joint venture but Australia generally walked away from boardroom brawls with desired outcomes.

In recent times Australia has been taking hit after hit on behalf of the alliance.

The ARU agreed to a convoluted expansion despite being told it would damage the local game, and now everyone has woken up to the fact it is damaging, the ARU continues to take hits as SANZAAR dawdles its way through a “process” of fixing it.

SILENCE: Australian Super CEOs go to ground

The SANZAAR alliance has even handed the ARU their fiddles by whacking a cone of silence on the future of Super Rugby and for who-knows how long.

They have a “preferred option” of getting back to 15 teams but because SANZAAR requires a unanimous four-country vote, everyone has to twiddle their thumbs while South Africa consults its stakeholders about cutting two teams.

Why this wasn’t done by SARU before London is anyone’s guess.

Will they cut two? Absolutely anything could still happen and we — and those 120 players — may not have answers until next month.

Remember SANZAAR began the review process last August. It is eight months later and thousands of balls are still in their air.

Why is any of this positive?

Not only should it be obvious to the ARU that SANZAAR’s governance structure is a lead weight to a healthy future, but crucially, it should be now obvious to New Zealand as well.

The Kiwis hold the key to any major change for Australian rugby, and rugby in the region.

A Pacific competition, with Aussies, Kiwis, Pacific Island reps and Japan, seems like a no-brainer.

It would do away with the middle-of-night games and huge travel costs and replace it with an engaging competition all in the same rough time zones and with reliable prime-time content.

The broadcast money would be reduced without South Africa but by slashing costs, and potentially re-engaging a large market of lost rugby fans, officials have estimated a Pacific solution would be financially viable.

Aussie teams can say goodbye to playing in South Africa.

It would have the benefits of allowing Pacific Island talent to stay near home, and earn the decent living they pursue in Europe. The same motivation, you’ll recall, that got Argentina into SANZAAR but without the rumoured $7 million a year all countries pay in travel costs for the Jaguares.

With northern broadcast money topping up the pot — and maybe even FTA interest — a thriving Pacific competition could not only prevent stars from leaving, it could even begin to lure talent from the north.

Yes, the Rugby Championship cash cow would come under some threat by isolating South Africa but see Kerry Packer’s thoughts on everyone having a price.

A Pacific future makes all the sense in the world but under the SANZAAR structure, it’d never happen. South Africa and Argentina have power of veto and turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

To build a sustainable future in this part of the world — without 14-hour plane rides and 3am kick-offs — SANZAAR has to come to an end, and Australia and New Zealand must build their own future.

As your mum used to say, mess doesn’t clean itself up.