Australian rugby's cash crisis bad news for New Zealand
TONY SMITH
Last updated 12:22, April 12 2016
OPINION: It's tempting to put the boot into Australian rugby when it's down but we shouldn't be gloating.
The ARU's financial woes could have ramifications for the entire Super Rugby competition.
Australian Rugby Union chief executive Bill Pulver has just announced a $10.8m loss for 2015.
The ARU have haemorrhaged almost $35m since 2011.
They've only been in the black once since then - in 2013 when the British and Irish Lions tour led to a $21.6m profit.
The Australians are paying the price for propping up the Melbourne Rebels franchise.
It's a tough job trying to make a buck in the Melbourne sporting market where AFL reigns supreme, the Melbourne Storm have created a niche and the two A-League football franchises attract significant support.
Last year the ARU had to pump in $6 million to keep the Rebels afloat - up from $3.6 million in 2014.
National rugby unions always budgeted for reduced revenue in Rugby World Cup years so the ARU's 2015 deficit was hardly a shock.
Pulver had warned in October 2014 it could run out of cash in 2015 and technically be insolvent.
But, by contrast, New Zealand Rugby (NZR) managed to make a modest $373,000 profit in 2015, down 86 per cent on their $2.5 million surplus the year before.
NZR has the advantage of number one sport status, albeit in a smaller market than Australia, but it also struggled to balance the books between 2008 and 2012 when consecutive losses were posted.
Australian rugby is battling to match AFL, rugby league and the A-League for public support, a situation not helped by the fact Super Rugby matches and games in the weak Australian Rugby
Competition state championship have been broadcast exclusively on pay television.
Pulver is basically doing his best "don't panic" impression by stating the new Super Rugby broadcasting deal will inject another $37.6 million a year into Australian rugby between 2016 and 2020.
That should be enough to balance the books, but Australia needs to seed its grassroots by building stronger foundations at club level and improving its national rugby competition, which is a pale shadow of South Africa's or New Zealand's.
It's not that long ago that the ARU billed its grassroots clubs teams $200 a pop to extricate itself from the mire so it owes the amateur arm of the game.
Over the years the ARU have done a sterling job in retaining its top talent.
Fewer Australians than Kiwis seem to seek fame and fortune overseas, perhaps because there's been lots of loot at home (journeyman Wallaby Quade Cooper was reportedly earning $A800,000 a year before his move to Toulon).
But lifestyle has also been a factor. Who in their right mind would want to swap Sydney or Brisbane for the a season slogging through English mud?
But the trickle of talent overseas could turn into a flood if the ARU have to find more savings.
They've already reduced test match payments from $A13,000 per game to $A10,000, but have still managed to dig deep enough to keep world class backrower David Pocock through to the 2019 Rugby World Cup.
But if there's less money available at home, the more mercenary minded Australian players might be increasingly tempted to join Top 14 clubs in France or cashed-up outfits in Japan.
Why should Kiwis care? Basically, because when Australian rugby is strong, New Zealand rugby is even stronger.
Australia struggles to field five Super Rugby teams now. What would it be like if they lose more top men overseas?
Weaker Australian teams would impact on the standard of the Australasian conference, which is head and shoulders better than the South African equivalents.
Would Kiwi fans still flock to our stadiums to watch the Waratahs without the likes of Israel Folau or a Brumbies side missing its top men?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/o...ys-cash-crisis
