The All Blacks’ tour of South Africa is being marketed as the Greatest Rivalry, but critics argue it’s a commercial venture.
The tour includes midweek games and a four-test series, with a final match in Europe.
New Zealand and South Africa aim to maximise revenue, citing scarcity and novelty as key attractions.
The All Blacks’ tour of South Africa next year will be promoted as the Greatest Rivalry, but such is the naked commercialism of the six-week venture that perhaps a more accurate billing would be the Greediest Rivalry.
The much-anticipated journey to the Republic next year will be anegregious money grab dressed up as a nostalgic romp through a forgotten time.
Both New Zealand and South Africa are gambling that an old-school tour pitting the All Blacks against midweek provincial opposition leading up to a four-test series against the Springboks will enthrall and engage to such an extent that the money will pour in – without any questions being asked about the true motives for the concept, the flawed logistics that have been agreed or the long-term consequences of effectively booting Sanzaar partners Australia and Argentina out of the sandpit every fourth year to do their own thing.
The gamble New Zealand and South Africa are jointly taking is much greater than dabbling in a little lucrative nostalgia: it is effectively driving a massive reset of the Southern Hemisphere landscape.
New Zealand and South Africa have decided that the Southern Hemisphere rugby public are craving a radical change in diet and that unlike their Northern Hemisphere equivalents, they don’t want the certainty that comes with the international season being built around an annual competition that follows the same simple format, is played at the same time every year and features the same teams.
The stability of the Six Nations – its adherence to regularity, tradition and simplicity – has enabled it to become the highest-value competition outside of the World Cup.
Rugby bosses in New Zealand and South Africa hope to grow their international fan base. Photo / Photosport
But the prevailing view in New Zealand and South Africa is that the Rugby Championship – the Southern Hemisphere equivalent – will never be able to build the same following or generate the same value.
It’s not entirely clear why they think that, but the tyranny of geography and the inability to flood venues with travelling fans in the same way the Six Nations can has been cited. The Rugby Championship, they say, won’t ever have the same colour or vibrancy – or carry the same sense of occasion, or weight of history.
There are also separate, meaningful contests within the Rugby Championship – specifically, the Bledisloe Cup – that have longer and more meaningful histories.
They are pushing the argument yet further to say that in stark contrast to the Northern Hemisphere, what the Southern Hemisphere fans want is scarcity and a novelty factor – a varied mix of content and competitions, which is why the next five years in this part of the world will have no consistency outside of the July and November test windows.
Next year, there will be no Rugby Championship as, instead, the All Blacks and Springboks will play their Greatest Rivalry Tour, as they will in 2030 when New Zealand will be the hosts.
In 2027, there will be a full Rugby Championship, as there will be in 2029. But in 2028, the Sanzaar nations have agreed they will operate a touring schedule that will likely see the All Blacks head to Australia or vice versa for a three-test series and a handful of midweek games, and in 2031, there will be a truncated Rugby Championship to accommodate the World Cup.
It’s mix-and-match gone mad, but New Zealand and South Africa insist this is what the people want.
But the real story here is perhaps less about the consumer getting what they want and more about New Zealand and South Africa doing what they think will net them the most cash.
Any attempt to say that commercial imperatives are not the key driver of the Greatest Rivalry concept fall over when the schedule for next year is confirmed, and it unveils that there will be a fourth test – played at a yet-to-be-agreed European venue.
The tour is being marketed under this back-to-the-future theme – the decision to have a four-test series rather than the modern preference for three is a nod to this being a historic re-enactment. Yet after five weeks in the Republic, the whole circus will pack up and have its finale on neutral soil (London has been touted but it’s probably going to be in mainland Europe somewhere – possibly Paris).
New Zealand Rugby (NZR) says this is because both countries believe they have a compelling rivalry and the requisite individual brand power to sell out foreign stadiums and win new fans.
But the more persuasive argument is that the Greatest Rivalry has been agreed under a 50:50 revenue-sharing model and the prospect of what will likely be an additional $20 million of gate revenue going into the total revenue pot is why the fourth test is going to be played outside of South Africa.
Declining broadcast revenues mean rugby bosses must look elsewhere for funding. Photo / NZ Herald
South Africa has a burgeoning middle class, but there are obviously concerns about the ability to sell out four tests in the Republic at inflated prices, while the chronic weakness of the rand devalues the worth of gate revenue once it is converted into New Zealand dollars – hence the desire to sell a fourth test to a different, wealthier fan base paying in a higher value currency.
And perhaps too this failure to win an improved fee from Sky illustrates that the Greatest Rivalry tour is potentially guilty of overreach – as the whole premise is contingent on broadcasters, sponsors and fans seeing the All Blacks and Springboks as easily the two most superior rugby brands on the planet.
The narrative carries undertones of Australia and Argentina not being worthy adversaries and yet the former enjoyed a much-deserved and famous victory at Ellis Park in the opening Rugby Championship round, and the latter beat the All Blacks last week.
New Zealand and South Africa think they have something no one else does – and perhaps they are right.
But there is a double danger that both are trading off past rather than current reputations and that, long-term, it’s impossible to build a high-value international calendar on the concepts of scarcity and novelty.
