Nick Politis said recently that sport is all about passion, not profit. I believe the Sydney Roosters boss makes a valid point, but it's hardly music to the ears of potential investors in a Super 14 franchise.
Private ownership of our rugby sides was first mooted by Gary Flowers, and more recently author Peter Fenton, and John O'Neill decided to pick up the ball and run with it. Hopefully something will come of it all, but it begs the question - what will an owner get back for their 48 per cent investment in a franchise? I suspect not a great deal.
I can't see the ARU or the states letting go their control of the clubs. In effect what they're really looking for is someone who will sponsor the team. The sides already have major naming-rights sponsors, so I think it will be a massive challenge for this idea to move forward.
If ever there was a good test case for private ownership in rugby, then surely it was the now-defunct ARC. You had eight teams that could have been sold off to private owners for a two-month period. It was a great opportunity missed, as I always thought that was what the competition was originally designed for, and could have injected much-needed funds into the game without a cent from the ARU.
Private ownership in the northern hemisphere is very different. Whether it be Andrew Brownsword at Bath, Northampton chairman Keith Barwell, Stade Francais owner Max Guazzini or the consortium that owns Saracens, the owners control the show completely. From the coaches to marketing to the buying of players, the owner is the one who says "yes" or "no". It's their money and they have the final say - an entirely different situation from the one being proposed in Australia.
Over here, the 48 per cent owner will want a big say. The ARU will want a big say. What role, then, for the states?
The other bonus for the northern hemisphere clubs is they own the players for 38 weeks of the year. They loan the players to the national body for the three windows of international competition. There are no central contracts that control the players. An owner in England once said to me: "John, it costs me a couple of million pounds a year - but I love the game, so it ain't that much." I can't imagine anyone over here putting in that sort of money and having no say.
It will be interesting to see what level of control owners can maintain once the franchise system comes in. There's a chance the states could lose some of their rights and the ARU could end up controlling it all.
I definitely see the need for more money in the game. Not only is Australia in need of an injection of cash, New Zealand and South Africa are struggling even more. At the moment the English pound is controlling the show. When it comes to soccer, the best Australian players understandably chase the money on offer in the northern hemisphere. Rugby is heading the same way.
Thankfully, the problem isn't as big for Australia as it is for the All Blacks and Springboks. NZ have just finished their review following the World Cup and they're determined to put more money into the grassroots. They need to, as they have lost so many great players in the last 24 months.
South Africa have their problems too, losing many key players who won them the World Cup. However, it's easier for them, as they play in the same time zone overseas as at home. The good news for Australia is that their player drain will leave us in a strong position for the Tri Nations.
