Keohane noted that the overwhelming enthusiasm for the All Blacks confirms the global appeal of their brand. Nonetheless, he argued fans felt the pinch with pricy tickets to watch matches against URC clubs, which fielded understrength line-ups in the pre-season phase. Over 40 Springboks were absent, affecting the competitive balance while the All Blacks focused on building their team chemistry for upcoming tests.
The attendance figures are telling: Cape Town drew a crowd of 47,000 for the Stormers match, Durban saw 14,000 brave cold, wet weather against the Sharks, and 30,000 fans turned up at Loftus Versfeld to watch the Bulls play. "These are proper numbers, given the extreme ticket pricing and the tour schedule," Keohane remarked, suggesting the All Blacks' draw but questioning the match arrangements.
One of the more controversial decisions was to hold a fourth test in Baltimore, USA. Keohane strongly opposed this, suggesting it undermined the series' integrity.
"The series should have been a three-Test series in South Africa, with the winner determined in South Africa,"he argued, indicating that the added U.S. fixture seemed more a financial maneuver than a competitive necessity.
The Baltimore match, according to Keohane, could have served a better purpose as an exhibition to show off each team's depth rather than as a crucial part of the test series. This view underscores a broader sentiment that the series configuration was more about revenue than rugby.
Reinforcing this point, Keohane suggested that the tour games should be accessible to the broader rugby-loving public, especially those who cannot afford the steep prices of test match tickets. The high costs and the strategic choices made for the tour locations and formats have sparked debate about the priorities of those organizing such international events.
The article concludes by reflecting on how traditional tours can indeed revitalize interest and engagement in rugby, but stakeholders must balance commercial and fan-centric considerations more effectively. Keohane's critique invites a reevaluation of how rugby's big games are packaged and sold to the global community.
