All Blacks v Springboks: All Blacks set for record payday from Baltimore test, but at what cost?

What this means is that an initial batch of tickets – believed to be about 40,000 – were released at a fixed price and then a second batch were later sold using algorithmic tools to increase the prices to reflect demand and supply.

The payday is not only bigger than the windfall Chicago delivered last year, but it also feels more illustrative of the power of the All Blacks brand.

It is estimated that last year about 11,000 fans travelled from Ireland, while there is also an enormous Irish diaspora in Chicago and the northeast of the US.

There has been no Irish diaspora to do the heavy lifting this time and the speed at which tickets sold has given NZR heightened confidence that the All Blacks are growing their brand presence and appeal in the US.

The decision to play a fourth RGR test in the US has been highly contentious as it has created a split narrative around the series – about whether it should be considered a three-test clash in South Africa and a one-off game in Baltimore, or a four-test programme as the organisers designed it.

The prevailing view among fans in South Africa was that they had no love for the additional game, but there is at least an appreciation that if the organisers are going to sell the soul of RGR by playing a fourth test in neutral territory, that they have at least got a top price for it.

A near $7m payday is an enormous cash boost and demonstrates how important offshore fixtures have become in growing total revenue.

In 2024 the All Blacks shifted a home fixture against Fiji from Hamilton to San Diego and played England at Twickenham outside of World Rugby’s designated Regulation 9 window in November, taking what was believed to have been a match fee of $5m.

Next year will see the first of three Anzac Day Bledisloe Cup tests in Brisbane (2027, 2028 and 2031), and between gate revenue and state government payments, NZR could be looking at a payday of between $6m-$7m.

These figures are thought to be significantly higher than the returns from playing at Eden Park, which is believed to net NZR between $4m-$4.5m, with the other regular test venues in New Zealand – Wellington, Dunedin and now Christchurch – banking between $2.5m and $3.5m per test.

The near $7m payday is a considerable sum for a single game, but there is still a question mark hanging over the decision as to whether the commercial return has come at the cost of the integrity of the series.

The driver to play a fourth test was to replicate history and the resurrection of an old-school tour to South Africa is all about winding the clock back to let a generation of older fans indulge in a nostalgia trip.

The tours of yesteryear, however, never included an offshore test at a neutral venue and so the best, but still weak narrative, that can be spun on the Baltimore fixture is that it is a modern twist on a classic take.

There is nothing traditional or historically accurate about this fixture and there is a strong and compelling argument to say that the whole thing should have packed up after the third test in Soweto and given the fans the clean ending that the best sporting contests deliver.

Even trying to justify the fourth test on purely commercial grounds is tenuous as the tour delivered a significant return from the South African games.

The picture was distorted to some extent by the empty seats in Durban and for the game against the Lions, but a total of about 315,000 tickets were sold overall.

The financial return on that would have been significant, albeit offset to some extent by the relative weakness of the rand. Still, didn’t NZR make enough out of the tour to call it quits and not force the All Blacks to circumnavigate the globe to play this additional game in Baltimore?

“No it’s not enough because we do have an imperative to make the highest return out of these series or events,” NZR chief executive Steve Lancaster says.

“We have got a lot of ambition commercially and we also know we have got a global fan base that want to see us and engage with us.

“We have got some performance drivers around the team and preparing for 2031 and to familiarise themselves. Across a whole raft of factors being here makes a lot of sense.

“Everyone I have spoken to is excited about the series in its entirety, including this week. It is something different.

“We are giving a whole different group of All Blacks fans and Springboks fans to experience this. I don’t subscribe to the narrative that it is a weird thing, that it is a bolt-on and that doesn’t make any sense. It is a four test series and the All Blacks are down 2-1.”

All Blacks coach Dave Rennie made it clear that he has no feelings of ambiguity about the fourth test.

“My concern is not an exhibition for the US who have got a World Cup here in 2031,” he said.

“It is about us putting in a quality performance to finish off what has been an awesome tour for us learning-wise, culturally and a chance to tie up the series 2-all. It would have been nice to have left South African soil leading 2-1 and you feel like you have won a series on South African soil but that is not an option for us now.

“A win on the weekend and it will be 2-all and I think that would be a pretty good result for us.”

For history buffs, there will be interest in where the All Blacks were staying this week as they chose to base themselves in Washington DC at the Watergate Hotel.

As in the infamous Watergate building complex which was the former headquarters of the Democratic National Committee that former President Richard Nixon sent a rogue team of security operators to bug in 1972.

It was a scandal that would lead to his impeachment and resignation in 1974 and remains to this day one of the great political dramas.

All Blacks manager Paul McLaughlan, who chose the hotel after a recce to Washington and Baltimore earlier in the year, gave the team a history lesson about the building and the impact it had on Nixon.

As much as Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry has enthralled and been a series determined by players producing big actions in little moments, a few of the game’s old and familiar problems have resurfaced generating concern about what might happen at next year’s World Cup.

Top of the list has been the inconsistency of the refereeing across the three tests so far. Mathew Carley, Angus Gardner and Nika Amashukeli have all refereed well – particularly Carley – but they have all refereed their respective tests in vastly different ways.

The chance of inconsistency continues this weekend, with the fourth test in the series to be officiated by a fourth referee, England’s Karl Dickson.

Carley, who had charge of the Ellis Park test, awarded a total of 24 penalties – the highest count of the three referees – but the coaching feedback on him was excellent as he was consistent, clear and set his expectations early in the game by penalising straightforward misdemeanours such as not rolling away and the offside line.

Gardner, one of the best referees in the Southern Hemisphere, took charge of the second test with an entirely different style – managing the breakdown by actively commentating to the players (to leave the ball, to get back on onside etc) and by continually re-setting scrums rather than penalising offending teams.

Amashukeli brought a different style again – direct, bold and authoritative but there were inconsistencies in his decision-making – as South Africa’s replacement tighthead prop Thomas de Toit was penalised in his first scrum after he came on for walking around, while the All Blacks feel Wilko Louw, who started the game at No 3 for the Springboks, was rewarded four times for the same thing.

He, like Gardner, did warn players at breakdowns and manage them through the game.

Much of this is part and parcel of rugby having such complexity in its laws as to be highly interpretative around the collision points.

But the bigger question that is emerging is whether there needs to be an enforced consistency of style for referees – particularly whether officials should be stopped from commentating and pseudo-coaching players.

Some do, some don’t and the argument for doing so is that it leads to a flowing game with fewer penalties.

The argument against it is that it runs contrary to the ethos of the game, enables players to slow ruck speed because they are able to interfere with the ball before they are warned off, and it’s genuinely quite irritating having a running commentary.

No other sport encourages referees to manage players in such a proactive way and given a choice, it’s likely that Rennie would like officials to be told to penalise players that infringe rather than have the officials run a verbal deterrent policy.

“I feel for the referees because it is a really difficult game they are refereeing,” All Blacks assistant coach Mike Blair says.

“You could go through a test match and pick out 20 or 30 times that you could have made a different decision. We respect the fact that it is a really difficult job for the ref at the moment and what we ask is for consistency within that.

“Sometimes they get it bang on and sometimes they don’t and we have to accept that. Our attack is based on our ability to move the ball around and move the opposition around, so the cleaner our breakdowns are the better it is for us.”

Asked specifically whether he is in favour of referees commentating or whether he would like for them to stay quiet and react to what they see, he said: “I think if you are doing something illegal you should be penalised for it”.

It is now a big question for World Rugby to answer – whether they will implement a universal approach to refereeing styles and discourage the active management of breakdowns, scrums and offside lines and simply penalise teams if they infringe and then use penalties as a behaviour changer.

Not for the first time, the All Blacks were perhaps a victim of host broadcaster allegiance in Soweto where there were no replays of potential acts of Springboks foul play and no use of the in-ground big screen to show fans what had happened.

Specifically, there was no replay of the collision that saw All Blacks captain Ardie Savea have his season most likely ended 10 minutes before halftime.

The All Blacks skipper’s shoulder was dislocated when he was hit by Springboks hooker Malcom Marx in a brutal cleanout.

Marx made a legal entry into the ruck and the contact was shoulder to shoulder. But there was no evidence in real time or in the one camera angle shown that he used his arms to wrap – hence the contact appeared to be an illegal shoulder charge.

Shortly before that Jordie Barrett was seemingly hit in the head as he scrambled to cover a Boks grubber kick into the All Blacks 22.

His head whips back as he’s hit by the two South African chasers and he took some time to get to his feet. But the referee had awarded the All Blacks a penalty for a different Springboks infringement, Barrett never queried the contact or asked for a TMO investigation and the tackle was never replayed or put on the big screen.

The match day broadcast editor and the person in charge of the big screen are able to have an unduly significant influence on the outcome of major tests by determining what gets shown and replayed.

Certainly, the big screen content has a massive influence on crowd reaction and the ability to apply pressure on the referee to refer incidents to the TMO.

If the games were being played in New Zealand, host broadcaster Sky would have taken a neutral stance and replayed the incidents.

And again, this is a question to be considered before the World Cup: does rugby need neutral big screen operators and clear and uniform rules about TV coverage and what gets replayed and how often.

Gregor Paul is one of New Zealand’s most respected rugby writers and columnists. He has won multiple awards for journalism and written several books about sport.

Listen to Elliott Smith’s live commentary on Newstalk ZB Sport and iHeartRadio, or join the Alternative Commentary Collective on iHeartRadio and Radio Hauraki.