Super Rugby

Super 6

After the demise of the South Pacific Championship, with no tournament played in 1991, the competition was relaunched as the Super 6 in 1992. The competition included three provincial teams from New Zealand: Auckland, Canterbury, Wellington; along with two Australian state teams: Queensland and New South Wales; and also the Fiji national team.

Super 10

In 1993, the Super Six competition was revamped and expanded into the Super 10 tournament. With South Africa being readmitted into international sport following the dismantling of apartheid, there was an opportunity to launch an expanded competition which would also feature South Africa's top provincial teams. The inaugural competition featured the following teams: Waikato, Auckland, Otago and North Harbour (New Zealand); Natal, Northern Transvaal and Transvaal (South Africa); Queensland and New South Wales (Australia) and Western Samoa (Pacific Tri-Nations winner). The Super 10 was won by Transvaal (South Africa) in 1993, and by Queensland (Australia) in 1994 and 1995.

Super 12 (1995–2005)

The official declaration of professionalism in rugby union in August 1995 led to a restructuring of the Super 10 competition. Following the success of the 1995 World Cup, the rugby boards of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa formed SANZAR (South African, New Zealand and Australian Rugby) to administer an annual 12-team provincial/franchise based competition pitting regional teams from the three nations against each other. In addition it was decided to hold an annual Tri-Nations Test Series between the three countries. A significant reason for the development of the Super 12 was the threat to rugby union from rival football code rugby league: part of the business model for the Foxtel pay TV network in Australia was to attract subscribers by offering an exclusive product (such as rugby union) which could not be seen on free-to-air broadcast television. By setting up the Super 12, the Unions had a product that was in demand from viewers, enabling them to sell a 10-year contract for exclusive television rights to News Corp for US$555 million, giving them both coverage and financial support to kickstart the new competition.^[11]

With significant sponsorship, and rugby turning a professional sport in August 1995, the Super 12 competition successfully kicked off in 1996 with five New Zealand franchises, four South African provinces and three domestic Australian teams competing. New Zealand's dominance of the competition began in the first year when the Auckland Blues won the inaugural competition defeating South African side the Sharks 45–21 in a home final. The Blues would repeat the success of 1996 beating Australian side the ACT Brumbies 23–7 in the 1997 final.

The Blues then reached their third successive final in 1998 but went down to fellow countrymen the Canterbury Crusaders 13–20. This would mark the beginning of the Crusaders' three-year dominance as they went on to win the 1999 and 2000 finals over the Otago Highlanders and ACT Brumbies respectively. The 2001 season was the first in which no New Zealand franchise reached the final, being contested between the ACT Brumbies and Sharks with the Brumbies convincing winners, with a 36–6 score line.

The Crusaders won their 4th final in 2002 winning all 11 matches and missed out on their 5th in 2003 with a four-point loss to fellow countrymen the Blues. In 2004 the Brumbies took revenge on their 2000 final loss to the Crusaders defeating them 47–38 in front of a home crowd. The Crusaders would bounce back to win the 2005 final 35–25 against the Australian side the New South Wales Waratahs who reached their first-ever final. This was the last year of the 12 team format.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) had been pushing for a fourth Australian team to enter the competition, based in either Melbourne or Perth. News reports also alluded to a potential format re-structuring alongside expansion, to a 20-team competition.^[12] In early 2000, the ARU moved to quash a prospective joint bid for a new Australian Super 12 franchise, which had proposed to stage matches across both Melbourne and Perth by the unions in their respective states.^[13] The ARU stated that it preferred a potential new Australian team to be based in one capital city.^[13] Expansion into Australia at this time was viewed favourably by the South African Rugby Union (SARU), whereas New Zealand Rugby (NZR) was firmly against.^[13] Western Sydney later became a location for potential expansion, with three major rugby league clubs in the National Rugby League (Parramatta Eels, Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs, Penrith Panthers) aiming to be financial partners in a fourth Australian franchise.^[14][15] Any expansion plans were not expected to take place until at least 2003,^[16] with a fifth South African team also possible. On 11 December 2004, the Perth-based Western Force were admitted into the competition as a new franchise after receiving the endorsement of the ARU over a Melbourne-based franchise bid.^[17][18] In April the following year, the Bloemfontein-based Cheetahs were announced as the fifth South African franchise to join the competition.^[19] The Cheetahs, composed of the Free State, Griqualand West and Griffons Rugby Unions, were awarded the franchise ahead of the Southern and Eastern Cape delegation, which had the support of the South African Sports Minister Makhenkesi Stofile.^[19] Both new franchises were admitted into the competition in the 2006 season.^[19]

Super 14 (2006–2010)

SANZAR announced in December 2004 that a new five-year television deal had been signed that would cover 2006 to 2010, with News Corporation winning the rights for the UK, Australia and New Zealand, and SuperSport winning rights for South Africa. The contract was worth US$323 million over five years, a 16% annual increase compared to the previous deal.^[11] It covers international fixtures as well as the Super 14. SANZAR remained free to negotiate separate deals for other markets, such as France, Japan and the Americas.

Under the new deal, Australia and South Africa each got one extra team in the competition, and a third round of fixtures was added to the Tri Nations Series. The new Australian team in the competition was based in Perth and was named the Western Force.

The addition of the new South African team led to considerable controversy, including government involvement. Finally, the five teams for 2006 were confirmed to be the country's existing four teams plus the Cheetahs, which draws its players from the Free State and Northern Cape Provinces. For the 2007 season, the Southern Spears, based in Port Elizabeth, were originally intended to replace the lowest-finishing South African team from the 2006 competition. However, the existing South African Super 14 franchises opposed the plan, which was pushed through by controversial president of the South African Rugby Union, Brian van Rooyen. After van Rooyen was ousted as president, SARU announced that the Spears would not enter the competition.^[20] SARU investigated the viability of the Spears after discovering serious financial irregularities.^[21] A High Court of South Africa ruling stated that the Spears had a valid contract to compete in the Super 14 and Currie Cup. However, because of the organisation's financial and administrative troubles, in November 2006 a settlement was reached. The Spears abandoned their legal case, and will continue to exist, but not compete in the Super 14.^[22]

SANZAR rejected a proposal to split the Super 14 into two seven-team divisions, and decided to keep the competition in its traditional single-table format. Argentina and the Pacific Islands remained shut out of the competition.

The two new teams did not perform all that well, the South African franchise the Cheetahs did the better of the two teams finishing 10th on the ladder notching up 5 season wins. The Australian franchise the Western Force only managed one victory and ended winning the wooden spoon as last placed 14th. The highlight for the Force was a 23-all draw against eventual champions the Crusaders, who defeated first-time finalists the Hurricanes 19–12.

During the 2007 season, 22 All Blacks missed the competition's first seven rounds as part of an All Black "conditioning programme" that was a part of the All Blacks' 2007 Rugby World Cup preparations, and every New Zealand franchise was without players for the first seven rounds.^[23][24][25] At the end of the regular season, for the first time since 1998, no Australian franchise had made the semi-finals. Although the Brumbies were strong and the Western Force experienced vast improvement, it was a poor season for the Queensland Reds and Waratahs who finished last and second last respectively. Also, the competition featured the first all-South African final as the Sharks and Bulls, who finished 1–2 on the season ladder, both won their respective semi-finals. The final, held in Durban, saw the visiting Bulls win 20–19.

During the time the competition was branded as the Super 14, only two teams won the tournament. The Crusaders winning the 2006 and 2008 tournaments; while the Bulls ended victorious in 2007, 2009, and 2010 respectively.

Super Rugby: 15 teams (2011–2015)

SANZAR unveiled in 2009 its model for an expanded season that would begin in 2011. This model was based around the original ARU proposal for three national conferences: each side were to have played the other four teams from their own country twice and the other ten teams once each; the season has to end with a six-team finals series.

There were four major compromises, however, designed to accommodate certain wishes of each country, that somewhat complicated the model:

• Each team would only play four, instead of all five, teams in each of the other two national conferences, making sixteen regular season games for each team instead of eighteen, and allowing for a late February start, somewhat placating the ARU and NZRU who wanted a March start.
• There would be a three-week gap for the June test (international) matches favoured by the SARU.
• The season would finish in early August so as not to overlap new streamlined versions of New Zealand's and South Africa's domestic competitions.
• The three conference winners and the three best performers of the remaining teams would qualify for a three-week finals series, with seedings deciding the match-ups. This system is a hybrid of the conference-based qualification system favoured by the SARU and the 'top six' model favoured by the ARU and NZRU.

SANZAR announced in 2009 the addition of a fifth Australian team that would play in the expanded "Super Rugby" competition in 2011. The licence was awarded to Victoria, Australia, and the team's name announced as the Melbourne Rebels. The Australian start-up franchise was given the nod ahead of South Africa's Southern Kings.^[26] Brian Waldron, former CEO of the NRL club the Melbourne Storm, was confirmed as the new CEO of the Rebels on 11 January 2010, but resigned on 23 April after a salary cap breach was uncovered at the Storm.^[27]

Expansion: 18 teams (2016–2017)

In February 2012, SANZAR chief executive Greg Peters announced that the organisation was considering adding franchises in Argentina, Japan and the United States in 2016, the first year of SANZAR's next television contract. This was also the year that rugby sevens entered the Olympics, which contributed towards increased interest in the sport in many countries, including Japan and the US.^[28]

Australian sports broadcasting analyst Colin Smith noted that the addition of Japanese and American teams could result in a TV deal worth more than A$1 billion beyond 2020. Specifically, he stated, "You could have a deal comparable to the other major sports in Australia. Rugby is a college (university) sport in the US, if soccer can create its own league there and sell teams for $40 million, imagine what you could do in 10–12 years with rugby in that market."^[28] By comparison, the largest TV deal in Australian sport, that of the Australian Football League (Australian rules), is worth A$1.26 billion from 2012 to 2016. Even that figure was dwarfed by the TV contracts of the NFL, for which contracts at the time were worth more than US$4 billion annually.^[29]

Peters added that the conference-based structure was ideal for expanding the competition to new territories, either by adding new conferences or by adding teams to the current conferences. He also discussed the possibility that offshore Super Rugby teams could be a home for surplus players from the SANZAR countries, keeping them in the SANZAR fold and away from European clubs.^[30]

Prior to Super Rugby's broadcast contracts expiring after the 2015 season, SANZAR considered several alternatives for the competition's future organisation: ^[31]

• Retention of the conference system that was in place for 2011–15.
• Expansion of the structure to include teams from Asia, the United States and/or Canada.^[32]
• A split of the competition, with South Africa forming one competition with the likely addition of at least one Argentine side, and Australia and New Zealand forming another, with the possibility of including Asian teams.

The last proposal, made by the SARU, was reportedly driven by internal union politics. With only five guaranteed places in Super Rugby but six active franchises, the bottom team in the South African Conference faced a promotion/relegation playoff with the sixth franchise for a place in the next season's competition. Australia and New Zealand warmed to the SARU proposal, as a trans-Tasman competition would potentially allow for more regional derbies, fewer time zone complications and less player travel.^[31] However, NZRU chief executive Steve Tew indicated that a competition that did not include South African teams was a commercial non-starter because of large broadcast revenues from that country and because the NZRU considered Super Rugby matches in South Africa to be critical for national team development.^[32]

SANZAR announced on 4 September 2013 that South Africa would be granted a sixth franchise starting in the 2016 season, negating the need for relegation play-offs involving the sixth South African franchise.^[33] SANZAR then announced on 20 November 2014 that Japan and Argentina would each be allocated a team from the 2016 season onwards.^[34]

In 2017, the Australian Rugby Union was rebranded to Rugby Australia.^[35]

Contraction: 15 teams (2018–2020)

In April 2017, SANZAAR confirmed the competition would be reduced to 15 teams in 2018 with two South African and one Australian team to have their franchises withdrawn.^[36] Subsequently, four South African teams took part: the Bulls, Lions, Sharks and Stormers, with the Cheetahs and Kings losing their spots. The Cheetahs and Kings joined the Pro 12, which became the Pro14 from the 2017–2018 season onwards.^[37] On 11 August 2017, Australia announced that the Western Force had lost their licence.^[38] On 21 March 2019, SANZAAR confirmed that 2020 will be the Sunwolves' last season of competition in Super Rugby.^[39]

COVID-19: Regionalisation (2020–2021)

Super Rugby Aotearoa

Super Rugby AU

Super Rugby Unlocked

The COVID-19 pandemic caused the 2020 Super Rugby season competition to be cut short. As health concerns eased, other professional sports returned to play. The Super Rugby season was unable to be resumed, however, due to border restrictions and the need for teams to be placed into quarantine upon arrival in each country. This resulted in New Zealand Rugby and Rugby Australia forming their own domestic Super Rugby competitions starting in June and July 2020 respectively.^[40][41] Although both Australia and New Zealand's five franchise teams all played in their respective competitions, Rugby Australia had reportedly worked with the Japan-based Sunwolves on their potential involvement in the Super Rugby AU competition before eventually scratching the proposal as the COVID-19 regulations made it too difficult.^[42][43] South African Rugby subsequently launched its own domestic competition known as Super Rugby Unlocked, which started play in October 2020.^[44]

The three competitions formed were:

• Super Rugby Aotearoa (5 teams, New Zealand)^[40]
• Super Rugby AU (5 teams, Australia)^[41]
• Super Rugby Unlocked (7 teams, South Africa)^[44]

Super Rugby Aotearoa featured all five New Zealand teams from Super Rugby: the Blues, Chiefs, Crusaders, Highlanders and Hurricanes.^[40] Super Rugby AU included Australia's four teams, the Reds, Waratahs, Brumbies and Rebels, as well as their former Super Rugby franchise, the Western Force.^[41] The Force had continued as a franchise after their 2017 post-season exclusion from Super Rugby and were playing in the Global Rapid Rugby, which had also been suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Australian and New Zealand competitions each scheduled a 20-game home-and-away season in 2020 but Super Rugby AU played two additional knockout matches to decide the Australian title.^[41]

Super Rugby Unlocked featured South Africa's four Super Rugby teams (the Bulls, Lions, Sharks and Stormers) plus former franchise the Cheetahs as well as two invited Currie Cup teams: Griquas and Pumas. These seven teams competed in a single round-robin domestic format in 2020.^[44][45]

In September 2020, SA Rugby announced the withdrawal of all their teams from the Super Rugby, with plans for the four franchises to join an expanded Pro14/United Rugby Championship competition in Europe.^[46] Super Rugby Aotearoa and Super Rugby AU continued in 2021,^[47][48] with both franchises competing in a crossover competition in the Super Rugby Trans-Tasman in May to June of that year.^[49]

Super Rugby Pacific (2022–present)

In the aftermath of the pandemic, a 12-team competition was proposed, featuring five Australian, five New Zealand sides and two Pacific-based teams.^[6][50] In April 2021, it was announced that two licences had been offered to the Fijian Drua and Moana Pasifika ahead of the 2022 season.^[51] The new format was confirmed in August 2021, with the new competition branded as the Super Rugby Pacific. With the newly established league featuring 12 teams across the South Pacific region, the former conference system that had been in place since 2011 was dissolved and replaced with a round-robin tournament.^[52]

In 2024, the Melbourne Rebels, following a period of financial difficulties and being placed into administration, were shut down by Rugby Australia.^[53] The Rebels board challenged the decision to cut the team and took Rugby Australia to court (which is still ongoing as of 25 April 2026).^[54][55] The Rebels did not take part in the 2025 Super Rugby Pacific season, reducing Australia to four teams once again.^[56]

In 2025, talks of expansion were mentioned in both the Australian^[57] and New Zealand^[58] press after World Rugby Chairman Brett Robinson met officials in the United States about the possibility of including an American team in the competition.^[59] Australian sports news website, The Roar, wrote: "At the heart of World Rugby's interest in the expansion is to ensure the United States has a competitive national side by the time the 2031 Rugby World Cup moves to the Americas for the first time. It comes after the USA Eagles missed qualification for the first time in 2023 – five years after Major League Rugby started in 2018."^[59] Nothing eventuated from this however.

In April 2026, after the conclusion of the ninth round of the 2026 season, Moana Pasifika announced they would disband at the end of the season due to ongoing financial and operational challenges.^[60][61][62] The team, which was reportedly in millions of dollars in debt,^[63] had an estimated annual operating cost of NZ$7 million.^[61] Moana Pasifika would become the second Super Rugby team in three years to be folded after Australia's Melbourne Rebels franchise was axed in 2024.^[64] The team's dissolution meant the Super Rugby Pacific would be reduced to ten teams from 2027, the lowest since the Super 10 era in the early 1990s.^[65] The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian posited that this development could pave the way for the introduction of a comprehensive eighteen-round, home-and-away format, alongside a relaxation of Trans-Tasman player eligibility restrictions between Australian and New Zealand franchises.^[65][66] The former proposal was reportedly well received among some franchise bosses, with the latter proposal being more interested by broadcasters.^[65]

Australian rivalries

"Rod Macqueen Cup" – ACT Brumbies v Queensland Reds
Despite only being established in 1996, at the beginning of the Super Rugby, the rivalry between the ACT Brumbies and Queensland Reds has become the most prominent Australian derby.^[67][68][69] From 1996 to 2010, the Brumbies held a record of 15–1 against the Reds.^[68] By 2024, the record was 16–12, and included matches in the 2020 Super Rugby AU Grand Final and the 2021 Super Rugby AU Grand Final.^[70] As of 2024 the Reds are the Brumbies' most played opponent.^[71] No official name exists between the teams' fixture.

"Dan Vickerman Cup" – ACT Brumbies v New South Wales Waratahs
The rivalry between the Brumbies and the Waratahs began in 1996 following the establishment of the former in the capital city of Canberra.^[72][73][74] It has also been called the fiercest rivalry in Australian rugby.^[73] In 2017 the contest was named in honour of Dan Vickerman (1979–2017),^[75] a former Australia international whom represented both teams during his career.

"Templeton Cup" – New South Wales Waratahs v Queensland Reds
Although there is no official name for the rivalry between the two teams, it has labelled the "Battle of the Border"^[76][77] and the "State of the Union" at various points in the professional era.^[78][79][80] The rivalry is the oldest and most contested in the Southern Hemisphere, dating back to 1882 when both teams represented neighbouring self-governing colonies of the British Empire.^[81][82] A similar rivalry exists between New South Wales and the Queensland in the sport of rugby league, and is known as the State of Origin series. Since 2000, the two teams compete annually for the Templeton Cup.

New Zealand rivalries

"Battle of the Bombays" – Blues v Chiefs
Originating in New Zealand's provincial rugby, the "Battle of the Bombays" refers to the rivalry between Auckland and Waikato.^[83] The origins for the rivalry and naming originate from historic Māori battles between the Tainui and Ngāti Whātua iwi.^[83] The naming has subsequently been used to refer to the Super Rugby rivalry between the Blues and Chiefs, whom makeup the franchise areas of Auckland and Waikato.^{[84][85][86][87]} "Bombays" denotes the Bombay Hills, the border between the Auckland and the Waikato regions.^[83]

"Gordon Hunter Memorial Trophy" – Blues v Highlanders
Despite not being a traditional rivalry, the Blues and Highlanders compete annually for a challenge cup known as the Gordon Hunter Memorial Trophy.^[88] Geographically, the Blues are the northernmost team in New Zealand, while the Highlanders are the southernmost. The trophy is typically played once per year or once every two years, as it is only contested when the holder plays at home.^[89]

"Southern Rivalry" / "Battle of the South" – Crusaders v Highlanders
As the only Super Rugby teams located on the South Island of New Zealand, the rivalry between the Christchurch-based Crusaders and the Dunedin-based Highlanders is often referred to as the "Southern Rivalry"^[d] or the "Battle of the South [Island]".^{[90][92][93][94][95]} Both teams' franchise areas neighbour one another, with the Crusaders being located within the northern half of the South Island (Canterbury, West Coast, Tasman, Nelson, Marlborough) and the Highlanders making up the southern half (Otago, Southland). The rivalry has been heavily one-sided in favour of the 12-time Super Rugby champions, the Crusaders. As of 2025 the Crusaders hold a win percentage above 70% against the Highlanders.^[96]

"Traditional Rivalry" – Blues v Crusaders
Labelled as the "biggest rivalry in Super Rugby",^[97] the contest between the Blues of Auckland and the Crusaders of Canterbury became the most prominent rivalry in New Zealand in the early years of the Super Rugby.^{[98][99][100][101]} Having carried over from the provincial sides' rivalry (Auckland, Canterbury) between the 1980s and 90s,^[99] the two teams met each other twice in the new competitions Grand Final within the first decade, the most of any two teams from the same union. Beginning in the 2010s, the Crusaders became a powerhouse team in the Super Rugby, while the Blues were frequently the worst-performing New Zealand team. Between 2004 to 2014, the Crusaders won three titles and made six Grand Final appearances, while the Blues made just two finals appearances, and did not make a single Grand Final. This led to The New Zealand Herald asking: "does this rivalry still stack up?"^[99] Overall, the Crusaders hold a 70% win ratio against the Blues as of 2025.^[102]

Defunct rivalries

"Ganbatte Trophy" – Melbourne Rebels v Sunwolves
Although not formally declared, or cited, as a rivalry, the Rebels shared a competitive relationship with the Japanese Sunwolves during there period in the Super Rugby. Beginning in 2016, the Rebels and Sunwolves contested for the Ganbatte Trophy.^{[103][104][105]} The Rebels were notably the first Australasian Super Rugby team to match up against the Sunwolves.^[103][106] With the Rebels winning all but one of the six contested fixtures, the trophy was stated as being an initiative that would strengthen both teams' relationship and provide a "strong reference point of what all players from both sides should strive for in the future."^[103]

"Weary Dunlop Shield" – Melbourne Rebels v New South Wales Waratahs
The former rivalry^{[107][108][109]} between the Melbourne-based Rebels and the Waratahs was established in 2011 after the former joined the competition.^[110] The one-sided fixture, which ceased at the end of the 2024 season, centered around the Weary Dunlop Shield. The Weary Dunlop Shield was named after Sir Edward "Weary" Dunlop (1907–1993), a distinguished Australian surgeon, World War II veteran, and the first Victorian-born player to represent Australia in rugby union.^[111]

Single match

• Highest score: 96 points – Crusaders defeated Waratahs 96–19, 2002
• Highest combined score: 137 points – Chiefs defeated Lions 72–65, 2010
• Lowest combined score: 6 points – Highlanders defeated Crusaders 6–0, 2009
• Highest winning margin: 89 points – Bulls defeated Reds 92–3, 2007
• Most tries in a match by both teams: 18 by Lions and Chiefs, 2010
• Most tries in a match by one team: 14 by Crusaders (v Waratahs), 2002; 14 by Cheetahs (v Sunwolves), 2016; 14 by Lions (v Sunwolves), 2017

Season

• Most points: 596 – Hurricanes, 2017
• Most points conceded: 684 – Southern Kings, 2016
• Fewest points: 82 – Brumbies, 2021; Force, 2021
• Fewest points conceded: 79 – Blues, 2021
• Best points difference: 324 – Hurricanes, 2017
• Worst points difference: −402 – Southern Kings, 2016
• Most points: 66 – Reds, 2011; Stormers, 2012; Chiefs, 2013; Hurricanes, 2015
• Fewest points: 0 – Bulls, 2002; Rebels, 2021; Waratahs, 2021
• Most wins: 14 – Stormers, 2012; Hurricanes, 2015; Crusaders, 2017; Lions, 2017
• Most defeats: 13 – Lions, 2010; Rebels, 2011; Highlanders, 2013; Force, 2016; Southern Kings, 2016; Sunwolves, 2016; Rebels, 2017; Moana Pasifika, 2023
• Most tries: 89 – Hurricanes, 2017
• Fewest tries: 11 – Force, 2021

Career

• Most Caps: 203 – James Slipper, Reds & Brumbies
• Points: 1,708 – Dan Carter, Crusaders
• Tries: 66 – Sevu Reece, Crusaders
• Conversions: 329 – Beauden Barrett, Hurricanes & Blues
• Penalties: 307 – Dan Carter, Crusaders
• Drop goals: 26 – Morné Steyn, Bulls

Season

• Points: 263 – Morné Steyn, Bulls, 2010
• Tries: 16 – Joe Roff, Brumbies, 1997; Ben Lam, Hurricanes, 2018
• Conversions: 57 – Richie Mo'unga, Crusaders, 2023
• Penalties: 58 – Christian Leali'ifano, Brumbies, 2013

Match

• Points: 50 – Gavin Lawless, Sharks, 1997
• Tries: 5 – Sean Wainui, Chiefs, 2021; Macca Springer, Crusaders, 2025
• Conversions: 13 – Andrew Mehrtens, Crusaders, 2002
• Penalties: 9 – Elton Jantjies, Lions, 2012