Australian Rugby / RA

[Dirkgee96]

They're talking about the Lions tour generating as much as $100m for RA. Probably at least double that for the RWC. Then at the moment it's likely an extra $40m every second just from the mooted Qatar deal from 2026 onwards. There's the broadcast end of that as well. Which should be multiples of the sponsorship deal. Or at least you'd hope. And then there's the local broadcasting deal. They should be able to cover their commitments regarding the loan and then some.

Have RA released any financial modelling on how they will apparently make that much money?

The French Rugby federation only made $5 million from hosting the 2023 World Cup. World Rugby takes a much bigger share of the profit than they used to as their expenses even adjusting for inflation are much higher now.

Article in French but Google translate gets the gist of it

Rugby : "D'énormes difficultés financières !" Les comptes de la FFR dans le rouge... en raison d'une Coupe du monde pas rentable ?

Le nouveau président de la Fédération française de rugby Florian Grill a alerté sur les difficultés économiques de l'instance lors d'une assemblée générale ce samedi 16 décembre. Le mondial organisé en France il y a...

www.ladepeche.fr

I'm going to assume I'm missing something or maybe the French Rugby federation stuffed up hugely to only make $5 million, because surely RA haven't just looked at the profits of the 2003 World Cup, adjusted the number for inflation and think thats around what they will make.

 

[Bullrush]

So is the soccer model what the domestic-league proponents seems to be where Australia becomes the dominant sport in the country, produces a lot of talent for the rest of the world and the bulk of the national team plays outside of the country?

Perhaps it's a workable solution but I think it would take a long time. Soccer is the biggest, most popular sport in those countries with considerably larger population bases.

I personally can't see how it will work for rugby here but I quite enjoy Super Rugby so I'm biased

 

[Derpus]

Yeah but again... every country has a football league. What conclusion are we supposed to draw from Brazil being good at football and also having a domestic league?

England have the richest league (don't buy 'the best') and that hasn't translated to success. I'm not sure there is a whole lot to learn here.

 

[Derpus]

The point of a domestic league is that its actually entertaining to engage with as an Australian. Super Rugby is short and sucks.

 

[Bullrush]

Yeah but again... every country has a football league. What conclusion are we supposed to draw from Brazil being good at football and also having a domestic league?

England have the richest league (don't buy 'the best') and that hasn't translated to success. I'm not sure there is a whole lot to learn here.

I'm not sure LOL

It's hard to find a sport that compares with rugby in Australia which perhaps is what makes finding a solution so hard.

No-one else has done it.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Have RA released any financial modelling on how they will apparently make that much money?

The French Rugby federation only made $5 million from hosting the 2023 World Cup. World Rugby takes a much bigger share of the profit than they used to as their expenses even adjusting for inflation are much higher now.

Article in French but Google translate gets the gist of it

Rugby : "D'énormes difficultés financières !" Les comptes de la FFR dans le rouge... en raison d'une Coupe du monde pas rentable ?

Le nouveau président de la Fédération française de rugby Florian Grill a alerté sur les difficultés économiques de l'instance lors d'une assemblée générale ce samedi 16 décembre. Le mondial organisé en France il y a...

www.ladepeche.fr

I'm going to assume I'm missing something or maybe the French Rugby federation stuffed up hugely to only make $5 million, because surely RA haven't just looked at the profits of the 2003 World Cup, adjusted the number for inflation and think thats around what they will make.

They offered overs on the required guarantee which was £120m. Paying £150m. Also took the rights to the operational costs in partnership with Societe Generale for around £236m. I suspect a lot of the the profit generated went to covering that. The fee to host the event has been guaranteed by the Govt. for 2027. I doubt we'll take on the same level of involvement around operations and hospitality as the French.

 

[Adam84]

Have RA released any financial modelling on how they will apparently make that much money?

The French Rugby federation only made $5 million from hosting the 2023 World Cup. World Rugby takes a much bigger share of the profit than they used to as their expenses even adjusting for inflation are much higher now.

Article in French but Google translate gets the gist of it

Rugby : "D'énormes difficultés financières !" Les comptes de la FFR dans le rouge... en raison d'une Coupe du monde pas rentable ?

Le nouveau président de la Fédération française de rugby Florian Grill a alerté sur les difficultés économiques de l'instance lors d'une assemblée générale ce samedi 16 décembre. Le mondial organisé en France il y a...

www.ladepeche.fr

I'm going to assume I'm missing something or maybe the French Rugby federation stuffed up hugely to only make $5 million, because surely RA haven't just looked at the profits of the 2003 World Cup, adjusted the number for inflation and think thats around what they will make.

RWC profit sharing model has changed since France as did the RWC bidding process which allowed countries like France to bid more then they should have, Australia bid during covid when expectations were a bit more frugal... Also the number of teams/matches has grown.

2023 RWC - 48 games
2027 RWC - 62 games

Host union typically makes most of the money from matchday income whereas WR (World Rugby) take sponsorship and broadcast rights, so the number of games directly correlates to profit. But the profit-sharing model hasn't been made public.

 

[Bullrush]

The point of a domestic league is that its actually entertaining to engage with as an Australian. Super Rugby is short and sucks.

Super Rugby has been around for almost 30 years and has far from 'sucked.'

This competition has been the launching pad for the greatest players and teams in the modern era and where all but 2 of the RWC winners have come from during that time.

It isn't perfect and it needs to be re-imagined perhaps but there were very few Aussie fans saying Super Rugby sucked when the Brumbies, Red or Tahs were winning.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

RWC profit sharing model has changed since France as did the RWC bidding process which allowed countries like France to bid more then they should have, Australia bid during covid when expectations were a bit more frugal... Also the number of teams/matches has grown.

2023 RWC - 48 games
2027 RWC - 62 games

Host union typically makes most of the money from matchday income whereas WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) take sponsorship and broadcast rights, so the number of games directly correlates to profit. But the profit-sharing model hasn't been made public.

Even if the projected earnings is just the 2003 earnings adjusted for inflation considering the current cash strapped position of RA that is still a net positive.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Super Rugby has been around for almost 30 years and has far from 'sucked.'

This competition has been the launching pad for the greatest players and teams in the modern era and where all but 2 of the RWC winners have come from during that time.

It isn't perfect and it needs to be re-imagined perhaps but there were very few Aussie fans saying Super Rugby sucked when the Brumbies, Red or Tahs were winning.

Well, I've thought that it has needed reimagining for a very long time.

 

[Dan54]

Well, I've thought that it has needed reimagining for a very long time.

Yep it started needing reimagining when a couple of unions decided super 12 was so bloody good the only thing to do was add more teams!
The first 10-15 years was probably best comp of it's kind.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yep it started needing reimagining when a couple of unions decided super 12 was so bloody good the only thing to do was add more teams!
The first 10-15 years was probably best comp of it's kind.

Not back to Super 12.

 

[Adam84]

ugh... adding teams didn't create the issues and pressures that Super Rugby faced, it only accelerated the deficiencies that exist within the structure. People need to recognize that correlation doesn't equate to causation.. blaming the number of teams misses multiple elephants in room.

 

[Derpus]

Super Rugby has been around for almost 30 years and has far from 'sucked.'

This competition has been the launching pad for the greatest players and teams in the modern era and where all but 2 of the RWC winners have come from during that time.

It isn't perfect and it needs to be re-imagined perhaps but there were very few Aussie fans saying Super Rugby sucked when the Brumbies, Red or Tahs were winning.

Its sucked for Aus fans for nearly 10 years now I'd say. All that historical bullshit is great but, yeah, was a long time ago now. It simply is not a good product for Australian fans. This is basically irrefutable given how few fans still actively engage with it and how many of those remaining fans have significant issues with how its formatted.

Also, your last point only really equates to four years where people supposedly were not complaining (doubt that though).

 

[Highlander35]

I'm not here to dispute whatever the super 12 looked like and if it had been better for SH rugby.

But it always felt like the two conference models were never actually developed in a way that makes sense for a non-seppo audience. For all it's foibles and failures, and chaos, both URC models have ensured:

(a) You play every team at least once, and
(b) You play every team from your home nation at least twice.

Those feel like pretty basic things to get right.

 

[hoggy]

Those feel like pretty basic things to get right.

Yeah you would think so, but we're talking Super Rugby, getting basic things right has been a challenge.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The challenge being maintaining a window for Currie Cup and NPC for the SANZAAR partners....

Ironically enough it looks like both of those might be in trouble

 

[Ignoto]

hose feel like pretty basic things to get right.

You're only looking at the competition from an ease of understanding / following.

What you've proposed doesn't go far enough to drive engagement. We would still be stuck with what, 6-7 home games excluding finals.

 

[half]

Despite your thesis you have never once proposed a solution apart from ‘national competition’.

Who are these teams? Who supports them? How would it be any different from ARC/NRC?

cough cough

Are you serious, I have put forward heaps of comments on the issues with junior teams its a joke how we manage junior rugby in Sydney.

OMG, whats the difference between the Nobody Really Cares concepts to a National Domestic Competition.

Were to start.

If you read my posts over the years, I repeatedly said it will take five years to get off the ground. To use the Super Rugby income in part to fund the development of a new competition.

The first 18 months in discussions with all stakeholders including media on the need to have such a competition.

The next 12 months in developing a system that had the support of the broader Rugby community across all stake holders.

The next 6 months determining where the teams should be located.

The next 12 to 18 months looking for investors, sponsors to invest in the new competition.

The last few months in implementing the above plan.

Both the ARC & NRC where the brain farts of Flower & Pulver developed in a broad room in about six months with little to no negotiation with other stakeholders. This alone doomed it to fail.

The error and error is way to kind a word is the mega, massive, huge, large, big error that both the ARC & NRC were rushed and forced upon the Rugby community with way to little negotiation with various stakeholders effected and then any objection by other stakeholders both ignored and over ridden.

One of the few things that Football got right was a thing called the Australia Cup, last year close to 800 clubs took part. In brief its similar to the FA Cup in England where any team can play in a national knock out competition. They took about 3 and a half years in negotiation with all stakeholders to agree on how it would run and operate. Then about 3 months to set up.

The importance of getting everyone on broad has never been at the heart of RA decision making.

 

[half]

Pretty good summation Half. that relationship with Fox from the early years was telling, it was the golden child there for a while. But it didn't adapt or head the warning signs which were there from day one, as the other codes evolved with the landscape and changed, rugby didn't, or couldn't

About every 4 years a new broadcast deal was done and it's those deals that sealed the fate imo for rugby though, I don't think you can understate the long tern damage done, yes the money increased but for Australia it never addressed the fundamentals of what the game needed here, domestic growth to compete against the AFL & NRL.

It was all about revenue, remember someone signed off on a Japanese based team playing its home games in Singapore against teams from South Africa

Hoggy

Go back in time to those Super League Wars. Fox wanted sport to get Fox subscribers off the ground.

First they went after league, and also AFL. 9 & 7 had league and AFL wrapped up and did not want Fox to get a foothold in.

They got Rugby and its all they really had, so they paid well over what it was worth and then pushed it their papers.

Anyone with any knowledge of the media when Rugby was being paid about 25% more per game than AFL per game knew this will not last.

In time Fox got both League and AFL, which were hugely more important than Rugby was to them.

However, people simply believed the hype, and most never looked beyond the hype as its what they wanted to hear.