Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Strewthcobber]

Wasn't there talk of the Super Rugby Commission being responsible for future TV deals for the whole of the Super Rugby competition and that the revenue would be split evenly? If that were the case, I'd expect that any deal between RA and a provider would only be for local coverage and the specials like Lions tour (I think WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) handles world cups).

Super Rugby TV revenue is a pretty small part of the overall pie in the scheme of things.

SANZAAR tests (including Bledisloes) and the June/July inbound NH tours make up the bulk of our TV revenue, or at least they did when we last saw any detail of this kind of thing

 

[Strewthcobber]

Is there a professional sport anywhere in the world where wages aren't incredibly weighted towards the superstar players?

I don't think there's any feasible model where you just cut out the highest paid contracts and everyone in the middle and lower end gets a bit more. Dropping the overall player expenditure will certainly lead to more of the star Wallabies playing overseas but the best remaining players in the country will then be in a position to have a larger impact on their respective team and demand more money.

Any reduction ends up costing us players at each level but particularly those who are just outside being consistent Wallaby starters.

The other side of this - many of our players have dual or multiple eleigibilities. One of the reasons they play pro here is the large salary available if you make it to Wallaby level.

If we can't offer that, plenty of players will follow the Mack Hansen model and leave before they are even a Wallaby

 

[Brumby Runner]

Super Rugby TV revenue is a pretty small part of the overall pie in the scheme of things.

SANZAAR tests (including Bledisloes) and the June/July inbound NH tours make up the bulk of our TV revenue, or at least they did when we last saw any detail of this kind of thing

I accept that Strewth, but who negotiates the revenue for the SANZAAR tests? Is it SANZAAR, or the individual national bodies?

Possibly, too, the Super Rugby revenue is more than the individual sides are currently given by RA. It seems to be one of the complaints from the franchises that they don't get compensated enough from the revenue they earn by participating in the competition.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I accept that Strewth, but who negotiates the revenue for the SANZAAR tests? Is it SANZAAR, or the individual national bodies?

I believe these days each member negotiates their own internal deal, and SANZAAR negotiates all other deals (eg with UK & Europe)

Possibly, too, the Super Rugby revenue is more than the individual sides are currently given by RA. It seems to be one of the complaints from the franchises that they don't get compensated enough from the revenue they earn by participating in the competition.

Again, only my understanding here, but RA distribute more to the Super Rugby sides than the Super Rugby comp broadcast generates in isolation, but that recognizes that the Super Rugby sides have a role in developing Wallabies as well.

Note also, NZ are giving us extra on top of what Stan pay for at the moment as well

I think their complaints are more that they aren't given enough to pay for their operations, not that they aren't given the revenue they generate.

I think when we last saw a split - the broadcast revenue was something like 85% tests, and 15% Super Rugby, but I acknowledge that was back in the Foxsports days and it may be vastly different now

 

[JRugby2]

It's not as many as you'd think. Bleds are protected, but almost all other away games are not

It's still 60% (ish) of our games per year, and almost all of those away games are played in the mid-dawn timeslots and probably* wouldn't be a huge negotiating piece for the next rights deal anyway.


*I have no data to back this up, nor can be bothered finding any

 

[dru]

Is there a professional sport anywhere in the world where wages aren't incredibly weighted towards the superstar players?

I don't think there's any feasible model where you just cut out the highest paid contracts and everyone in the middle and lower end gets a bit more. Dropping the overall player expenditure will certainly lead to more of the star Wallabies playing overseas but the best remaining players in the country will then be in a position to have a larger impact on their respective team and demand more money.

Any reduction ends up costing us players at each level but particularly those who are just outside being consistent Wallaby starters.

Perhaps I was not clear. I'm not talking about the Wallaby income as individuals, but the RA income from internationals. My choice would have been to increase player numbers and teams. Reduction in areage quality, which I think doesnt impact the spectacle as long as the result is competitive. Then try to build the quality over time. More content more $ but spread thinner. Even if their is a loss of the best talent as long as a level playing field was held, the product starts with a base and can be built.

A key counter was income was not the pro game but the internationals.

Where we are now it is redundant thinking. I'm just noting inconsistency in the counter argument over RA income. Clearly there are baked-in procedural issues where the internationals are a cost not an income.

 

[Braveheart81]

My choice would have been to increase player numbers and teams. Reduction in average quality, which I think doesn't impact the spectacle as long as the result is competitive. Then try to build the quality over time.

How do you do this though?

Even if you slash player salaries the revenue per team can't drop too far because the fixed costs can only be reduced so far.

 

[dru]

How do you do this though?

Even if you slash player salaries the revenue per team can't drop too far because the fixed costs can only be reduced so far.

Yes, there are plenty of difficult decisions and tough calls to be made going forward. And plenty of issues with legitimacy that have been raised against my thinking. I was just pointing out that there is inconsistency, at least in part, with the claim that money comes from the Wallabies. And there have been claims to reduce teams in Super to concentrate talent and ability, and maintain the Wallaby cash cow. I don't agree with that.

There is however a difference between the fixed costs of say, a Shute Shield team and a Super team.

Where we are now is headed towards team reduction and having to deal with the problems that have previously been largely dismissed.

 

[Proud Pig]

Yes, there are plenty of difficult decisions and tough calls to be made going forward. And plenty of issues with legitimacy that have been raised against my thinking. I was just pointing out that there is inconsistency, at least in part, with the claim that money comes from the Wallabies. And there have been claims to reduce teams in Super to concentrate talent and ability, and maintain the Wallaby cash cow. I don't agree with that.

There is however a difference between the fixed costs of say, a Shute Shield team and a Super team.

Where we are now is headed towards team reduction and having to deal with the problems that have previously been largely dismissed.

I completely agree with this.
It is a vicious circle.
Team reduction will lead to revenue reduction and revenue reduction will eventually lead to further team reduction, rinse and repeat.
In my opinion the only way out of this cycle is through cost reduction, and that means player salaries, staff salaries, venue costs etc...
This will obviously lead to a drop in the general quality of the player staying in Australia while salaries overseas are so much higher than we can legitimately afford to pay in Australia. I guess it becomes a choice between the survival of the game at a professional level or the quality of the game at the professional level.

 

[hoggy]

I completely agree with this.
It is a vicious circle.
Team reduction will lead to revenue reduction and revenue reduction will eventually lead to further team reduction, rinse and repeat.
In my opinion the only way out of this cycle is through cost reduction, and that means player salaries, staff salaries, venue costs etc...
This will obviously lead to a drop in the general quality of the player staying in Australia while salaries overseas are so much higher than we can legitimately afford to pay in Australia. I guess it becomes a choice between the survival of the game at a professional level or the quality of the game at the professional level.

Then you have to look at the structure, because lower standard Australian teams in Super means little will change in how the competition is received.
If we go domestic which has been my preference for a long time, what set up do we use. Maybe start with 6 teams and go from there, but any expansion will take a few years.
My thinking is the RA are gonna bang down the hatches go to 4 Super teams and hope for the best results wise regards the Lions, World Cup & the Super teams being competitive.
They don't have a plan they haven't had one for 20 years.

 

[Adam84]

Yes, there are plenty of difficult decisions and tough calls to be made going forward. And plenty of issues with legitimacy that have been raised against my thinking. I was just pointing out that there is inconsistency, at least in part, with the claim that money comes from the Wallabies. And there have been claims to reduce teams in Super to concentrate talent and ability, and maintain the Wallaby cash cow. I don't agree with that.

There is however a difference between the fixed costs of say, a Shute Shield team and a Super team.

Where we are now is headed towards team reduction and having to deal with the problems that have previously been largely dismissed.

Whilst a small minority have said that, I would argue the vast majority who have spoken about this topic have done so not under the illusion it's going to concentrate talent but rather under the realisation we simply cannot afford five teams if those teams are carrying sizeable debt. There is no 'shrink to greatness' narrative here, if anything it's now at the point of 'rationalising to survive'.

If your suggestion for an alternative is to slash the operating costs of all teams, that's fine; I just don't see how that presents as a commercial product that anyone would want to pay for, though, so then it comes back to the issue of how to service the debt. And right now, that's the question no one can answer.

 

[dru]

Whilst a small minority have said that, I would argue the vast majority who have spoken about this topic have done so not under the illusion it's going to concentrate talent but rather under the realisation we simply cannot afford five teams if those teams are carrying sizeable debt. There is no 'shrink to greatness' narrative here, if anything it's now at the point of 'rationalising to survive'.

If your suggestion for an alternative is to slash the operating costs of all teams, that's fine; I just don't see how that presents as a commercial product that anyone would want to pay for, though, so then it comes back to the issue of how to service the debt. And right now, that's the question no one can answer.

Right now Adam, my suggestion is to batten down the hatches with the leadership we have and support where they travel. I say this expecting a high likelihood of a default to "shrink to greatness" and despondency on what might have been better considered.

More than a suggestion though is an expectation, income expectations have been impacted. I'm happy for you to call it rationalise to survive. I cant see a practical difference but arguing over a title is hardly useful right now. So I guess rationalise it is. Centralise. Grass roots. Whatever the narrative I'm scuffling my feet but I'm on board.

 

[Dan54]

It's not as many as you'd think. Bleds are protected, but almost all other away games are not

Thanks Strewth, never realised that.

 

[half]

error wrong thread sorry

 

[Wilson]

Huge numbers for the Drua:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786298892558160055

 

[Crashy]

cop that you fucking mungos who somehow think jail rugby us fiji's future.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

cop that you fucking mungos who somehow think jail rugby us fiji's future.

Probably already covered but viewership is up 11% in NZ as well. And according a many Kiwis I've seen commenting on that its due to the increased parity in the competition this season.

 

[Dan54]

Probably already covered but viewership is up 11% in NZ as well. And according a many Kiwis I've seen commenting on that its due to the increased parity in the competition this season.

For sure WCR, I think most kiwis I speak to enjoy Aus teams' increased competetiness this year. It's spoken about a lot on tv etc over here as well.
Let's face it as a Canes man , I want ot see them beat the Aus teams (as well as other kiwi teams), but want to know they working to do it in general.

 

[Crashy]

Think this weekend may be a fall to the reality of previous years for Australian rugby.

 

[Derpus]

Is there a professional sport anywhere in the world where wages aren't incredibly weighted towards the superstar players?

I don't think there's any feasible model where you just cut out the highest paid contracts and everyone in the middle and lower end gets a bit more. Dropping the overall player expenditure will certainly lead to more of the star Wallabies playing overseas but the best remaining players in the country will then be in a position to have a larger impact on their respective team and demand more money.

Any reduction ends up costing us players at each level but particularly those who are just outside being consistent Wallaby starters.

Problem is, there aren't any sustainable sporting leagues in the world that don't have billionaire benefactors or gambling money.