• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Super Rugby players must be allowed to cross borders and remain eligible for Test sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rassie

Rassie

Trevor Allan (34)
Braveheart81 said:
This is no longer the case.

The new deal that was signed in 2011 is only for Super Rugby and 3N/TRC. It runs from 2011 - 2015. Each of the three SANZAR nations takes a third of the funds (now that each country has five Super Rugby sides).

The SARU completely controls the Currie Cup/Vodacom Cup rights which they sell themselves. This has nothing to do with SANZAR anymore. Likewise, the NZRU controls the ITM Cup rights which they can sell themselves. Both Supersport and SKY Television onsell their Australian rights to Fox Sports which broadcast those competitions in Australia.

The original deal cost Supersport more because it was bundled in with the Currie Cup. Supersport paid more to Foxsports for the rights but the SARU got a bigger share of the SANZAR money because they were providing more of the content. I don't see how you can argue that SA was getting screwed over. They paid more money for more content and then the SARU received more money out of the overall deal because they were providing more of the content.
Click to expand...
That is what I said. Its sold outside SANZAR. But SuperSport do not pay more. Because SARU gives each union a cut of that money and SuperSport got shares in the Cheetah's and Sharks as well as Griquas. So they get some of it back basically. That 38 percent should not be included its was put like that to fool people. Basically SuperSport funds Aussie and Kiwi teams as well cause look at that viewer total. That won't be much worth to Fox considering for each game combining NZ and Australian totals do not even come close to the amount of SA viewers irrespective of the team playing
 
aeneas

aeneas

Tom Lawton (22)
Rassie said:
Did you know who sponsored the Super 10 Competition? Transvaal/Lions put up most of the money so it can happen. Without the Super 10 there would have never been a Super Rugby and also why the ruckus when they were excluded from it.
Click to expand...

The pedant in me forces me to point out that the South Pacific Championship did quite well prior to SA's re-emergence onto the world stage.
 
Rassie

Rassie

Trevor Allan (34)
aeneas said:
The pedant in me forces me to point out that the South Pacific Championship did quite well prior to SA's re-emergence onto the world stage.
Click to expand...
The Super 6 were canceled before 1992 so I do not see how is that called doing well? NZ and Australia approached SA not other way around. Also the media attention would have been on the Winfield cup which is a rival code and the NZRU would have been much poorer due to it.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Rassie said:
That is what I said. Its sold outside SANZAR. But SuperSport do not pay more. Because SARU gives each union a cut of that money and SuperSport got shares in the Cheetah's and Sharks as well as Griquas. So they get some of it back basically. That 38 percent should not be included its was put like that to fool people. Basically SuperSport funds Aussie and Kiwi teams as well cause look at that viewer total. That won't be much worth to Fox considering for each game combining NZ and Australian totals do not even come close to the amount of SA viewers irrespective of the team playing
Click to expand...

Viewers across different countries is not a reflection of the value of the broadcast rights, to put it simply, Australia has less then half the population of South Africa yet Australia's GPD is around $1.3 trillion whilst South Africa is around $400million... If you examine purchasing power parity Australia has a per capita GDP of $44'000 whilst South Africa is closer to $13'000...

What this means is that an audience of 100'000 in Australia generates more revenue then a audience of 100'000 would in South Africa..

The value of the deal which the ARU receives from SANZAR is in comparatively equal to the TV rights agreements of other codes in Australia, Australian Rugby doesn't receive a leg-up from the money outlaid by SuperSport.
 
Sidbarret

Sidbarret

Fred Wood (13)
TOCC said:
Viewers across different countries is not a reflection of the value of the broadcast rights, to put it simply, Australia has less then half the population of South Africa yet Australia's GPD is around $1.3 trillion whilst South Africa is around $400million. If you examine purchasing power parity Australia has a per capita GDP of $44'000 whilst South Africa is closer to $13'000.

What this means is that an audience of 100'000 in Australia generates more revenue then a audience of 100'000 would in South Africa..

The value of the deal which the ARU receives from SANZAR is in comparatively equal to the TV rights agreements of other codes in Australia, Australian Rugby doesn't receive a leg-up from the money outlaid by SuperSport.
Click to expand...


Bit of an over simplification though. South Africa is one of the most unequal economies in the world and referring to average incomes (or per capita GDP figures as you have done) is misleading. The 300k odd viewers in South Africa are drawn almost exclusively from the top three deciles earning wise in South Africa (which account for roughly 75% of income overall). So are Australian rugby fans richer than their South African counterparts? Probably yes, but not to the extent your figures suggest.

As to your second point of parity between Australian Rugby and other codes, I assume you mean that the per viewer figure is comparable with AFL and NRL. That may be the case, but that only tells part of the story. Despite the obvious success of the EPL in England, Sky actually makes a loss off it. The reason they can afford to make loss year after year out of football is that it by capturing the football market they have access to viewers to watch more profitable shows. The business model is basically to sell sky to the husband so he can watch football and have 70 other channels where you market stuff to the wife.

The same principle applies to Rugby in South Africa as far as Supersport is concerned. Rugby is the product that gets satellite dishes into houses (of the top thirty percent). Without rugby satellite television would not exist in South Africa. I wonder if the same thing is true for Fox Sports?
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Yes it was a simple example to highlight the flaws in arguing that viewers should determine the split in funding...

I understand their are some big divides in South Africa, Australia isn't nearly that severe but it could still be argued that the rugby union following demographic in Australia is of the higher income category compared to the other mainstream sports, this is reflected in the companies who sponsor australian super rugby teams and the Wallabies...

In terms of the Foxtel business model, i'm not to sure to be honest, Foxsports has long been the backbone of Foxtel and Super Rugby was one of the first exclusive sports signed by the broadcaster, the NRL and AFL have since leveraged further broadcast agreements which split the broadcast of their games between free-to-air and pay-tv. The A-League(football) is the only other mainstream sport exclusively broadcast on Pay-tv, with that rugby union receives similar funding if you examine average/peak crowds and the length of the season.
 
Rassie

Rassie

Trevor Allan (34)
TOCC said:
Viewers across different countries is not a reflection of the value of the broadcast rights, to put it simply, Australia has less then half the population of South Africa yet Australia's GPD is around $1.3 trillion whilst South Africa is around $400million. If you examine purchasing power parity Australia has a per capita GDP of $44'000 whilst South Africa is closer to $13'000.

What this means is that an audience of 100'000 in Australia generates more revenue then a audience of 100'000 would in South Africa..

The value of the deal which the ARU receives from SANZAR is in comparatively equal to the TV rights agreements of other codes in Australia, Australian Rugby doesn't receive a leg-up from the money outlaid by SuperSport.
Click to expand...

No. That only means Australia will pay cheaper for SA's goods and SA will fork out more for Australian goods. So SuperSport will pay more which means cause they own a monopoly without competition we will just pay more. Hence why subscription goes up every couple of years.

GDP measure was created during the Second World War in an effort to keep track of wartime production gains. The purpose was never to use this as a measure of our wellbeing and social progress.

As as the old saying goes: “When our neighbor is unemployed, we conclude we are in a recession. When we are unemployed, we conclude we are in a depression.”
 
Rassie

Rassie

Trevor Allan (34)
TOCC said:
Yes it was a simple example to highlight the flaws in arguing that viewers should determine the split in funding.

I understand their are some big divides in South Africa, Australia isn't nearly that severe but it could still be argued that the rugby union following demographic in Australia is of the higher income category compared to the other mainstream sports, this is reflected in the companies who sponsor australian super rugby teams and the Wallabies.

In terms of the Foxtel business model, i'm not to sure to be honest, Foxsports has long been the backbone of Foxtel and Super Rugby was one of the first exclusive sports signed by the broadcaster, the NRL and AFL have since leveraged further broadcast agreements which split the broadcast of their games between free-to-air and pay-tv. The A-League(football) is the only other mainstream sport exclusively broadcast on Pay-tv, with that rugby union receives similar funding if you examine average/peak crowds and the length of the season.
Click to expand...
SuperSport have to buy the rights from SANZAR in dollars. The more the dollar the more rands they have to fork out the more we have to fork out. Yes all 900 000 of us who likes to watch rugby
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Still no one has been able to find out any information regarding how much of the US$437 million TV rights deal is paid by each of the three networks.

I'm guessing that it isn't entirely equal and perhaps South Africa (SuperSport) pays the most, Australia (Fox Sports) is next and then New Zealand (SKY Television) pays the least. That is a complete guess though as these figures don't seem to be publically available.
 
Rassie

Rassie

Trevor Allan (34)
Braveheart81 said:
Still no one has been able to find out any information regarding how much of the US$437 million TV rights deal is paid by each of the three networks.

I'm guessing that it isn't entirely equal and perhaps South Africa (SuperSport) pays the most, Australia (Fox Sports) is next and then New Zealand (SKY Television) pays the least. That is a complete guess though as these figures don't seem to be publically available.
Click to expand...
Fox owns Sky don't they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top