The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

[Chris McCracken]

I hear you and you make many points that have merit, but I think it should be clarified when rugby league started it was pretty much the same game (if not exactly the same game) as rugby union.

It was just a different organisation running the show. They were both playing "rugby" persay.

Not that it adds a great deal to the discussion, but by 1908, when Australia started organised Rugby League, it was already a very different game. It had 13 players, uncontested rucks with the ball played as it is now, and no lineout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_league

 

[Omar Comin']

I also don't see how NZRU have made a mistake in having the All Blacks as the central figure in their strategy - what else can they do? How is SA different and better?

I think there should be more emphasis, from SANZAR in general, on Super Rugby. To build that into a huge globally popular sports league equivalent to English Premier League, NFL, NBA etc. At the moment there's too much emphasis on it developing All Blacks, Wallabies and (to a lesser extent) Springboks over maximising the potential of the competition itself.

Sports leagues can make much more potential revenue than a single national team simply because they produce a lot more content in more locations. And the performances of any one team doesn't really affect the success of the competition in general. This is why the AFL and NRL, and now soccer with the A League are doing so well in Australia and rugby (which is so reliant on the performances of the Wallabies) is not.

Rugby is becoming increasingly global. As it becomes more and more competitive internationally who's to say the All Blacks will be able to keep their position at the top indefinitely? In 10 or 20 years time they might be 5th in the world and the All Blacks brand not as valuable. How would the finances of the NZRU look then?

 

[Brendan Hume]

I think there should be more emphasis, from SANZAR in general, on Super Rugby. To build that into a huge globally popular sports league equivalent to English Premier League, NFL, NBA etc. At the moment there's too much emphasis on it developing All Blacks, Wallabies and (to a lesser extent) Springboks over maximising the potential of the competition itself.

Sports leagues can make much more potential revenue than a single national team simply because they produce a lot more content in more locations. And the performances of any one team doesn't really affect the success of the competition in general. This is why the AFL and NRL, and now soccer with the A League are doing so well in Australia and rugby (which is so reliant on the performances of the Wallabies) is not.

Rugby is becoming increasingly global. As it becomes more and more competitive internationally who's to say the All Blacks will be able to keep their position at the top indefinitely? In 10 or 20 years time they might be 5th in the world and the All Blacks brand not as valuable. How would the finances of the NZRU look then?

I think this is probably the most interesting part of the professional game. You are right inasmuch as the Super Rugby level has a really tremendous product, but because of the geographic area covered by the comp, and the limited market share of the game, SANZAR is beholden to SA interests.
SA have a great product but it doesn't suit our market's viewing times. You end up with this catch 22 where the game can't develop at the professional end because of limited audiences and it ends up in a seemingly worse position where the game includes Argentina and Japan in the Super comp - great for those rugby communities but I'd suggest not so great for the game is Aus. The most logical expansion would be a trans-Tasman comp that had a top tier that included the best NZ and Aus provincial teams and was broadcast after the Super Rugby competition on free to air, or removing Super Rugby completely and having a trans-Tasman equivalent that went head to head against the big footy codes in Aus. Parlaying that into a World Club Championship series would do tremendous things for the game, but would render the international game similar to soccer - almost pointless except for the World Cup. This is a paradigm shift that I don't think rugby has the ability to overcome right now, but as sport becomes more corporatised globally will eventually come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

The SANZAR alliance is one of Australians rugby's greatest assets but also one of Australian rugby's greatest burdens.. SANZAR negotiations are like fools gold, or a drug high .. Whilst it feels good and gives you an immediate boost, you know you are better off in the long term without it.

 

[Omar Comin']

You end up with this catch 22 where the game can't develop at the professional end because of limited audiences and it ends up in a seemingly worse position where the game includes Argentina and Japan in the Super comp - great for those rugby communities but I'd suggest not so great for the game is Aus. The most logical expansion would be a trans-Tasman comp that had a top tier that included the best NZ and Aus provincial teams and was broadcast after the Super Rugby competition on free to air, or removing Super Rugby completely and having a trans-Tasman equivalent that went head to head against the big footy codes in Aus. Parlaying that into a World Club Championship series would do tremendous things for the game, but would render the international game similar to soccer - almost pointless except for the World Cup. This is a paradigm shift that I don't think rugby has the ability to overcome right now, but as sport becomes more corporatised globally will eventually come.

I don't think including Japan and Argentina will make the Super Rugby comp worse off in the long term. But we need to know what the plan is! There needs to be a clearly communicated vision. Having single Argentinian and Japanese teams in South African conferences is not close to ideal. But if it's a bridge to something much better than it's more understandable.

I think Super Rugby could become a real global rugby juggernaut focused around regional conferences with intercontinental finals. Then, from an Australian perspective you could have the local product that competes with the likes of the NRL, but within a global context that makes sense and adds both value and significance to the competition. Huge global broadcasting deals could be negotiated that are shared evenly. Player movement could be allowed between conferences without losing test match eligibility.

SANZAR need to say what they're working towards. Surely the aim is to have separate conferences in Asia and the Americas (or at least South America). There's already private and government backing for a team in Singapore, and the wealthy HKRFU said they would be interested in Super Rugby if it was in an Asia-Pacific conference rather than with South Africa. If the first Japanese team has some success on and particularly off the field it's not far-fetched to think there may be interest in more teams there.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think this is probably the most interesting part of the professional game. You are right inasmuch as the Super Rugby level has a really tremendous product, but because of the geographic area covered by the comp, and the limited market share of the game, SANZAR is beholden to SA interests.
SA have a great product but it doesn't suit our market's viewing times. You end up with this catch 22 where the game can't develop at the professional end because of limited audiences and it ends up in a seemingly worse position where the game includes Argentina and Japan in the Super comp - great for those rugby communities but I'd suggest not so great for the game is Aus. The most logical expansion would be a trans-Tasman comp that had a top tier that included the best NZ and Aus provincial teams and was broadcast after the Super Rugby competition on free to air, or removing Super Rugby completely and having a trans-Tasman equivalent that went head to head against the big footy codes in Aus. Parlaying that into a World Club Championship series would do tremendous things for the game, but would render the international game similar to soccer - almost pointless except for the World Cup. This is a paradigm shift that I don't think rugby has the ability to overcome right now, but as sport becomes more corporatised globally will eventually come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From our point of view, you are 100% correct BH, but Steve Tew of the NZRFU has said a number of times that they want South Africa in. IN fact at one point he said no SAF, no NZ.

 

[Braveheart81]

Many people are lamenting the reliance we have on the Wallabies and NZ has on the All Blacks for producing revenue. Whilst wishing that the levels of the game below that produced more revenue is fine, is it really particularly likely?

It would seem to me for that to happen, you'd need people to start caring less about test rugby and more about Super Rugby and below. You'd also need people to start spending more money pursuing that interest. I really don't see it happening.

International test rugby is the biggest product because that is where the history lies and the test teams play enough games that they are teams in their own right. It would be different if teams played three or four tests a year but they don't. They play between 12 and 15. You could reduce the number of test matches but none of the major unions would consider that because it would create a revenue hole that is impossible to fill anytime soon.

Super Rugby is a good product and it would be great to see it produce a greater share of revenue but how is that achieved? You would need far greater interest from fans around the world, particularly outside of the big rugby nations and also for local fans to start supporting it more in lieu of test rugby.

It is very hard to get away from a model where the best players in the biggest games produce the lion's share of the revenue. People want to see the best in the most important matches and changing that is very difficult. Given that players can only play a certain number of games a year, it is difficult to get them involved in lower level matches which may excite local fans but also can't support the costs required to do so.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Many people are lamenting the reliance we have on the Wallabies and NZ has on the All Blacks for producing revenue. Whilst wishing that the levels of the game below that produced more revenue is fine, is it really particularly likely?

It would seem to me for that to happen, you'd need people to start caring less about test rugby and more about Super Rugby and below. You'd also need people to start spending more money pursuing that interest. I really don't see it happening.

International test rugby is the biggest product because that is where the history lies and the test teams play enough games that they are teams in their own right. It would be different if teams played three or four tests a year but they don't. They play between 12 and 15. You could reduce the number of test matches but none of the major unions would consider that because it would create a revenue hole that is impossible to fill anytime soon.

Super Rugby is a good product and it would be great to see it produce a greater share of revenue but how is that achieved? You would need far greater interest from fans around the world, particularly outside of the big rugby nations and also for local fans to start supporting it more in lieu of test rugby.

It is very hard to get away from a model where the best players in the biggest games produce the lion's share of the revenue. People want to see the best in the most important matches and changing that is very difficult. Given that players can only play a certain number of games a year, it is difficult to get them involved in lower level matches which may excite local fans but also can't support the costs required to do so.

The problem is there isn't a financially viable Professional union in Australia. For the game to survive, private equity is required and it will demand Super Rugby becomes the product for consumers and tests play second fiddle - the same model as Europe. It's already happening with players like Douglas and Mowen foregoing test footy for rich contracts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

The problem is there isn't a financially viable Professional union in Australia. For the game to survive, private equity is required and it will demand Super Rugby becomes the product for consumers and tests play second fiddle - the same model as Europe. It's already happening with players like Douglas and Mowen foregoing test footy for rich contracts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I think we definitely need more interest in private equity in sport in Australia. We don't seem to have anywhere near the same appetite for it as Europe of the US where people are often willing to plough vast amounts of money into a professional sporting team for the love and/or status it brings. Some are very financially successful as well although that certainly wouldn't be the norm.

Unfortunately, private equity in Australian sport doesn't have a great history of success. Nathan Tinkler and Clive Palmer have both had a go in recent years and it ended in disaster.

Russell Crowe and Peter Holmes a Court have been more successful at South Sydney (although I believe Holmes a Court has now sold out) but certainly Crowe has shown that he cares more about the success of the team than it being a business venture.

 

[Omar Comin']

Braveheart, I think when referring to genuine rugby fans the aim should be for people to care as much about their super rugby team as they do about the national team. That is the case in European rugby and in a lot of other international sports. Often people care more about their club team as their connection is stronger, closer to the community and more regular. The national team should be the dessert, not the main course.

In my opinion 12-15 test matches per year is a little too much. There are too many test matches each year that aren't all that meaningful. How many times have the Wallabies played Wales in the last 5 years for example? And what were they playing for? What % of Wallaby fans would know and what % would care?

I think it would be ideal if Super Rugby went for about 18 weeks plus 3 weeks of finals. Then have about 10 games of test rugby. There would be short term advantages and disadvantages but I think it would be a better season structure in the long term.

 

[Braveheart81]

I would say that most of the core rugby fans do care alot about their Super Rugby team. Given that it gives fans far more opportunity to attend games, many fans probably spend more attending Super Rugby than they do Wallabies games purely out of opportunity.

Surely to shift the revenue from test rugby more towards Super Rugby, you need to attract more of the casual fans that normally only watch some test matches. That seems like a difficult proposition though. How exactly do you get fans to shift their view of what they deem important? There would be a huge overlap between Super Rugby and test rugby amongst the core rugby fans, but how do you change the way the people who watch a few games a year on TV and attend one game a year?

If you cut the test season down to around 10 games, presumably you'd be losing the June tests. How would the ARU, NZRU, SARU make up for the revenue loss of missing out on three home games a year?

 

[Omar Comin']

If you cut the test season down to around 10 games, presumably you'd be losing the June tests. How would the ARU, NZRU, SARU make up for the revenue loss of missing out on three home games a year?

End of year tours could switch between hemispheres. So you tour and host in alternating years and share revenues.

But I think the international calendar has to be shaken up a little personally. Outside of the world cup it's the same every year. Maybe there should be other hosted tournaments every 4 years between world cups. A genuine European Championship and an Intercontinental Cup for everyone else.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Braveheart, I think when referring to genuine rugby fans the aim should be for people to care as much about their super rugby team as they do about the national team. That is the case in European rugby and in a lot of other international sports. Often people care more about their club team as their connection is stronger, closer to the community and more regular. The national team should be the dessert, not the main course.

In my opinion 12-15 test matches per year is a little too much. There are too many test matches each year that aren't all that meaningful. How many times have the Wallabies played Wales in the last 5 years for example? And what were they playing for? What % of Wallaby fans would know and what % would care?

I think it would be ideal if Super Rugby went for about 18 weeks plus 3 weeks of finals. Then have about 10 games of test rugby. There would be short term advantages and disadvantages but I think it would be a better season structure in the long term.

The only way to have Super Rugby match the European model is for bigger audiences, and the only way to get bigger audiences is through FTA TV, and FTA TV requires prime time content which demands a competition that has a smaller geographic footprint than the current competition. In Queensland, you basically get to see a Queensland club team play Rugby League every Friday night for 25 weeks of the year. That builds interest, audiences, and revenue. Until Rugby can come up with a model that will compete with that, the game will continue to do it tough in this country. I still think a trans-Tasman late year provincial comp to replace the NRC could work going head-to-head against League in the latter part of their season - September to November, Friday night and Saturday night TV, prime time.

 

[Omar Comin']

There would be a huge overlap between Super Rugby and test rugby amongst the core rugby fans, but how do you change the way the people who watch a few games a year on TV and attend one game a year?

Well that's the challenge for the individual teams as well as the ARU and SANZAR! But by giving Super Rugby a bit more emphasis in the calendar it would help.

Having a slightly longer Super Rugby season would help franchises increase revenues, which can be used for marketing and retaining players. If the franchises are in a healthier financial state that removes some burden from the ARU. The other thing it would do is increase the number of weeks that top level rugby is played in Australia each year. When internationals are on that number is 0 or 1.

 

[Omar Comin']

The only way to have Super Rugby match the European model is for bigger audiences, and the only way to get bigger audiences is through FTA TV, and FTA TV requires prime time content which demands a competition that has a smaller geographic footprint than the current competition. In Queensland, you basically get to see a Queensland club team play Rugby League every Friday night for 25 weeks of the year. That builds interest, audiences, and revenue. Until Rugby can come up with a model that will compete with that, the game will continue to do it tough in this country. I still think a trans-Tasman late year provincial comp to replace the NRC could work going head-to-head against League in the latter part of their season - September to November, Friday night and Saturday night TV, prime time.

There is barely FTA interest in test rugby. There wouldn't be any for a Trans-Tasman competition missing the top 50-60 players.

 

[TOCC]

I don't doubt that there are more Wallaby fans in Australia then there are 'Super Rugby' fans..

 

[Omar Comin']

I don't doubt that there are more Wallaby fans in Australia then there are 'Super Rugby' fans..

Yeah and that will always be the case. But the Wallabies can only play once per week, whereas "Super Rugby" can play many more times and in more locations.

 

[Braveheart81]

The only way to have Super Rugby match the European model is for bigger audiences, and the only way to get bigger audiences is through FTA TV, and FTA TV requires prime time content which demands a competition that has a smaller geographic footprint than the current competition. In Queensland, you basically get to see a Queensland club team play Rugby League every Friday night for 25 weeks of the year. That builds interest, audiences, and revenue. Until Rugby can come up with a model that will compete with that, the game will continue to do it tough in this country. I still think a trans-Tasman late year provincial comp to replace the NRC could work going head-to-head against League in the latter part of their season - September to November, Friday night and Saturday night TV, prime time.

The problem in Australia is that rugby is just not popular enough to create the sort of revenue required if it is primarily drawing from domestic interest with our population. NZ has the same problem except the increased popularity is offset by a much lower population.

For Super Rugby to generate substantially more revenue it would require greater interest from Europe, USA, China etc. Part of the phenomenal financial success of the major sporting leagues around the world is that they generate so much revenue from countries outside of where they are based which is primarily driven by the most popular few teams in each league.

Well that's the challenge for the individual teams as well as the ARU and SANZAR! But by giving Super Rugby a bit more emphasis in the calendar it would help.

Having a slightly longer Super Rugby season would help franchises increase revenues, which can be used for marketing and retaining players. If the franchises are in a healthier financial state that removes some burden from the ARU. The other thing it would do is increase the number of weeks that top level rugby is played in Australia each year. When internationals are on that number is 0 or 1.

The calendar is already very full though and increasing the length of the Super Rugby season at the expense of test matches means you're playing more lower revenue generating games at the expense of greater revenue generating opportunities.

One of the problems faced by contact sports is that there is a limit on the number of games that can be played in a year. We're already pretty much at that number. Midweek games that work in soccer on a regular basis don't work in rugby because players need longer recovery times.

 

[Omar Comin']

The calendar is already very full though and increasing the length of the Super Rugby season at the expense of test matches means you're playing more lower revenue generating games at the expense of greater revenue generating opportunities.

By this logic you would just have the Wallabies play 25 test matches every year, the State of Origin would be a 7 match series, and shorter NRL and AFL competitions would be played twice per year so that you could have two grand finals. But clearly in all these examples you would be killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

It's all about creating the right balance. Sometimes less is more when it comes to the pinnacle of the sport.

Every year we play test matches that barely (if at all) break even. And attendances are declining even for the biggest matches. Maybe with less test matches you can increase the occasion surrounding each of them and increase the revenues per game substantially. Surely Super Rugby is better suited to lengthier week in, week out competition and there is more room for growth than there is for the earning capacity of the Wallabies.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree it's about achieving the right balance, but is 6-7 home games for the Wallabies each year too many?

Where are the test matches that barely break even? Maybe Argentina on the Gold Coast. It still forms part of our TV deal though and essentially was an investment by SANZAR to improve the reach and interest in their test competition.

Part of it comes down to history. The history of rugby league is in the NRL (and all the competitions that preceeded it) and for Aussie Rules, the AFL (and VFL).

Super Rugby is still a relatively new competition. It doesn't have the wider recognition nor support that the other competitions have which makes everyone have a team they support at least arbitrarily (even if they show absolutely no interest) like NRL and AFL have.