Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

[quote="Rugbynutter39, post: 1025806, ..but nz has imho done little for growing the game in our region vs nz and all black self interest.



Imho nz has not yet worked out 1+ 1 = 3





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Growing the game in the region isn't NZR's job, it's World Rugby's.[/quote] I am being provocative and stirring the pot for sure - but if we just rely on world bodies to grow the game in our region we are stuffed! Look at MLR - do you think it is expanding just due to the efforts of World Rugby or would be going anywhere if just relied on that. Nope - major participants/players in the region have big role to play in shaping growth for rugby in the region and sadly that is where SANZAAR fallen down as NZ too narrow in their vision for rugby in Asia Pacific as their vision starts and ends in NZ. While SA is just wrong partner to really be relevant for Asia Pacific as is Argentina, while do we really want to start on RA and its short comings!. There lies the problem we have relied on SANZAAR as key organisation to plan rugby's blueprint for professional rugby in the region when it in fact completely fails to represent the Asia Pacific region. Go figure why professional rugby and Super Rugby struggling.

And there you have it folks which sums up why professional rugby via Super Rugby was wrong vehicle to grow the game in the Asia Pacific region.

 

[Braveheart81]

Successful sports, they build from the base.

All sports generate the surplus revenue at the top of the pyramid that can then be spent on the lower echelons of the sport.

The problem rugby has faced a lot of the time is the surplus at the top isn't sufficient to adequately fund the lower tiers.

We are paying the price now for not investing enough in the lower tiers when the game in Australia was in the best position (after 2003 RWC) and it is hard to catch back up from that.

Grassroots initiatives take a long time to pay off. There has been really good growth in some of those initiatives such as 7s, womens/girls and Viva 7s but it takes a long time before the broader benefits of that are realised.

 

[hoggy]

All sports generate the surplus revenue at the top of the pyramid that can then be spent on the lower echelons of the sport.

The problem rugby has faced a lot of the time is the surplus at the top isn't sufficient to adequately fund the lower tiers.

We are paying the price now for not investing enough in the lower tiers when the game in Australia was in the best position (after 2003 RWC) and it is hard to catch back up from that.

Grassroots initiatives take a long time to pay off. There has been really good growth in some of those initiatives such as 7s, womens/girls and Viva 7s but it takes a long time before the broader benefits of that are realised.

Agree, and I think another part of the problem is our top level is to narrow a base to fund the lower levels. You are trying partly to fund the game with one team. Super rugby is a big part of the issue, it is not a good commercial entity for the game, it suck up a lot of funds, that should be going to the lower levels.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Agree, and I think another part of the problem is our top level is to narrow a base to fund the lower levels. You are trying partly to fund the game with one team. Super rugby is a big part of the issue, it is not a good commercial entity for the game, it suck up a lot of funds, that should be going to the lower levels.

The biggest failure on behalf of SANZAAR Unions has been their apparent inability or resistance to actually developing the competition as a commercial entity to the point where it itself has the ability to pay for itself without the need for annual grants or bailouts by the national body.

 

[wamberal]

Maybe the problem is that no one union feels a sense of ownership of the competition as a whole.

 

[Braveheart81]

The biggest failure on behalf of SANZAAR Unions has been their apparent inability or resistance to actually developing the competition as a commercial entity to the point where it itself has the ability to pay for itself without the need for annual grants or bailouts by the national body.

The broadcast revenue split is controlled by SANZAAR. They choose what they allocate for Super Rugby and what they allocate for the test team. It's in their interests to keep the Super Rugby split lower because it keeps player wages under control and allows them to keep more funds in the national union. It comes with the problem though that they will on average have to bail out teams more.

 

[dru]

The broadcast revenue split is controlled by SANZAAR. They choose what they allocate for Super Rugby and what they allocate for the test team. It's in their interests to keep the Super Rugby split lower because it keeps player wages under control and allows them to keep more funds in the national union. It comes with the problem though that they will on average have to bail out teams more.

This works to temper the claims that the Wallabies are our big income generator. How much of a skew do you think there is?

 

[Braveheart81]

This works to temper the claims that the Wallabies are our big income generator. How much of a skew do you think there is?

I have no idea and it might be the reverse and what SANZAAR say is the Super Rugby share could be more than what the broadcasters value that product at.

My point was that it was fairly arbitrary and largely controlled by the SANZAAR partners and they have a clear purpose there of controlling the money available to be spent on players at different levels.

All the SANZAAR partners know that the dollars required to retain their star players are far greater and far more important for generating their revenue than paying guys who are just Super Rugby players.

I agree that it would be in all their interests if someone else was funding the payment of the domestic players that form the basis of their test squads and depth. Private equity would be ideal here and giving away control over the broadcasting deal etc. for that competition would be a small price to pay.

Regardless of how you split it, the Wallabies are Rugby Australia's big income generator. Half Rugby Australia's revenue comes from outside the broadcasting agreement.

 

[dru]

I have no idea and it might be the reverse and what SANZAAR say is the Super Rugby share could be more than what the broadcasters value that product at.

My point was ...

It was a good point.

 

[half]

Regardless of how you split it, the Wallabies are Rugby Australia's big income generator.

Half Rugby Australia's revenue comes from outside the broadcasting agreement.

Therein lies the problem. You cannot grow a game on a dozen test a years with 4 played overseas.

The ARU / RA have been way to lazy or inept or both to develop other areas of revenue.

It stands out like dogs balls.

Basketball, Netball, Soccer today all create most of their revenue from their domestic leagues today years ago they too funded themselves via their national teams.

 

[Dan54]

Can I ask a genuine question, and not doubting anyone. But where has everyone got their figures from? And are they actually factual, or a bit of guesswork? And I am talking about figures for what is got from TV deals from around the world, and also how it's been worked our what would be paid for these other comps? also even what Twiggy has put into his comp?
I am genuinely interested to know.

 

[Braveheart81]

Therein lies the problem. You cannot grow a game on a dozen test a years with 4 played overseas.

The ARU / RA have been way to lazy or inept or both to develop other areas of revenue.

It stands out like dogs balls.

Basketball, Netball, Soccer today all create most of their revenue from their domestic leagues today years ago they too funded themselves via their national teams.

I agree that it needs to change somewhat, but rugby has been based around the international game forever.

It also needs to be remembered that RA's revenue is principally from the Wallabies. The Waratahs generated an additional $10m that had nothing to do with RA, Reds $11m etc.

Under everyone's idea proposals, the Wallabies would become almost 100% of RA's revenue because there would be no revenue being recognised there from the competition our teams play in because it would be a separate entity.

In term of the FFA, there is no visibility over their financials. They don't break up revenue nor suggest how much they are spending on the A League outside of distributions to clubs. Their contribution to grassroots seems to be close to zero.

 

[Braveheart81]

Can I ask a genuine question, and not doubting anyone. But where has everyone got their figures from? And are they actually factual, or a bit of guesswork? And I am talking about figures for what is got from TV deals from around the world, and also how it's been worked our what would be paid for these other comps? also even what Twiggy has put into his comp?
I am genuinely interested to know.

All my figures come from Rugby Australia annual reports and any other organisations I cite.

 

[Braveheart81]

Basketball, Netball, Soccer today all create most of their revenue from their domestic leagues today years ago they too funded themselves via their national teams.

If you look at netball and review the financial statements for Netball Australia and Netball NSW it looks like the sport relies very heavily on government grants at the national level and that Super Netball player payments are quite substantially being funded by rego fees paid by the large player base.

Sponsorship also forms a large proportion of the income.

My takeaways from netball would be: they have a captive market on the players. The players can't earn more money by going elsewhere. The players aren't paid a lot with the average wage for the current season being somewhere around $55k and the minimum wage being under $30k.

I would say it is the opposite to what you suggest and their domestic league is generating very little revenue and certainly far less than it requires to run.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The broadcast revenue split is controlled by SANZAAR. They choose what they allocate for Super Rugby and what they allocate for the test team. It's in their interests to keep the Super Rugby split lower because it keeps player wages under control and allows them to keep more funds in the national union. It comes with the problem though that they will on average have to bail out teams more.

But that approach tends to lend itself to treating the competition as more of a glorified development structure. And it's lead up to where we currently sit. It needs to be treated as it's own separate professional entity. Because growing it's commercial base benefits the Test team as well.

 

[Braveheart81]

But that approach tends to lend itself to treating the competition as more of a glorified development structure. And it's lead up to where we currently sit. It needs to be treated as it's own separate professional entity. Because growing it's commercial base benefits the Test team as well.

Yes, I agree it would be better to get the private equity in there that is required to help it grow.

I don't think distributing more income to the teams would have helped though. It would have largely been spent on the top players (as is the case in sporting leagues everywhere).

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yes, I agree it would be better to get the private equity in there that is required to help it grow.

I don't think distributing more income to the teams would have helped though. It would have largely been spent on the top players (as is the case in sporting leagues everywhere).

That wouldn't be necessary if Super Rugby had generated its own separate revenue.

 

[Braveheart81]

That wouldn't be necessary if Super Rugby had generated its own separate revenue.

No, but really we're just talking about them being able to sign their own broadcast deals. All their other revenue is independent of RA and the other national unions.

How much would it cost to employ the expertise necessary for negotiating broadcast deals if it was entirely separate from SANZAAR and the national unions?

 

[half]

Interesting development over in the soccer world today that will effect Super Rugby.

The effects will be either very good for Super Rugby or bad for Super Rugby.

The essence is soccer has been in a very toxic civil war over the last two and a bit years so much so that FIFA stepped in ordered a committee be formed to sort out the mess.

The committee has met and forwarded its report to FIFA who are expected to endorse.

FFA and a very small group of interest groups representing at best 5% of the total soccer look set to reject the report and FIFA's instruction to vote it in.

Its believed if this happens FIFA will suspend Australia from FIFA. What this does aside from no internationals, is any player who plays in a non FIFA competition at a professional level receives a rather long ban from playing for FIFA teams. The end result is all A-League players will stop playing and many at the second tier.

FFA seem to want to calls FIFA's bluff.

So the good for rugby is soccer at a professional level and international level Australia will not have teams.

The bad for rugby is if the report is voted in, among other things from 2019 the A-League clubs will run their own competition. Meaning instead of a toxic civil war soccer will be united with new management and an excellent model

 

[Braveheart81]

So the good for rugby is soccer at a professional level and international level Australia will not have teams.

The bad for rugby is if the report is voted in, among other things from 2019 the A-League clubs will run their own competition. Meaning instead of a toxic civil war soccer will be united with new management and an excellent model

I reckon the crossover of fans is so small.

If you asked everyone on this forum how many A League games they watched a year or asked an A League forum how many rugby games they watched a year I reckon the numbers would be almost zero.

There would be some crossover watching the big international matches.

I think either FFA or RA could shut up shop tomorrow and it barely register financially for the other organisation.