Rugby TV ratings 2015

[Strewthcobber]

With Japan looking unlikely for next year, I saw an interesting discussion elsewhere of just what Super rugby is worth in Australia, and whether expansion/SA is worth it. Thought I'd have a crack at some numbers. Obviously lots of guesses here (and I actually think I'm being generous throughout). Here is one of the sources

Total broadcast deal is $40m per year
$20m from Sky sports in the UK
$20m from Foxtel Australia

Of that $20m
$4m onsold rights to Wallaby matches for Ten
$2m for NRC
$2m is contra

Of the $12m left, based on a 40% - 60% split in Wallaby - Super Rugby total ratings on Foxsports
$5m for Wallaby matches
$7m for Super Rugby

So we're looking at a pretty small number really. And just goes to show how dependent we are on the UK/SA timezone for revenue.

 

[TOCC]

Strewth im not sure the source of funding is quite that simple, SANZAR has gone back to pooling the broadcast money and then splitting the funding between the unions, the ITM and Currie Cup are no longer sold as separate comps which is a boost for Australia as there was some questionable dealings which went on last time.

Its reported that Skysports have boosted the deal, but they purchased the SANZAR rights as a package, they don't directly buy Australia's broadcast rights. On that, its likely that Sky Sports see greater value in the games played in South Africa due to the time zone similarities then the games played in New Zealand or Australia.

Basically, without knowing the intricacies of the deal i don't think you can say that Foxtel and Sky Sports both contribute $20million/each.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Strewth im not sure the source of funding is quite that simple, SANZAR has gone back to pooling the broadcast money and then splitting the funding between the unions, the ITM and Currie Cup are no longer sold as separate comps which is a boost for Australia as there was some questionable dealings which went on last time.

Its reported that Skysports have boosted the deal, but they purchased the SANZAR rights as a package, they don't directly buy Australia's broadcast rights. On that, its likely that Sky Sports see greater value in the games played in South Africa due to the time zone similarities then the games played in New Zealand or Australia.

Basically, without knowing the intricacies of the deal i don't think you can say that Foxtel and Sky Sports both contribute $20million/each.

AS I understand it they will be pooling the "foreign rights" but keeping their own negotiated deals (eg Foxtel ->ARU)

Reports are that Sky will pay 120millionGBP for 5 years for the SANZAR rights which then get split equally. Up from 32m GBP. The various news reports are then converting this to $20m AUD per uear for the ARU which is probably pretty close, if not a little high.

The other reports are that Fox will be paying pretty close to what they are already - $15m.

So if the final deal is $40m, then I think it's pretty fair to claim that is the approximate split (and I actually think it will be closer to $35, but anyway....)

 

[Omar Comin']

Pretty sure in the last deal all the rights were pooled other than those for the ITM Cup and Currie Cup. I really doubt they're now all keeping their own negotiated deals. The ARU will benefit from any increase in rights in South Africa and New Zealand.

 

[Marcelo]

If we accept the AFL & NRL are the top two it us V Soccer.

A soccer friend just sent me a report FFA have just released about the 2014 / 15 season. They have a lot to sell.

He also assures me they are going to a national 12 team competition in the next media deal.

Its quite sobering to consider how FFA have achieved what they have achieved on such small budgets especially if you undertake the team numbers to media size deal. Up until two years ago they had a 17 million dollar deal. Must stop comparing management teams however I find it impressive especially since Gallop has been there.

To the link what scared me if that is the right word is over 50% of their fan base is under 40.

TWAS I understand a little bit but not a lot on programming and revenue however we seem locked into the Super competition. I just wonder how we get to expand Rugby when we only have 5 teams.

http://www.footballaustralia.com.au... Season Report_1t86gtaieg684189pouj0m3o5y.pdf

The answer to the expand rugby in OZ is the NRC. For that you need money, the money come from overseas, so you need a succesfull national team and good Super Rugby teams.

Soccer is a really tough opponent because is cheaper than rugby. You only need 11 players for a starting team and something like 18/20 players for a full squad. Nor you need superathletes over 100 kg, which is common in rugby.

In soccer you can recruit athletes of 60 kg but those same athletes are useless for rugby, anyone who weighs less than 80 kg can't play a decent level of rugby.

Injuries in soccer are less painful, less frequent and smaller. You don't see many soccer players who are forced to retire at 26 after serious injury like Pat McCabe. Nor are there any cases of players who become quadriplegics after a dangerous tackle like Alex McKinnon.

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world because is so cheap, I don't mean wages of the best players in the world in the most powerful Leagues. They earn 500 times more than a rugby player. I mean to develop soccer is very very cheap. Any country has at least 20 professional teams. This is because in soccer you don't need a 120 kg athlete such as an international lock like Kane Douglas or Brodie Retallick.

Modern rugby players can't be less than 90 kg, most weighing at least 100 kg. If you weight 82 kg like Will Genia, you only can play at halfback in rugby but in soccer you can play in any position. Football is a wonderful opportunity for those weak athletes who can't excel in tough sports like Rugby or League.

 

[Hawko]

Modern rugby players can't be less than 90 kg, most weighing at least 100 kg. If you weight 82 kg like Will Genia, you only can play at halfback in rugby but in soccer you can play in any position. Football is a wonderful opportunity for those weak athletes who can't excel in tough sports like Rugby or League.

This is too much of a put-down to be a realistic contribution. For a code that prides itself on the fact that any shape and size can get a game, the fact that you have to be 100kg of pure muscle to reach the top is very exclusive. In football, if you are quick and skilled with the ball at your feet, size and muscle mass are not limiting and this is one of the reasons that mothers everywhere prefer their kids to play football. If the kid is 65kg wringing wet he still can play the game without serious physical risk and even reach the top of his chosen sport if he's skilled enough. That's a serious consideration for families where physical risk is absolute anathema. Kids no longer walk to school unless the school is within 50 metres of their home because of perceived physical risk. And perception is key, not reality when family choices are being made.

So I agree with your premise that football has significant natural advantages over the other three Australian codes, and especially over League and Union. That is not to write off Rugby, but it has to be taken seriously as an issue for the code long term.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Basically, without knowing the intricacies of the deal i don't think you can say that Foxtel and Sky Sports both contribute $20million/each.

The ARU will benefit from any increase in rights in South Africa and New Zealand.

Thanks for the input guys, and having read a bit more I agree with you re pooled revenue - any ideas if the SA or NZ deals are likely to increase? By all accounts Fox won't be putting in more than the $15m they already do.

Just for anyone else.....
Super Rugby + TRC pooled with SANZAR.
June Tests + NRC/ITM/CC kept by the individual Unions

While the latter two are lumped in with the Sanzar competitions, Sky will have to put a price on the June tests and ITM Cup. The way the deal works is that the Sanzar partners split -- as per secretly-agreed ratios -- the income they collectively receive for Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship.
But the money attributed to the June tests and ITM Cup will be New Zealand's alone. In practice, that means if Sky offer $100m for the total package and then value the June tests and ITM Cup at $30m, which the New Zealand Rugby Union keep, then $70m will be split between the Sanzar partners.

http://www.odt.co.nz/sport/rugby/321332/rugby-itm-broadcast-big-cash-cow-sky

 

[Marcelo]

This is too much of a put-down to be a realistic contribution. For a code that prides itself on the fact that any shape and size can get a game, the fact that you have to be 100kg of pure muscle to reach the top is very exclusive. In football, if you are quick and skilled with the ball at your feet, size and muscle mass are not limiting and this is one of the reasons that mothers everywhere prefer their kids to play football. If the kid is 65kg wringing wet he still can play the game without serious physical risk and even reach the top of his chosen sport if he's skilled enough. That's a serious consideration for families where physical risk is absolute anathema. Kids no longer walk to school unless the school is within 50 metres of their home because of perceived physical risk. And perception is key, not reality when family choices are being made.

So I agree with your premise that football has significant natural advantages over the other three Australian codes, and especially over League and Union. That is not to write off Rugby, but it has to be taken seriously as an issue for the code long term.

In the high-level rugby, size and strength are so important. Just ask Robbie Coleman, he's a good player but for his size can't compete for a spot at test level against bigger athletes like Folau, Speight or Tomane.

I read a report about the evolution of the size of the rugby players. Today, England's U20 players are bigger and stronger than the Wallabies World Cup winners in 1991.

I also read an interview with the S&C coach of NZRU who said that now the players are bigger and faster than 15 years ago. It's the evolution of the sport.

So the amateur rugby is for all of types body and sizes. The high-level rugby is exclusively for super athletes, they are almost superheroes of TV. Few sports are so violent and need so many hours in the gym as the top level rugby. You almost have to be mad to play professional rugby.

I've played many years this sport, I have trained hard and I still do, but for me it's impossible to reach the physical conditioning of a Super Rugby/NRL/NFL player. They are superheroes for me, that's why I admire them so much.

I have no great admiration for soccer players. I could beat any top soccer player in a crossfit WOD, they are humans but rugby players are beasts. Tevita Kuridrani or Julian Savea could kill me lol

 

[TOCC]

I have no great admiration for soccer players. I could beat any top soccer player in a crossfit WOD, they are humans but rugby players are beasts. Tevita Kuridrani or Julian Savea could kill me lol

Shit mate you must consider yourself pretty highly if you think you're fitter then any soccer super star..

 

[TOCC]

Thanks for the input guys, and having read a bit more I agree with you re pooled revenue - any ideas if the SA or NZ deals are likely to increase? By all accounts Fox won't be putting in more than the $15m they already do.

Just for anyone else...
Super Rugby + TRC pooled with SANZAR.
June Tests + NRC/ITM/CC kept by the individual Unions

http://www.odt.co.nz/sport/rugby/321332/rugby-itm-broadcast-big-cash-cow-sky

I've heard mixed reporting on the ITM Cup/Currie Cup issue, and it all has to do with how South Africa played the last TV deal.. They negotiated a higher price on the Currie Cup then they did for the Super Rugby rights, despite the Super Rigby rights attracting twice the number of viewers.

See below

The ARU's share of SANZAR broadcasting income has also been enhanced by a proportion of revenue from the sale of the TV rights to South Africa and New Zealand's domestic competitions being pooled.
Forrner ARU boss John O'Neill was furious that South Africa was able to sell its rights to its Currie Cup competition independently and before the SANZAR rights were negotiated, as New Zealand did with its ITM Cup.
These games were sold at disproportionately higher prices than their audiences justified, but the new relationship is more equitable to Australia.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...reg-inglis-20150219-13j9ab.html#ixzz3jxrMdpMC

 

[Braveheart81]

$20m from Foxtel Australia

Of that $20m
$4m onsold rights to Wallaby matches for Ten
$2m for NRC
$2m is contra

Of the $12m left, based on a 40% - 60% split in Wallaby - Super Rugby total ratings on Foxsports
$5m for Wallaby matches
$7m for Super Rugby

The onselling of Wallaby matches wouldn't effect the ARU's revenue. It just lowers Foxtel's total cost.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The onselling of Wallaby matches wouldn't effect the ARU's revenue. It just lowers Foxtel's total cost.

Yep. Was trying to get a feel for what Foxtel were paying for Super Rugby, so recieving that payment for Wallaby games from Ten lowers what they are actually paying for the other components.

As others have pointed out there's some flaws in the method, but I think it's still pretty striking how little they are paying just for Super Rugby (~$5 to 8m) or $25 - $40m over 5 years

 

[Joeleee]

In terms of football's "cheapness", this actually is a factor for the FFA. When football came to popularity around the 2006 world cup, they had ~4-5 genuine superstars of the Israel Folau ilk (and even bigger), and as opposed to paying them more than $1 million a year, they payed them (relative) pennies and let their European clubs pick up the rest.

Unpopular opinion time: Australia can't compete with the numbers possible in Europe. The way forward for Australian rugby is to let ~50% of the top 10 Aussie players play internationally and have their clubs foot the bill, while the rest play in Australia. This would mean the median Wallaby would get paid a lot more, as they would be up the pecking order of offered contracts and would make Rugby a more attractive professional sport for talented athletes. We could increase our talent pool significantly, while not paying as much for it.

 

[wamberal]

If our best players are allowed to play in Europe, that will have a huge effect both on the popularity of the Soup (no Folau - there goes the Tahs) but also with the competitiveness of the national team.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Football's European wages are also so much larger than what Australia can offer. It's hardly a relevant comparison.

 

[Joeleee]

If our best players are allowed to play in Europe, that will have a huge effect both on the popularity of the Soup (no Folau - there goes the Tahs) but also with the competitiveness of the national team.

We could keep Folau, but let, say Adam Ashley Cooper, Tetera Faulkner, James O'Connor, Sam Carter and Scott Higginbotham play overseas (just picking one from each franchise). That frees up space that would otherwise be used on their contracts to be spent on ensuring we keep guys like Folau and bumping up some of the fringe players contracts. As for competitiveness of the national team, I don't buy it. You can quote South Africa, but I think it's very difficult to tease out how much of an impact comes from OS players and how much from other issues (coaching, quotas etc.)

As for the difference in European/Aus wages, that definitely makes the case more extreme for Football, which is why I would keep the real top rugby players/personalities in Aus (Folau, QC (Quade Cooper), Cummins, Pocock etc.). The difference between Euro salaries and Aus salaries is widening though, and seemingly for the most part in the mid-tier international area (i.e. Folau earns close to what he would overseas, as does, say Angus Cotterell, but someone like Sam Carter, Kane Douglas, Liam Gill could be a superstar at a mid tier European club and earn more than they would in Aus).

 

[Train Without a Station]

Douglas Leinster contract was what he would have earned had he played every test.

 

[Marcelo]

Shit mate you must consider yourself pretty highly if you think you're fitter then any soccer super star..

Professional soccer players are very very light. I'm stronger than most soccer players, but not because I'm Hercules just because they are too weak, they don't train the strenght of the upper body. I lift 120 kg in bench press and 130 kg in deadlift.

A professional soccer player who weighs 60/70 kg can't lift those weights. But compared to a professional rugby player these weights are nothing. Martin Taupau lifts 260 kg in deadlifts.

I said I can beat a professional soccer player in a CROSSFIT WOD. Do u know Crossfit? In speed I lose against them but crossfit isn't just speed.

Whatever, any Shute Shield player who never play at Super Rugby level or test level can beat a top soccer player in a Crossfit WOD. They are so weak.

They have a lot of stamina but nothing more, they don't train the leg strength or the upper body. Look at a soccer preseason and then compared to a Rugby or League preseason, the difference is HUGE.

Again, I can beat a professional golfer in a Crossfit WOD without problems. Not because I am Hercules but because they are very very weak, even the best. (golfers and soccer players)

Have you ever played soccer? Because I did and I know the soccer training perfectly.

Now if I have to face Izzy Folau or Quade Cooper in a Crossfit WOD. They will crush me, no doubts.

Really, soccer player are too weak. Neymar only weighs 68 kg!!!!!! An athlete of that weight has a minimal strenght. You should look at a soccer workout in the gym, even the netball girls train harder than them

 

[Train Without a Station]

I lift 120 kg in bench press and 130 kg in deadlift.

That's cute. Does your boyfriend lift too?

 

[Sauron]

So, I had a quick look through the last few pages, but I couldn't find the NRC round 1 ratings. Does anybody have them?

Three pages of talking about NRL deals and now soccer players' strength. :|