Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Rob42]

@Rob42 - are you sure the jacket in your avatar pic doesn't have leather patches on the elbows?

Well, there's a Thermos flask just out of picture. Perfect for staying warm on those chilly Saturday afternoons.

 

[mst]

Well, not sure I consider myself an "old-school" supporter but yes, I think the MLB missed cross-promotion was a non-issue. Firstly, because how could it have been fixed by either the Tahs or the ARU? Tell Izzy to break his sponsor commitment? That would have been more counter-productive than missing the photo op. Reschedule the whole thing to fit in with Izzy? Dreamin'. Tell the promoters to accept someone other than Izzy? They tried it, it didn't work.

Secondly, it's one photo op. Yes, it would have been great to have a rugby representative, but these things come and go like the wind. If the photo made big news on US sports websites, I certainly didn't see it. And I'm betting that if it did make it onto those websites, the caption would have included "Sonny Bill Williams, rugby player". The vast majority of Amercicans don't know the difference between league and union, both codes are generally just called rugby there. So we got the promotion anyway.

So that's why I think one missed photo op will make absolutely diddly-squat difference to the success of Australian rugby in the US.

Ok, time to move on I say, before more people look foolish for jumping on the wrong bandwagon (rookie rules - read post so you know what being talked about!).

Now if I have this wrong correct me but I didn't think that you, Braveheart or TWaS fitted in this "group" I describe here - Its not only SANZAR you will need to convince - its the closed minded supporters and rugby administrators that need to wake up to themselves. If you recall the missed cross promotion with the MLB when it was in Sydney and how it was brushed off by the by the "old school" supporters as a non-issue and a waste of time,(based on the comments I read and conversations I had!)

"Braveheart81:That is why I said that your post was a reinvention of history. I am not doubting the importance of getting additional exposure but in my opinion there was plenty of evidence the Tahs did what they could to be involved but it didn't work out. End of story

So what the issue you have?

This is the start:

I know live sport has become more and more valuable to broadcasters but rugby crowds and ratings have fallen over the last decade. So why would rugby get a 165% increase? Especially given the proposed model will actually reduce the amount of content.

If they don't then is there a plan B? Or will they have to accept an offer that will lose them millions every year?

Does SANZAR even have a vision of what super rugby will look like in 10 years? Who knows what they're working towards. If the idea is to expand into Asia and the Americas then why are they doing it so slowly? Surely the plan should be to have multiple teams in both as soon as possible so you can have conferences that make sense.

 

[TOCC]

It would appear you are arguing semantics, this thread is about broadcast rights... The MLB photo was well discussed at the time and the majority of people would agree that it was a missed marketing opportunity, i see no point arguing over your interpretation of someone else's opinion on the matter and using that as some sort of analogy as to why SANZAR won't receive increased broadcast rights.

 

[mst]

It would appear you are arguing semantics, this thread is about broadcast rights. The MLB photo was well discussed at the time and the majority of people would agree that it was a missed marketing opportunity, i see no point arguing over your interpretation of someone else's opinion on the matter and using that as some sort of analogy as to why SANZAR won't receive increased broadcast rights.

Yes, It did digress. I also missed the anology? However, can we resume from Omar's point (summarised) about if SANZAR have a plan to expand in to America and Asia why are they doing it so slowly, and my comment (IMO) we may have to convince others beyond SANZAR who don't see the opportunity .......

 

[TOCC]

Why are they doing it slowly as opposed to quickly?
Well, i think first and foremost you have to question the maturity of the professional landscapes in both countries and whether their is the financial backing to ensure longevity of a professional team to compete in the Super Rugby tournament.

We all look at the Top league as evidence to support professionalism in Japan, but what do the invested parties of the Top League think about a new professional team to be created and operate above the Top League... A team which could potentially compromise financial and crowd support of the Top League.

The US is a country of potential, but as it stands there is no professional tournament, the major money in US Rugby currently stands in 7's rugby, there is little evidence to indicate that there would be the financial support needed to run a super rugby team in the US...

 

[Rob42]

And any move to include either Japan or the US realistically means dumping Sth Africa. Where most of the broadcast revenue comes from. Big gamble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

The US is a country of potential, but as it stands there is no professional tournament, the major money in US Rugby currently stands in 7's rugby, there is little evidence to indicate that there would be the financial support needed to run a super rugby team in the US.

Well the US will host 2 very well attended test matches against the AB's and Scotland this year. Rugby's been on a big upward trend there the last few years.

I think the way to do it would be to create a plan for the inclusion of a North American super rugby conference. SANZAR could help support the starting up of a 6-8 team competition played under the super rugby brand but not immediately involved in the SANZAR competition. Establish the teams and the professionalism (at a lower level than what super rugby is) and then add it to the genuine super rugby as a new conference once certain criteria is met.

I think something like that would have a good chance of attracting private investment and that it's better to do it like that than have 1 or 2 really isolated teams playing in a South African conference.

 

[TOCC]

Well the US will host 2 very well attended test matches against the AB's and Scotland this year. Rugby's been on a big upward trend there the last few years.

I think the way to do it would be to create a plan for the inclusion of a North American super rugby conference. SANZAR could help support the starting up of a 6-8 team competition played under the super rugby brand but not immediately involved in the SANZAR competition. Establish the teams and the professionalism (at a lower level than what super rugby is) and then add it to the genuine super rugby as a new conference once certain criteria is met.

I think something like that would have a good chance of attracting private investment and that it's better to do it like that than have 1 or 2 really isolated teams playing in a South African conference.

An upward trend yes, but not yet an established professional sport..

Once certain criteria are met ? How long would this take, 10 years? At what cost? Who subsidises the teams through these years?


Any team or competition in the US would represent a potential liability, hence the rather tentative approach by SANZAR to expansion.

 

[Omar Comin']

An upward trend yes, but not yet an established professional sport..

Once certain criteria are met ? How long would this take, 10 years? At what cost? Who subsidises the teams through these years?

Any team or competition in the US would represent a potential liability, hence the rather tentative approach by SANZAR to expansion.

It is a very steep upward trend and there's no reward without risk. It might take 10 years, it might only take 3 or 4. It would have a greater chance of success than 1 isolated team in a South African conference and it would probably cost less too. I don't think it would be a huge liability to SANZAR because they wouldn't be owning the teams. They would just be a partner to US rugby at the beginning and the teams would have to be privately owned. What SANZAR would provide is administrative support, rugby expertise in all facets and a pathway into the worlds highest quality rugby competition beneath test level. That would help attract investment.

The risk of failure would be high, but if SANZAR structured it right it wouldn't be a big financial risk to them. And the potential reward is massive. Successful expansion into Asia and America is basically the only way SANZAR will avoid the long term loss of all its best players in their prime to European rugby.

There are a number of groups in the US already looking to start professional competitions and there is a chance of missing the boat by being too conservative.

 

[Bardon]

I can see US rugby jumping at a chance like that. They take the majority of the risks, find private investment for 6-8 pro teams. Provide subsidies for those 6-8 teams on an annual basis. Struggle to get the competition established for between 3-10 years. Then once they've done all that SANZAR will swoop in and collect their massive reward for their administrative support and rugby expertise.

This is the same SANZAR that has come up with the yawn inspiring plan for S18. The same organisation that is currently struggling to keep it's best young players due to the lure of the Euro and the Pound.

There's just been a coup up North where the power has irreversible shifted from the Unions to the clubs. The English and French clubs are going to grow richer and more powerful over the next 3-10 years. Why would USA Rugby take all that risk in order to hitch it's fortunes to a competition that may well be seen as a step down from European competition.

After struggling to establish their own competition for up to 10 years USA Rugby would then be further burdened with the responsibility of being the saviours of Super Rugby.

If I were USA Rugby and someone came to me with a plan like that I'd say thanks for the offer but I'll have to pass.

 

[Omar Comin']

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-of-americas-rugby-union-with-nigel-melville

JH: Last year, I sat down with Greg Peters, the CEO of Super Rugby. At that point, he was very high on the idea of getting the Super Rugby brand into the United States, and that expansion of Super Rugby franchises was a definite future possibility. What's going on with the possibility of professional rugby in America?

Nigel Melville (CEO of USA Rugby): Well professional rugby takes many forms. Much of this is out of our hands. In regards to Super Rugby, I presented to SANZAR when that competition was still called the Super 14. They went on to add a franchise in Melbourne.

I don't know how that helps break into new markets, I don't know how that improves your television exposure or your commerciality; however, it did allow each of the three SANZAR countries to have five teams each, so they were quite happy with that.

That's their choice.

I did believe that a Pacific Rim conference might be a way forward for them. A conference like that could include America, Canada, Japan and Argentina. I thought that was an option, but it seems to have been written off for now.

Every time I see smoke coming out of the SANZAR or Super Rugby meetings, I hear that expansion to the Americas is on their radar, but it's not something that seems to be on the table at the moment.

So Bardon, there is interest from USA Rugby in entering Super Rugby. SANZAR just haven't done it.

 

[Omar Comin']

They take the majority of the risks, find private investment for 6-8 pro teams. Provide subsidies for those 6-8 teams on an annual basis. Struggle to get the competition established for between 3-10 years.

SANZAR would help with every aspect and help take US rugby to another level of performance and professionalism. The SANZAR involvement would attract private investment. No one would be subsidising the teams but the owners. USA Rugby certainly couldn't afford to. They would have to live within their means as a requirement.

An alliance makes sense to me. The US want to become a tier 1 rugby nation and develop rugby as a professional sport. SANZAR contain the 3 best rugby nations in the world and expertise at all aspects of the game. SANZAR need to expand into new markets in order to compete with the money in Europe. The US is the biggest economy in the world and rugby happens to be the fastest growing sport in the country.

Why would USA Rugby take all that risk in order to hitch it's fortunes to a competition that may well be seen as a step down from European competition.

At this point in time the best sub-international rugby teams in the world still play in super rugby. The time of year we play is also much more suitable for the US and Canada. It avoids the harsh winter and the NFL.

 

[Bardon]

I don't doubt the vast potential that exists in the US for rugby expansion. That's a given. What I doubt is how enthusiastic USA Rugby would be to do all the leg work and then allow SANZAR to reap the reward.

In such a deal I would expect there to be some seed capital coming from SANZAR so they are taking on some of the risk.

Funding fully professional franchises is an expensive business. I'm sure that USA rugby would get lots of expressions of interest. But it doesn't cost anything to express your interest. When it comes to putting your money where your mouth is the pool shrinks considerably.

USA Rugby along with these private investors will have to prop up 6-8 fully professional franchises including the cost of traveling around the US to play each other. I don't see how new franchises can "live within their means" since starting off they're going to be a money pit with very little actual income. They have to build up a fan base, probably beg a US network to televise the game and build a roster of players that would mean they wouldn't be traveling to SANZAR franchises just to ship an average nearing 100 points per game.

Then USA Rugby would need to look at the benefit to Rugby as a whole in the US with this structure. Since JON has been handing out advice to SANZAR since he left the ARU. Maybe they could send him to explain how having professional franchises with no under pinning 3rd tier worked out for the ARU. He could show they a graph of the ARU's war chest that he built up over the years.

For the record I don't think any organisation other than the IRB should be interfering in the development of rugby in other territories. Not SANZAR nor the 6 Nations body that now runs club rugby in Europe.

My preferred solution would be for a percentage of all TV and Sponsorship deals to go into a central pot for Rugby development. Then for that money to be used to develop the game in Tier 2 & 3 nations in a way that's beneficial to the home union not the already established Tier 1 Unions and clubs/franchises.

Let the US continue developing and if they can support professional teams underpinned by a robust national and local structure then that would be great. Then they could seek entry to Super Rugby on their own terms and their own timetable.

 

[Bardon]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-of-americas-rugby-union-with-nigel-melville



So Bardon, there is interest from USA Rugby in entering Super Rugby. SANZAR just haven't done it.

I would ask one very important question about this. Where did all the potential investment and interest go once direct entry into Super Rugby wasn't an option? Why couldn't the parties involved in the proposal push ahead and do as you say and set up a competition with the view to eventually gain access to Super Rugby?

I would suggest that much of the potential investment was dependent on any new franchises gaining immediate entry to Super Rugby. With the cost and risk spread across 4 unions they couldn't make it work independently.

I would love to see the USA, Canada, Japan etc. set up a pacific club competition. Then if Super Rugby moved to a European Cup type format it could be the means by which teams qualify for the next year's Super Rugby competition.

 

[Omar Comin']

Good posts Bardon, keep in mind I'm thinking out loud on an internet forum not presenting a business plan! But I do think a lot more could be done by SANZAR to develop rugby in North America (as well as Asia and South America for that matter) and that there could be mutually beneficial partnership given the needs of each party.

What I doubt is how enthusiastic USA Rugby would be to do all the leg work and then allow SANZAR to reap the reward.

That's not how I think it should happen. SANZAR would do a lot of the leg work. They would essentially be licensing the super rugby brand, so they're not just going to let them go for it without serious involvement.

In such a deal I would expect there to be some seed capital coming from SANZAR so they are taking on some of the risk.

I would agree with that. I just don't think it would need to be an amount that would send SANZAR broke if things didn't work out. The greatest thing SANZAR can offer North America is professional rugby expertise, credibility and a world class product. The majority of the money involved would have to come from within America.

USA Rugby along with these private investors will have to prop up 6-8 fully professional franchises including the cost of traveling around the US to play each other. I don't see how new franchises can "live within their means" since starting off they're going to be a money pit with very little actual income. They have to build up a fan base, probably beg a US network to televise the game and build a roster of players that would mean they wouldn't be traveling to SANZAR franchises just to ship an average nearing 100 points per game.

They wouldn't play other SANZAR franchises until they were competitive. That's the point of starting domestically. But you underestimate the growing strength of North American rugby. A US Eagles team made up of primarily domestic players were competitive against the NZ Maori last year. As were the Canadians. And those players don't currently train and play in a fully professional environment. They would also be able to sign good players from the Pacific Islands and the like for fairly cheap.

The hardest thing would be the commercial side. Building the fan base, attracting sponsorship, broadcast deals etc. It would obviously only work with private ownership of the teams from the beginning. But the US has a lot of people with money and a culture of private ownership of sporting teams.

SANZAR would have to be able to sell a long term vision of the best global franchise based rugby competition in the world. Something that would one day rival the international 'brand' of the likes of the English Premier League and the NBA.

For the record I don't think any organisation other than the IRB should be interfering in the development of rugby in other territories. Not SANZAR nor the 6 Nations body that now runs club rugby in Europe.

SANZAR have a responsibility to maximise their revenues and not just allow Europe to become the domestic/club/franchise rugby hub of the world. If they don't develop new markets they will never be able to keep pace with Europe.

 

[Omar Comin']

Bardon, the other bridging option would be what Nigel Melville said he suggested a few years ago.

i.e. a Pacific-Rim conference with 1 or 2 teams from each of the US, Canada, Japan and Argentina. From a playing standard something like that would be viable now.

But personally I would see that as a bigger commercial risk. SANZAR would really have to push it for that to happen. It would be much more difficult for the minor unions to make that happen on their own given the logistical issues.

It makes a lot more sense for North America to have their own competition / conference than one that spans the Pacific. Professional franchise based rugby is going to happen sooner rather than later in the US and I think it would be an opportunity missed if SANZAR didn't get involved.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

This would be a long time coming. That said the NA market is more than 10x the size of Australia. It would require substantial private equity requirements as neither union in the us or Canada could afford to support it.
Canada would be able to support 3 teams being Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto but based on the North American winter the season couldn't start
Till April to be safe. That said a more realistic starting point for Canada would be 2 teams in van and Toronto.
Travel costs are high so you'd need two conferences of say 6 each. Van Seattle Denver San Fran salt lake and LA in the west. Toronto Boston Chicago New York Washington and u could maybe do Ottawa (have had plenty of international games before).
To include the PAC Islands the best thing to do would be to have an island team in Honolulu. They have a great stadium there already and no pro sports teams.
The issue with all this tho is you then need an Australasia and African/arg conference. This means you probably have a regular season where you play each team in your conference twice and then move into tiered final systems. This is the only way you can include all teams without running up against and compromising the international calendar.
Personally I think it's all a pipe dream. Audiences
For international World Cup games in Canada are max 200k on TV. Club would be much much less.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

pro rugby audiences in the us and Canada would not
Get fired up about playing Japanese teams. The worst thing they could do would be to introduce pro rugby with a totally unfriendly time schedule.
It needs to be USA and Canada organic with islanders included thru a Hawaii team that perhaps plays a game a year in the islands.
Arg could be included cause the time zone is ok. But they would have to be in an eastern conference as the travel from Seattle to BA is absurd

 

[Omar Comin']

This means you probably have a regular season where you play each team in your conference twice and then move into tiered final systems. This is the only way you can include all teams without running up against and compromising the international calendar.

Thinking long term we could eventually end up with 6 team conferences in each of Australia, NZ, South Africa, Asia, North America and South America. That could be split into 2 divisions - Asia Pacific as well as Americas and Africa.

In the regular season every team might play something like 8 games within their conference, 6 against teams from the other 2 conferences in their division (3 from each) and 4 matches against teams from 1 of the conferences in the other division. Followed by a finals series in each division and a 'super bowl' style match between the winners.

I think something like that could potentially work. To me it seems that might be SANZAR's long term goal given the move to the conference structure and the tentative expansion steps. The question is getting to a structure like that. What are the incremental steps.

 

[TOCC]

Even the head of the Asian Rugby Football Union has said that any team in Asia for 2016 is probably just a pipe dream..

Singapore would be a travesty, Hong Kong could work but mostly on the expat population rather then connecting with locals, Japan would appear to be the best bet, but the question remains whether the JFRU would willingly compromise the Top Leagues position as the countries premier competition.