Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Strewthcobber]

Iain Payten 17/2/14

Based on 2013 season? Or maybe including finals?.

Last year (2015) 120k was the highest rating, and there were only 3 games >100k. Year before (2014), highest rating was 129k, and 5 games >100k.

as stated above Tahs averaged 90k against Aus teams last year

 

[p.Tah]

Ok then:
AFL - 6 years $2.5B
NRL - 5 years $1.8B
Rugby - 5 years $285m, however is this a third of the deal split between NZ, SA and Oz? If so this is worth $855m

Number of games in a season:
AFL: 206
NRL: 201
Super rugby: 135

Back of the envelope calculations - On a per game basis:
AFL: 2,500/6/206 = $2.0m per game
NRL: 1,800/5/201 = $1.8m per game
Super Rugby = $855/5/135 = $1.3m per game

This obviously doesn't take into account that the rugby deal includes test matches, the NRL deal has State of Origin etc. but overall, if my calculations are correct Rugby isn't that far behind AFL and NRL.

 

[TOCC]

$57million/year up from the previous deal of $25million/year.

It's about time, ARU revenue has plateaued since 2003..

Good to see the NRC secured for another 5 years as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Beat]

Hey get to re watch series linked recorded FTA Shute Shield on 7,
Followed by FTA Super rugby game on 10.
Not a bad way to spend a quite Sunday morning whilst flicking through the papers.

 

[Omar Comin']

This obviously doesn't take into account that the rugby deal includes test matches, the NRL deal has State of Origin etc. but overall, if my calculations are correct Rugby isn't that far behind AFL and NRL.

There are quite a lot of test matches though and they'd be the most valuable part of the deal for rugby so it's probably skewing the figures too favourably by not including games outside of super rugby.

Another way to compare would be by the number of elite players the deal supports. In Australian rugby that's 150 players, for the NRL 480 (16 * 30 - and there are plans to increase squad sizes from 30 to 36), and AFL around 720 (squads can vary slightly, but tend to be around 40 on the senior list)

So that means $380k per elite player, per year in Australian rugby, $750k in rugby league ($625k if they go to 36 man squads) and $579k in AFL.

You'd think the top 25-30 players in rugby probably get a greater % of the rugby total than the top 25-30 players in AFL and NRL do (due to the quantity of test matches and the large % of revenue derived from the Wallabies). That would balance out the difference in the size of the deals to a large extent and I'd guess that our elite players will continue to make comparable money to the top players in the NRL and AFL.

 

[Scoey]

Good to see the NRC secured for another 5 years as well.

I can't get to the linked article as I'm not a subscriber but does it mention that the NRC is part of the deal?

I had assumed that this was the TV Rights deal for the Super Rugby and that the individual unions would have separate deals for the NPC, NRC and Currie Cup but that is purely my uneducated assumption. I would be stoked if the NRC is locked in for 5 years with this deal!

 

[Highlander35]

I was pretty sure that there was a reasonably significant kerfuffle last time with SuperSport in SA paying what was perceived to be unders for Super Rugby and Overs for Currie Cup, so it was "decided" that the next set of rights deals would also include the value of the domestic competition, or something like that, as the Kiwis had played fair on that, and Aussies were considering a relaunch.

 

[Scoey]

I just saw the media release and it does indeed include the NRC and the NZ and SA domestic comps. Happy days!

 

[papabear]

Congrats ARU on a strong strong deal, just shows the value of being to sell to international markets.

 

[TahDan]

It's probably all Foxtel were willing to give away. One of the couple of prime time Friday/Saturday night Aussie games they have each week are where the bulk of their value lies.

My guess is that the FTA Sunday morning game didn't really impact the overall deal that much. Channel 10 wouldn't pay a huge amount for it and Foxtel wouldn't pay much less to let Channel 10 show it. If anything it could be beneficial for Foxtel for giving more people a taste of Super Rugby.

There's also the fact Foxtel owns part of Channel 10.

Overall though it's great news for the ARU.

Overall it is good news for the ARU, and I'm sure that the 8am Sunday morning game would have little to no impact on the bottom line (it's about as big a no man's land time slot around), but I had wished if there was an FTA presence, there would be at least one live game...

Also, it's worth noting the deal is in US$ - so the ARU will need the current exchange rates to stay where they are (or for the A$ to weaken)

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I like the talk from the Pulverisor of re-invigorating the grass roots with the "extra" money.

I just hope that the investment in grass roots is a little more prudently made than what was seen with the RWC03 surplus that JO'N apparently earmarked for the grass roots. Didn't get to see too much of that down in my neck of the grass roots at that time.

 

[TOCC]

I can't get to the linked article as I'm not a subscriber but does it mention that the NRC is part of the deal?

I had assumed that this was the TV Rights deal for the Super Rugby and that the individual unions would have separate deals for the NPC, NRC and Currie Cup but that is purely my uneducated assumption. I would be stoked if the NRC is locked in for 5 years with this deal!

Yep it's included, unions(NZRU, SARU) were able to sell their rights their provincial competitions rights separately last time, but there were some questionable dealings done with SARU receiving an inflated price. It's thought SARU inflated the price of the Currie Cup and decreased the price of Super Rugby because they didn't have to share the money paid for the Currie Cup..

So this time, I believe they were all included as a means to stop that occurring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BaysideBird]

Ok then:
Rugby - 5 years $285m, however is this a third of the deal split between NZ, SA and Oz? If so this is worth $855m

I don't believe that the money is split into thirds. I think South Africa and New Zealand both get greater shares of the money due to having a higher value to outside broadcasters.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Congrats ARU on a strong strong deal, just shows the value of being to sell to international markets.

Just to add, it really shows the value of having games in the South African (UK) timezones.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think they also do okay with the Australian games in the UK as they get played at mid morning over there and don't clash with local sport. South African games are at a better time but they clash with everything over there.

Imagine how much the broadcast revenues would increase if the competition takes off in Japan and gains some popularity in other parts of Asia as well.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't believe that the money is split into thirds. I think South Africa and New Zealand both get greater shares of the money due to having a higher value to outside broadcasters.

Yep. They didn't publicise the split last time around though, so not sure we will find out this time either.

Mr Pulver said the broadcast revenue from all of the countries participating in Super Rugby would be pooled and further negotiations would take place as to how much is then apportioned to each country. After that process, he said, the Australian Rugby Union would end up with more funds than the current deal. "There will be two separate negotiations, first with the broadcasters there and then with [the other nations]," he said.

 

[BDA]

I don't mind the idea of an 8am Sunday game of FTA. It's a step in the right direction. It's 100 times better than what we had this year; a crappy recap show buried at about 11pm on a Monday or Tuesday night. At least a Sunday morning game is potentially a replay of a Saturday night game, so the delay will be minimal and I could see some people making a Sunday morning game part of their viewing routine. Plus more kids will get to watch the games.

 

[TOCC]

So now we ask what does the ARU do with the extra $34million/annum...

Pulver has mentioned that $10million a year more will go to Super Rugby teams, this will take the annual grants from $3.9million/annum up to $5.7million and should alleviate the financial problems some of the clubs were facing.

That leaves roughly $24million/annum extra in revenue.. ARU will need approximately $5million of that to go straight to cover existing expenses and just to remain in the black.

A $10million future fund established, presumably this means $2million/annum.

Which leaves around $17million/annum the ARU can invest in the game. NRC and Sevens will presumably receive increases in grants, and Pulver has promised to double funding to 'community rugby'.

When you break it down, it really is a significant lift in revenue.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

So now we ask what does the ARU do with the extra $34million/annum.

Pulver has mentioned that $10million a year more will go to Super Rugby teams, this will take the annual grants from $3.9million/annum up to $5.7million and should alleviate the financial problems some of the clubs were facing.

That leaves roughly $24million/annum extra in revenue.. ARU will need approximately $5million of that to go straight to cover existing expenses and just to remain in the black.

A $10million future fund established, presumably this means $2million/annum.

Which leaves around $17million/annum the ARU can invest in the game. NRC and Sevens will presumably receive increases in grants, and Pulver has promised to double funding to 'community rugby'.

When you break it down, it really is a significant lift in revenue.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pro players get 30% of gross revenue as per the CBA so they will be getting a large chunk. That might be included in the additional super Rugby grants though.

 

[TahDan]

I would love for someone to shed a little light on why an FTA reply was put in such a terrible time slot... Would an hour later in a prime time slot really have been so awful for Fox and 10?