Rugby TV ratings 2015

[Train Without a Station]

But that is the entirety of their revenue. the ARU makes quite significant revenue from the Wallabies entity also.

Remember that there are generally 14 tests matches. A player may make $140,000 from match payments alone.

When you consider that on test match day revenues in isolation, the Wallabies make probably over $14M for the year, which you have to consider as being spread across these 5 teams, as it is in addition to their revenue and does not impact on their resources. In 2013 the Wallabies arm made something like $70M alone if I recall correctly. This basically funds all ARU costs. Even if the ARU is bringing in only $2M per test, that's still $28M in a calendar year and another $5M to be spread across when you look at it per team.

We are still well behind, but if you get caught up in final numbers you ignore what the revenues mean in relations to costs and profitability. Obviously until the ARU is making something like $100M+ a year on TV Rights were are nowhere near AFL.

But we are moving in a positive direction for a change.

 

[Strewthcobber]

In an attempt at a meaningful comparison, I've had a crack at some numbers. Lots of assumption here, and approximations but anyway.....Let me know if any are way off (the big one is assuming NRL get to $1.7b)

The team game numbers is number of games * number of sides, so for NRL and AFL it's fairly simple, ARU is more complicated - this is only the Australian Super teams + Wallaby number of games.

Based on 414 team games per year + $416m (44 players) AFL, 402 games + $340m (25 players) NRL, 95 games + $45m (35 players) ARU

AFL - $22,800 per player/game
NRL - $33,800 per player/game
ARU - $13,533 per player/game

These numbers don't mean much in isolation but it gives an order of magnitude comparison. If we want to get more money we could both play more games and earn more from each one.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Strewthcobber does that consider the Wallabies match day revenue per test? Even if this was only a very conservative $1M per match it would be close another $1,000 per player per game. And also our squads are 32.

That would make it actually $14,802 per player/game.

If the match day revenue is $2M per game it's $16,776 per player/game. Considering the Wallabies revenue for 2014 was $35M that's still slightly conservative. The NRL has a much smaller number of these revenues and the AFL does not really have any. Again the $31M in sponsorship would go a lot further. Once you take out the Super Rugby sponsorship from that which would be the equivalent to the NRL and AFL naming rights sponsors, there's not a lot left for them. Potentially there's $55M in additional income that the AFL and NRL does not have nearly as almost all match days are club match days for them.

So in actual fact that $45M is closer to $100M when you consider the unique dynamic of the central team with it's own full season.

Obviously that does not change what the TV deal means, but it puts it in perspective.

The ARU's financial failing has not been the cost of it's own administration. It's been that Super Rugby has cost them more than it has brought in. This changes that.

 

[TOCC]

TWAS you can't include all the match day income for rugby union and not rugby league/afl.. Match day income for things like the GF, and State of Origin series exceed any Wallaby test.

Also, there is no way in hell that Super Rugby sponsorship is the equivalent of AFL/NRL naming rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blindsider]

54000 watched the Shute shield GF in Sydney on 7 on Saturday.

Source: my brother works for C7 Sydney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Strewthcobber does that consider the Wallabies match day revenue per test? Even if this was only a very conservative $1M per match it would be close another $1,000 per player per game. And also our squads are 32.

Thought it was 30+5?
The NRL one is what I'm most unsure of, how do they include rookie/emerging players?

The numbers include Oz super rugby+Wallaby games, but only the reported TV revenue side of things ($45m)
Matchday not included but as others have said, I don't think that's going to make much difference in the numbers (compared with AFL finals, NRL SoO+finals etc)

 

[Train Without a Station]

It was 30+5 but changed to 32 this year I believe.

Good point, I did not consider finals.

NRL has a top tier squad of 25 but then a second tier squad also.

Based on a $400k second tier cap I'd imagine that there are around 32 used also.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Changing both NRL and ARU squad sizes to 32

AFL - $22,800 per player/game (414 Team games)
NRL - $26,430 per player/game (402 Team games)
ARU - $14,802 per player/game (95 Team games)

 

[Train Without a Station]

The most important thing is we are comparing an ARU deal that starts in 2016 with an NRL and AFL one that starts in 2018.

Comparing 2016 figures these are closer, and halfway through their next deal, we will be onto the next one too.

The 2016 deals are:

NRL $925M Cash ($185M Annually)
AFL $1.25B ($250M Annually)
ARU $200M Approx ($40M Annually)

Based on next years deal its:

AFL $14,167 per player/game
NRL $13,964 per player/game
ARU $13,157 per player/game

Still it cannot be ignored that on a per game basis, of local content, we are down and it's only going to jump dramatically in 2018. If we cannot get a good increase for 2021 we could be left even further behind.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I tell a lie. The AFL's is from 2017.

 

[blindsider]

54000 watched the Shute shield GF in Sydney on 7 on Saturday.

Source: my brother works for C7 Sydney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Channel 7 were quite happy with those figures!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

They were much happier with their women's AFL ratings though.........

 

[blindsider]

Just for some comparison, 1 million people nationally watched Cats Make You Laugh Out Loud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miggie]

Try reading between the lines rather than swallowing the propaganda.

 

[Miggie]

Apparently the big difference from the press conference as to why AFL will now succeed in QLD/NSW after decades of failing (check TV don't start on the gates) is that it is "a great game". lol

The AFL - still as delusional as ever, bless 'em.

 

[Highlander35]

Calling it panic from the AFL seems pretty stupid.

Its an extra 160 million annually on their current deal. By the time they finish the deal they're a bees dick away from getting Etihad for a dollar.

Delusional is an exaggeration, albeit not a huge one, but they've got the revenue, sponsor support and Government approval for it not to make a dent in their finances for at least a decade. The free upgrade to the Gold Coast Stadium in 2017 before the Comm Games. They've positioned themselves well for the next better part of a decade.

Who knows where they'll be in 15-20 years, but the AFL train will keep on chugging along for the foreseeable future.

Back to Rugby now please.

 

[Miggie]

Calling it anything other than panic for trotting out old Rupert is itself delusional.

 

[The_Wookie]

But that is the entirety of their revenue. the ARU makes quite significant revenue from the Wallabies entity also.

Remember that there are generally 14 tests matches. A player may make $140,000 from match payments alone.

When you consider that on test match day revenues in isolation, the Wallabies make probably over $14M for the year, which you have to consider as being spread across these 5 teams, as it is in addition to their revenue and does not impact on their resources. In 2013 the Wallabies arm made something like $70M alone if I recall correctly. This basically funds all ARU costs. Even if the ARU is bringing in only $2M per test, that's still $28M in a calendar year and another $5M to be spread across when you look at it per team.

We are still well behind, but if you get caught up in final numbers you ignore what the revenues mean in relations to costs and profitability. Obviously until the ARU is making something like $100M+ a year on TV Rights were are nowhere near AFL.

But we are moving in a positive direction for a change.

Dont forget the AFL generates another $300 million a year in non broadcast revenues, from total 2014 revenues of $522 million. 2017 will likely be the first time that their broadcast revenue overtakes their non broadcast revnue.

 

[Miggie]

As for rugby, we are clearly in trouble in the future given the size of the AFL and NRL deals and the constant hovering around insolvency the ARU likes to engage in.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Dont forget the AFL generates another $300 million a year in non broadcast revenues, from total 2014 revenues of $522 million. 2017 will likely be the first time that their broadcast revenue overtakes their non broadcast revnue.

I was actually going to comment it was my understanding that the NRL had non broadcast revenue of about 50% of their broadcast revenue where for the ARU 2016 will be the first time their broadcast revenue is around even with their non-broadcast revenue.

I hadn't looked at AFL. it's quite interesting to see that it appears to have much wider range of profits sources than NRL.