Australian Bid for 2027 World Cup

[dru]

On a positive, NZRU walked away with the ball of the profits from the ‘test match’ between NZ ans USA, so less money for USA Rugby to put behind their bid;


“This match – in my opinion – on the field a total disaster. Off the field, a total disaster.

“We made less than $200,000 dollars net. The All Blacks made 1.3 million and the promoters made seven figures as well.”

'On the field a total disaster. Off the field, a total disaster... a nadir for American rugby'

A former US Eagle has branded America's annihilation at the hands the All Blacks a 'nadir' for the sport in the US and a much-needed wake...

www.rugbypass.com

Is anyone actually surprised at the NZRU twisting commerce over rugby to their own advantage?

 

[Dan54]

Is anyone actually surprised at the NZRU twisting commerce over rugby to their own advantage?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

On a positive, NZRU walked away with the bulk of the profits from the ‘test match’ between NZ and USA, which means less money for USA Rugby to put behind their RWC bid;


“This match – in my opinion – on the field a total disaster. Off the field, a total disaster.
“We made less than $200,000 dollars net. The All Blacks made 1.3 million and the promoters made seven figures as well.”

'On the field a total disaster. Off the field, a total disaster... a nadir for American rugby'

A former US Eagle has branded America's annihilation at the hands the All Blacks a 'nadir' for the sport in the US and a much-needed wake...

www.rugbypass.com

Assuming the $ were match/ appearance fees they look about right relatively speaking. Promoters presumably took the risk of it being a flop & are entitled to take whatever they made.

Is anyone actually surprised at the NZRU twisting commerce over rugby to their own advantage?

Edit: Obviously NZR should've said "no, no, you take the 1.3 mil, we're grateful for the 200K".

Matches played outside the international windows are by their nature commercial propositions, only a fool would take less than the maximum they can earn from it. We're not communists, after all.

 

[Wilson]

It does speak to some of the larger issues with the way revenue sharing inside and outside of the international windows is currently working. New Zealand only travels to a tier 2 nation like the US when it can be done for big money outside the international window, which then means the US don't have access to their best players and lose much of the on field benefit while earning significantly less off the field than they would if the test was in the window. This is far from unique to New Zealand, it's just most pronounced because of the higher appearance fees they command.

Hopefully any "league of nations" model that sorts out the other side of revenue sharing (fairer revunue sharing for in window tests) also addresses this and guarantees the tier 2 nations some number of tests against tier 1 nations within international windows.

 

[Dan54]

It does speak to some of the larger issues with the way revenue sharing inside and outside of the international windows is currently working. New Zealand only travels to a tier 2 nation like the US when it can be done for big money outside the international window, which then means the US don't have access to their best players and lose much of the on field benefit while earning significantly less off the field than they would if the test was in the window. This is far from unique to New Zealand, it's just most pronounced because of the higher appearance fees they command.

Hopefully any "league of nations" model that sorts out the other side of revenue sharing (fairer revunue sharing for in window tests) also addresses this and guarantees the tier 2 nations some number of tests against tier 1 nations within international windows.

You have a very good point Wilson, the International window is ridicously short and so it just involves tier 1 vs tier 1 teams, there is nowhere enough time for a proper build up and pick up a tier 2 test in it. As you say fingers crossed for league of nations or something to be sorted.

 

[Derpus]

Assuming the $ were match/ appearance fees they look about right relatively speaking. Promoters presumably took the risk of it being a flop & are entitled to take whatever they made.


Obviously Edit: NZR should've said "no, no, you take the 1.3 mil, we're grateful for the 200K".

Matches played outside the international windows are by their nature commercial propositions, only a fool would take less than the maximum they can earn from it. We're not communists, after all.

Don't you get stuck up the Poms for their inequitable distribution of Twickers cash?

I hate that tests are revenue raising first, rugby second.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Don't you get stuck up the Poms for their inequitable distribution of Twickers cash?

I hate that tests are revenue raising first, rugby second.

Apples & oranges, mate: Ringinland won't play us at Twickers outside the window so NZR only get the standard match fee plus expenses. All in-window matches should IMO have a host 60:40 visitor revenue split but for any outside the window & set up by a promotor taking a punt on turning a profit it's market forces rule & as Wilson points out AB can command a higher appearance fee than USA. To further borrow from Wilson's excellent post, hopefully the League of Nations can make just-for-the-cash matches unnecessary.

 

[Wilson]

League of nations is definitely the end goal there but the thing I'd really like to see is some of these lower tier 2 teams like the USA booking in matches and tours with top level club side - e.g. come do a 2-5 match tour of Australian super sides maybe with an Australia A to cap it off, book in some pre-season fixtures with a top 14 or English premiership side, etc.

Money is an issue with some of these concepts but I don't doubt you'd find teams keen to engage and build partnerships, particularly if you started to look at a bit of player and coach development over the long term. There's so much made of the need for these countries to get more regular exposure to top flight rugby, but the gap to the top of the world is big enough that they need something better to bridge it. The level they're at they would struggle to beat a super side straight off, but would likely compete and gain a fair bit from a few matches in a row, and it's probably better exposure than just playing other nations at a similar level to themselves.

This is probably only tagentially related to the world cup at this point, but if the US do get either 27 or 31 this is the sort of proactive preparation they'll need to engage in to get their team up to speed. Perhaps it's something Australia could help to facilitate, with the aim of shifting them off 27 and more firmly onto 31. I know part of the Australian bid is an offer to include US representatives in the World Cup operations team (assuming they have 2031) to help them prepare off field, so it's not unbelievable they add an on field component.

 

[dru]

We're not communists, after all.

Such a good look and all.

 

[Dan54]

Such a good look and all.

Mate, if the ABs played every game for free, and gave all the gate takings to opposition in home tests it wouldn't be good enough for a number of posters on here. It's what it is!

 

[Brumby Runner]

Assuming the $ were match/ appearance fees they look about right relatively speaking. Promoters presumably took the risk of it being a flop & are entitled to take whatever they made.


Edit: Obviously NZR should've said "no, no, you take the 1.3 mil, we're grateful for the 200K".

Matches played outside the international windows are by their nature commercial propositions, only a fool would take less than the maximum they can earn from it. We're not communists, after all.

Greed is good, WOB. I had a higher opinion of you before that post. Have to say that NZ taking advantage of USR like that is consistent with their approach to Aussie rugby in relation to Super Rugby negotiations.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ pretty sure the CEO of USAR didn't have a gun to his head when he signed the contract. Also pretty sure he's not commercially illiterate so would've know full well that AB & promotors were getting the bulk of the cash. The fact he signed anyway suggests to me that he was OK with that.

I wonder what we'd find if the books for Japan v Wobs were made public?

Edit: it's been reported that NZR were paid $1M for the Wales Test but that WRU netted $3-4M. As with USAR, NZR would've had a fair idea of the likely gross & signed on for at best a 25% cut.

 

[Dan54]

^ pretty sure the CEO of USAR didn't have a gun to his head when he signed the contract. Also pretty sure he's not commercially illiterate so would've know full well that AB & promotors were getting the bulk of the cash. The fact he signed anyway suggests to me that he was OK with that.

I wonder what we'd find if the books for Japan v Wobs were made public?

Edit: it's been reported that NZR were paid $1M for the Wales Test but that WRU netted $3-4M. As with USAR, NZR would've had a fair idea of the likely gross & signed on for at best a 25% cut.

I think the USR got a smaller cut , because of instead of promoting the game themselves they actually paid acompany to do it for them?
That is not usual practice that I know of, but but maybe someone in here can enlighten me!
Do RA pay outside companies supposedly $1m odd backs to promote games, pretty sure NZR doesn't! Neither do Poms, Wales etc, so will be interested to hear if anyone knows why USR did, and why they thought NZR should of paid for it out of their cut!
Will be real interested to read what you all know! I got no idea.
And from what I understood that was from ticket sales, not from Advertising and tv rights.

 

[Braveheart81]

Greed is good, WOB. I had a higher opinion of you before that post. Have to say that NZ taking advantage of USR like that is consistent with their approach to Aussie rugby in relation to Super Rugby negotiations.

How are they taking advantage?

Every team takes a fee for matches outside of the international window that matches their standing and marketability. The All Blacks can unsurprisingly demand a larger fee than other teams.

It's not their fault if US Rugby and the promoter overcommit and don't sell enough tickets.

Japan only got 17k people to the game against Australia. Should the RA's fee for that game drop if less tickets are sold. None of these arrangements provide an upside for the visiting team if the event is more profitable.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Such a good look and all.

Better?

 

[Brumby Jack]

Australia has been named as the preferred candidate for RWC 2027.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Shot, 'straya!

 

[Dan54]

Great, I was worried about Poms stuffing it up by wanting 2031 etc. But WR (World Rugby) has basically laid it out as Aus then the States!

 

[BDA]

I'm unfamiliar with the process, but wasn't South Africa announced as the preferred candidate for 2023 and then lost out on the votes anyway? What's the chances we still lose out?

 

[barbarian]

I'm unfamiliar with the process, but wasn't South Africa announced as the preferred candidate for 2023 and then lost out on the votes anyway? What's the chances we still lose out?

No, South Africa was ranked the first by an assessment panel but not given preferred status.

What this means is that we will begin talking to World Rugby directly about specifics of hosting the tournament. We've got it barring an unforeseen disaster.