New French TV Deal - Implications for Rugby as a whole

[JSRF10]

I was going to post this on the Northern Hemisphere thread but thought it affects SANZAR rugby as much as it affect us up norf'. Overnight the French Top 14 confirmed their TV deal for the next 5 years, it has gone up from 31M Euros to 70M Euros (ish). The breakdown per year is below:

• Season 2014/15: €70 million
• Season 2015/16: €70 million
• Season 2016/17: €71 million
• Season 2017/18: €72 million
• Season 2018/19: €72 million

As an Irish rugby supporter I'm very worried about not just our marquee players heading to France but also the next tranche of players after that. This TV deal gives each club another 2.8M to spend each season which will most likely go on players salaries. From now on it won't just be the Toulons of this world looking to snap up the Folaus, Hoopers, O'Briens and SBWs of this world it'll be the likes of Grenoble and Oyannax.

With this increased purchasing power will we see an exodus from Super 15 after the 2015 World Cup and beyond, and is this the biggest indication yet that rugby is going the way of soccer? In 20 years time will the only meaningful professional rugby be the Top14 and could international rugby be an after thought?

 

[Train Without a Station]

JSRF, really we have never seen the departure of our top players, in their prime. The reason is because these players are pretty well looked after. Leaving would be more lucrative, however they have contracts which are more than adequate and these contracts would provide greater luxury.

The loss of Mowen, Giteau and Smith isn't due to the greater money on offer. The greater money just makes it an attractive prospect when they have achieved what they wanted to in Australian Rugby. The ARU eligibility rules greatly assist in keeping this in place.

 

[JSRF10]

JSRF, really we have never seen the departure of our top players, in their prime. The reason is because these players are pretty well looked after.

I understand this but the dollars that the French teams can throw at the marquee names has just been increased by 2.8M per season. Given the like of Genia, Folau and Cooper are a precious commodity would they turn down 2M Euro a year to stay and play for their country?

This is a game changing deal by the French, not sure what was offered by unions in the past will suffice. Ireland has already seen 3 of its top players leave in their prime because they've got offers they can't turn down, even though the IRFU offered similar benefits to the ARU.

 

[Train Without a Station]

What I'm getting at JSRF is it still relates to any other professional like myself.

When I last looked for a job I had a minimum figure I was willing to accept. Anything under that I had to look elsewhere. Anything over that I would weigh up other factors.

Much like a rugby player, they'd have an amount they'd need to earn in order to stay in Australia. A French deal may offer more money, but much like you and I, unless we need more money than we are earning, we won't necessarily just jump on the next job offer paying a bit more.

Mowen needs to money because he is close to retirement, commands less value than a regular starting XV player and hasn't been at that level his whole career. Due to his small period in the spotlight, which due to his age would be limited to only a couple more seasons anyway, he lacks the profile to leverage that exposure into greater sponsorship and post rugby career opportunities.

Compare that to say Quade Cooper, who between his Reds contract, adequate ARU top up and sponsorships and endorsements he gets by having a high profile in Australia due to rugby, he would likely earn around $1M a calendar year. Now with this new deal, sure a team may be able to throw $1.5M a year at him. But then you have to consider:

1. Does his need the extra cash? $500,000 a year is a lot of money, but if you are already bringing in $1M a year is it that much? I for one wouldn't take an extra 50% income for a job I could likely hate, when I love the one I have now.

2. The unknown of the move: The biggest thing that stops people changing jobs is the fear of the unknown in a new environment. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't sometimes.

3. Potential impact to public profile: Quade has a great profile now with many endorsements. Playing in France this could certainly diminish when competing against so many more players within France. In Australia he is one of 5 flyhalves to begin with, throw in a Wallabies jersey and pretty much by default he is recognised as the top dog.

4. Potential post career employment: Being a massive name in rugby in Australia, a player can leverage that to post career opportunities, mostly in coaching and media. Teams by emotional attachment will offer coaching opportunities and their profile helps with media careers. Playing in France a player will slip off to obscurity to the general punter which will reduce their profile greatly and make less chance of this. Much like a mercenary player, will not have the emotional attachment from a club to offer them post career employment opportunities that they would otherwise in Australia.

If you're not in the Wallaby squad or close to the team, these factors aren't at play, you earn less and therefore it's a very attractive prospect. If you are, you have just as much to lose as you have to gain, which I'm sure is a factor while despite huge payrises on offer it rarely happens to those at the peak in their prime, and likely won't become a huge problem even with increased salaries. The bigger concern would be contracting local salaries, which makes the prospect of staying less financially viable.

 

[JSRF10]

Thanks for the reply @train with a station, you've made some really good points which I haven't considered. Points 3 and 4 wouldn't apply too much to someone from the NH playing in France as they would still be playing international rugby and European club rugby so they would be maintaining their public "commercial" image.

I think the real test of this will be if/when one of the current Australian age group players comes of age. Say someone in that age group has a big couple of years in Super Rugby, wins a few Bledisloes and caps it off with old Bill in 2019 by the age of 24. Do they do the Gregan, stay in Aus making decent cash build a profile and spend their late 30s onwards on the Fox Sports couch? Or so they take 2M Euro a year for 10 years and retire to some island in Caribbean as a multi millionaire whose only worry is where to park the helicopter?

The ARU, alongside the NZRU, have been able to keep their stars in their prime at home. I hope for the sake of international rugby that they continue to do so. The IRFU, WRU, SRFU and SARU need to take a leaf of of their books and only pick players playing in the country, that would stamp a lot of the wage inflation fuelled by French tv money, however the only solution to completely stop wage inflation would be the IRB to limit all club match day squads to a maximum of 5 foreign players. I doubt there is the political will for that though.

 

[TOCC]

Wasn't the Top14 in the process of changing rules in regards to foreign players and salary caps only recently? The problem for French rugby was that there are too many foreigners playing in positions which limits the development of french players.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think what we will likely see, will be those players who previously would have stayed on the chance they may make it, could decide to leave now because the guaranteed reward outweighs the potential reward which there is no guarantee of. Like they say, one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. However this would be two birds in the hand, would be worth one in the bush.

Even know I think you're scenario of a player who in their mid 20s feels they achieved it all, I think they would still have left recently. I guess there are some positives from out lack of recent success haha.

Really here in Australia, the bigger a player is, the more they have coming beyond their province and the ARU, so the more they have to lose. I could be wrong, but it's my understanding the IRFU have not adopted the requirement of players needing to play in Ireland to play for Ireland, which means a player can have their cake, or rather million dollar French deal, and eat it too by representing Ireland, therefore maintaining their profile where it's worth it's greatest, being the Irish poster boy for Nike, Reebok, etc.

Without that national recognition, the profile is diminished. Even playing in the Top 14, my understanding is that the French population are much more parochial towards their region than their national team. Due to this I imagine marketing nationally in France would be different. But I assume that a foreigner, playing for one region would have less of a profile outside of that region. Also when you are not playing test rugby, it's harder to maintain a profile of being one of the best in the world.

I think that if unions universally applied to local players only policy, it would definitely minimize the problem. Less high profile foreigners would diminish the Top 14's power a little for one. Players would need to be playing their local domestic rugby to play tests, which would enable them to show they are the best in the world increasing their profile and sponsorship/endorsement market value. All the while, players towards the end of their career or those that feel they aren't in their national teams plans can ply their trade overseas for the experience and will still be well rewarded for this.

 

[JSRF10]

Wasn't the Top14 in the process of changing rules in regards to foreign players and salary caps only recently? The problem for French rugby was that there are too many foreigners playing in positions which limits the development of french players.

I think your referring to the JIFF rules (certain number of 23 has to have come through academy), I think the implementation of these would lead to less journeymen being signed by French clubs and a more focused targeting of marquee internationals.

Really here in Australia, the bigger a player is, the more they have coming beyond their province and the ARU, so the more they have to lose. I could be wrong, but it's my understanding the IRFU have not adopted the requirement of players needing to play in Ireland to play for Ireland, which means a player can have their cake, or rather million dollar French deal, and eat it too by representing Ireland, therefore maintaining their profile where it's worth it's greatest, being the Irish poster boy for Nike, Reebok, etc.

Your right about the Irish system. Jonny Sexton is still promoting all kinds of things in Ireland, still picking up his bonus from playing for the national team and getting a massive salary from Racing Metro.

 

[Bullrush]

The lure of pulling on the black jersey has kept many a player who might have gone overseas.

More money will definitely make it harder to say 'No'.

 

[suckerforred]

I can see the arguements that TWOAS are putting accross and certainly the lure of playing for the Wallabies is what is keeping players in Australia.

I do wonder however if this will have an effect, not by encouraging the top level (i.e. current Wallabies) but the ones at number 3 or 4 pick. It was not long ago that we were struck by the curse of the 10 jersey and the Reds were playing with their 5th pick flyhalf. If number 3 or 4 had chosen to ply his trade in france that means we would have been playing with 6 or 7. Sam Lane is an example of someone that would be nice to have playing in Australia but isn't.

Having said that, would it be a bad thing if some of the younger blokes go to France & make some coin for 2-3 years in their early - mid twenties then come home? They might even come back better players.

I surpose it is going to be a suck it & see senario.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Suckerforred, these players that are 3 and 4 are the real concerns. A player may be able to chase his dream earning $300k playing Super Rugby and knock back $500k to head over the France. But if that figure increases and the chance of achieving their dream and the financial incentives which come with it remains minimal, I'm sure we will lose some of these players. The Peter Hewats of Australia may not wait until Lote Tuqiri throws the national selectors on speaker phone saying they'll never get picked before they leave.

The impact would be greater on our Super Rugby than the Wallabies I imagine.

 

[suckerforred]

I think that with the French clubs there are rules for Top 14 then different rule for the Heineken/Euro Cup for the match day squads. My understanding is that they have to have a minimum number of French players in the match day squad for Top 14 but Heineken/Eruo Cup doesn't matter. Hence Toulon Has large numbers of international players but they don't all play in a Top14 game.

 

[suckerforred]

Yeah TWOAS, we don't have very good depth in some positions and this just might make to worse. As I said suck it & see.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It's probably more of an issue for the other European unions than it is for the SANZAR nations, if the current eligibility rules stay in place. I think the events up there will harden the stance of the ARU and NZRFU in terms of who can play for the national side based on where they are playing their club footy. If they were to give an inch then there would be a deluge of players taking the bigger bucks on offer. As TWAS points out, being a test player increases your market value in the NH, but only if you can can play club footy up there *and* still play for your country. This has obviously had an effect on the Saffers due to their eligibility rules and the fact that IIRC the Kolpak ruling is also in their favour.

So the bottom line is:
1, Current test players in their prime or approaching it will probably stay, provided their passion is to play for their country
2, Emerging players on the cusp of test selection will also stay
3, Current or recent test players on the downward side of the performance curve will be very tempted to take the money while they can
4, Talented youngsters who aren't current test prospects will also be very tempted by the cash and the experience, knowing that they have time to come back if the desire to play for Australia exists. The experience may well do them some good

If I think about my own professional life, I was in category 4, but eventually came back, so the countries investment in my education was repaid in the end (and then some). I reckon that's the case for most Aussies and I don't think rugby will be a lot different there.

 

[p.Tah]

70m euro is ~ AUD $105m per year. The NRL and AFL received AUD $ 200m per year (for all media not just TV). Highlights how overpriced the NRL and AFL deals are.

 

[Bullrush]

On the flip side, does this deal give the ARU any clout with Fox?

 

[wamberal]

70m euro is ~ AUD $105m per year. The NRL and AFL received AUD $ 200m per year (for all media not just TV). Highlights how overpriced the NRL and AFL deals are.

Even more so when you consider the size of the French population compared to ours.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I hope TWAS is right about the incentive for our better players to remain in Aus in order to play for the Wallabies. It's the next rung down that worries me. Although there hasn't been too large a drain on those players from the Super comp to date, recently the likes of Burgess, Palmer and Kimlin who are all prospective Wallabies, and would have been certainties for game day squads at Super level, have gone O/S and now the lure will likely be even greater for players at this level. We really could see a decline in the standard of our Super teams.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

i think Australia will inevitably move to the NZ model of allowing sabbaticals to senior players that meet certain eligibility requirements. SA selects from abroad, NZ allows sabbaticals. i cant only see that the weakest of the SANZAR teams will have to make a step in this direction and i think the NZ system is the best. keeps the players in the home country for the most part and rewards those that stick around by enabling them to go an earn an additional $1m+ in europe or japan.
i agree as well with the above that this will affect the non-test super rugby players.
i still think the best model for Super Rugby going forward is two conference model
SA + Argentina and NZ + AUS
cross over for the finals or structure it like the NFL and its conference v conference in the playoffs.
still package it all up as one tv deal and aus and nz still benefit from the $ from SA deal
i have thought for awhile that the travel was likely to be a major issue with super rugby/RC particularly as players get older. a friend of mine played top 14 and magners for a few years and almost played super rugby but elected not to play due to the travel as he has a young family and had other career prospects.
they are on the road far too much.

I also think the rugby championship should be a once every two years tournament (could potentially have it hosted by AUS/NZ, SA and eventually Argentina in alternating years).
in between one off tests and or tours

 

[Train Without a Station]

Would you really call it a "system". Who have the NZRU allowed to play overseas? Carter? Is there anybody else.

They've given Smith and McCaw periods off rugby completely. Do you think they would have allowed it if they chose to play in Europe though given what happened to Carter and the fact he seems to be regularly injured since?

These are once in a generation players who have played around 100 caps for the All Blacks with their jersey unchallenged in this period.

George Smith was a rare case for the Wallabies too, where he happened to be playing here on a short term contract at the time.

People are always going to make slight exceptions in extreme cases, but these are treated on individual merit.

Back on the subject of Carter and his injury concerns, Elsom despite his dominance up there after leaving here in great form came back a shadow of his former self. Can anybody name a player that has come back better, or even equal to when they left?

Perhaps Radike was better and Staniforth was equal, or not much worse. I'm honestly struggling to rack my brain for any other players I remember that haven't come back as less than what they were when they left.