1. Longer game timeAfter boggling, what explanation does your mind bring forth?
There is strong opposition to private health care in the UK. Similar resistance to public health care in the US. In both cases it largely derives from that section of the population who believe that change would involve them paying twice.
Broncos v Dragons crowd 26k - low side, Fox rating 335k - high side.
Looks to me there is a cohort of NRL fans who when they take out a Fox subscription are less inclined to buy a membership and attend games.
The equivalent AFL fans are less likely to take out a Fox subscription and more likely to buy a membership and attend games. This is disappointing from an NRL crowd point of view, but the quid pro quo should be the NRL get a lot more money from Fox.
I've read all the defences of why AFL is deemed more valuable to TV and none of them are commercially plausible. There's something rotten at the heart of the broadcast deals.
Fox ratings for 3 rounds of NRL are striking. Experts said the STB numbers would fall with the advent of streaming. The opposite seems to be happening for NRL games this year.
Comparable AFL round 1 ratings are poor.
PVL must see all these figures. What does he think? Not what does he say he thinks in interviews. What does he really think?
2. More metro capitals covered
those would be the conventional arguments
my argument would be since super league news ltd owns or controls rugby league and uses profits it makes on getting nrl cheaply to pay afl extra
why ? To permanently keep nrl weak ?
To grow viewers in southern states where it has lower penetration ?
both channel nine and fox pay well less than what nrl is worth
with origins nrl should be getting more than afl not less
throw in bad nrl leadership who are poor negotiators