I'm not arguing that Sydney isn't the main centre of the game, I'm not sure why you would think that.
My argument is that clubs that people think of as being regional and small (mentioned multiple times in this thread) are actually bigger than some of the Sydney clubs - not only that - but they are some of the NRL's greatest assets.
The Sydney clubs might have "access" to more corporates but there's 9 NRL clubs there (plus all the other sports franchises in other codes) so those corporates, third parties and the media space gets divided up, albeit unevenly. Hence why you'll always have bigger Sydney NRL clubs and small ones (it's a similar story in Melbourne with the AFL).
As for number of people = bigger club, it's not a given that they'll be a bigger club as a guarantee (there will always be bigger Sydney clubs than the Knights, Cowboys, Titans etc), rather that their underestimated market sizes and effective lack of competition means that they can overcome Sydney clubs who exists in Sydney enclaves (Sharks, Sea Eagles etc) which they haven't broken out of.
For example, yeah the Sharks are in the massive Sydney market. But they'll always be the 8th or 9th ranked Sydney club in terms of support and it will never change based on those demographics. Whereas a club like the Knights is in a market that's essentially three times the size of Sutherland shire with no other NRL competition, that can directly tap into a $90-$100 billion GDP economy (Hunter, Newcastle and Central Coast) compared to the Sutherland Shire's $15 billion GDP or the Northern Beaches $22 billion. And what's the Knights' competition? The Newcastle Jets. If I had to choose which to invest in in terms of which will have the strongest future, I'd go the 'small regional' teams like the Cowboys, Raiders and Titans over the Sharks or Sea Eagles. Being in Sydney isn't enough. They need to either go big or they'll be left behind, even by regional clubs.
…. Ten times worse than now no doubt
