How are we selling Rugby League?

[Rampart66]

I'll start from the beginning. A few years ago I had never seen a rugby game (live or on television). I had no idea that there were two seperate codes.

To make a long story short; I was fortunate enough to hook up with the Pittsburgh Vipers and find out what rugby league was all about.

I can tell you from a fan perspective that this sport has huge (let me emphisize that: HUGE) potential. We all know that Rugby League is a great sport and has all of the elements for a great spectator sport.

So, how are we selling the game? What do the teams and players want rugby league to be?

Do we want it to be a mostly amatuer sport that draws about the same amount of spectators as a little league baseball game?

Do we want it to become larger with crowds over 10,000 per game?

How are we educating our fans about the rules? How we we making the sport and teams attractive to businesses for corporate partnerships.

I realize that I've just thrown some very vague questions out there. I know that both leagues have been working with youth programs and referee clinics, but how we creating fans? How are we attracting those who come to the games and cheer on the respective teams without being involved in an aspect of the teams themselves.

This message board is probably the busiest forum for rugby league discussion. On the other sections of this board, you'll find a multitude of fans that support the NRL and the SuperLeague. Where are the fans that support the USARL and AMNRL?

 

[billy2]

TV is the answer - or in the computer and internet age - quality broadcasts on the net.

The game is made for TV and has been growing strongly in all markets as broadcasts get easier.

The future of the internet is in quality video sharing sites - kondute for example - and League in the US can and should be getting as much content on the net as possible - the game is made for broadcasting.

 

[Western_Eel]

Obviuosly TV but if you dont have the support no one will put it on
2nd would be to play good entertaining football, that will draw bigger crowds to each game then build off that

 

[Western_Eel]

Being able to play the game for free would also help build numbers
More players = More supporters

 

[VictoryFC]

Participation. All that other stuff is pie in the sky stuff without it.

 

[LineBall]

What others have said above is all very important and relevant.

However, in your opening post - I think you touched on a very important issue - the name of our sport.

Rugby League has as much right to the word Rugby as Union does, but in my opinion, when trying to promote the game it only leads to confusion.

Perhaps having a brains trust rebrand the sport globally as sometihng else would be one of the biggest steps in growing the game internationally, as well as making it easier to distance ourselves from Rugby Union.

 

[Rampart66]

Television can be done, but it has be done in a non-conventional manner.

In the Pittsburgh area, we have a local sports station (ROOT Sports). They broadcast the Penguins and Pirates games. Other than that, it's a lot of filler shows like Dan Patrick, Poker and local college sports.

One thing that has been on TV in the last few years has been the local women's football team's games. They're rarely shown live, but they are shown. The football team has grown their following and can draw over 1000 people per game. I know that the Comcast affiliates in other cities (such as Washington DC) have also broadcast women's football.

Rather than trying to get a major TV deal, the best way to approach this is to produce the games yourself. This may sound a bit daunting, but it can be done with the help of a production company that produces high school football in the area. No, it won't be free.

The production should have multiple camera angles, on screen graphics (a score bug) and play-by-play commentary. This will give you the opportunity to solicit the local sports stations with a ready to air product. The first game that you produce may not get airtime, but it will get your foot in the door and at least you'll have something professional looking to distribute as a DVD for potential sponsors.

 

[Rampart66]

Being able to play the game for free would also help build numbers
More players = More supporters

Being able to get to the point of paying players is even better. Perhaps a profit sharing program could be set up with the teams for players to go out and bring in sponsors (on top of any commission of 20%-30%). Open the books and let the players know the finances. Really drive home the advantages of profitability.

Of course revenues come from several major sources:
-Gate Receipts (ticket sales)
-Sponsorships/Advertising
-Merchandise (or licensing your identity to 3rd party to produce merchandise, so that you don't have to keep a stocked inventory)
-Fundraisers
-Investors (Angel Investors)

 

[Rampart66]

Participation. All that other stuff is pie in the sky stuff without it.

Yes, but it's like a infinite paradox.

How do you get participation if no one knows about your team.

You need to create a buzz to get participation to create a buzz.

Players, Coaches and Refs are the lifeblood of any sports organization, but fans have to be produced also. The teams need to create enough buzz that people are coming to see games. And I don't mean friends and family. I mean the diehard supporter that really enjoys watching the sport.

 

[Rampart66]

What others have said above is all very important and relevant.

However, in your opening post - I think you touched on a very important issue - the name of our sport.

Rugby League has as much right to the word Rugby as Union does, but in my opinion, when trying to promote the game it only leads to confusion.

Perhaps having a brains trust rebrand the sport globally as sometihng else would be one of the biggest steps in growing the game internationally, as well as making it easier to distance ourselves from Rugby Union.

This discussion was had few months ago here. There were many different opinions.

Personally, my opinion is to keep the name "Rugby League". It is what it is. Rugby Union may have more participation in the US, but it still doesn't have the mainstream following for a multitude of reasons. Rugby League has the opportunity to take the name "rugby" for itself.

Out of curiosity, how is Rugby League referred to in Australia? Is it Rugby League or Rugby? How is Rugby Union referred to there as well?

One more point. This is being generous, but I'd say that 0.01% or less of the US population even know that two distinct rugby codes even exist. (yes, that's 1 person out every 10,000. No, I'm not exaggerating)

 

[joshie]

.

Out of curiosity, how is Rugby League referred to in Australia? Is it Rugby League or Rugby? How is Rugby Union referred to there as well?

I refer to it as football mainly but many of my friends refer to it as league or football.

rugby union is always Rugby to me and from what I hear.

 

[LineBall]

Here in Queensland, where rugby league is the most popular football code, if you say 'football' you are talking about rugby league.

If you want to talk about Rugby Union, most people would say, "Union"

As you said before, if virtually nobody in the U.S. knows that there is two distinct types of Rugby football, wouldn't that be all the more reason to lose the term Rugby altogether?

 

[Thomas]

Here in Queensland, where rugby league is the most popular football code, if you say 'football' you are talking about rugby league.

Yep. Most people call it footy or just refer to the team. "I'm going to watch the Broncos on the weekend" or "Do you want to watch the Titans?"

If you want to talk about Rugby Union, most people would say, "Union"

I think you'll find most people call it 'rugby'. Same for the majority of Australia except the AFL states who generally have no idea there are two codes of rugby football.

 

[adamkungl]

Here in Queensland, where rugby league is the most popular football code, if you say 'football' you are talking about rugby league.

If you want to talk about Rugby Union, most people would say, "Union"

As you said before, if virtually nobody in the U.S. knows that there is two distinct types of Rugby football, wouldn't that be all the more reason to lose the term Rugby altogether?

Better idea would be to claim the term Rugby for ourselves by becoming the bigger game.

 

[docbrown]

I think you'll find most people call it 'rugby'. Same for the majority of Australia except the AFL states who generally have no idea there are two codes of rugby football.

Actually calling it Union is quite common in Newcastle.

Rugby League is just called football or footy.

That said we live in a strong rugby league area.

 

[LineBall]

Actually calling it Union is quite common in Newcastle.

Rugby League is just called football or footy.

That said we live in a strong rugby league area.

Same here doc. Very few people here in north qld call rugby union "rugby". It is almost always called "union".

 

[billy2]

Producing broadcast quality footage is something to aim for in a few years, but putting together something good enough for video sharing sites on the internet could be done by enthusiastic amatuers.
An easy option would be an hour long weekly podcast (or whatever the video equivalent is) that is basically a one camera talking heads show in a studio with minute long highlight clips of the games from that week.
You could gradually work up to full game broadcasts.
Every second household has a quality video camera now, and a club could afford a really decent one.
As i said earlier, our game is made for broadcasting, and thrives where ever it gets on TV.

 

[100%green]

Looking at the reverse, here in Australia the Australian Baseball League is in a similar position although they do get funding for MLB and the ABF.

Here they are trying to sell the game to Australians based on the AA & AAA style common in the USA. There focus is on producing a good game day with entertainment, competitions & giveaways around the game itself. They also stream their games on their club sites but have managed to get the All Star and championship games on Fox. They try to educated fans on the game and it's ways.

Calling it League not Rugby is a must.

Given the volume of Aussie actors over there that would always help to. Having Russell Crowe and Souths there a few years ago must have made a few ripples!!! (I know this would be difficult but it only takes one person who know someone....)

 

[Big Picture]

Here in Queensland, where rugby league is the most popular football code, if you say 'football' you are talking about rugby league.

If you want to talk about Rugby Union, most people would say, "Union"

As you said before, if virtually nobody in the U.S. knows that there is two distinct types of Rugby football, wouldn't that be all the more reason to lose the term Rugby altogether?

Rugby League is like American football in being a ball-control game with defined periods of offense and defense where the objective is to keep possession and march down the field to score touchdowns.

For that reason I'd bill the game as International Football -- i.e. the international brand of football in the North American sense of the word. That would make a clear distinction between it and the inferior game that is rugby union.

 

[Rampart66]

Currently, NBC Sports is broadcasting International Rugby 7s. They also aired the Rugby (Union) World Cup last year.

I wonder if broadcasting union does more harm than good. A friend of mine watched the WC final game and was dissapointed becuase it was nothing like the rugby league games (NRL and State of Origin) that I showed him.

After being exposed to League first, I find it very difficult to watch Union matches.