The Great Dane
First Grade
- Messages
- 8,029
If the rumours are true what the NRL is trying to do is obvious; take ownership of all the broadcast rights so they can sell them as bundle deals and effectively take control of international RL in the process.
They're probably also concerned about the impacts the Super League collapsing would have on them, which is a genuine concern ATM. It's not unlikely that RL could drop out of professionalism in the Northern Hemisphere within the next decade or so if broadcast value keeps dropping and costs keep rising at the rate they are. At the very least you will see multiple clubs fold if there isn't radical change soon, and don't say that can't happen because it currently is happening in Premiership Rugby and the URC ATM.
The NRL investing in a league over there could have multiple benefits both for English RL and international RL, namely by giving English RL an injection of capital and allowing them to piggyback off the NRL's broadcast to increase exposure and value. It would also make professional international RL a benevolent dictatorship, and give the NRL the power to basically control the international calendar, which would almost certainly see a regular international calendar created.
The reasons why they want to reduce the amount of clubs and can't just takeover the Super League are clear as well-
• The Super League is still run by a one club one vote system, which means that the real governance and power over there is held by the clubs. Simply buying the SL wouldn't give the NRL the power make real change unless the clubs agreed to give up that power (which the less stable clubs won't because that'd be the turkeys voting for Christmas). BTW, that system is probably the biggest thing holding the sport back over there.
• Frankly, not all of the 12 teams in the Super League (and SL adjacent Championship clubs) are commercially valuable. In other words they're net costs that add little or no value to the league's broadcast, sponsorship, etc, values, and offer little potential for future growth.
• Taking control of a European league and giving them necessary seed funding would be expensive and risky. Rationalising the comp down to the best prospects reduces that risk for the NRL, and also leaves room for growth. There's no reason why the NRL couldn't expand if it was working, and I imagine that they'd look to hit 14 as quickly as possible.
• Reducing the number of clubs in the top professional league condenses the top talent between fewer teams, leading to a better on field product and tighter competition.
It seems that the NRL isn't proposing killing any teams either. Rather they're simply not inviting them all to join a new league, and that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The clubs that miss out will be able to continue in a lower tier league, which isn't the death sentence over there that it is here, and there's no reason why that league (whether it be SL or some other format) couldn't continue to be broadcast and well supported.
The NRL is better off today because of the rationalisation it's gone through in the past, and if done right cutting away the chaff in Europe and focusing on growth would be a good thing for RL in England in the long term as well.
If it was me I'd prefer not get involved in the English league, but things are much more desperate over there than people here seem to realise. I wouldn't say I'm happy about it, but I'd much rather the NRL take the risk and waste millions of dollars in an attempt to save the poms from themselves than sit back and watch as ego and self interest slowly strangles the sport to death over there. If "NRL Europe" is the best, or rather most feasible, way to go about that, then I guess that just is what it is.
They're probably also concerned about the impacts the Super League collapsing would have on them, which is a genuine concern ATM. It's not unlikely that RL could drop out of professionalism in the Northern Hemisphere within the next decade or so if broadcast value keeps dropping and costs keep rising at the rate they are. At the very least you will see multiple clubs fold if there isn't radical change soon, and don't say that can't happen because it currently is happening in Premiership Rugby and the URC ATM.
The NRL investing in a league over there could have multiple benefits both for English RL and international RL, namely by giving English RL an injection of capital and allowing them to piggyback off the NRL's broadcast to increase exposure and value. It would also make professional international RL a benevolent dictatorship, and give the NRL the power to basically control the international calendar, which would almost certainly see a regular international calendar created.
The reasons why they want to reduce the amount of clubs and can't just takeover the Super League are clear as well-
• The Super League is still run by a one club one vote system, which means that the real governance and power over there is held by the clubs. Simply buying the SL wouldn't give the NRL the power make real change unless the clubs agreed to give up that power (which the less stable clubs won't because that'd be the turkeys voting for Christmas). BTW, that system is probably the biggest thing holding the sport back over there.
• Frankly, not all of the 12 teams in the Super League (and SL adjacent Championship clubs) are commercially valuable. In other words they're net costs that add little or no value to the league's broadcast, sponsorship, etc, values, and offer little potential for future growth.
• Taking control of a European league and giving them necessary seed funding would be expensive and risky. Rationalising the comp down to the best prospects reduces that risk for the NRL, and also leaves room for growth. There's no reason why the NRL couldn't expand if it was working, and I imagine that they'd look to hit 14 as quickly as possible.
• Reducing the number of clubs in the top professional league condenses the top talent between fewer teams, leading to a better on field product and tighter competition.
It seems that the NRL isn't proposing killing any teams either. Rather they're simply not inviting them all to join a new league, and that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The clubs that miss out will be able to continue in a lower tier league, which isn't the death sentence over there that it is here, and there's no reason why that league (whether it be SL or some other format) couldn't continue to be broadcast and well supported.
The NRL is better off today because of the rationalisation it's gone through in the past, and if done right cutting away the chaff in Europe and focusing on growth would be a good thing for RL in England in the long term as well.
If it was me I'd prefer not get involved in the English league, but things are much more desperate over there than people here seem to realise. I wouldn't say I'm happy about it, but I'd much rather the NRL take the risk and waste millions of dollars in an attempt to save the poms from themselves than sit back and watch as ego and self interest slowly strangles the sport to death over there. If "NRL Europe" is the best, or rather most feasible, way to go about that, then I guess that just is what it is.
Last edited:
