Oi, Sporting Capital of Australia, where's the ticker tape parade?

[Danish]

Australia was estimated to have a touch over 10 million televisions in 2003. Let's assume that the average audience for one television is 3.

No doubt a ratio similiar to this is used when estimating the 3 billion viewer figure, but it has no weight on the Australian ratings mentioned, given they were official ratings collected by OzTam and co.

If 30 million people in Australia tuned into the last world cup of union (as quoted above in this thread), this means every television in Australia was tuned into one game throughout the tournament. More realistically, we can say that an average of 1/10th of the nation's televisions were tuned into 10 games throughout the tournament - ie 1 million televisions and 3 million viewers Australia wide for each game.

Considering the final, which was by far the most attractive game of the tournament, peaked with a national audience of 4.34 million (
http://www.rwc2003.irb.com/EN/Tournament/News/md2411presser.htm) already this seems over generous. Even Bledisloe Cup games normally draw a national audience of around 500k (http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?p=2361348&highlight=bledisloe+cup#post2361348)

Your calculations are quite humourous...

There were 48 games in the world cup, not 10. Each game would have had to average around 645,000 viewers (31,000,000 / 48). Or, if you want to use your "3 viewers per TV" rule, only 215,000 TVs tuned in per game out of a possible 10 million.

Seems a bit more feasable, no?

Come to think of it..... given that we know that 4 million people were tuned in to the final, then those figures can be reduced even further.

If we estimate the average national audience over the duration of the tournament to be a hefty 1 million...

....... we would have had 48,000,000 viewers rather than the estimated 31,000,000.

this requires an average of 333k televisions tuned into on average 30 games of the tournament to bring up the 30 million audience figure. I don't know about you but I didn't watch 30 games of the 2003 XV WC and I don't know anyone who would or could, so not only do the audience estimates seem generous (a look at 2003 television ratings could determine the actual audience average. Was it around 1 million?), but the average games per television ratio seems outlandish.

You ARE aware there were 48 games right? As I have already stated, we only require a national audience averaging 645,000 per game to reach the estimated total viewers.

On top of that we had 8 finals games all rating well in excess of 1 million and a final rating over 4 million. So even that figure would be substantially less.

Thus, the only way to make these figures more sensible is to increase the average ratio of viewers per television for each game. Union must consider an average of 3 viewers per television for union broadcasts in Australia an underestimate. But wait, how can this be possible if there are 10 million televisions in a country of 20 million people, ie with a nominal ratio of 2 to 1?

Are you genuinely asking how it can be possible to have a viewer-to-tv ratio of greater than 2-1 simply because there are 20,000,000 people in Oz compared to 10,000,000 televisions?

Only if the games were heavily watched in pubs, clubs etc. live sites or at BBQs as union representatives often claim. The problem is the distribution of televisions around the country is presumedly pretty homogenious, and every person that goes out to watch a game at one of these places is likely to be abandoning at least one television at their home. Thus while the ratio of viewers to each television at the public location climbs, either

(a) the ratio must fall back home and overall the average ratio remains intact. Of course this point only applies if the televisions back at home were left switched onto the rugby. This argument thus applies if dad goes to the pub to watch the game with his mates whilst the family stays home to watch. All in all the ratio reamains the same.

or (b) the number of televisions tuned into the game falls as you switch the television off at home or those remaining watch something else.

In summary, in order to increase the ratio of viewers to each television, the number of televisions tuned into the broadcast must fall and the number of rugby congregations must rise.

As far as I am aware, because of obvious accuracy issues in regards to audience demographics, the TAM ratings system takes all its samples from televisions in homes, not in pubs, clubs etc. Thus the TV audience figures mentioned above don't take into account pubs, clubs and livesites. They only account for family homes and so the only possibility left to increase the number of rugby congregations and hence the viewer ratio is through family BBQs (or whatever).

Seems you have got a handle on how more than 2 people can be watching the same TV at one time, thank christ.

Thinking back a bit, we showed that the viewer per TV estimate of 3 to 1 for each game seems a little too low to produce realistic average ratings and realistic number of games watched. And can you realistically say that on average all 333k televisions showing each of the on average 30 rugby games had on average at least one out-of-household guest? That gives us 9,990,000 rugby BBQs held Australia wide during the world cup assuming each BBQ covered only one game. That's a lot of sausage. Did almost every second Australian attend a rugby BBQ during the world cup? I didn't go to any rugby union BBQs during the 2003 XV WC.

As you can see the Australian figures don't really add up.

Again, your maths skills are just astounding...

You are again using your "brilliant" 1,000,000 viewers per game rule (which I am still scratching my head about). Please, explain again, why do 1,000,000 people need to be watching each of the 48 games to give us a total of 31,000,000 viewers??

And where this BBQ argument came into it I have no idea.

Just as a matter of interest, below are a list of the top rating TV programmes for 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_television_ratings_for_2003

As you can see, the World Cup features prominently, with more than 14 million viewers tuning in to a mere 5 world cup broadcasts (the final is doubled up in position 1 and 6, so I did not take into account the 6th placed figures). 2 of which were the opening and closing ceremonies.

Leaving us with a mere 16,000,000 viewers to spread acros another 45 games, including 2 Australian finals, 3 Australian group games, and 6 finals games not featuring Australia, but including the likes of England, South Africa and NZ (all with massive expat populations in Oz).

Tell me again why the Australian figures don't add up??

This is probably about right. Please don't claim that they are all interested in it or even know that it is occuring though. If we do take these Australian 2003 figures as reasonable, one must consider that

- ALL games were obviously broadcast at acceptable viewing times for Australians.
- Compared to other countries, Australia would have a high(er) percentage of it's population, due to fact that Australians are generally rugby aware and particularly during the world cup bonanza, interested in and willing to watch games.
- Australians like to watch sport

1) people in england, France, South Africa and NZ would not bother tuning in to watch their teams because they are on at unreasonable times? We'll see how this weekends final rates in Oz to see if this point holds any water

2) Check out how many of us got involved in the Soccer world cup. Soccer is a 5th string competition which had next to no folllwing prior to making the world cup, and it got the best ratings by far last year. Obviously Union isn't going to have the same effect, but people tend to tune in when their country makes it unexpectedly to the world stage.

3) you assume that Australia loves sport more than any other country, which is simply bullsh*t.

These three facts combined would lead one to expect that Australia would have had the highest TV viewing per capita in the tournament in the world. Taking the dubious figure of 30 million out of 20 million inhabitants, injecting this apparent Australian rugby fervour into every other rugby represented country in the cup gives a total viewing audience of 1.5 billion.

The 3 OPINIONS you stated may point to australia having one of the highest television ratings in the world for the 2003 world cup.

However, I would suggest that England, France, South Africa, Argentina would equal us, and NZ would most certainly have a much higher ratio than us.

If you don't believe me about Argentina, have a read as to what lengths they are going to at the moment to ensure their people can watch the Pumas without a worry. Soccer games are being moved and/or delayed so that they dont overlap with the broadcast.

This is what really bugs me. It just doesn't make sense. It reminds me of several reports released a while back claiming that a dictator, admittedly a nefarious character, possessed stockpiles of nasty weapons and was very close to unleashing them upon the world. The reports were sanctioned by some very big names on the world stage, so big that many people barely hesitated when deciding they were true, and never really questioned their validity. Many years later and these claims have all but been shown to be completely false and many now suspect they were fabricated in order to benefit some of the original players in the grand illusion.

This is exactly what union is doing. Don't swallow it. If all the business partners of the cup want to throw their money away that is their problem. But I don't like to be bullsh*tted to.

No doubt 3 billion is a bit of a hard figure to stomach. However it certainly isn't out of the question either.

Australia had each TV tuned in to 3 games on average for the world cup. You said yourself there is 1 billion TVs in the nations with an interest in Union. If they did the same then 3 billion is reached.

 

[Nook]

Danish,

Your role in this thread has been to champion the IRB's 3 billion figure in the face of insurmountable evidence which suggests that it is absolute bollocks.

Why are you still trying?

Just admit you are wrong, and move along.

 

[Danish]

What "insurmountable evidence" do you speak of??

Miguel de cervantes highly questionable mathmatics?

 

[Nook]

:crazy:

"Fair enough, I'm wrong"

That's all it takes.

The only thing funnier than the notion that 3 billion people watch the RU world cup is the fact that there are a bunch of people who are willing to try and defend it

 

[Danish]

I am merely defending that it is a possibility.

You'll notice I spent the vast majority of my post defending the Australian figures of 30,000,000. They are just plain fact, and I find it hilarious that they would even be disputed.

The 3 billion is obviously only going to be an estimate by anyones logic and is no doubt rounded up. But then again the Olympics are watched by double what the RWC is and the Soccer World Cup is claimed to be watched by more than 30 billion people, with 3/4 of a billion watching the final live around the world.

So I don't find it too much of a stretch to believe that the RWC could potentially be watched by 3 billion people.

As yet the only "proof" given as to why the 3 billion could be false is some 2nd grade mathmatics which were clearly wrong from the outset. I'll happily back down from my opinion that 3 billion viewers is possible once an argument a bit more concrete than "nook doesnt think its possible" is raised

 

[skeepe]

Danish,

Your role in this thread has been to champion the IRB's 3 billion figure in the face of insurmountable evidence which suggests that it is absolute bollocks.

Why are you still trying?

Just admit you are wrong, and move along.

I see no insurmountable evidence at all. Miguel has fudged his figures based on a misunderstanding of the tournament.

During the 2003 world cup, I myself watched somewhere in the region of 20 matches on TV and was in the crowd for another 8 or 9. Given that there is 48 matches, it is entirely plausible that there was a peak viewing audience of 31 million across the entire tournament - as Danish pointed out, even 31 million would require less than 1 million people watching every match in the world cup. Entirely plausible.

Nook, whilst I don't profess to know the exact number, surely even you must concede that 3 billion across the entire tournament is plausible.

 

[Nook]

I am merely defending that it is a possibility.

Whereas if you were sensible you would be decrying it as an impossiblity

You'll notice I spent the vast majority of my post defending the Australian figures of 30,000,000. They are just plain fact, and I find it hilarious that they would even be disputed.

A 'plain fact'?

And you've defended them in order to provide flimsy support for an incredibly weak assertion that this audience would be reflected in 'RU countries' (of which there are a handful) around the world.

The 3 billion is obviously only going to be an estimate by anyones logic and is no doubt rounded up.

It isn't an estimate of how many people will watch the world cup.

The only logical explanation is that it is an estimate of potential audience if everyone who had access to the telecast watched it.

But we still have people defending it as a cumulative audience for the whole tournament. Mostly they are dopey RU fans. Now we can add 'RL fans who simply cannot admit they are wrong' to the list.

So I don't find it too much of a stretch to believe that the RWC could potentially be watched by 3 billion people.

You've got serious issues.

As yet the only "proof" given as to why the 3 billion could be false is some 2nd grade mathmatics which were clearly wrong from the outset. I'll happily back down from my opinion that 3 billion viewers is possible once an argument a bit more concrete than "nook doesnt think its possible" is raised

You won't happily back down from your opinion at all.

EA has already demonstrated that even if each game was watched by as many people as the final, the audience wouldn't have been anything like 3 billion.

You've just ignored that and dribbled for 6 pages.

You're wrong - you know it, we know it. Move on.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

So, in order to even say "Nook, whilst I don't profess to know the exact number, surely even you must concede that 3 billion across the entire tournament is plausible." you have to be willing to accept that each and all of the 47 other matches in the 2003 RWC rated more than the final worldwide.

Even for a Union fan, that is bizarre.

 

[Nook]

Nook, whilst I don't profess to know the exact number, surely even you must concede that 3 billion across the entire tournament is plausible

LOL

Let's try this again

Based on actual ratings figures the final was viewed by about 25,000,000 people.

Here's a question for you Skeepe: is it likely that every game in the tournament was watched by 25,000,000 people?

3 billion requires an audience of about 60,000,000 per game (I'm assuming there were around 50 games, correct me if I'm wrong)

Please humour me on this: where did these viewers come from

Just have a wild stab: on average, per game, how many from each country, to get to 60 mil?

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

I imagine the 3 odd million that watched Australia v Namibia was multiplied 10 fold in Namibia Nook.... lol

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

I just did a quick count of the populations of every country that played in the 2003 RWC.

800,000,000.

So, it seems that one could put forward that, on average, everyone who lived in one of those countries watched 4 RWC matches in 2003.

That's isn't that far fetched is it?

:lol:

 

[skeepe]

LOL

Let's try this again

Based on actual ratings figures the final was viewed by about 25,000,000 people.

Here's a question for you Skeepe: is it likely that every game in the tournament was watched by 25,000,000 people?

3 billion requires an audience of about 60,000,000 per game (I'm assuming there were around 50 games, correct me if I'm wrong)

Please humour me on this: where did these viewers come from

Just have a wild stab: on average, per game, how many from each country, to get to 60 mil?

TV numbers don't take into account pubs, live sites, attendance at matches etc etc. It's quite plausible. Please provide a link that 25,000,000 was the actual correct figure as agreed on by all TV ratings organisations in the world.

 

[Danish]

I just did a quick count of the populations of every country that played in the 2003 RWC.

800,000,000.

So, it seems that one could put forward that, on average, everyone who lived in one of those countries watched 4 RWC matches in 2003.

That's isn't that far fetched is it?

:lol:

30,000,000,000 people were estimated to have watched the last Soccer World Cup just gone.

that equates to EVERYONE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH watching 5 games each, without even taking into account the 2 BILLION people who were not represented since neither India nor China made it.

Do you question those figures??

 

[Danish]

LOL

Let's try this again

Based on actual ratings figures the final was viewed by about 25,000,000 people.

25 million people at home....

I wonder how many Aussies, Poms and various others decided to pop down the pub to watch it instead?

 

[Nook]

Oh, for f**k's sake, this is just pitiful.

Danish, Skeepe:

3 billion requires an average of 60,000,000 per game. Please, have a crack at this - where did these viewers come from? Include pubs, include club, include BBQs, include whatever the f**k you like - just put together some numbers.

I'll even make a little list, you can fill in the blanks - how many people from each area for every game?

Australia:
NZ:
Fiji:
Tonga:
Samoa:
UK:
France:
Italy:
Rest of Europe:
Japan:
The rest of Asia:
South Africa:
The rest of Africa:
South America combined:
North America combined:

Remember, you're shooting for 60 million. Go for it.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

30,000,000,000 people were estimated to have watched the last Soccer World Cup just gone.

that equates to EVERYONE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH watching 5 games each, without even taking into account the 2 BILLION people who were not represented since neither India nor China made it.

Do you question those figures??

Should I?

Soccer is a f**king monster, Union is not.

I've never even seen a figure for the Soccer World Cup, yet every second article on the RWC mentions the mythical "3 billion"...

406 million per match in the Soccer World Cup is a lot more realistic figure than 62.5 million per match for the RWC. Soccer is at least 100 times more popular than Union worldwide, probably more.

And let's not forget that of the 800 million people I talked about, more than half are in Japan and the USA and Union is, to be fair, a nothing sport in both those countries.

Nothing.

There are 100,00 players in the US apparently, if that many watched one game, I'd be surprised.

62.5 million people average for each and every RWC match in 2003 when the final is documented as only having had 23 million viewers worldwide?

Do you actually think that people sit up in Namibia, USA, Japan, Argentina, etc etc etc to watch the RWC?

:lol:

It's a figure they pulled out of their arse to convince people who don't know any better that it's a worldwide event.

You are sitting in the country that made the last one yet it's hard to believe it's actually on at the moment.

I think it is anyway....

 

[Kurt Angle]

Well I do have it on good authority that the NRL grand final was watched by half a billion people.

It was live all throughout Australia obviously, by about 1 ni 6 people.

Then lets see the international broadcast.....

INTERNATIONAL COVERAGE

PACIFIC REGION

Fiji: 8:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Guam: 6:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Kiribati: 8:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Marshall Islands: 8:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Micronesia: 7:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Nauru: 8:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
New Caledonia: 7:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
New Zealand: 9:30pm Local Live - Sky Sports One
Northern Marianas: 6:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Palau: 5:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Papua New Guinea: 6:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Solomon Islands: 7:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Tokelau: 8:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Tonga: 9:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Tuvalu: 8:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Vanuatu: 7:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Wallis and Futuna: 8:30pm Local Live - Australia Network

ASIA

Bangladesh: 2:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Bhutan: 2:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Brunei: 4:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Burma: 3:00pm Local Live - Australia Network
Cambodia: 3:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
China / Hong Kong: 4:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
East Timor: 5:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
India: 2:00pm Local Live - Australia Network
Indonesia: 3:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Japan: 5:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Laos: 3:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Macau: 4:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Malaysia: 4:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Maldives: 1:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Mongolia: 4:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Nepal: 2:15pm Local Live - Australia Network
North Korea: 5:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Pakistan: 1:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Philippines: 4:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Singapore: 4:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
South Korea: 5:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Sri Lanka: 2:00pm Local Live - Australia Network
Taiwan: 4:30pm Local Live - Australia Network
Thailand: 3:30pm Local Live - Australia Network

UNITED KINGDOM

Ireland: 9:00am Local Live - Setanta One
United Kingdom: 9:00am Local Live - Setanta One

NORTH AMERICA

Canada: 5am ET Live - Setanta
USA: 5am ET Live – Setanta

1 in 6 in all these countries, I think its fair to say half a billion viewers it is.

 

[Danish]

Should I?

Soccer is a f**king monster, Union is not.

I've never even seen a figure for the Soccer World Cup, yet every second article on the RWC mentions the mythical "3 billion"...

Soccer is indeed a monster. it is spread all throughout the world wherever the english once populated.

However I fail to see how you could not have heard the 30 billion figure before. I can only assume this is because you avoid all world cup coverage leading up to the event, because it gets a fair mention.... its how I know it.

406 million per match in the Soccer World Cup is a lot more realistic figure than 62.5 million per match for the RWC. Soccer is at least 100 times more popular than Union worldwide, probably more.

1 in 3 people tuning in for 20 mins of 1 out of 50 RTC events is less likely than 1 in 1 people tuning in to 6 SWC events?

And let's not forget that of the 800 million people I talked about, more than half are in Japan and the USA and Union is, to be fair, a nothing sport in both those countries.

Nothing.


There are 100,00 players in the US apparently, if that many watched one game, I'd be surprised.

First of all, Union is not a nothing sport in Japan. It has the 4th largest population of union players in the world. You can earn a brilliant wage playing there (of which some of my mates are doing).

Rugby in the states is obviously a much smaller sport, but given the yanks love of sport (these are people who find baseball exciting dont forget) I hardly think they would baulk at the chance of watching a game or 2.

Lets also not forget that not all viewers come purely from countries involved in the world cup.

Soccer is a monster in europe and south america, but it is a nothing sport in Australia and it still rates suberbly every time it rolls around, even when Australia is not involved.

Its not hard to imagine that sports fans would just be drawn to watch a game or 2 when its on.

62.5 million people average for each and every RWC match in 2003 when the final is documented as only having had 23 million viewers worldwide?

Do you actually think that people sit up in Namibia, USA, Japan, Argentina, etc etc etc to watch the RWC?

:lol:

Well Argentina is currently rescheduling its national soccer league's games so that they dont clash with the Pumas (who are undefeated in the cup thus far), and are also looking at being added to our tri-nations competition. So I am sure that they are watching.

As for the Japanese and Americans, they are both massive sporting nations. I am sure a few of them would tune in to 1 or 2 of the games their country is participating in. We sit up to watch random teams play in the soccer world cup at 2am in the morning (or at least I do), so I hardly think it is laughable that these sports fans would not watch their own side.

It's a figure they pulled out of their arse to convince people who don't know any better that it's a worldwide event.

You are sitting in the country that made the last one yet it's hard to believe it's actually on at the moment.

I think it is anyway....

The more and more you post (particularly your utter ignorance about Argentina) the more I realise you are merely a living in a league bubble and actually have no knowledge of Union with which to make your assumptions.

So keep on laughing at the comp which puts ours to shame on the international stage.

 

[Misty Bee]

Poor old Danish. A simple post about Melbourne’s civic response to the almighty achievement of their NRL side, taken in context with their claim to being the sporting capital of Australia (LOL – there’s no surf so you can rule out surfing – and rock fishing – no cliffs so rock climbing, abseilling and base jumping is out – get the drift?). Now he’s become a Yawnion enthusiast falling back on their time honoured “international” defence – as if you can take the 4 major League countries, add South Africa and Argentina, and suddenly you have a “world”

So, Duchy? 3 BILLION viewers ay? Is that US billion (8 noughts) or UK billions (9 noughts)

Given that Yawnion sensationalises everything – eg a text message between a league player’s manager and a desperate Yawnion suit is proof that League is crumbling – I take it they mean the US version. You can use the “billion” word quicker that way.

Now, my maths aren’t real good. I think I went to the same school as Canterbury’s in house salary cap auditor. However, I’ve had a stab at the NRL’s TV audience per Union World Cup*

 NB – IN this case “World” means New Zealand, Sydney’s North Shore, 3 rich suburbs in Brisbane, a commuter bus from St Ives to Canberra, London’s West End, Wessex, Cardiff, the 3 bits of grass in Glasgow, some Boer War descendents, Neo Nazi’s from Bordeaux, the 0.5% of Argentinian males who can’t kick a round ball, and some excited blokes from Namibia who get a free trip overseas every 4 years. Russia, Asia, North America and half of Europe have nothing to do with the term “World”.

Anyway, the old abacus from my cot still works a treat, and I came up with the following stats for you.

NRL TV VIEWING AUDIENCE PER UNION WORLD CUP.

1) Domestic FTA durnig competition rounds.

2 games over 26 rounds = 52 games.

Average audience (city and regional NSW and QLD) per game: 1.8 million

=52 x 1 800 000

= 93 600 000

2) Live Pay TV games during competition rounds

6 games over 26 rounds = 156 games

Average audience (city and regional NSW and QLD) per game: 0.5 million –(Foxtel states that these games attract 1 million viewers nationally)

= 156 x 500 000

= 78 000 000

3) New Zealanders watching Warriors games

26 games. Average estimated audience = 100 000 per match

= 26 x 100 000

= 2 600 000

4) Semi Finals, weeks 1 and 2

6 games – estimated average audience in Aust and NZ = 2 200 000

= 6 x 2 200 000

= 13 200 000

5) Preliminary Finals

2 games – estimated audience in Austr and NZ = 2 600 000

= 2 x 2 600 000

= 5 200 000

6) Grand Final. Australian Audience = 3 600 000. Estimated NZ audience = 200 000.

= 3 800 000

7) UK Sky audience. 217 games – estimated average audience 200 000

= 217 x 200 000

= 43 400 000

8) Grand Final coverage in the USA, Canada and China.

Populations: USA – 301 000 000, Canada 33 000 000, China 1 322 000 000. Total 1656 000 000

Estimated TV audience – 0.01% of population

= 165 600 000

TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL TV AUDIENCE:

= 405 400 000

x 4 (4 NRL seasons per RUWC)

= 1 621 600 000

Or 1.6 billion.

BTW, I still can’t find any paper in those pics from Melbourne!

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Soccer is indeed a monster. it is spread all throughout the world wherever the english once populated.

Are you mental?

Which are the countries that don't have Soccer as their #1 sport?

Australia, New Zealand, US, Canada....

Who kicked those place off?

The Namibians?

However I fail to see how you could not have heard the 30 billion figure before. I can only assume this is because you avoid all world cup coverage leading up to the event, because it gets a fair mention.... its how I know it.

I didn't say it wasn't said. I said I hadn't seen it and it wasn't shoved down everyone's throats like the "3 billion" is with the RWC.

1 in 3 people tuning in for 20 mins of 1 out of 50 RTC events is less likely than 1 in 1 people tuning in to 6 SWC events?

What the f**k is the RTC?

And if you meant RWC, stop talking bollocks.

Any comparison between the Soccer World Cup and the RWC is embarrassing when you consider the utter crap talked about in regard to the RWC.

3rd biggest?

:lol:

Seriously, look the utter crap in this article;

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/features/e3i88e7ce93c366c1128cda875e93418a36

First of all, Union is not a nothing sport in Japan. It has the 4th largest population of union players in the world. You can earn a brilliant wage playing there (of which some of my mates are doing).

Who earns the brilliant wages?

A few Kiwis isn't it?

Union is a nothing sport in both countries and the RWC is of little interest in either.

Why?

Because even though there are apparently huge numbers of Union players in both those countries, they can't seem to find 20 odd players that aren't smacked to the point of embarrassment every RWC by teams that come from countries with 20 million people, 4 million people etc etc etc ....

Rugby in the states is obviously a much smaller sport, but given the yanks love of sport (these are people who find baseball exciting dont forget) I hardly think they would baulk at the chance of watching a game or 2.

No, they wouldn't baulk, they wouldn't bother.

Lets also not forget that not all viewers come purely from countries involved in the world cup.

Yeah, the Australian games have rated 400k odd here, the other games have rated significantly less.

You're still talking bollocks.

Who in the US or Japan, the two most populous Union countries is going to watch NZ v France or England v Australia?

Here, I'll tell you, sweet f**k all.

The RWC isn't like the Soccer World Cup. People who aren't involved don't watch games not involving their country.

If Australia don't make the RWC final, how many people do you think will watch it here?

Soccer is a monster in europe and south america, but it is a nothing sport in Australia and it still rates suberbly every time it rolls around, even when Australia is not involved.

Its not hard to imagine that sports fans would just be drawn to watch a game or 2 when its on.

:lol:

Please stop, you're killing me.

The A League outrates the S14.

The Socceroo 2006 world cup games, on at 2 and 4 am, rated 5 times the Wallaby RWC 2007 games.

5 times.

Not equal, not twice, not three times, not four times, five times....

Yet you believe that all over the world, people are watching the RWC in huge numbers?

Do you understand that Australia is quite possibly Union's #1 country?

Well Argentina is currently rescheduling its national soccer league's games so that they dont clash with the Pumas (who are undefeated in the cup thus far), and are also looking at being added to our tri-nations competition. So I am sure that they are watching.

Yes, I imagine that Union will be taking over Argentina shortly.

:lol:

I've noticed that ESPN have Argentine Rugby Union on occasionally.

Funny that for such a popular sport, the ARC - type crowds hide it's popularity well.

It's so big the IRB doesn't even know how many players Argentina has.

As for the Japanese and Americans, they are both massive sporting nations. I am sure a few of them would tune in to 1 or 2 of the games their country is participating in. We sit up to watch random teams play in the soccer world cup at 2am in the morning (or at least I do), so I hardly think it is laughable that these sports fans would not watch their own side.

The more and more you post (particularly your utter ignorance about Argentina) the more I realise you are merely a living in a league bubble and actually have no knowledge of Union with which to make your assumptions.

So keep on laughing at the comp which puts ours to shame on the international stage.

Ours?

You're as much a Rugby League fan as David Campese* you nuffy.

You live in a fantasy world.

Seriously.

That posting is a bizarre series of statements that lack common sense, honesty, truth and anything that is common in people with a sound mind.