Rugby league claims viewing win over AFL

[El Diablo]

It's good news that more people are watching NRL on TV and attending games in such strong numbers.

Masters' analysis regarding NRL's rise in viewership and AFL's decline is reasonably accurate, but the most accurate thing he said was that it was not an apples for apples comparison.

He should have included that the Australian football had 200 games shown on TV (185 AFL games + 15 NAB Cup games). In comparison, the NRL had 268 games shown on TV including 201 NRL games, 10 rep games and 57 Toyota Cup games.

Seeing as rugby league has 68 more games on TV, I'd have thought having more viewers than Australian football would be a given.

with AFL having more games on FTA in all cities and regional areas then their numbers should be hire regardless of having fewer games

 

[Ray Mosters]

and we get dudded in the TV deal

it will happen again too

Oh FFS we KNOW why we get less, this has been covered a thousand times.... they have twice as many ads per game as we do. Broadcasters get just as many people watching an AFL game as an NRL game, and can charge just as much for an ad, but there are 2 AFL ads to every NRL ad.

We are being dudded, but on SOO, TC, foxtel ratios and viewing times outside the heartland... NOT on the value of the rights themselves.

I think there is a rude shock awaiting some of you guys when the next round of rights come up, because even though it will be done under the auspices of an independent commission, SOO is going to be the only aspect that seriously increases the revenue.

Until we address this fundamental weakness of our game, we will always garner less per game than AFL does. And i know its contentious, but i certainly wouldnt mind breaks coming into the game to allow ads to be shown, if the result is ALOT more money coming into the game to counter AFL.

 

[RL1908]

Until we address this fundamental weakness of our game, we will always garner less per game than AFL does. And i know its contentious, but i certainly wouldnt mind breaks coming into the game to allow ads to be shown, if the result is ALOT more money coming into the game to counter AFL.

Something first done way back in 1974 with the Amco Cup & use of 4 quarters. That competition would never have existed without that change to the game.

I'm not endorsing RL going down that path for the NRL, but IF chasing the $ from inserting tv commercials is a financial necessity to rivaling AFL income, then four quarter football would have to be on the agenda (combined with a reduction of interchanges perhaps).

But even if you also look at introducing a mandatory 40 second break from after the conversion attempt (or successful field goal or penalty goal) until the kick-off restart, there still won't be anything close to the rate of opportunities to insert an advert as in AFL.

There is huge disparity between AFL and NRL games (does AFL coverage on Fox include a commerical after every goal?):

2009 AFL - 4694 goals from 176 games (26.67 per game)
2009 NRL - 1407 tries from 192 games (7.32 per game)

Plus those AFL goals/adverts are spread out of a longer game coverage time.

You could only address the disparity by dramatically increasing the numbers of tries in games, so the fulltime score would be 80-56 or something - a path that would completely ruin the appeal of RL as a spectacle & yet still not rival the number of commercials in an AFL game - it's ultimately a self-defeating path for RL to take.

 

[Perth Red]

TV rating statistical error makes the whole thing a mute issue anyway. Would be good to see what the figures would be with Vic, SA and WA getting FTA though. reckon you could add on another 2-3million.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

What about going to 100 minute football and having 4 quaters.

 

[Edwahu]

The argument about the value of rights is more complex then just overall ratings. Its also more complex then just multiplying to get viewing time. For starters you have to take into account the losses generated for networks because they have to show AFL against other cheaper products which would rate higher in NSW & QLD.

What this does end is the idea of any great difference in the popularity of the two codes. This is what will be the biggest shock to AFL fans. Some will be in total denial.

 

[RL1908]

What it needs is to grow the number of viewers watching RL, so that the $ premium that can be charged for the limited number of tv advert opportunities available keeps on rising.

The answer to that is to keep as many stars in the game as possible, and make the teams and games as competitive as possible for as long into the game as possible.

I think that the NRL competition is at a good place in that there is generally little certainty of outcome of any match (until deep into the season), or who will win the premiership - however I still think too many games are over before half-time to capture channel-hoppers and from them, new fans.

 

[RL1908]

What about going to 100 minute football and having 4 quaters.

Could do - but how many fans love the game being over in just under 2 hours now? Do you risk losing what you already have (viewer numbers & ground attendances) in the hope of gaining others? Maybe AFL would be better & more popular if it was shorter duration. Twenty/20 works because is shorter than 1 day cricket. I usually watch one NFL game a weekend, but I rarely can put up with sitting around watching two.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Could do - but how many fans love the game being over in just under 2 hours now? Do you risk losing what you already have (viewer numbers & ground attendances) in the hope of gaining others? Maybe AFL would be better & more popular if it was shorter duration. Twenty/20 works because is shorter than 1 day cricket. I usually watch one NFL game a weekend, but I rarely can put up with sitting around watching two.

Good point, although I do enjoy ODI and Tests more then T20's ;-).

But you are right.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

It's good news that more people are watching NRL on TV and attending games in such strong numbers.

Masters' analysis regarding NRL's rise in viewership and AFL's decline is reasonably accurate, but the most accurate thing he said was that it was not an apples for apples comparison.

He should have included that the Australian football had 200 games shown on TV (185 AFL games + 15 NAB Cup games). In comparison, the NRL had 268 games shown on TV including 201 NRL games, 10 rep games and 57 Toyota Cup games.

Seeing as rugby league has 68 more games on TV, I'd have thought having more viewers than Australian football would be a given.

It is pretty stupid to say that the NRL should have higher TV audiences simply because of the Toyota Cup. You do realize the Toyota Cup rates about 75,000 or so ... that translates into total TV audience of about 4 million.

The AFL shows games all over the country. That too should be taken into account. If the NRL was shown all over the country it would be about 10-15 million higher than the AFL.

 

[Paullyboy]

I realise this is just a discussion and no one appears to be making any statements as to what RL should actually be doing, but have you stopped to think about this for a second?

What is the benefit in RL getting as much as the AFL in TV Rights? I guarantee you it wont affect me, you or the bloke at the pub. The extra money will go somewhere, but it wont change the game for the better whether you like it or not.

I'd much rather keep the game I love and let some administrator miss out on a bit of a salary increase or a selector having to fly regular class instead of business on his 'important rugby league trips', as that's the only people who will genuinely see any difference in their life if the TV rights deal increases.

(I'm aware that clubs will get more and players will earn more and all of that, but I also know how money tends to be allocated ineffectively in sporting organisations and no one ever sees the benefits from it)

 

[maccattack]

You could only address the disparity by dramatically increasing the numbers of tries in games, so the fulltime score would be 80-56 or something - a path that would completely ruin the appeal of RL as a spectacle & yet still not rival the number of commercials in an AFL game - it's ultimately a self-defeating path for RL to take.

Ive asked this before, but why not simply have ads running at the bottom of the screen? Also the use of a split screen at opportune moments has to be a possibility doesnt it?

 

[El Diablo]

I realise this is just a discussion and no one appears to be making any statements as to what RL should actually be doing, but have you stopped to think about this for a second?

What is the benefit in RL getting as much as the AFL in TV Rights? I guarantee you it wont affect me, you or the bloke at the pub. The extra money will go somewhere, but it wont change the game for the better whether you like it or not.

I'd much rather keep the game I love and let some administrator miss out on a bit of a salary increase or a selector having to fly regular class instead of business on his 'important rugby league trips', as that's the only people who will genuinely see any difference in their life if the TV rights deal increases.

(I'm aware that clubs will get more and players will earn more and all of that, but I also know how money tends to be allocated ineffectively in sporting organisations and no one ever sees the benefits from it)

there would be many benefits

*more money for players means less swith to yawnion or piss of to the ESL

*bigger gants for clubs so less reliance on pokies

*more money for junior RL and RL development

there's a lot that could be done with the extra dollars

 

[Vic Mackey]

What is the benefit in RL getting as much as the AFL in TV Rights? I guarantee you it wont affect me, you or the bloke at the pub. The extra money will go somewhere, but it wont change the game for the better whether you like it or not.

it would mean the likes of gasnier, sbw, gower, hunt, matt king, etc would still be playing in the nrl. no one buys the 'i want another challenge' crap, they move on for the money. pure and simple.

if the nrl got even another $30million for the tv rights (which is way less then what they should have got) and allocated enough to each club so that the salary caps could be raised even 10-15% (i.e $300-$400k), then we would NEVER lose a player to another code/competition.

we also wouldnt have to put up with the thurstons/haynes/marshalls etc playing the union/esl/afl card in negotiations

i dont care what you say, i want the best players playing week in week out for me to watch, then maybe we could see nrl clubs raiding players like matt giteau, dan carter, rokocoko etc

 

[BuffaloRules]

I realise this is just a discussion and no one appears to be making any statements as to what RL should actually be doing, but have you stopped to think about this for a second?

What is the benefit in RL getting as much as the AFL in TV Rights? I guarantee you it wont affect me, you or the bloke at the pub. The extra money will go somewhere, but it wont change the game for the better whether you like it or not.

I'd much rather keep the game I love and let some administrator miss out on a bit of a salary increase or a selector having to fly regular class instead of business on his 'important rugby league trips', as that's the only people who will genuinely see any difference in their life if the TV rights deal increases.

(I'm aware that clubs will get more and players will earn more and all of that, but I also know how money tends to be allocated ineffectively in sporting organisations and no one ever sees the benefits from it)

Are you for real?:?

Administrators getting more money?? How about the fricken players getting more money... more then those AFL fairies and Wannabee players like Giteau....

 

[RL1908]

Ive asked this before, but why not simply have ads running at the bottom of the screen? Also the use of a split screen at opportune moments has to be a possibility doesnt it?

You would have to presume that it isn't done because, as far as the advertisers & networks are concerned, it doesn't pay.

It does sort of happen now though with the betting firm in-coverage mentions & on-screen odds/dividends.

 

[Perth Red]

The NRL has to push for FTA coverage everwhere for next deal. I don't buy the "nobody wants to watch" rubbish. Viewing figures are pretty decent in other States when the game does get shown. I am pretty sure the major sponsors would be paying more if their advert is being seen by 4million extra a season.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

then maybe we could see nrl clubs raiding players like matt giteau, dan carter, rokocoko etc

What clubs would need more bench players in the Reggies?

 

[shiznit]

this was the story in NZ...

from: http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-league-news/league-becomes-australia-s-top-sport-3315931

League becomes Australia's top sport

Published: 6:44AM Monday December 21, 2009
Source: Newstalk ZB

Rugby League has overtaken Australian Rules Football as the most popular sporting code in Australia.

Nearing the end of a year in which the code has tested the patience of punters and administrators with a litany of off-field misdemeanours, comes potentially the greatest sign that the game is more popular than ever.

For the first time ever, league has outrated AFL according to official numbers around the country.

In 2009, rugby league claimed an aggregate television audience on free-to-air and pay-TV of 128.5 million compared to AFL's 124.3 million.

The figures take into account all fixtures televised, including rugby league's State of Origin series as well as the AFL's pre-season NAB Cup.

 

[Scarves]

I still do not know why we don't do this but why not just stop the clock after a try is scored so that the conversion is taken in "dead time". After every try, no drama, fit in 3 ads. The kicker takes his time, no rush, no excuses, no time wasting, no inconsistencies regarding "time off interpretations", more opportunities for advertisement placement.

Other than doing that, I agree with RL08. The game is growing and is increasing in popularity under it's current format of two 40minute halves. If the game continues to grow... price goes up. Personally I like the idea of dead time following a try, it takes away any controversy and wanky gamesmanship from teams attempting to slow down the clock or rushing the clock and rushing an important conversion attempt.