There is a lot of information and misinformation about Superleague.
At no stage in history have the broncos 'sometimes got crowds under 10,000'. If there ever was a crowd this low, I cant remember it, although crowds did fall below 20,000 on a regular basis, which is something which had never happened since the broncos moved from Lang Park to QEII.
There were some major impacts in the game prior to Superleague which were always going to affect the competition.
One was the bizarre mid-season change of rules from 5m to 10m. This was brought about mainly because of Bill Harrigan whose game seemed to flow as a result of his large 5m. It produced some good games of football with flowing attractive football becoming the norm but it changed the face of the game. It meant that a team could go from 1 end to the other in a single set of 6 as they would be granted an extra 30m free ground. This meant that scoring was increased massively and a 20point loss was no longer a thrashing and for the first time scores of 40 and 50 points later became the norm. As a side effect, the difference in teams was accentuated and eventually the top 5 became entrenched from the bottom team and for the first time since the Broncos entered the competition there was a noticeable gulf and there became a concern about the number of Quality players. The effect of this rule on the game has been vastly underestimated, since without the change we would never have the lack of quality players argument.
The second major thing to happen was the introduction of pay tv. When the ARL gave the paytv rights to Kerry Packer, it had not realized how valuable they were. In fact at the time the deal was signed, Rugby League would only have one Saturday Afternoon ABC game and one Sunday afternoon (delayed telecast game). There was also a replay of a second game at 10.30 on a Sunday night which had been getting good ratings for that slot. I can recall Ken Arthurson being interviewed at the time and he was excited that Pay tv could show some of the games not shown on Free to Air which would give fans an incredible opportunity to see their team. Pay TV was a rumour only back then and everyone had always assumed there would only ever be one company. Clearly Arthurson underestimated its value but probably understandably so.
The third major thing to happen to rugby league was the professionalism of Rugby Union, which combined with the re-emergence from exhile of South Africa and the growing popularity of their World cup. Suddenly union went from a game with about 3 or 4 decent drawing tests in the country and maybe 1 or 2 semipopular State games a year generally played in suburban stadiums (ie ballymore) to a game with an international provinincial competition, a vibrant tri nations and growing international game, plus a prestigious World Cup. Suddenly, for the first time ever, Rugby league had to ensure that they paid their players enough money so that union did not poach them. Accordingly, the league salary cap was always going to increase at some time.
When superleague started, 4 new teams were introduced in WA, Brisbane, Auckland and North Queensland. Looking back, without superleague, it was fairly certain that the latter 2 would succeed and they were always going to succeed with perseverance (yes I know Auckland went broke). However, WA were as good as broke after their first year, crippled not so much by their own traveling costs (these didnt help) but more by having to pay all the traveling fees of their existing teams. If Super league hadnt come along, paying the other sides air fares would have crippled them. Saying this, I believe that the ARL may have been willing to dig into their savings to save them and without the current get rid of teams mentality that Superleague bought, they would now be a well established team.
Brisbane are tough to say. They were a smashing success but unfortunately they ended up with dreadful coaches, administrators etc. Even without Superleague, I think that they would have struggled as soon as the sides performances suffered so badly early. It is touch and go whether or not they would have succeeded. Still, without the massive pay increases bought in those first few years, I believe they probably would have bought better (due to the living in Brisbane factor).
Overall, Superleague brought a number of changes in attitudes to the game. The main reason for this was the decision by the ARL to take the fight head on and treat it as a war. Superleague approach to advertising was to highlight their game and promote the game of rugby league as exciting, outside entertainment, exotic locations etc. The ARL, by necessity had the approach of turning things into a war (which arguably it was) they would constantly try to get the idea of tribalism, loyalty, Manly Hate etc as important factors. They would constantly criticize the superleague game and ideas saying it was too fast and not traditional etc. Their attitude was similar to what the Unions attitude to league is. Denigrate at every opportunity. A lot of the hate did stem from this and that is why most of the ARL supporters do still bear more of a grudge than the Superleague supporters. As the ARL really was mostly Sydney, this attitude became more prevalent. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is arguable.
From an individual club basis, I would guess this affected them as follows:
Broncos Definitely weaker, the hate for the Broncos has grown because of it. I think the Sydney teams garnered a lot of support in Qld because of it and while the Lang Park factor has seen big crowds starting to return, they still havent fully recovered and probably wont.
Cowboys No difference whatsoever, although losing Boustead may have made their road to success a little longer.
Auckland No difference.
Newcastle Little to gain in all honesty, they would always be well supported, although I do think that their first win did help the club become attached to the land scene up here. Without Superleague it is highly doubtful they would have won that premiership, so I guess they did get a benefit.
Manly Probably the biggest losers in the superleague war. They were the silvertails but spent all their money quickly, trying to help the ARL keep a strong team. Their team has gained a healthy hate increase from teams of other supporters and it does look like they will get back on track and maybe even eventually come out stronger, but they could also disappear.
North Sydney Big losers also. Although they did go broke, this was mainly due to a poor decision to move to the central coast which was induced by a desperate attempt to make the criteria. I think they would be still around if it wasnt for superleague and may even be based on the Central coast.
Sydney Roosters Very big winners from the war. They were an absolutely nothing team and could not attract players (had just blown there salary cap on John Simon) Without getting the ARL backed Fittler and others they would have definitely struggled and wouldnt have the same strong financial support they enjoy today.
Balmain/Wests I strongly doubt that either would be here today. Both were struggling. Wests for a long time and Balmain due to their location in a marker which was far more overcrowded than it is today. I think they are stronger together and if they can get a stronger team on the park that threatens the premiership they can marry the growing Campelltown/western suburbs area (which is far bigger than it has ever been before) with traditional tiger support. They could still fail but could also become Sydneys best supported team.
Penrith Not really affected either way. They are enjoying their best support ever but this is due to there population growing and good management. I think they would be successful either way.
Parramatta Big Superleague winner. They were also rans and could not get players. Without superleague they would still be struggling and overpaying average players and thus getting poor crowds. They needed Superleague to build a good team and have capitalized on this. They would always be around but are getting better crowds now than they would have without it.
Cronulla They were always struggling financially and would have likely lost their best players if Superleague didnt break out. This would have meant losing money and they could have very easily struggled and went under although probably wouldnt have. In hindsight, they are probably slightly better and stronger as a club than before.
St George Illawarra were struggling but would have gotten stronger and probably survived. St George were also struggling and had already explored merger and relocation options. I think both sides would have existed but I think the merger is a better option and they are now stronger than they would have been and together they have a brighter future. I do think that this was the best of all the mergers.
Canberra They are big losers from the War. They now have the Brumbys to contend with and in all honesty I doubt the Brumbys would have survived with out the Superleague war to help with their attendances.
Melbourne They were coming. The only difference is that without Superleague, they would have been seen an exciting expansion opportunity and supported by the NRL. Now they are just another team taking the spot and piece of pie from Sydney teams. I think they will still survive and in the long term the added hate from Sydney will do them good. But they are still worse off.
Adelaide Had nothing before the war and nothing after. They would probably be closer to getting a team without Superleague but maybe not. They were chosen from left field and showed surpising support for league, I think they are roughly the same.
Hunter Are they worth mentioning?
So all in all, from a clubs point of view most clubs have improved (provided they are still around).
I have lost track a bit and run out of time, so I will leave that to be attacked.
