What impact would an American pro comp have on RL?

[roopy]

I think it would very quickly move the game forward on an International level, because the American sides would sign up players from all over the world to play.
If the comp were only semi pro the incentive to join for Aussies and Poms would not be as great as it would be for Pacific Islanders, Russians, etc etc. Players from the economically less viable countries would see an opportunity to play in America as a huge chance to set themselves up for life, even if that meant playing League for peanuts and getting a job in a bar or something.
The American League already has players from a dozen countries, but I think it would become a real international melting pot in its first few years as a pro comp, which would add to the pool of International League players and make things like a League WC far more viable.

 

[dimitri]

i agree

and if we can get american tv networks more involved in league it can only be healthy for our game

and it is viable since we have contacts like the packers and the murdochs

 

[ExJnrKiwi]

Christ you two talk crap sometimes. :roll:

 

[Victor Trumper]

I'm generally optimistic, but I have to agree with Junior. I think its a bit of a pipe-dream at the moment. It would be the equivalent of starting a pro Gridiron comp in Australia. Limit player pool, even less public support and bugger all corporate or TV support.

 

[roopy]

I'm generally optimistic, but I have to agree with Junior. I think its a bit of a pipe-dream at the moment. It would be the equivalent of starting a pro Gridiron comp in Australia. Limit player pool, even less public support and bugger all corporate or TV support.

The big difference being that America is a much bigger market place than Australia, so things can get off the ground there that wouldn't in Australia. The number of ex-pats from League playing areas in NY alone is probably in the high 10s of thousands if you count England, NZ, Australia and the Pacific Islands, so there is a toehold already if you could get the word out.

When I first heard of this pro comp I thought it was so out of the question it wasn't worth thinking about, but it just keeps coming up over and over again, and Americans keep hinting that big things are in the pipeline, so I am forced to think it is still a chance to happen, and even to happen soon.

 

[ParraMatt]

Nah I Think its a great idea, We have to Get The American Game noticeable in Australia and Vice Versa.

 

[Marcus]

only union has the potential to make it in America, not saying that to upset league people but its a fact. Its a bigger game than league, more participants, more clubs, more people know about the game. But even still its hard for union to even get the money needed for starting a pro league.

 

[roopy]

only union has the potential to make it in America, not saying that to upset league people but its a fact. Its a bigger game than league, more participants, more clubs, more people know about the game. But even still its hard for union to even get the money needed for starting a pro league.

Strange as it seems to me, and probably to you, the two codes are closely linked in America.
American Union fans would be as quick to go to see a pro League comp as a pro Union comp, and most League players also play Union (most in the strangely named Rugby Super League, which is the very inappropriate name for the top Union comp in America).

 

[Stevo_G]

i would doubt that over in america there would be a serious hatred of the rival codes

 

[TheFirstRabbitoh]

Guys, I hate to dampen your enthusiasm, but this is basically park footy.

1. The AmNRL has enough trouble getting games and numbers together out of amateurs - if a side shows up short, you lend them some players and keep going.

2. Other than Glen Mills, who are a school team and basically make it compulsory for students to go watch, there are often more people on the team sheets than are watching.

3. No one's paying watch. Even if you could convince the few dozen onlookers to pay for the priviledge of watching their friends and rellos... How much money do you guys think you're going to make?

4. They split the comp up simply because travel cost too much. If clubs can't afford to travel for games when they aren't pretending to be pro, then how are they supposed to pay anyone.

And, in the long run - who's going to pay? There isn't an audience for it at the moment. You could maybe build one up - but not enough in a short period of time for anyone to want to back it financially.

 

[TheFirstRabbitoh]

i would doubt that over in america there would be a serious hatred of the rival codes

There's not. 99% of Americans wouldn't know which was which if you showed them videos of rugby and AFL - let alone the different varieties of rugby.

I know this because I've tried.

 

[roopy]

Guys, I hate to dampen your enthusiasm, but this is basically park footy.

1. The AmNRL has enough trouble getting games and numbers together out of amateurs - if a side shows up short, you lend them some players and keep going.

2. Other than Glen Mills, who are a school team and basically make it compulsory for students to go watch, there are often more people on the team sheets than are watching.

3. No one's paying watch. Even if you could convince the few dozen onlookers to pay for the priviledge of watching their friends and rellos... How much money do you guys think you're going to make?

4. They split the comp up simply because travel cost too much. If clubs can't afford to travel for games when they aren't pretending to be pro, then how are they supposed to pay anyone.

And, in the long run - who's going to pay? There isn't an audience for it at the moment. You could maybe build one up - but not enough in a short period of time for anyone to want to back it financially.

That is a pretty fair description of the comp as it stands, although you fail to mention the amazing rate of growth over the last few years (my estimate is the comp is growing about 20% a year).

The thing is, we are not talking about the present comp turning pro, but a whole new comp being well funded and begining from scratch.

This sounds incredible to us, but things like this happen in America. The soccer comp that ran in the 70's and included a team called the NY Cosmos started from nothing and employed all the worlds top soccer players for a few years, than just folded. The XFL did likewise. A sport called Arena football started up a pro league last year that is bigger and richer than our NRL, and they did it all from scratch.

The reason they are able to spend this kind of money is because of the huge potential audiences. The Fox satelite network in the US is a tiny player in the pay TV market, but they reach more households than exist in Australia all by themselves.

I don't know what the American guys are up to at the moment, but I know the market in America is bigger than anything we could dream of and we only need to tap a tiny percentage of it to be successful as a sport.

 

[Big Bunny]

Actually, Arena football has been pro for a good number of years in the US. 7-8 years minimum.

 

[Tidus_Raider]

What code is Arena Football? I'm presuming soccer. Correct?

 

[Anonymous]

No, arena football is indoor American football.

 

[Anonymous]

That is a pretty fair description of the comp as it stands, although you fail to mention the amazing rate of growth over the last few years (my estimate is the comp is growing about 20% a year).

20% growth isn't that 'amazing' when you're talking an extra 20 guys in a country of 200 million. Good, consistent - but I wouldn't get too excited about that.

The thing is, we are not talking about the present comp turning pro, but a whole new comp being well funded and begining from scratch.

Fair enough then - I'd heard people talking up the concept of the AmNRL in its current form turning pro - which was mostly what I was suggesting may be a little unrealistic.

[quote="roopy]
This sounds incredible to us, but things like this happen in America. The soccer comp that ran in the 70's and included a team called the NY Cosmos started from nothing and employed all the worlds top soccer players for a few years, than just folded. The XFL did likewise. A sport called Arena football started up a pro league last year that is bigger and richer than our NRL, and they did it all from scratch.

The reason they are able to spend this kind of money is because of the huge potential audiences. The Fox satelite network in the US is a tiny player in the pay TV market, but they reach more households than exist in Australia all by themselves.

I don't know what the American guys are up to at the moment, but I know the market in America is bigger than anything we could dream of and we only need to tap a tiny percentage of it to be successful as a sport.[/quote]

Very valid points, and it is true that you can be a tiny niche market in the US and still be bigger than anything in Oz. Two or three things to mention though.

1. The players would have to come from overseas. You could maybe find a few gridiron/US union players and train them up, but on the whole, you'd have to import an entire league's worth of players (very expensive and quite difficult on paper as well with US law).

2. Who's going to fund something that doesn't have a ready made audience? Fox Sport and ESPN have a million and one niche market sports already going pro (ten pin bowling for christ sake...) with ready-made TV audiences. THere isn't much room for something which you'd be building an audience for from scratch.

3. Yeah, the soccer idea kind of worked (though even the MLS isn't doing the best financially these days, despite being the bigget participation sport in the USA) - but again, everyone in the USA knows soccer and it's a migrant nation... Even if your apple-pie white bread yankee doesn't like soccer, the big chunk of the population from elsewhere does.

4. XFL. Huge amount of money was flushed down the toilet by Vince McMahon on this, basically trying to do the same thing - set up a new spectator sport from scratch.

5. Pro rugby union in the USA will happen very soon (there are plans similar to the idea recently floated for Oz). Must be noticed however, that this may not be a bad thing... Union popularity will probably benefit league as well.

That all said - it could work, BUT maybe not right now. Give it four or five years and we'll see.

 

[TheFirstRabbitoh]

Hey Roopy, those last two posts were mine - can you fix that before they get wiped?

DIdn't realise I wasn't logged in.

 

[roopy]

Hey Roopy, those last two posts were mine - can you fix that before they get wiped?

DIdn't realise I wasn't logged in.

I tried, but I can't edit in your user name, sorry.

I noticed this section allows guests, which most other sections don't. I'll get someone to fix that so people don't get caught out. The same thing happened to me the other day.

 

[roopy]

[
Very valid points, and it is true that you can be a tiny niche market in the US and still be bigger than anything in Oz. Two or three things to mention though.

1. The players would have to come from overseas. You could maybe find a few gridiron/US union players and train them up, but on the whole, you'd have to import an entire league's worth of players (very expensive and quite difficult on paper as well with US law).

2. Who's going to fund something that doesn't have a ready made audience? Fox Sport and ESPN have a million and one niche market sports already going pro (ten pin bowling for christ sake...) with ready-made TV audiences. THere isn't much room for something which you'd be building an audience for from scratch.

3. Yeah, the soccer idea kind of worked (though even the MLS isn't doing the best financially these days, despite being the bigget participation sport in the USA) - but again, everyone in the USA knows soccer and it's a migrant nation... Even if your apple-pie white bread yankee doesn't like soccer, the big chunk of the population from elsewhere does.

4. XFL. Huge amount of money was flushed down the toilet by Vince McMahon on this, basically trying to do the same thing - set up a new spectator sport from scratch.

5. Pro rugby union in the USA will happen very soon (there are plans similar to the idea recently floated for Oz). Must be noticed however, that this may not be a bad thing... Union popularity will probably benefit league as well.

That all said - it could work, BUT maybe not right now. Give it four or five years and we'll see.

On point one - the Americans themselves don't think it would work if the players are not seen as being mostly American. Fans would not support a comp made up of largely imports. I think many of the players will be sourced from the reputed 80,000 Union players in America, but the college gridiron system also seems to offer a largely untapped source of world class athletes, of whom only a tiny percentage enter the pro ranks in their sport. Many of the pro gridiron teams represent a population as big as all of Australia, so many thousands of hopefull players miss out each year on a spot in the 'pros'. most of these guys give away sport alltogether rather than play an amatuer sport. Think of it as having a choice between 200 guys with the same physical attributes as Wendall Sailor or Lote Tuquiri if you have money to lure them.

on point two - the key is obviously to get a deal for TV coverage - once it is on any sort of network in the US it has the potential to reach huge audiences, so it is instantly worth big money to sponsers. I think the only chance is Lachlan Murdoch, who is already a League fan (broncos and his wife goes for Manly), who could give the game a go, because he is already aware that the game has the potential to appeal to TV audiences (since he was in charge of putting together super league).

On point three - America is a huge and diversified market - we only need to appeal to a tiny percentage of that market to begin with.

four - I'd say he tried to go too big too fast. He tried to match the big boys from the start, so he had to be judged in comparison with the big sport, and he failed because of that. League would obviously be a much smaller project.

five - pro Union in the US has been 'going to happen soon' for years, and doesn't seem any closer to me. When I look at Union sites in America they are all filled with amatuer tradition bullshit - those guys revel in being a 'social' sport that doesn't even try to compete with the big pro sports in America. Basically it is a joke sport in America, or a sport for fat old blokes to have a muck around on the weekends anyway. The only time I have seen it referred to on a popular American TV show was when one of the guys from 'Friends' told someone that he couldn't do something because his Rugby team was playing a semi-final on that day. The other guy then delivered the punch line 'Rugby has semi-finals' in an incredulous tone. It got a big laugh.

 

[ExJnrKiwi]

In reference to Roopy's last post:

1. Sourcing US players is the big problem here. There just aren't enough US players capable of playing at a level much above park footy. Sure there are a lot of superb athletes running around but with experience and skill that amounts to nought. The value is in the sheer amount of quality players around and the lack of opportunities to play a sport such as RL is in long term grass roots development not a flash in the pan pro comp concept.

2. A TV deal is not that unlikely but like XFL it needs a guaranteed source of funding over time to develop an audience. The problem is that Media reach, although that can be in the millions, does not necessarily translate into viewers for a particular sport product. Sponsors constantly review their penetration via sport sponsorship and if it fails to deliver they inevitably withdraw. In order for a TV team sport product like RL to be attractive it has to have a stadium full of spectators to create atmosphere and enhance the the overall effect on the viewer to lock him/her in to the viewing experience. This would be literally impossible for RL in the US to achieve.

3. Agreed but that is a problem in itself. If Australia can't develop a truly national RL TV market then how the hell can the US. Tiny percentages are not financially viable in the US media market. Its far too expensive to broadcast a program to a minority when something with more viewer pulling power waits in the wings. In order to get your program out to the masses in the US, broadcasters syndicate their products to extend their often limited reach.

4. If league was to be a much smaller project than XFL then how would it ever compete, attract sponsors, and why would the networks even bother?

5. Pro Union hasn't happened because the powers that be haven't been able to develop a solution to the above. US Union has been around for years and is way bigger than RL. My take of Union is that they just don't see a pro comp as viable at this stage.

Any sport can have a go at going pro but even the big sports recognise the dangers and pitfalls in such a move. US RL almost buried itself with a piss ant State comp several years back and now there's talk of a pro comp. If they launch a pro comp then they will inevitable go bust over time.

My guess is that you can kiss US RL goodbye if they try this.

Selling a pro US RL comp would be like trying to sell RL into Victoria. If its such a great product then why haven't the ARL/NRL been able to convince the networks here over the last 20 years or so that their product is worth showing on prime time in Vic. Because the networks know that only a tiny percentage of Victorians give a toss about RL and the chances of changing that are next to zero.