Interesting figures on UK sports

[bamfordsbeans]

Just seen the following numbers on Sky Sports News in relation to ticket sales for all sporting events in UK in the last year.

Overall ticket sales up by 7% to 74.5million(best since the Olympic Year of 2012)

Soccer 47.6m

Horse racing/Equestrion 7.5m

RU 5.5m

Cricket 2.7m

We are 5th with 2.3m

No great surprise with soccer and proves my theory that it is bigger than every other sport combined.

In relation to cricket and union and their international appeal ,our total does not seem to bad .

Also confirms most league fans claims that we don't get the media coverage we deserve in relation to those 2 sports.

[Damien]

Those figures for RL seem excellent in comparison to the other sports for the reasons you allude to. 

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Those figures for RL seem excellent in comparison to the other sports for the reasons you allude to. 

Exactly, considering the Autumn internationals and Six Nations must account for 3.5-4m of those RU tickets and International cricket half of those numbers of 2.5m. Just imagine if we were adding and 300k+ each year through international RL?

[parklandswolf]

Let hope the RFL marketing team use these figures when searching for sponsors

[Forever Trinity]

48 minutes ago, parklandswolf said:

Let hope the RFL marketing team use these figures when searching for sponsors

Not a chance!

[Futtocks]

3 hours ago, Scubby said:

Exactly, considering the Autumn internationals and Six Nations must account for 3.5-4m of those RU tickets and International cricket half of those numbers of 2.5m. Just imagine if we were adding and 300k+ each year through international RL?

Whether you choose to believe RU's figures implicitly, or discount a certain percentage because of that code's ingrained bent for made-up or rounded-up numbers, internationals make a colossal difference to their income. And they would still come out ahead of RL, whichever way you calculate it.

We have been missing out on that sweet fat cash-cow of international competition for decades, and it is mostly our fault. That wonga that we could have worked for could pay for development officers across the nation, and even throughout Europe (as well as addressing heartland concerns).

[marklaspalmas]

So RU internationals in the UK are 2/3 home games for England, Scotland and Wales. Then 3/4 autumn games. Max 20 matches. Not sure on capacities of the three stadiums but at 80k per ground that's max 1.6m of their 5.5m.

Just saying.

[Scubby]

4 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

So RU internationals in the UK are 2/3 home games for England, Scotland and Wales. Then 3/4 autumn games. Max 20 matches. Not sure on capacities of the three stadiums but at 80k per ground that's max 1.6m of their 5.5m.

Just saying.

Barbarians games, England May/June International, Army v Navy, Varsity Game, The Big Game, London double header it keeps going on and on and on. Twickenham must account for well over a million people by itself.

[marklaspalmas]

3 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Barbarians games, England May/June International, Army v Navy, Varsity Game, The Big Game, London double header it keeps going on and on and on. Twickenham must account for well over a million people by itself.

Your post said the 6 nations and autumn internationals counted for 3.5m to 4m. Your maths is way off.

[roughyedspud]

His math is off but he's fundamentally right..take the 6nations & autumn internationals out and the only difference is they have a higher average attendance (15k) and play a load of European games too

[Futtocks]

6 minutes ago, roughyedspud said:

His math is off but he's fundamentally right..take the 6nations & autumn internationals out and the only difference is they have a higher average attendance (15k) and play a load of European games too

"Maths"  

I think the point of the original post could be said to be 'event' matches, as opposed to regular, week-in, week-out fixtures. The ones that fill the big venues whether with sold tickets or freebies. The ones that look impressive on TV.

[Mattrhino]

10 hours ago, Futtocks said:

Whether you choose to believe RU's figures implicitly, or discount a certain percentage because of that code's ingrained bent for made-up or rounded-up numbers, internationals make a colossal difference to their income. And they would still come out ahead of RL, whichever way you calculate it.

We have been missing out on that sweet fat cash-cow of international competition for decades, and it is mostly our fault. That wonga that we could have worked for could pay for development officers across the nation, and even throughout Europe (as well as addressing heartland concerns).

Yep, England should be playing 5 or 6  home tests a year. 2 mid season and 3/4 in Autumn. Unless we are touring we should have 2 mid season and 1 farewell test then go on tour.

Problem is our main opponents don't seem to want to play anybody. Or should I say Australia don't want to and NZ don't want to upset thier masters. And we want to play our reserves against our NH opponents.

[Mattrhino]

7 hours ago, Futtocks said:

"Maths"  

I think the point of the original post could be said to be 'event' matches, as opposed to regular, week-in, week-out fixtures. The ones that fill the big venues whether with sold tickets or freebies. The ones that look impressive on TV.

Leeds have named our game at Elland Road as the "Clash" so hopefully it will turn into a annual event and boost our average attendance by 30-40,000 

[Dave T]

14 hours ago, Scubby said:

Exactly, considering the Autumn internationals and Six Nations must account for 3.5-4m of those RU tickets and International cricket half of those numbers of 2.5m. Just imagine if we were adding and 300k+ each year through international RL?

Or alternatively we could get rid of 7 rounds and get rid of 350-400k. Seems to be what many advocate.

[Mattrhino]

7 hours ago, roughyedspud said:

His math is off but he's fundamentally right..take the 6nations & autumn internationals out and the only difference is they have a higher average attendance (15k) and play a load of European games too

Without the event crowds they have no where near a 15k average week in week out club attendances. I'm not even discussing how Harlequins somehow get 14,400 every game and Saracens get exactly 10,000 every week and a few other clubs whose attendances don't alter anymore than a few hundred throughout the year.

[The 4 of Us]

35 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

Leeds have named our game at Elland Road as the "Clash" so hopefully it will turn into a annual event and boost our average attendance by 30-40,000 

Won’t boost the average by that much, just the cumulative total average will be increased by 30/40,000 divided by number of home games - about 2/2,500

[Mattrhino]

1 minute ago, The 4 of Us said:

Won’t boost the average by that much, just the cumulative total average will be increased by 30/40,000 divided by number of home games - about 2/2,500

Sorry I didn't mean it would boost the season average figure by 30,000. But it is still a welcome boost.

Would be great to get a Saints v Wigan at Anfield or Wigan v Leeds at Eithad make it an event and we may have cities bidding for it like the magic weekend.

[marklaspalmas]

8 hours ago, Futtocks said:

"Maths"  

I think the point of the original post could be said to be 'event' matches, as opposed to regular, week-in, week-out fixtures. The ones that fill the big venues whether with sold tickets or freebies. The ones that look impressive on TV.

Well yes, but it would help to establish a firm idea of how much their 5.5m and our 2.3m is 'bread & butter' matches as opposed to 'event' matches. RU would win hands down no surprises there, but (that pesky maths again) I cannot see how their 'event' games count for 3.5m/4m out of 5.5m. That's all.

Whether or not RU makes up many of its attendances (I believe so) is a separate valid point.

What RL can do to get more 'event' matches is much more interesting and relevant.

What RL can do with these figures to push for more profile/sponsorship/TV brass is also more interesting and relevant.

[Mattrhino]

What is more sad is that we had ZERO home internationals in 2017 we can catch that cricket 2.7mill and be the 4th most popular sport if we had a steady number of annual internationals.

[The 4 of Us]

2 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

Sorry I didn't mean it would boost the season average figure by 30,000. But it is still a welcome boost.

Would be great to get a Saints v Wigan at Anfield or Wigan v Leeds at Eithad make it an event and we may have cities bidding for it like the magic weekend.

Agree entirely. Wigan have the “Big One” - I could imagine playing that at the Ethiad against someone like Warrington or Leeds would bring in a much bigger gate than at DW.

If Saints and Wigan could be played in Liverpool that could also push up a crowd from say 17/18,000 at Saints to 25/30,000 or more if marketed right.

The only problem with these ventures isn’t the cost benefit of doing so. You may get another 10,000 through the gate but let’s say that’s at £25 a ticket or extra income of £250,000. What’s it going to cost to hire either ground and market the game?

I’m not sure many of the PL clubs who’s grounds might suit are going to be so desparate to want the money. 

And that’s before you get it past SL club’s own season tickets holders.

[Scubby]

12 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

Your post said the 6 nations and autumn internationals counted for 3.5m to 4m. Your maths is way off.

Fair point but I was mostly referring to the car par and Twickers brigade. We generate about 150k on a good year and even with out other major events we dribble up to around 350k at most.

[Scubby]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Or alternatively we could get rid of 7 rounds and get rid of 350-400k. Seems to be what many advocate.

Who said 7? I think we can potentially get more through the gates for 27 rounds (162 fixtures) at 10K+ average than we can with 30 rounds (180 fixtures) at 8.5k-9k. Those extra 3 weeks could be used effectively to promote the England brand for example.

[Mattrhino]

24 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

Agree entirely. Wigan have the “Big One” - I could imagine playing that at the Ethiad against someone like Warrington or Leeds would bring in a much bigger gate than at DW.

If Saints and Wigan could be played in Liverpool that could also push up a crowd from say 17/18,000 at Saints to 25/30,000 or more if marketed right.

The only problem with these ventures isn’t the cost benefit of doing so. You may get another 10,000 through the gate but let’s say that’s at £25 a ticket or extra income of £250,000. What’s it going to cost to hire either ground and market the game?

I’m not sure many of the PL clubs who’s grounds might suit are going to be so desparate to want the money. 

And that’s before you get it past SL club’s own season tickets holders.

I suppose the RFL should underwrite the cost for the clubs, does the RFU organise the event games at Wembley.

[The 4 of Us]

1 minute ago, Mattrhino said:

I suppose the RFL should underwrite the cost for the clubs, does the RFU organise the event games at Wembley.

Not that I’m aware of and I’d wager that the RFL will have a 1000 more priorities than underwriting the costs of private RL clubs own frolics.

As for the cost benefit I think Saracens close to doubled their average league crowds (80,000 divided by 10) but still lost money on the venture. Turnover vanity - profit sanity.

[Mattrhino]

3 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

Not that I’m aware of and I’d wager that the RFL will have a 1000 more priorities than underwriting the costs of private RL clubs own frolics.

As for the cost benefit I think Saracens close to doubled their average league crowds (80,000 divided by 10) but still lost money on the venture. Turnover vanity - profit sanity.

Well I think all the Premiership clubs are financial basket cases with sugar daddies propping up clubs. 

The big games lose money as you say, I see lot of articles complaining about the games being nothing but vanity projects.