You Tell Me Why There Are Too Many Clubs In Sydney

[Sports Prophet]

There has long been comments that there are too many Sydney teams in the NRL.

I am actually interested in this opinion. What is that opinion based on?

I don’t think there are too many teams in Sydney at all. The current number of clubs in Sydney support the current number of Sydney RL supporters. It’s not like moving a club back to NSW Cup or relocating them will increase the number of supporters in Sydney.

Nor is it like the number of teams in Sydney prevents the NRL expanding the competition to a new location.

I am a little baffled...

Anyone care to enlighten me?

 

[Man of Kent]

Heartland = bad, places where rugby league isn’t played = good!

[Mr Plow]

There are 9 clubs in Sydney, they make up over half of the NRL (16 clubs). Sydney has a population of 5 million.

There are 6 London clubs in the Premier League out of 20 clubs. London has a population of 9 million

Of course the large cities are going to have multiple teams but I think people think 9 is a bit excessive 

 

[bbfaz]

It's a franchise league and, at any given time, there are three teams or more struggling to make ends meet. That's the rationale. 10-15 years ago, it would've been a different set of teams, which is why I think mergers or relocations are dangerous. We've already lost so much. 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

I don’t see it myself, either. 

Sydney is the Australian home of Rugby League and ridding certain fans of their clubs is daft and naive. 

 

[goldcoaster]

Why should Sydney have 9 teams and south east Qld only 2? NZ only one? Perth none?

Personally I think expansion would be the best model, but existing clubs argue there aren’t enough good players available. So why should then expansion be held off because of this? If the league can only sustain 16 clubs, then relocation is the best option to ensure a broader league

[Yorkshire Knight]

What’s the average attendance for Sydney clubs compared to the rest? 

[Allora]

2 hours ago, goldcoaster said:

Why should Sydney have 9 teams and south east Qld only 2? NZ only one? Perth none?

Personally I think expansion would be the best model, but existing clubs argue there aren’t enough good players available. So why should then expansion be held off because of this? If the league can only sustain 16 clubs, then relocation is the best option to ensure a broader league

They  always could scrap the Titans and relocate them to Brisbane.

That would make a lot of sense.

[Sports Prophet]

2 hours ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

What’s the average attendance for Sydney clubs compared to the rest? 

What do the comparable attendance averages have to do with the argument one way or the other?

[Sports Prophet]

4 hours ago, goldcoaster said:

Why should Sydney have 9 teams and south east Qld only 2? NZ only one? Perth none?

Well, the reason why Sydney has the number of clubs it does is simple. The NRL is an evolved competition of the former NSWRL.

I guess, the question I would simply pose back, why should expansion come at the expense of existing clubs? That’s not really expansion is it.

 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

NRL seems to be doing fine with 9 Sydney clubs. 

[Sports Prophet]

9 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

For the same reason nobody sane is arguing that putting more clubs in Sydney would be a good idea.

I don’t make the connection sorry Scotchy... I am sane and don’t think the addition of another club or re-emergence of Newtown or North Sydney into the comp is a good idea.

I don’t see what that has to do with proving a point that there are too many clubs in Sydney. 

I would argue there are the right amount of clubs in Sydney. All those clubs currently service the entire RL community in Sydney.

[ghost crayfish]

The issue is more complex than '9 clubs in Sydney are going ok' or a simple '9 is too many'. The question is what's the ideal number of clubs in the comp, and what's the ideal geographic spread - to maximise sponsorships, crowds, junior development and TV revenue. Once you have the answer to all that, you can work out how many clubs should be in Sydney. I don't know the answer, but I do know a club like the Wests Tigers never plays finals and has regular rumours about financial trouble. So using that example, if the Wests Tigers were based in Perth instead of Campbelltown, would they do better? And more importantly, would the game? I'm not suggesting a definite answer one way or the other (though I do have a poorly informed opinion!), I'm just saying that's the kind of question the NRL is right to start thinking about.

[Yorkshire Knight]

35 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

What do the comparable attendance averages have to do with the argument one way or the other?

It’s simple: the more saturated the market, the lower the attendance will be. Sydney is well beyond saturation point 

[Sports Prophet]

11 minutes ago, ghost crayfish said:

The issue is more complex than '9 clubs in Sydney are going ok' or a simple '9 is too many'. The question is what's the ideal number of clubs in the comp, and what's the ideal geographic spread - to maximise sponsorships, crowds, junior development and TV revenue. Once you have the answer to all that, you can work out how many clubs should be in Sydney. I don't know the answer, but I do know a club like the Wests Tigers never plays finals and has regular rumours about financial trouble. So using that example, if the Wests Tigers were based in Perth instead of Campbelltown, would they do better? And more importantly, would the game? I'm not suggesting a definite answer one way or the other (though I do have a poorly informed opinion!), I'm just saying that's the kind of question the NRL is right to start thinking about.

A very good summary GC. 

I agree, the optimum number of clubs needs to be concluded prior to any consideration of expansion with or without mergers, relocations and/or new clubs.

There could be a suitable argument to say the optimum number of clubs is 24. Leaving plenty of room for the existing Sydney clubs. 

Maybe the optimum would be six clubs. Meaning there certainly is no room for all the Sydney clubs.

[Sports Prophet]

1 minute ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

It’s simple: the more saturated the market, the lower the attendance will be. Sydney is well beyond saturation point 

The lower the individual attendances will be. Yes, I would probably agree with that without study.

What does that matter though?

Removing a Sydney club isn’t going to grow the number of attendees in Sydney is it?

[Exiled Wiganer]

They threw out Souths. I have watched them twice in the last week putting in fine performances with high profile players and great support. If anything should act as a a warning to the owners of the game it is Souths, those that drink from the well...

The only circumstances I would have sympathy with, are where a part of Sydney has changed so much demographically that there is no longer corporate support, fans and juniors. Even then, I would only move them if they agree. I certainly wouldn’t move anyone simply because they have hit a bad patch. 

[Yorkshire Knight]

20 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

The lower the individual attendances will be. Yes, I would probably agree with that without study.

What does that matter though?

Removing a Sydney club isn’t going to grow the number of attendees in Sydney is it?

One extra club in Sydney means an opportunity missed for one place outside of Sydney where crowds would be significantly better 

[Sports Prophet]

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Moving them to Perth would certainly grow the numbers in Perth though. 

Yeah, it probably would Scotchy, it’s very hard to argue with that. 

I am just as certain that it wouldn’t grow the numbers in Perth anymore than a newly established club, so again, I don’t see the connection.

[Sports Prophet]

Just now, Yorkshire Knight said:

One extra club in Sydney means an opportunity missed for one place outside of Sydney where crowds would be significantly better 

Why does it mean that?

[Sports Prophet]

11 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If you list all the reasons that going to 10 or 11 or 40 teams in Sydney is a bad idea, people think the same about having 9 in Sydney. 

Tell me the top three reasons why you think going to 11 teams in Sydney is a bad idea and how they correlate with keeping the existing clubs is an equally bad idea.

I’m not trying to be funny here. I am ready to be convinced. Tell me, what is the benefit in reducing the number of clubs in Sydney.

[glossop saint]

I think this is the issue when it comes to expanding any sport. Do you replace or do you add? There are plenty of arguments either way. The key points are current resources, what could potentially be gained and what the probability of making those gains are.

I don't know enough to comment on the current state of the 9 Sydney clubs but definitely think that the NRL should be looking at having more clubs in new areas. Whether that is relocation, replacement or addition I am not really qualified to say.

[BladeHearts]

10 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

For the same reason nobody sane is arguing that putting more clubs in Sydney would be a good idea.

Just because some areas are under-represented does not in itself mean that Sydney is over-represented.

I would argue that at present Sydney has exactly the right number of teams and this will continue to be the case unless any of these sides become financially unviable, which seems to be what the NRL is saying.

The key is expanding into those areas lacking representation, where there is potential to enhance the competition as a whole.  I think everyone would agree that Perth is a no-brainer and Brisbane2 is also a strong contender.  If the enthusiasm, crowds and financial backing are in place it would also be great to have a side in Adelaide, which would allow the NRL to truly merit the N in its title.

Longer term additional sides in NZ would be great, but again any new side needs to show that it could merit a place in the NRL.

The beauty of any league which uses a Grand Final system, is that you are not constrained size wise by the numbers of a home and away fixture list i.e. you could go to 25 teams and still play just 24 fixtures or alternatively split into conferences.

RL across the globe will only grow by having more teams and by being played in more places, I would also argue that equality of competition is probably more important than overall quality.

If every match in a league finishes 20-19 will people complain that the quality was a bit iffy and by the same token are people ever happy watching a stellar Kangaroos side win 95-0?

There is also an argument that if overall quality drops it serves to make the stars of the game shine brighter as it magnifies their superior skills.

 

[Yorkshire Knight]

10 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Why does it mean that?

Because relocation of an existing club seems more likely than the addition of a whole new club. Seeing that the latter is unlikely, it’s obviously going to take an existing club to move to a market like Perth or Brisbane. And where would that club come from? You guessed it! The market which is currently over saturated with 9 clubs 

[Sports Prophet]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But it would mean that club 9 arent competiting with clubs 1-8 for sponsors, corporates, and the next generation of fans. It would mean that all those things are concentrated in Sydney and each of the other clubs can operate at a higher scale. 

It would also mean that the Perth club opens up new markets for sponsors, TV viewers, opens up new markets, opens up a new broadcast slot much more friendly to international audiences

I don’t disagree a club in Perth opens up new markets. Certainly for supporters and sponsors.

Why does that have to come at the expense of an existing club servicing an existing market?

A truism of business is that it is easier to retain business than recruit it. 

How many major sponsors are there of Sydney clubs that wouldn’t benefit just as much by sponsoring a Perth team?