Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Next year the sport will be entering a new broadcast deal with whomever for whatever money possible. A question for TRLers is how should that money be split?

For the past 5 years, clubs have received around £1.8 million, unless they have failed certain targets like say Wakefield and have received less, or other notable examples of exceptions. In that sense, our system is punitive where there is difference rather than rewarding - "you get less than everyone else because you're not xyz" or at least a feeling of some clubs being more equal than others. I believe some money also goes to clubs based on academies and player production. Nevertheless, in Super League the attitude in general terms has been focussed on equality of distribution money for most clubs up to the level of the salary cap at the time of the deal (we'll ignore the championship for clarity here). Continuing with that principle is one option, though the overall amount is under threat. It at least guarantees every club starts at roughly the same amount, and that quality differences across the league are not too massive - though I appreciate some will see limitations to that point particularly!

Another option is to follow the Premier League option, reknowned as one of the most equalised revenue distribution systems around European football, but not as equality focused as Super League's. Half the money is split equally amongst clubs, with the other half split into 2 pots held in reserve. The first pot is based on finishing position and the second pot is based on the number of times a team is selected by broadcasters for a TV slot and paid out per game. (that has continued this year with every game being televised just with payment only going to teams in the pre covid TV Slots). There is also a percentage limit to the difference the top team can receive from the bottom. Whilst obviously the figures involved would be much smaller, personally I think it would add a bit more spice to every league position being contested to the end of the year and encourage clubs to grow their appeal off the pitch to broadcasters. It also appeases an attitude becoming more prevalent in Rugby League, and the country in general, of "what do you bring to the table to earn this?" whilst not totally blowing others out of the water because of the maximum percentage difference.

Like I said in European football league terms this is quite radical. In Spain for example, teams effectively sell their own broadcast deals meaning Barcelona and Real Madrid got around £180 million each whereas the lowest earners got a fraction of that - they are now slowly moving towards a centralised model.

All things being well, the amount of money Super League clubs receive from the broadcast deal will remain at around 21 million a season for the next time around, but how would you split it? And does there need to be a more competitive and rewarding edge to TV funding, as opposed to a punitive system we have now? Or would changing the equal funding for all simply leave some clubs uncompetitive? Would we see more championship clubs able to compete?

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Griff said:

I'd share it out 14 ways amongst the Championship clubs.

$uperleague clubs have more gate money so they don't need any Sky money.

Best idea I have heard all year LOL:) It is understandable though with big city teams London/Toulouse/Newcastle and beautiful places like York (Even one can say West Cumbria is next to the Lake District) 

As bald and bankrupt says I LIKE IT LETS DO IT:)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Best idea I have heard all year LOL:) It is understandable though with big city teams London/Toulouse/Newcastle and beautiful places like York (Even one can say West Cumbria is next to the Lake District) 

As bald and bankrupt says I LIKE IT LETS DO IT:)

 

Weren't the Championship rights being sold separately by the RFL this time around?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Griff said:

I'd share it out 14 ways amongst the Championship clubs.

$uperleague clubs have more gate money so they don't need any Sky money.

Championship is supposed to be getting its own deal, and even now it doesn't share the money evenly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

The unequal funding in the Championship has made a mockery of the division.

It is when its entirely a central grant and not really based on any real self generated TV revenue. That said it is still based on finishing position and at that top half has never been stronger

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Best idea I have heard all year LOL:) It is understandable though with big city teams London/Toulouse/Newcastle and beautiful places like York (Even one can say West Cumbria is next to the Lake District) 

As bald and bankrupt says I LIKE IT LETS DO IT:)

 

We will need extra money to pay the rent on this place 😆

https://yorkcityknights.com/club/lner-community-stadium-build-complete/

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Which in turn makes a mockery of promotion.

Indeed. If the principles applied in SL were applied in the championship the SC would be massively lower and set at what clubs like Batley could afford.

The fans of certain clubs happy to denigrate the likes of Batley would be up in arms if that were the case. Arguing they were being held back by 'unambitious' clubs. 

Strangely that view changes completely when they get promoted.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...