A cautionary tale for RL

[OriginalMrC]

Really interesting article on British Basketball

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/apr/12/the-missed-opportunities-and-unfulfilled-potential-of-british-basketball

Basketball has never had the commercial success of RL but there's certainly a lot of parallels in terms of a sport that was reliant on broadcasters for income. Rugby league will need to continue to innovate and make itself a must have sport for broadcasters or we could go the same way! 

[Damien]

All sports are heavily reliant on broadcasters for income and even bigger sports than RL would look vastly different without it.

I think British Basketball has loads of issues. The one thing it has going for it is that Basketball is very popular, my kids love playing and watching Basketball. The trouble is nearly all of the kids almost exclusively watch NBA games. They never watch any UK games because they just think they just look amateurish and frankly rubbish in comparison. Standard counts, both from a playing point of view and the whole event, feel and presentation, and British basketball doesn't fare well and seems like a very poor pale imitation. I think there are certainly some parallels there between Super League and the NRL, whether we like it or not.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

Really interesting article on British Basketball

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/apr/12/the-missed-opportunities-and-unfulfilled-potential-of-british-basketball

Basketball has never had the commercial success of RL but there's certainly a lot of parallels in terms of a sport that was reliant on broadcasters for income. Rugby league will need to continue to innovate and make itself a must have sport for broadcasters or we could go the same way! 

Interesting article mate but I`m not sure it`s all about money, even TV money. Basketball in Oz has had it`s` high points over the decades when according to everyone it was about to break out.

Like soccer over here basketball is popular as a past time but that never really has converted into a successful professional competition.

I wonder whether it is more indicative of the difficulties an introduced sport has in finding its` niche in a domestic market where most people already have their sporting allegiances, often that date back generations.

[RigbyLuger]

"Sir" Rodney Walker still running basketball?

I'm always amazed at the crowds they get at Sheffield Steelers ice hockey, putting many Super League clubs to shame, with a massively smaller amount of media coverage. 

The other problem for basketball, is that, the quality is way lower than what can be watched on TV in the NBA, and is probably more a participation than spectator sport (from my experience anyway, just waiting for a team to miss.)

[hunsletgreenandgold]

48 minutes ago, Damien said:

All sports are heavily reliant on broadcasters for income and even bigger sports than RL would look vastly different without it.

I think British Basketball has loads of issues. The one thing it has going for it is that Basketball is very popular, my kids love playing and watching Basketball. The trouble is nearly all of the kids almost exclusively watch NBA games. They never watch any UK games because they just think they just look amateurish and frankly rubbish in comparison. Standard counts, both from a playing point of view and the whole event, feel and presentation, and British basketball doesn't fare well and seems like a very poor pale imitation. I think there are certainly some parallels there between Super League and the NRL, whether we like it or not.

I already feel like SL is starting to portray itself in the very same light. I'd feel pretty comfortable (sadly) in the next few years replacing the word 'basketball' with 'RL' and for NBA see NRL, obviously. The good thing going for British RL is we do still have a broadcast deal and a pretty solid foundation, in terms of clubs and fanbase. But, if the gap gets much bigger between SL and NRL it will only lead to SL looking even more second rate than it already does. 

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I already feel like SL is starting to portray itself in the very same light. I'd feel pretty comfortable (sadly) in the next few years replacing the word 'basketball' with 'RL' and for NBA see NRL, obviously. The good thing going for British RL is we do still have a broadcast deal and a pretty solid foundation, in terms of clubs and fanbase. But, if the gap gets much bigger between SL and NRL it will only lead to SL looking even more second rate than it already does. 

I don't see that as too much of an issue tbh. The vast majority of people who watch UK RL do not see the NRL. 

[OriginalMrC]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't see that as too much of an issue tbh. The vast majority of people who watch UK RL do not see the NRL. 

True but if (and I think it's still a big if) the NRL continues on its current trajectory it will become the equivalent of the NBA or NFL of the sport and all the best talent will be funnelled there. Already happening to a certain extent 

[Toby Chopra]

3 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I already feel like SL is starting to portray itself in the very same light. I'd feel pretty comfortable (sadly) in the next few years replacing the word 'basketball' with 'RL' and for NBA see NRL, obviously. The good thing going for British RL is we do still have a broadcast deal and a pretty solid foundation, in terms of clubs and fanbase. But, if the gap gets much bigger between SL and NRL it will only lead to SL looking even more second rate than it already does. 

The difference is the NBA, and also the NFL, have always had UK TV fanbases that are much larger that any interest there is in the domestic UK version of those sports. The pattern is long established.

Fortunately/unfortunately (depending on how you see it) almost no-one watches the NRL in the UK, it's mostly rugby league tragics like us, and I don't see that changing. So I don't think we'll go the same way, if people switch off UK RL it'll be for something else entirely.

As I alluded to, the UK basketball experience is almost word-for-word what happened to UK American football in the late 80s/early 90s - a great boom followed by equally great bust.  

Which makes me think, is there ANY example of a non-traditional sport become established in the UK, or other parts of the UK, at the spectator/commercial level, rather than the recreational one? I can't really think of one. Maybe women's sport will buck that trend but that's a slightly special case as it will still be the traditional UK sports.

So perhaps the lesson of all this is, at the spectator/commercial level RL should stop fretting about breaking into "expansion" areas, even London, and just focus on recreational/youth activity in those areas, while sustaining the spectator/TV game in the established areas. No other sport has  bucked that trend, so why should we?   

[paulwalker71]

What hasn't been mentioned in this discussion yet it is the very clear class / social issue here when it comes to how money is distributed.

Quote

 UK Sport – the body that funds Great Britain’s Olympic and Paralympic teams – gave basketball £8m. But £27m went to the rowing programme, almost £23m to sailing, and more than £13m to equestrian teams.

The problem is obvious. UK Sport pours money into sports populated by rich people, whilst a sport like Basketball - which does great work amongst ethnic minority and socially disadvantaged young people has actually had its funding cut entirely. 

It makes it hard to create a vibrant sport that people want to watch and broadcasters want to pay for when you are hampered in that way.

There is a parallel with RL. We are - rightly or wrongly - associated with northern working class culture. We do great work in socially disadvantaged parts of the country, in fact we punch above our weight with a lot of stuff we do. But we don't fit that demographic that loves sailing and dressage and - dare I say it - Rugby Union, that has money thrown at it like confetti.

Until that changes (and there's no reason to think it will, sadly) we are fighting an uphill battle - in fact, its a battle to even survive.

 

[Newguy]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

Interesting article mate but I`m not sure it`s all about money, even TV money. Basketball in Oz has had it`s` high points over the decades when according to everyone it was about to break out.

Like soccer over here basketball is popular as a past time but that never really has converted into a successful professional competition.

I wonder whether it is more indicative of the difficulties an introduced sport has in finding its` niche in a domestic market where most people already have their sporting allegiances, often that date back generations.

That's because most basketball and football fans in Australia support and actively follow NBA and EPL teams. In non RL states you see a whole lot more gear for those leagues teams than the NRL, and vice versa for those sports in Qld and NSW for those two leagues compared to AFL. The local leagues aren't huge, but the following of the EPL and NBA is significant. With the NBA finals coming up with plenty of Australians involved you only have to look at twitter to see what a big deal it is. The EPL is on at godawful times to watch in Aus but the TV rights are still sells for big money. 

[Toby Chopra]

5 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

What hasn't been mentioned in this discussion yet it is the very clear class / social issue here when it comes to how money is distributed.

The problem is obvious. UK Sport pours money into sports populated by rich people, whilst a sport like Basketball - which does great work amongst ethnic minority and socially disadvantaged young people has actually had its funding cut entirely. 

It makes it hard to create a vibrant sport that people want to watch and broadcasters want to pay for when you are hampered in that way.

There is a parallel with RL. We are - rightly or wrongly - associated with northern working class culture. We do great work in socially disadvantaged parts of the country, in fact we punch above our weight with a lot of stuff we do. But we don't fit that demographic that loves sailing and dressage and - dare I say it - Rugby Union, that has money thrown at it like confetti.

Until that changes (and there's no reason to think it will, sadly) we are fighting an uphill battle - in fact, its a battle to even survive.

 

There are iniquities, but the article is slightly misleading as it implies UK Sport - which is a body whose sole purpose is to fund Olympic success - is the source of all funding, but  ignores the money that Sport England puts into sports, including basketball and rugby league at the grassroots level. 

 

[BJW]

Brunel Ducks, Bracknell/Thames Valley Tigers, London Leopards all gone!

Remember Virgin Radio giving away tickets for Leopards in competitions (won and got to meet a former Miss World who was handing out signed basketballs) but even at that game there were at best 600, in the London Docklands Arena (didn't know who opposition were and turned up in Sheffield Eagles shirt to find it was the Steelers!)

Tigers played at local sports centre and when I moved here they had full main hall, by the end they were in smallest hall with crowd under 100.

Locally basketball has a decent and well attended academy for 6-18s but not sure where they go after reaching 18? 

 

[gingerjon]

19 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

There are iniquities, but the article is slightly misleading as it implies UK Sport - which is a body whose sole purpose is to fund Olympic success - is the source of all funding, but  ignores the money that Sport England puts into sports, including basketball and rugby league at the grassroots level. 

 

It's worth pointing out that it was UK Sport's decision to make that the sole criterion for funding. They could easily have decided that other targets - such as qualification for major tournaments in highly competitive global team sports - was worthy but they decided instead that Modern Pentathlon deserves its £6m per medal per cycle instead.

I believe the figures quoted on the per head basis in the article do include Sport England?

[BJW]

Would have thought a more worrying comparison would have been with speedway. Apparently second largest spectator sport in the 1970s (their figures so may be suspect but certainly well attended) and now on life support, even with TV money.

[JonM]

1 hour ago, paulwalker71 said:

What hasn't been mentioned in this discussion yet it is the very clear class / social issue here when it comes to how money is distributed.

The problem is obvious. UK Sport pours money into sports populated by rich people, whilst a sport like Basketball - which does great work amongst ethnic minority and socially disadvantaged young people has actually had its funding cut entirely. 

That specific funding is around getting Olympic medals. No amount of money would get us a basketball medal, or make us even competitive within Europe. Relatively small sums get us medals in rowing and so on.

You could argue it the other way round - basketball gets absolutely enormous public help and has done for about 50 years now,  in spite of having almost zero profile, public interest and tiny levels of adult participation. Local councils build courts everywhere, every school in the country teaches kids to play.

[JonM]

3 minutes ago, BJW said:

Would have thought a more worrying comparison would have been with speedway. Apparently second largest spectator sport in the 1970s (their figures so may be suspect but certainly well attended) and now on life support, even with TV money.

Yep, speedway is the cautionary tale for British RL - a similar setup to how our sport used to be, in many respects. Hardly any participation, aging fanbase, teams moving around from town to town. And it's slowly disappeared out of the papers, off the telly, numbers of clubs diminishing, loss of stadia and facilities. Nothing catastrophic, just relentless decline.

[gingerjon]

17 minutes ago, JonM said:

Relatively small sums get us medals in rowing and so on.

It's an average of £6m-7m per medal per cycle.

[ckn]

1. This is a rugby league forum, you can use other sports as comparators but the main subject must be rugby league. Please keep on topic.

2. Please don't get into political "well my party was better than yours", your posts will just get deleted.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, BJW said:

Would have thought a more worrying comparison would have been with speedway. Apparently second largest spectator sport in the 1970s (their figures so may be suspect but certainly well attended) and now on life support, even with TV money.

 

1 hour ago, JonM said:

Yep, speedway is the cautionary tale for British RL - a similar setup to how our sport used to be, in many respects. Hardly any participation, aging fanbase, teams moving around from town to town. And it's slowly disappeared out of the papers, off the telly, numbers of clubs diminishing, loss of stadia and facilities. Nothing catastrophic, just relentless decline.

Especially when you compare it to the success of Formula 1 and the things that have made it a success.

Says to me how important our World Cups are and especially their presentation.  They are our one big chance to look like a relevant 21st century sport and perhaps drag the rest of the game into the future.

[RigbyLuger]

21 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 

Especially when you compare it to the success of Formula 1 and the things that have made it a success.

Says to me how important our World Cups are and especially their presentation.  They are our one big chance to look like a relevant 21st century sport and perhaps drag the rest of the game into the future.

F1 is on a resurgence in the US, seemingly on the back of the Netflix series.

That's an area we can try an exploit, if we can find an interested party to make a docuseries on RL. State of Origin may be perfect for that.

[GUBRATS]

Basketball , great participation sport , rubbish to watch 

RL great to watch , limited chance of participation 

[Niels]

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Basketball , great participation sport , rubbish to watch 

RL great to watch , limited chance of participation 

I understand your point.

I read though that the average height of an NBA player is 6 feet 6 so it is limiting for those smaller. 

What I mean is, a small player has to be excellent whereas a very tall player can still be useful. 

Rugby league anyone can play because of the different positions. 

I agree that it isn't good to watch because of the frequency of the scoring. 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

6 hours ago, paulwalker71 said:

What hasn't been mentioned in this discussion yet it is the very clear class / social issue here when it comes to how money is distributed.

The problem is obvious. UK Sport pours money into sports populated by rich people, whilst a sport like Basketball - which does great work amongst ethnic minority and socially disadvantaged young people has actually had its funding cut entirely. 

It makes it hard to create a vibrant sport that people want to watch and broadcasters want to pay for when you are hampered in that way.

There is a parallel with RL. We are - rightly or wrongly - associated with northern working class culture. We do great work in socially disadvantaged parts of the country, in fact we punch above our weight with a lot of stuff we do. But we don't fit that demographic that loves sailing and dressage and - dare I say it - Rugby Union, that has money thrown at it like confetti.

Until that changes (and there's no reason to think it will, sadly) we are fighting an uphill battle - in fact, its a battle to even survive.

 

Very true, does anyone know what the figure for Rugby League is? How on earth can they even attempt to justify these figures?

 

Between 2013 and 2017 Sport England gave basketball just £9.25 per participant. In contrast, cricket received £70.72 per participant and rugby union almost £60, despite both having fewer participants among young people.

 

 

[Tommygilf]

25 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Very true, does anyone know what the figure for Rugby League is? How on earth can they even attempt to justify these figures?

 

Between 2013 and 2017 Sport England gave basketball just £9.25 per participant. In contrast, cricket received £70.72 per participant and rugby union almost £60, despite both having fewer participants among young people.

 

 

A lot of this is a mixture of knowing the right people, having certain people involved and knowing the channels to get the most from. RL suffers from similar deficiencies.

[welshmagpie]

There was a BBL team in the Midlands city I live in. Went along once with the other half as it was £10 entry, near enough full and a short-walk from our front door. It was a Friday night 7PM tip off.

The standard was OK but good enough to be enjoyable as in there was just about enough skill on show. 

The team has since dropped down the levels and as such we’ve had no real reason to return. What we first went to see was sold as an event and it felt like one…. We both vowed to go back but once we realised the circumstances we didn’t bother.

As a pure basketball neutral who doesn’t watch any basketball on TV our first impression ticked all of the appropriate boxes.

1. Location and accessibility 

2. (fair) standard

3. Food, music, competitions, promotion (the event feeling)

4. Good day and time (we were home for quarter past 9)

5: Fair price 

RL is at its best and will survive if not flourish when it achieves all of the above (barring 5 for prestige events)