Would Rugby League "struggle" without Betfred as Shaun Wane argues?

[Man of Kent]

Do we know what Betfred is paying? Maybe they’re paying more than we’d otherwise get? 

[soulboy]

I know the Dones have donated over £375k to the Tory party since 2016.

What they give RL is crumbs from the table .

 

[Man of Kent]

With Betfred I suspect it’s a case of don’t look a generous gift horse in the mouth. 

In any case, there’s a hint of leftie snobbery about this.

If Tesla were sponsoring the World Cup and Super League, I doubt there’d be an article in The Critic about rugby league’s overreliance on Elon Musk.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

With Betfred I suspect it’s a case of don’t look a generous gift horse in the mouth. 

In any case, there’s a hint of leftie snobbery about this.

If Tesla were sponsoring the World Cup and Super League, I doubt there’d be an article in The Critic about rugby league’s overreliance on Elon Musk.

Well no because a) it would mark a significant blue chip company sponsoring the sport, and b) there is zero chance of Tesla being banned from sponsorship in the near future

[Man of Kent]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Well no because a) it would mark a significant blue chip company sponsoring the sport

Yeah, so this really about some people not liking us having a non-ABC1 type sponsor splashed all over the shop. 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Yeah, so this really about some people not liking us having a non-ABC1 type sponsor splashed all over the shop. 

A perfectly valid concern. And especially concerning because of how ubiquitous it is across the sport's assets.

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

A perfectly valid concern. And especially concerning because of how ubiquitous it is across the sport's assets.

Well, that’s where we are and given the state of the game’s finances - not helped by Covid - Betfred’s sponsorship shouldn’t be sniffed at.

I think we should be doing better with sponsors too but they don’t need to be blue chip.

The NRL seems to be all fast food, booze, betting and reasonably priced cars. Not a million miles from us, just bigger companies/brands.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Well, that’s where we are and given the state of the game’s finances - not helped by Covid - Betfred’s sponsorship shouldn’t be sniffed at.

I think we should be doing better with sponsors too but they don’t need to be blue chip.

The NRL seems to be all fast food, booze, betting and reasonably priced cars. Not a million miles from us, just bigger companies/brands.

The NRL is sponsored by Telstra and the Kangaroos are sponsored by Gallagher. That is quite different.

[Tommygilf]

17 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Well, that’s where we are and given the state of the game’s finances - not helped by Covid - Betfred’s sponsorship shouldn’t be sniffed at.

I think we should be doing better with sponsors too but they don’t need to be blue chip.

The NRL seems to be all fast food, booze, betting and reasonably priced cars. Not a million miles from us, just bigger companies/brands.

They are secondary sponsors in the NRL. The main sponsors of the League and the National team are Telstra (bit like O2) and Gallagher (which we have over here including offices in Leeds and Wakefield), what does that sound like?

If you're attracting Blue Chip sponsors you're doing alright. Blue chip sponsors attract other blue chip sponsors.

Its also good to have more than 1 sponsor for most of your prize assets.

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

They don't do sport advertising though? Its not in their remit or interests.

Football has got over this by a) attracting more affluent fans, and b) creating a global audience. These 2 have opened up new sponsorship windows.

Maybe they do.

From December 2018

La Liga, Spanish soccer’s top flight, has appointed global sports agency IMG as its exclusive commercial agency for global sponsorship agreements.

As part of the long-term deal, IMG will market packages worldwide in order to attract new partners to the league. The two parties will work together on creating and developing innovative sponsorship opportunities, exploiting La Liga’s content and technology to assist with brand promotion.

 

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/la-liga-img-sponsorship-agency/

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

Maybe they do.

From December 2018

La Liga, Spanish soccer’s top flight, has appointed global sports agency IMG as its exclusive commercial agency for global sponsorship agreements.

As part of the long-term deal, IMG will market packages worldwide in order to attract new partners to the league. The two parties will work together on creating and developing innovative sponsorship opportunities, exploiting La Liga’s content and technology to assist with brand promotion.

 

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/la-liga-img-sponsorship-agency/

Apologies, I was referring to the brands mentioned, not IMG. I fully expect IMG to work on the sponsorship opportunities front, but I don't expect many of those brands to be involved.

[JohnM]

4 hours ago, gingerjon said:

And what (genuinely) do you think the reason why they don't is?

Choices.

1. I don't know.

2. No one has asked them (presented a case for so doing, with a properly constructed  roi case.)

3.. Someone did ask them, but not convincingly. Or didn't say please  

 

[JohnM]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Apologies, I was referring to the brands mentioned, not IMG. I fully expect IMG to work on the sponsorship opportunities front, but I don't expect many of those brands to be involved.

I  didn't know if they did or didn't anyway,  hence searching for it. 

[Man of Kent]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They are secondary sponsors in the NRL. The main sponsors of the League and the National team are Telstra (bit like O2) and Gallagher (which we have over here including offices in Leeds and Wakefield), what does that sound like?

If you're attracting Blue Chip sponsors you're doing alright. Blue chip sponsors attract other blue chip sponsors.

Its also good to have more than 1 sponsor for most of your prize assets.

I get all that but when I watch an NRL game I’m seeing distinctly blue collar sponsors. KFC etc.

There’s nothing wrong with that, and that’s our market. We should be aiming for a better class of junk food!

[Tommygilf]

22 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

I get all that but when I watch an NRL game I’m seeing distinctly blue collar sponsors. KFC etc.

There’s nothing wrong with that, and that’s our market. We should be aiming for a better class of junk food!

That's great, but it isn't just those sponsors, and it certainly isn't just one sponsor.

[Copa]

Does SL get product fees from the gambling companies?

Here in Australia the big sports get a certain % of the money the companies make on their sports. They can bring in a lot of money.

Some articles about it.

https://amp.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-afl-s-engine-how-gambling-money-underpins-footy-20220214-p59wa7.html
 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-cricket-and-afl-all-in-line-for-financial-bonanza-after-federal-court-bookmakers-ruling-/news-story/b5701daf14b2bfbf9ea998bd24737d78

 

 

[RayCee]

I don't know if this has been posted before:

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/every-england-rugby-league-shirt-since-the-last-home-world-cup/

I'm not up to speed on some of these things but Dacia seemed a good fit for the code, but have they gone?

 

[whatmichaelsays]

22 hours ago, Number 16 said:

How big a 'problem' is it that RL is seen to be sponsored by, therefore closely associated with, the gambling industry? Who are the critics (small c) and who is it calling for bans? Keyboard Warriors on Twitter? The easily outraged? The professionally outraged? Those with a vested interest? Or maybe simply 21st Century Puritans.

A recent in depth study found that 45% of adults gambled regularly. It's not a stretch to imagine that the overwhelming majority of that percentage are good with the current situation. Of the other 55% I'd be surprised if even a quarter of them have a thought either way.

And if we turn down BetFred do we also refuse to accept National Lottery grants which are funded by gambling. 

Our WC and associated activities are being run on lottery money.

 

I think the real issue with gambling is that the government / regulators at the time massively underestimated the size of the genie in that particular bottle. 

I was working for a search marketing agency at the time Google relaxed its ban on gambling advertising in what was then Google Adwords in 2008, and the market just exploded - millions flooded the market literally overnight. Gambling advertising has become so ubiquitous since on pretty much any platform you care to look at and again, whilst I personally have no issue with the industry, I can completely understand the arguments for reigning in that level of exposure. 

Regulation of this market is in the post and it really is on the RFL to de-risk its position on that front. 

[whatmichaelsays]

On 08/08/2022 at 12:17, Damien said:

While true regarding First Utility, Engage and Powergen they are very brief periods, less than 10 years out of 40+ for the Challenge Cup. Super League fares better but it is no coincidence that this coincides with Richard Lewis making a conscious decision to move in that direction and away from beer, fags and gambling, which seems to have been abandoned. I dont think any of them were particularly lucrative though. Even when Betfred first came on board a big thing was made about how lucrative it was and how it was a stark improvement yet it was less than £1 million a year.

While the rest look good on paper these are very obviously small value sponsorships/partnerships and these do not translate to primary sponsorship. In the Grand scheme of things our primary sponsorship hasn't been much in the world of sports and should be small change to these companies but they still aren't interested. If the sport could translate some of these into primary sponsors it would be great but they seem to come and go, which is a worry as they obviously do not see the value. I'd also hazard a guess that small scale sponsorship is handled on a different level than the larger scale stuff.

All true. 

I think the broader point is that as a sport, we had a period where we had a diverse range of partners at various levels of involvement, and it seems like we have failed to grow those relationships. I think I mentioned on a different thread, but of all the sponsors that came to the game during the 2013 WC, only Specsavers extended their partnership. 

There's a question to ask here about the value we're offering our partners, what account management goes on to try and grow those arrangements to turn small involvements into bigger ones, and whether sponsors leave the sport happy with their investment or not. 

[Big Picture]

4 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

All true. 

I think the broader point is that as a sport, we had a period where we had a diverse range of partners at various levels of involvement, and it seems like we have failed to grow those relationships. I think I mentioned on a different thread, but of all the sponsors that came to the game during the 2013 WC, only Specsavers extended their partnership. 

There's a question to ask here about the value we're offering our partners, what account management goes on to try and grow those arrangements to turn small involvements into bigger ones, and whether sponsors leave the sport happy with their investment or not. 

This is a point which those who think that Internationals will grow the game's audience reach need to consider, given that the 2013 WC clearly did not grow it sufficiently to keep those sponsors on board.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

This is a point which those who think that Internationals will grow the game's audience reach need to consider, given that the 2013 WC clearly did not grow it sufficiently to keep those sponsors on board.

In fairness, a lot of those sponsors would have seen minimal return from sponsoring beyond the WC. Marriot, for instance, would have had a contra deal for the provision of hotels - that's clearly not needed when most teams never stay in a hotel throughout the entire season (even Catalans and Toulouse tends to be done in a day trip). 

But for only one partner to stay on board (and that brand at the time clearly saw sponsoring match officials as part of its strategy, given they did it in several sports) suggests that there were probably some that didn't feel the value exchange was there. Whether that's down to poor reach, poor client management, or some other reason, I don't know. 

 

[ATLANTISMAN]

We have at present a fantastic TV portfolio SKY SPORTS/CHANNEL 4/BBC/PREMIER SPORTS all up around 100 + matches on TV every season:)

Sell the sizzle 

* Wembley

* Tottenham Hotspur

* Manchester United 

* France/Catalans Dragons/Toulouse

* Fantastic derbies Wigan Warriors v St Helens Hull FC v Hull Kingston Rovers 

* 27% of the TV audience in London/South affluent areas 

* Coverage overseas in many countries

* Diversity Female/Wheelchair

 

Stop moaning and get on with it ,all we need now is regular Internationals with at least 2 a year in London/Another venue outside of the heartlands and watch the game fly:)

 

Paul

 

 

 

 

 

[gingerjon]

3 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

In fairness, a lot of those sponsors would have seen minimal return from sponsoring beyond the WC. Marriot, for instance, would have had a contra deal for the provision of hotels - that's clearly not needed when most teams never stay in a hotel throughout the entire season (even Catalans and Toulouse tends to be done in a day trip). 

But for only one partner to stay on board (and that brand at the time clearly saw sponsoring match officials as part of its strategy, given they did it in several sports) suggests that there were probably some that didn't feel the value exchange was there. Whether that's down to poor reach, poor client management, or some other reason, I don't know. 

 

One of our problems is I can’t see us doing something like this without players and journalists needing to subvert it in some way.

 

[The storm]

On 08/08/2022 at 11:13, StandOffHalf said:

I think it's appalling and saddening to see a betting company logo plastered over the front of the England shirt.

I'm looking forward to having a look at your piece, Tides. I suspect that I shall probably agree with some of what you say.

The truly appauling thing is that nobody else is remotely intetested to have sponsored to the level of betfred

We should therefore thank them and embrace them

[Liverpool Rover]

It isn’t a gambling problem, it’s a not having anyone else interested problem. My first thought when I saw the New England shirt was “Betfred again?”. I know the RFL very good with the commercial side of the game but if nobody is interested in sponsoring then what can you do?

I remember a post where the poster was trying to get his friend to get his company to become a sponsor for something and in the end his friend admitted that although he loved the game he didn’t want his company involved because he was worried about what his clients would think.

Having a northern based bookmaker sponsoring everything probably just reinforces the games image of being a northern working class game in the eyes of those who have always bagged the game as such.  Being a northern working class community game was Rugby Leagues strength but the game hasn’t really moved on from that apart from the odd southern based teams and it is now becoming a weakness.