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

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

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.

You ask what the RFL can do then give a pretty good description of the issues of perception but these are all entirely within the RFL's control. 

[Liverpool Rover]

15 hours ago, Damien said:

You ask what the RFL can do then give a pretty good description of the issues of perception but these are all entirely within the RFL's control. 

I’m not sure it that it will matter what the RFL does as I think there are a lot of big name brands that won’t interested no matter what

[Tides Of History]

Thanks for all the contributions so far - there is clearly a lot of expertise and knowledge in this area. I hope we find new ways of debating this within the game. 

There is no major problem having some association with a bookmaker - although you do need to acknowledge that there are trade offs with doing so. It is deeply alarming however that in a home World Cup, where we have the potential to reach a new audience, we have had to rely on Mr Done. The rise of Betfred speaks to that deeper question of sponsorship in the game which appears to have fallen off a cliff in recent years. 

As for those who think that this is some sort of left-wing agenda, i urge you to look at the people who are calling for a reversal of the Gambling Act. Iain Duncan Smith is leading the campaign with Labour's Carolyn Harris, which emphasises that this is an issue that is cutting across those divides. Labour's last manifesto called for a ban on shirt sponsorship. There is little to suggest that they will u-turn on that. It seems strange, when these debates are happening, to take a punt on Betfred in a World Cup year. 

What i would like to see the game work on is what story we telling to corporate sponsors to get them involved. Are there different ways of selling the sport that can move us beyond Betfred? Are there better ways we can treat them once they are on board to maximise their benefits. 

The alternative is to to take Ralph, Derek and Shaun at face value and accept that we are never going to attract other major sponsors - so lets just take the money from Fred and be grateful. It probably depends on your world view whether we begin to challenge that more. 

 

 

[Pulga]

It's pretty simple. If you were a multinational company looking at promoting your brand through sponsorship would you spend it on a game with such a tiny geographical spread? Would you spend it on a game that had the potential for multiple teams from backwater towns being in the top flight?

[Big Picture]

4 hours ago, Pulga said:

It's pretty simple. If you were a multinational company looking at promoting your brand through sponsorship would you spend it on a game with such a tiny geographical spread? Would you spend it on a game that had the potential for multiple teams from backwater towns being in the top flight?

What do you mean "potential"?  Multiple teams from backwater towns are in the top flight now, the Brits here don't seem to understand that and how bad it must look to those multinational companies.

[gingerjon]

5 hours ago, Pulga said:

If you were a multinational company looking at promoting your brand through sponsorship would you spend it on a game with such a tiny geographical spread? 

Quite a few don't seem to mind when the offer is right:

https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/partners/corporate

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Quite a few don't seem to mind when the offer is right:

https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/partners/corporate

We are clearly poor at retaining partners, but we can pull together a strong list of past partners which suggests that the geographical spread isn't an issue for them (otherwise they wouldn't be involved in the first place). 

But still, it allows haters to be offensive about places they know little about. 

[Tommygilf]

5 hours ago, Pulga said:

It's pretty simple. If you were a multinational company looking at promoting your brand through sponsorship would you spend it on a game with such a tiny geographical spread? Would you spend it on a game that had the potential for multiple teams from backwater towns being in the top flight?

Firstly, not a correct comment. Secondly, this is the world cup being discussed with live FTA broadcasting of every game across 3 World Cups (the most inclusive in any sport ever) on the national broadcaster of the 5th or 6th largest economy on the planet. That is objectively attractive to any multinational.

RL's current problem is that it is struggling to communicate with these companies. I stress current as it wasn't the case under previous leadership and hasn't been an overnight process. On top of that, RL can't rely on the key figures of many top companies having any connection to the sport to keep it a consideration for sponsorship etc when the RL leadership fails to communicate well.

[Big Picture]

6 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Quite a few don't seem to mind when the offer is right:

https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/partners/corporate

ROFLMAO the AFL is huge in its domestic market.  It covers the whole country and gets almost as big average crowds as the Premier League.  It has the sort of reach multinationals are looking for.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Big Picture

[RigbyLuger]

Just noticed, and it's probably been this way for ages, the video ref decision isn't sponsored now either.

[Pulga]

16 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Quite a few don't seem to mind when the offer is right:

https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/partners/corporate

As already said, you've proven my point. The AFL's geographical spread is the opposite of Super League's (and the players from which the national team are mostly selected).

[Pulga]

16 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Firstly, not a correct comment. Secondly, this is the world cup being discussed with live FTA broadcasting of every game across 3 World Cups (the most inclusive in any sport ever) on the national broadcaster of the 5th or 6th largest economy on the planet. That is objectively attractive to any multinational.

RL's current problem is that it is struggling to communicate with these companies. I stress current as it wasn't the case under previous leadership and hasn't been an overnight process. On top of that, RL can't rely on the key figures of many top companies having any connection to the sport to keep it a consideration for sponsorship etc when the RL leadership fails to communicate well.

Is this the same World Cup that's being paid for by grants to promote the "Northern Powerhouse"? 

Where are the large majority of these games being played?

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, Pulga said:

As already said, you've proven my point. The AFL's geographical spread is the opposite of Super League's (and the players from which the national team are mostly selected).

Not really. The AFL has a reasonable but far from comprehensive geographic spread in a small country and yet pulls in a huge number of multinational sponsors.

More so than the NRL, it appears to me, incidentally, whose sponsors I often have to look up as nobody outside Australia knows a lot of them.

Rugby league is on FTA TV across the UK. It's probably more visible than any team sport in this country aside from soccer, RU and cricket - and that's to everyone (but there is a big drop off between us and them).

In the very recent past we've had sponsors to rival those of the AFL. I'd say, because I have eyes, that our failure to retain them has far more to do with the meat raffle attitude of a lot of those in charge (classic example: an already budget 'hospitality' offer for a major final having a free shirt thrown in with every group ticket because god forbid we should treat corporate entertaining properly) than the location of our club sides.

[gingerjon]

12 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

Just noticed, and it's probably been this way for ages, the video ref decision isn't sponsored now either.

Raised that before. I think that's a huge miss and one I struggle to understand.

[Pulga]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Not really. The AFL has a reasonable but far from comprehensive geographic spread in a small country and yet pulls in a huge number of multinational sponsors.

More so than the NRL, it appears to me, incidentally, whose sponsors I often have to look up as nobody outside Australia knows a lot of them.

Rugby league is on FTA TV across the UK. It's probably more visible than any team sport in this country aside from soccer, RU and cricket - and that's to everyone (but there is a big drop off between us and them).

In the very recent past we've had sponsors to rival those of the AFL. I'd say, because I have eyes, that our failure to retain them has far more to do with the meat raffle attitude of a lot of those in charge (classic example: an already budget 'hospitality' offer for a major final having a free shirt thrown in with every group ticket because god forbid we should treat corporate entertaining properly) than the location of our club sides.

You might want to look up where the AFL teams are based... Or you don't understand what "geographical" means.

I'd love to hear Super League's previous sponsors that rival Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Shell and Google.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Pulga said:

You might want to look up where the AFL teams are based...

Why would I do that when I already know - and am sitting here drinking my morning coffee out of my Geelong Cats mug.

(Sponsored by Ford since the days of the VFL).

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Pulga said:

Is this the same World Cup that's being paid for by grants to promote the "Northern Powerhouse"? 

Where are the large majority of these games being played?

There is a big difference between the RLWC clevery getting funding and being 'paid for'. As in previous World Cups this World Cup would have been  held in England with or without this funding. This funding though will benefit the entire sport of RL and the IRL.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

There is a big difference between the RLWC clevery getting funding and being 'paid for'. As in previous World Cups this World Cup would have been  held in England with or without this funding. This funding though will benefit the entire sport of RL and the IRL.

This is how far down the rabbit hole this poster has gone to criticise the UK game - seeing huge investment in the RLWC as some form of negative. 

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is how far down the rabbit hole this poster has gone to criticise the UK game - seeing huge investment in the RLWC as some form of negative. 

I suppose the alternative is like 2017 where the NSW Government refused to bid for games and so RL strongholds like Newcastle where ignored and we only had 2 games in Sydney. We then got small crowds and a very poor financial return with promised profits not paid. That approach only saw the international game and IRL suffer.

[Pulga]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

I suppose the alternative is like 2017 where the NSW Government refused to bid for games and so RL strongholds like Newcastle where ignored and we only had 2 games in Sydney. We then got small crowds and a very poor financial return with promised profits not paid. That approach only saw the international game and IRL suffer.

Just like the insane using the game had after the 2013 WC in England....

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Pulga said:

Just like the insane using the game had after the 2013 WC in England....

That doesn't make any sense.

[Pulga]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

That doesn't make any sense.

It's meant to say "upswing" instead of "using". I've mistyped. Sorry.

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Pulga said:

It's meant to say "upswing" instead of "using". I've mistyped. Sorry.

Well the 2013 World Cup made a record £4 million profit and funded the international game until the next World Cup. The 2017 version failed to deliver promised profits, resulting in the IRL falling into debt and needing the 2022 RLWC to get them out of that hole.

Whatever the failing of this years World Cup it is crazy to see huge and unparalleled investment criticised when that will only benefit the entire game. No World Cup to date has come close to getting £10 million ($17 million AUD) funding in this manner.

[Pulga]

14 minutes ago, Damien said:

Well the 2013 World Cup made a record £4 million profit and funded the international game until the next World Cup. The 2017 version failed to deliver promised profits, resulting in the IRL falling into debt and needing the 2022 RLWC to get them out of that hole.

Whatever the failing of this years World Cup it is crazy to see huge and unparalleled investment criticised when that will only benefit the entire game. No World Cup to date has come close to getting £10 million ($17 million AUD) funding in this manner.

The funding is not the problem. It's what it is tied to. The game in England, as a brand, and in the eyes of the public is possibly at its lowest ever point. The continued doubling down as a Northern sport for Northern people is destroying the game. It's ever decreasing circles. Unless that money is used to break free of a certain motorway the game is shackled to, then the money is of no use. It will be squandered once again. We'll be having the same conversation in 2029 or 2033 except maybe Super League won't be full-time anymore.

[Damien]

17 minutes ago, Pulga said:

The funding is not the problem. It's what it is tied to. The game in England, as a brand, and in the eyes of the public is possibly at its lowest ever point. The continued doubling down as a Northern sport for Northern people is destroying the game. It's ever decreasing circles. Unless that money is used to break free of a certain motorway the game is shackled to, then the money is of no use. It will be squandered once again. We'll be having the same conversation in 2029 or 2033 except maybe Super League won't be full-time anymore.

Well beggars cant be choosers. Would you have said no to £10 million of funding simply so we could have scattered a few more games about the country?