RLWC Attendance-O-Meter

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I remember a time when Australian rugby league fans, especially those in Sydney, were being lambasted by most on this forum as international RL snobs.

I don’t think we can say that the northern English heartlands have overwhelmingly showed them up.

Has the marketing been up to scratch? I would have expected billboards, cool video productions and blanket advertising on C4 during SL season. What is the story have the marketing team been selling this tournament? 

Venue choice, saturation, poor marketing, prices… whatever the excuse, this tournament has reinforced to me that international fixtures and events are neither a golden goose, nor the best vehicle to drive growth outside the heartlands.

I've been very clear on my thoughts on how many bad decisions there have been, some of those you list. 

But you cannot ignore the positives (of which there are many threads about). 

The level of tv coverage, sponsorship, external funding etc.  is still very high, and this will fund international development for years to come. 

Had everything been planned brilliantly and still poor crowds with no media interest, you would have a point, but RL is getting unprecedented coverage on an international scale, and we are still doing a less than average job at staging it. 

[mozzauk]

3 hours ago, Ste93 said:

Interesting seeing some of the comments about the England game, in the ground I was disappointed in the turnout (the main stand was empty) but apparently it looked good on tv and the best turnout in Sheffield for a league game ever so hard to complain.

 

I really did not look good on TV, it looked very empty at the Blunts ground, 

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by mozzauk

[Sports Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I've been very clear on my thoughts on how many bad decisions there have been, some of those you list. 

But you cannot ignore the positives (of which there are many threads about). 

The level of tv coverage, sponsorship, external funding etc.  is still very high, and this will fund international development for years to come. 

Had everything been planned brilliantly and still poor crowds with no media interest, you would have a point, but RL is getting unprecedented coverage on an international scale, and we are still doing a less than average job at staging it. 

That may be right but the next time I hear an Englishman run their mouth on this forum about the NRL and Australians not caring about international footy, I will only need to refer to these crowd figures.

I expect if the Wallabies played Italy in a Union WC fixture in England, there would be over 20k in the stadium.

So with that in mind, where do you think the organisers have gone so wrong for only 5k fans to turn out and watch the World Champions in action? 

[Sports Prophet]

4 minutes ago, mozzauk said:

 

I really did not look good on TV, it looked very empty at the Blunts ground, 

 

I didn’t think it looked very good either.

Assuming they win their next match, where are England’s next two fixtures?

Can we expect them to be sellouts?

[Jim from Oz]

22 hours ago, Jim from Oz said:

TOTAL FOR WEEK 1: 95,243 (average 11,905)

TOTAL FOR WEEK 2:  68,875 (average 8,609)

NZ v Ireland:  14,044 

UPDATED TOTAL: 178,292  (average 10,487)

 

TARGETS:

2000 RLWC: 263,921

(8,514 per match)

 

2017 RLWC: 382,080

(13,646 per match)

 

2013 RLWC: 458,483

(16,374 per match)

 

2022 WOMEN’S EURO: 574,865

(18,544 per match)

 

ORIGINAL TARGET: 750,000

TOTAL FOR WEEK 1: 95,243 (average 11,905)

TOTAL FOR WEEK 2:  68,875 (average 8,609)

England v Greece: 18,760

Australia v Italy: 5,586 

Fiji v Scotland: 6,736 

TOTAL SO FAR FOR WEEK 3: 45,126 (average 11,281)

UPDATED TOTAL: 209,364 (average 10,468).

 

TARGETS:

2000 RLWC: 263,921

(8,514 per match)

 

2017 RLWC: 382,080

(13,646 per match)

 

2013 RLWC: 458,483

(16,374 per match)

 

2022 WOMEN’S EURO: 574,865

(18,544 per match)

 

ORIGINAL TARGET: 750,000

[Jim from Oz]

So again, crowds for week 3 on the Saturday were better than I expected (except for the disappointing St Helens crowd), bringing the total after 4 games to 45,126. If we can get 25,000 for the remaining 4 games (and surely France v Samoa deserves a 5-figure crowd, at least), we can get to 70,000 total for week 3, and approximately 235,000 for all the pool games.

 

Add my reasonably optimistic total of 225,000 for the Q/Fs onwards, and we are still looking at possibly JUST bettering the 2013 RLWC attendance – albeit its 458,483 was over 28 matches, but with two double headers making it 26 game events … five more than the 31 games of RLWC 2021(22).

 

Let's hope all ticketing issues (and possible pricing reconfiguration??) can be sorted for the Q/Fs onwards !

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Jim from Oz

[FearTheVee]

5 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

That may be right but the next time I hear an Englishman run their mouth on this forum about the NRL and Australians not caring about international footy, I will only need to refer to these crowd figures.

I expect if the Wallabies played Italy in a Union WC fixture in England, there would be over 20k in the stadium.

So with that in mind, where do you think the organisers have gone so wrong for only 5k fans to turn out and watch the World Champions in action? 

What a strange comparison.

Should the comparison not be how many Aussies would have turned out to watch England v Italy? And how many English would have travelled over to Australia compared to the one man and his dog the Aussies have brought over here?

The Australians are not as big a draw as some other teams to the English - I’d rather watch NZ, Tonga, PNG etc than a nation that tries to scupper international RL / disrespect the WCC at every opportunity.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

That may be right but the next time I hear an Englishman run their mouth on this forum about the NRL and Australians not caring about international footy, I will only need to refer to these crowd figures.

I expect if the Wallabies played Italy in a Union WC fixture in England, there would be over 20k in the stadium.

So with that in mind, where do you think the organisers have gone so wrong for only 5k fans to turn out and watch the World Champions in action? 

You do know that these crowds, despite being poor will still outstrip the 2017 tournament by some way, and that was a tournament thats successes came in NZ and PNG? 

RL is huge in Oz and in the last WC you only got 12k for the same World Champions on your home ground. 

The big games (opener and final) got 22k and 41k iirc. 

There is no moral high ground from Aussie fans here. 

[Sports Prophet]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You do know that these crowds, despite being poor will still outstrip the 2017 tournament by some way, and that was a tournament thats successes came in NZ and PNG? 

RL is huge in Oz and in the last WC you only got 12k for the same World Champions on your home ground. 

The big games (opener and final) got 22k and 41k iirc. 

There is no moral high ground from Aussie fans here. 

I’m not defending the Australian international crowds, but please, it is not Australians taking “the moral high ground”. The moral high ground has long been the position held by the overwhelming majority of English on this forum. The crowd figures for this tournament demonstrate it’s those people are the ones who should be jumping down off their horse.

Pleased to hear there will be bigger aggregate crowds on this occasion. What’s your estimate that the aggregate of 2017 will be outstripped by?

I am still not sold we have this event down pat. I think there must be a place in the tournament for teams 9-16, but I am not sold we are incorporating them into the tournament properly.

As far as maximising crowd performances and interest for a RL WC, I would love to see Australia, England, NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji and France all to have played each other once, thus ensuring the biggest and best possible matchups are all played. Whether that means top six are joined by two qualifiers from an earlier tournament for a top 8, that’s the only thing that comes to mind.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Sports Prophet

[Anita Bath]

You might expect more aussies travelling to the business end of the competition.  Why would they take time off work and pay for hotels for three weeks of demolitions. The aussies treat the group phase as warm ups.

 

 

[OriginalMrC]

Prediction for today that the Riverside attendance is the largest of the 3 games today. 

[GeordieSaint]

3 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Prediction for today that the Riverside attendance is the largest of the 3 games today. 

Any ideas on sales? It really wouldn’t surprise if this is true.

Coventry and Newcastle have been the bright lights of the competition so far.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I’m not defending the Australian international crowds, but please, it is not Australians taking “the moral high ground”. The moral high ground has long been the position held by the overwhelming majority of English on this forum. The crowd figures for this tournament demonstrate it’s those people are the ones who should be jumping down off their horse.

Pleased to hear there will be bigger aggregate crowds on this occasion. What’s your estimate that the aggregate of 2017 will be outstripped by?

I am still not sold we have this event down pat. I think there must be a place in the tournament for teams 9-16, but I am not sold we are incorporating them into the tournament properly.

As far as maximising crowd performances and interest for a RL WC, I would love to see Australia, England, NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji and France all to have played each other once, thus ensuring the biggest and best possible matchups are all played. Whether that means top six are joined by two qualifiers from an earlier tournament for a top 8, that’s the only thing that comes to mind.

I'm OK with the structure of the tournament, but I do understand the view of staging it to maximise quality match-ups to drive crowds and viewing figures. I could live with a more Seeded comp with tier 1 groups and tier 2 groups, I think there is a clear 16 group format that I have in my head that would work well. But I think we have gone too far in the past with the seeding, and I have enjoyed the variety of the games - a few have been first battles iirc. 

I think this tournament will finish off with around 420-440, which is around 40 to 60k than 2017, but 30 to 50k lower than 2013. And miles behind all targets. 

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Prediction for today that the Riverside attendance is the largest of the 3 games today. 

I wouldnt be surprised to get a crowd like Coventry. 

[GeordieSaint]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think this tournament will finish off with around 420-440, which is around 40 to 60k than 2017, but 30 to 50k lower than 2013. And miles behind all targets. 

Dutton shouldn’t be anywhere near a major tournament or work in the governing body again…

… he’ll probably be the next IRL CEO though.

[Sports Prophet]

43 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

 

The Australians are not as big a draw as some other teams to the English - I’d rather watch NZ, Tonga, PNG etc than a nation that tries to scupper international RL / disrespect the WCC at every opportunity.

And there is the mentality that escapes me. I am all for watching those other nations as well, but to refuse to watch the world champions simply because you despise the stance of the organisation’s administrators doesn’t make sense to me. Talk about cutting off your nose.

Denying yourself to watch great exponents of the game and doing nothing to demonstrate to the administration they might have it wrong. What are you achieving by ignoring them?

Edited October 30, 2022 by Sports Prophet

[Dave T]

Just now, GeordieSaint said:

Dutton shouldn’t be anywhere near a major tournament or work in the governing body again…

… he’ll probably be the next IRL CEO though.

I feel a touch sorry for Dutton. I think he clearly does some good stuff, there is plenty to like with RLWC, but I just get the feeling he is a senior manager rather than a CEO. 

When he speaks he sometimes sounds like he's just swallowed a training manual, saying the things we want to hear, but not seeing them through. 

I think he is a decent guy in the wrong role. I hope he gets the support he needs rather than being tossed on a heap 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

And there is the mentality that escapes me. I am all for watching those other nations as well, but to refuse to watch the world champions simply because you despise the stance of the organisation’s administrators doesn’t make sense to me. Talk about cutting off your nose.

Denying yourself to watch great exponents of the game and doing nothing to demonstrate to the administration they might have it wrong. What are you achieving by ignoring them?

I don't disagree with the principle, but I think there are a few things at play here. 

Not everyone enjoys the one-sided games, so to engage with them it needs more than just being a good team. People do see the attitude of Aussies overall as an issue - whether it is administrators or not, it is the Kangaroos brand that gets damaged when they pull out of tournaments, or don't really engage with other nations. 

I do also think on a softer point, the Aussies are professional to a tee, but I dont think that translates into them being interesting. I can see why fans and kids find PNG, Fiji, Samoa and the Kiwis more interesting for example. 

But, I agree with the principle, a team as good as the Aussies deserve more fans watching, but then so have every team in this World Cup. 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

And there is the mentality that escapes me. I am all for watching those other nations as well, but to refuse to watch the world champions simply because you despise the stance of the organisation’s administrators doesn’t make sense to me. Talk about cutting off your nose.

Denying yourself to watch great exponents of the game and doing nothing to demonstrate to the administration they might have it wrong. What are you achieving by ignoring them?

There is also the fact that the Aussies aren't really a massive draw for your average sports fan too either. The Kangaroos should be reknowned like the All Blacks, they're nowhere near sadly. The Kiwis, partly on the back of the All Blacks and being a "NZ Rugby team", are just as much if not more of a draw as the men in Green and Gold. Nothing made that clearer to me than the feeling around the 4 Nations in 2016 - and even then there was more profile for the Aussies than now.

Why is this? They don't play anything like enough matches to have anyone notice them. And in the RL heartlands specifically there is less of an appetite to watch a foregone conclusion. That is the organisers fault, and is a flaw that has been pointed out numerous times on here.

[Sports Prophet]

44 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

What a strange comparison.

Should the comparison not be how many Aussies would have turned out to watch England v Italy? And how many English would have travelled over to Australia compared to the one man and his dog the Aussies have brought over here?

 

It’s not a strange comparison. I’m not comparing Australian and English international RL crowds. What I am drawing light to is my opinion the RL faithful in England are also vaguely interested in the international game as the Australians are.

Where the English RL faithful cannot fill a 15k stadium to watch the World Champions, whilst the English RU faithful would stack that out to watch a poor Wallabies team play an even poorer Italian RU team.

[Sports Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't disagree with the principle, but I think there are a few things at play here. 

Not everyone enjoys the one-sided games, so to engage with them it needs more than just being a good team. People do see the attitude of Aussies overall as an issue - whether it is administrators or not, it is the Kangaroos brand that gets damaged when they pull out of tournaments, or don't really engage with other nations. 

I do also think on a softer point, the Aussies are professional to a tee, but I dont think that translates into them being interesting. I can see why fans and kids find PNG, Fiji, Samoa and the Kiwis more interesting for example. 

But, I agree with the principle, a team as good as the Aussies deserve more fans watching, but then so have every team in this World Cup. 

As usual, you make good points there Dave. There is another point I will add to everything we have both contributed on the matter and I think you will agree.

The organisers should know all of this information well before a ball was kicked and should have had a suitable marketing and pricing plan to ensure despite those hurdles, the match was played in front of a 75% capacity.

[Dave T]

It should be remembered that the warning signs have been there for a while around this. 

In the 2016 Four Nations, Australia v Scotland at Hull attracted 5.3k.

We are not at the stage of Field of Dreams where we just stage it and we get people flocking in. 

It's why small details like scheduling, prices, venues and Web journeys are so important. 

[OriginalMrC]

23 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Any ideas on sales? It really wouldn’t surprise if this is true.

Coventry and Newcastle have been the bright lights of the competition so far.

Just purely a guess tbh but non-heartlands have largely done OK attendance wise 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

As usual, you make good points there Dave. There is another point I will add to everything we have both contributed on the matter and I think you will agree.

The organisers should know all of this information well before a ball was kicked and should have had a suitable marketing and pricing plan to ensure despite those hurdles, the match was played in front of a 75% capacity.

Indeed, I absolutely agree. There has been a huge amount of misguided arrogance in how we have staged these games. 

[MatthewWoody]

Will this be remembered as a disappointing WC like the 2000?