Why having all Super League Games is not a good idea

[THE RED ROOSTER]

When I read comments on TRL decrying genuine concerns expressed by fans about the impact on the game from the new SKY deal. I thought to myself lets give them a voice on TRL

Attendances will suffer

Straightforward economics here, we remain in a cost of living crisis, so if your a family that does pay the SKY sports package it makes economic sense to watch on TV rather than go to the game. In my case to watch London Broncos involves a two hour journey which costs £ 25.50 then you add on the match ticket £ 20, plus any food and Drink so you do not get much change out of £ 50. Even if there are no programmes to buy . So if I can watch for free there is £ 50 off the household bill and even if fans were charged £ 10 per ticket for streatming, I am still quids in. In addition clubs lose out on concession sales and merchandising becuause fewer people are coming.

Equally why go on away trips , for example Hull FC v London Broncos would be £ 98.40 for me plus match ticket £ 20 (Zone 5) excluding Food and Drink so £ 130 vs £ 0 staying at home. Now my case is an extreme example, but I am sure fans west of the Pennines will face a similar economic choice and vice versa.

The audience will drop for the main game on SKY

If you watch Rugby League on SKY you are already part of a niche paid subscription audience. By allowing the viewer to skip the main game and instead watch his / her team you depress the SKY audience figures. To give two examples - Friday 16th February you have - Leeds v Salford (main), Leigh v Huddersfield and St Helens v London No prizes for which one I am going to watch. But then when you get Friday 1st March and you have Wigan v Huddersfield (main), St Helens v Leigh and Warrington V Castleford. The Warrington or St Helens game is to my eyes the better game. So you end up with a lower audience figure for the main game.

Wither the Championship and non Super League Rugby ?

When I used to go up and watch the Broncos on for a weekend you would get a RL game on Friday a game on Saturday and a game on Sunday - Two nights in a trvelodge (or B&B) then back on the Sunday night.. Back in those days it could include a championship game on the Sunday depending on where I was. Now again I am an extreme example, but there are plenty of "Bloodnuts" in the M62 area who would go and watch their Super League side on Thursday / Friday and then a championship game. But will they do so if its a bit cold and wet outside and they have a live Super League option ?

But we have the BBC covering 12 games

Back in the days when there were only three TV channels Live TV exposure was essential. It's helpful today, but in a multi-channel world not a "game changer" because there are so many other options for younger people now and unlike Soccer, Cricket, Union etc the game itself is geographically restricted so if your "interested of Ipswich" where is your local professionl or semi-pro side?. If you live in Great Yarmouth, Wigan Warriors is as remote as the Dallas Cowboys.

The problem with internet messageboards is they are dominated by those who have a lot of time on their hands, but do not actually go to too may Rugby League games in person (as is the case with many Australian posters btw) so to them this is a boon. sit at home and become for example, a virtual St Helens Season Ticket Holder. But for my part, I do intend to see some London Broncos home games, the Challenge Cup, and will be back in Australia for round 2-4 of the NRL, in addition to hopefully getting to at least one end of season International now the RMT rail strikes are over.

Remember Adam Pearson's comments a day or so ago.

Quote

We're very reliant on Sky. Sky unfortunately in the last two deals have taken our central distribution down which has meant the attraction of talent has got even harder, both from an NRL point of view and rugby union

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/hull-fc-owner-adam-pearson-says-img-need-financial-help-to-revolutionise-rugby-league-4478452

So as with the postmasters, I hope I have given voice to those marginalised on social media voicing concerns about the long term future of Rugby League with with what some might argue is becoming over exposure - A case of be careful what you wish for ?

 

[sam4731]

Socrates thought that the greatest threat to human communication was the written word.

Someone always has a scathing comment against change.

In 50 years someone will complain that having robot rugby league will be detrimental to the human version of the game, ad infinitum.

[JF1]

May I suggest the thread title needs some expansion?

[Dave T]

There are many fair points (I don't understand point 2 - what does it matter if people are watching game 2 on a Friday night instead of Game 1?).

But the sport has to face into this. Imo, we need to be challenging ourselves on how we make the events unmissable, and far better than watching on TV. 

We've seen in the past some campaigns within other sports around "nothing beats being there" and so on, and I think SL has to go big on this. 

There is risk in everything we do, but what we have seen is that as soon as something is televised, people don't just stay at home. In RL and other sports, we see huge crowds for televised games. 

[RigbyLuger]

*Attendances will suffer" is an arguement that's been used since before the first ever game was televised. The attendances would suffer more without TV money and coverage.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

When I read comments on TRL decrying genuine concerns expressed by fans about the impact on the game from the new SKY deal. I thought to myself lets give them a voice on TRL

Attendances will suffer

Straightforward economics here, we remain in a cost of living crisis, so if your a family that does pay the SKY sports package it makes economic sense to watch on TV rather than go to the game. In my case to watch London Broncos involves a two hour journey which costs £ 25.50 then you add on the match ticket £ 20, plus any food and Drink so you do not get much change out of £ 50. Even if there are no programmes to buy . So if I can watch for free there is £ 50 off the household bill and even if fans were charged £ 10 per ticket for streatming, I am still quids in. In addition clubs lose out on concession sales and merchandising becuause fewer people are coming.

Equally why go on away trips , for example Hull FC v London Broncos would be £ 98.40 for me plus match ticket £ 20 (Zone 5) excluding Food and Drink so £ 130 vs £ 0 staying at home. Now my case is an extreme example, but I am sure fans west of the Pennines will face a similar economic choice and vice versa.

The audience will drop for the main game on SKY

If you watch Rugby League on SKY you are already part of a niche paid subscription audience. By allowing the viewer to skip the main game and instead watch his / her team you depress the SKY audience figures. To give two examples - Friday 16th February you have - Leeds v Salford (main), Leigh v Huddersfield and St Helens v London No prizes for which one I am going to watch. But then when you get Friday 1st March and you have Wigan v Huddersfield (main), St Helens v Leigh and Warrington V Castleford. The Warrington or St Helens game is to my eyes the better game. So you end up with a lower audience figure for the main game.

Wither the Championship and non Super League Rugby ?

When I used to go up and watch the Broncos on for a weekend you would get a RL game on Friday a game on Saturday and a game on Sunday - Two nights in a trvelodge (or B&B) then back on the Sunday night.. Back in those days it could include a championship game on the Sunday depending on where I was. Now again I am an extreme example, but there are plenty of "Bloodnuts" in the M62 area who would go and watch their Super League side on Thursday / Friday and then a championship game. But will they do so if its a bit cold and wet outside and they have a live Super League option ?

But we have the BBC covering 12 games

Back in the days when there were only three TV channels Live TV exposure was essential. It's helpful today, but in a multi-channel world not a "game changer" because there are so many other options for younger people now and unlike Soccer, Cricket, Union etc the game itself is geographically restricted so if your "interested of Ipswich" where is your local professionl or semi-pro side?. If you live in Great Yarmouth, Wigan Warriors is as remote as the Dallas Cowboys.

The problem with internet messageboards is they are dominated by those who have a lot of time on their hands, but do not actually go to too may Rugby League games in person (as is the case with many Australian posters btw) so to them this is a boon. sit at home and become for example, a virtual St Helens Season Ticket Holder. But for my part, I do intend to see some London Broncos home games, the Challenge Cup, and will be back in Australia for round 2-4 of the NRL, in addition to hopefully getting to at least one end of season International now the RMT rail strikes are over.

Remember Adam Pearson's comments a day or so ago.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/hull-fc-owner-adam-pearson-says-img-need-financial-help-to-revolutionise-rugby-league-4478452

So as with the postmasters, I hope I have given voice to those marginalised on social media voicing concerns about the long term future of Rugby League with with what some might argue is becoming over exposure - A case of be careful what you wish for ?

 

All of the case studies, across 30 years of the TV rights boom in coverage globally, have shown that if more televised sport has any impact on attendances, it is to increase them not to decrease them. That's been seen in sports leagues around the world, and across different levels of "eliteness" - from market leaders like the Premier League, through to challenger sports like Basketball in Europe etc.. We even have clear evidence that lower leagues' attendances benefit from greater TV presence of a higher league in the same sport. 

More coverage leads to more awareness of the existence of, and benefits of watching, a particular sport. Live sport is a different experience to televised sport, that people are prepared to pay a premium for versus "cheaper" TV viewing. 

Yes, anecdotally in some circumstances an individual may choose to watch a match on TV instead of going to game they may otherwise have made more effort to attend if that option didn't exist. But that is always outweighed by far more, new customers offsetting them having become interested in a sport they 'found' on television. 

 

 

 

 

[Coggo]

Hello, 1957. 

[Whippet13]

Lots of thought clearly gone into the OP comment, but it's focused on the negatives so only half the picture. We knew this was coming months ago, so If it's all bad news for the game and driving fans to stay at home why are many clubs reporting increased ST sales?

[StandOffHalf]

I'd be perfectly happy with three games a round on TV - 2 on Sky and one on the Beeb.

I think having televised clashes is a bad idea. It scatters thinly the broadcasting 'talent' and lowers individual TV audiences.

[dkw]

All those are written in absolutes, which plainly is ridiculous. Currently there is no "will" here at the moment, there are "maybe`s" so anyone writing in in this fashion instantly puts me off as it immediately shows they are unlikely to listen to a counter argument.

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

I hope I have given voice to those marginalised on social media 

It's people with different opinions about televising rugby league, mate.

[Chrispmartha]

2 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

*Attendances will suffer" is an arguement that's been used since before the first ever game was televised. The attendances would suffer more without TV money and coverage.

The idea that hiding the game away from people will increase attendances seems ridiculous to me, the more exposure the sport gets the better.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

All of the case studies, across 30 years of the TV rights boom in coverage globally, have shown that if more televised sport has any impact on attendances, it is to increase them not to decrease them. That's been seen in sports leagues around the world, and across different levels of "eliteness" - from market leaders like the Premier League, through to challenger sports like Basketball in Europe etc.. We even have clear evidence that lower leagues' attendances benefit from greater TV presence of a higher league in the same sport. 

More coverage leads to more awareness of the existence of, and benefits of watching, a particular sport. Live sport is a different experience to televised sport, that people are prepared to pay a premium for versus "cheaper" TV viewing. 

Yes, anecdotally in some circumstances an individual may choose to watch a match on TV instead of going to game they may otherwise have made more effort to attend if that option didn't exist. But that is always outweighed by far more, new customers offsetting them having become interested in a sport they 'found' on television. 

 

 

 

 

These case studies you refer to, do any of them address the question of "some games vs all games live on tv?" 

[Worzel]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

These case studies you refer to, do any of them address the question of "some games vs all games live on tv?" 

Premier League, NRL, NBA, NHL, MLB etc. etc.

The data is out there. Overwhelmingly the expansion of TV coverage has correlated with in-person attendance growth, over a long time period. You can argue causality (perhaps spectator growth is coincidental), but you can't say that TV coverage has led to a reduction of spectators.

There are studies which have shown for a specific fixture that it being televised results in a lower attendance than were the same fixture not televised, which aligns with the anecdotal "common sense" view, but of course that is in the context of an overall sports-wide growth in attendance. The overall audience still grows, but on that growth line you will get situational dips. 

 

[Vambo]

4 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Socrates thought that the greatest threat to human communication was the written word.

He might have got that right after all with the advent of social media?

[Vambo]

As for me though.... I haven't been on to a game in quite some time. Playing Friday nights even when the game isn't live on TV was a killer for us and we simply got out of the habit of going.

I watch loads of games on TV though.

[Dave T]

45 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Premier League, NRL, NBA, NHL, MLB etc. etc.

The data is out there. Overwhelmingly the expansion of TV coverage has correlated with in-person attendance growth, over a long time period. You can argue causality (perhaps spectator growth is coincidental), but you can't say that TV coverage has led to a reduction of spectators.

There are studies which have shown for a specific fixture that it being televised results in a lower attendance than were the same fixture not televised, which aligns with the anecdotal "common sense" view, but of course that is in the context of an overall sports-wide growth in attendance. The overall audience still grows, but on that growth line you will get situational dips. 

 

Premier League don't show all games (legally in the UK). 

I do think there is an element of being able to be selective about the conclusion we want to draw, I haven't come across any conclusive studies in this, and I'm not sure we ever will as there are so many variables. 

I agree with the overarching point that there is no evidence of any materially negative impact, for me that is a good enough starting point.

I don't think we should present these things as no brainers though, as you point out causality is crucial here. Are successful thriving leagues the ones that attracted extensive TV coverage, or are they successful because of the tv coverage? 

I'm firmly in the camp that this deal is good for customers and presents more than enough opportunities for benefits for the sport. But I do think we need to be really good to capitalise on it. 

[Henson Park Old Firm]

I will struggle with this new TV Deal.

 

 

As I don't own a TV

[Chrispmartha]

9 minutes ago, Henson Park Old Firm said:

I will struggle with this new TV Deal.

 

 

As I don't own a TV

That doesn’t make sense, That’s exactly why the new TV deal is good, you won’t need a tv.

Edited January 17 by Chrispmartha

[roversspud]

I used to love watching football highlights like MOTD , the Big Match and all day on Cup Final Day, but this was in the seventies and eighties. These days with wall to wall football on TV, I hardly watch any as it's become overkill and boring.

As for RL, I follow a Championship club to most games but very rarely watch SL, so more SL will only mean more to not watch. I would however watch Championship rugby on TV for two reasons: firstly because it would be more relevant to me and secondly because SL has become less attractive and more predictable than the Championship. Just my opinion.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

More TV means more exposure. More exposure means greater chance of purchase. That purchase might not be a match ticket, it may be something else (merch, TV contract, sponsorship, etc). 

 

[dkw]

12 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

More TV means more exposure. More exposure means greater chance of purchase. That purchase might not be a match ticket, it may be something else (merch, TV contract, sponsorship, etc). 

 

More TV also means more opportunities to get sponsorship, exposure for existing sponsors who see more value, which sees them possibly extending deals or valuing them higher.

[Futtocks]

7 minutes ago, dkw said:

More TV also means more opportunities to get sponsorship, exposure for existing sponsors who see more value, which sees them possibly extending deals or valuing them higher.

Ooh, we can't be doing with that!

[dkw]

1 minute ago, Futtocks said:

Ooh, we can't be doing with that!

To be fair the big worry if we get more exposure and new fans is they actually enjoy the game and talk positively about it, imagine the horror....

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Premier League don't show all games (legally in the UK). 

I do think there is an element of being able to be selective about the conclusion we want to draw, I haven't come across any conclusive studies in this, and I'm not sure we ever will as there are so many variables. 

I agree with the overarching point that there is no evidence of any materially negative impact, for me that is a good enough starting point.

I don't think we should present these things as no brainers though, as you point out causality is crucial here. Are successful thriving leagues the ones that attracted extensive TV coverage, or are they successful because of the tv coverage? 

I'm firmly in the camp that this deal is good for customers and presents more than enough opportunities for benefits for the sport. But I do think we need to be really good to capitalise on it. 

I present it as a no-brainer only because I've studied the subject and the evidence is so compelling. It rarely is for most things, but it is in this case which is why I think it's interesting. 

Let's take a look at the NFL, as an interesting test. That's a sports marketplace where people pay billions for teams, and whilst TV revenues are a major part of their revenue structure unlike Premier League football the game receipts remain a critical part of their business model. They make 4 x the on-day revenue that Premier League clubs make per match. Those guys are relentlessly focused on revenue risk-mitigation. The NFL had a "blackout" policy for decades, where if a stadium pre-sales were <85% of capacity a match would not be live on TV in the local area, for all the reasons the OP described. They were true believers in the risk of cannibalisation.

In 2014 they were forced to pause blackouts by the risk of legal attack by the US competition authorities, who said they were operating a cartel. They agreed to not do it for one year. They've extended that ever since, because attendances didn't fall. On-day revenues have continued to rise.