RL at the Darts

[Dunbar]

15 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Surprised to see pool lower than snooker.

I will therefore disregard the data in favour of my own pre-established view on the matter.

I do feel obliged to point out that 19,700 is higher than 19,300.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I do feel obliged to point out that 19,700 is higher than 19,300.

I feel obliged to point out that I had just run round the park for the first time in months and didn't have my glasses on.

I'll just correct it now: surprised to see pool/snooker in the same ballpark, I'd figured pool would be a lot higher.

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Participation data shows that snooker = 19,300 (darts was 11,300 and RL 55,800)

Pool is at 19,700.

This is adults (aged 16+) who have taken part in the activity at least twice in the last 28 days.

I can’t believe 98% of the number of people who’ve played pool twice in the last month have played snooker - there’s something wrong with the stats. 

[Dunbar]

17 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I can’t believe 98% of the number of people who’ve played pool twice in the last month have played snooker - there’s something wrong with the stats. 

It all boils down to the definition of participation. The 'at least twice in the last 28 days' is the important variable here I think as that implies something more than an irregular participation. 

My guess is that pool is much higher when you look at single instance or less regular activities. 

The query builders are on the Sport England website so you can have a look if you want... as this is a Rugby League site, I am not going to bother comparing pool and snooker.

[Dunbar]

Because of the post above where there may be a significant difference between irregular and regular participation, I thought in the sense of fairness I would look at the darts and Rugby League data (seeing as though that is the focus of the discussion).

I posted earlier that using the 'at least twice in the last 28 days' definition of participation, the results were:

Darts = 11,300

Rugby League = 55,800

But when we query the much more broad 'yes or no by activity in the last year', we get:

Darts = 1,963,800

Rugby League = 120,300

So Rugby League is a much more regular sport and darts much higher as an irregular or casual activity.  Pretty much like most of us would have expected I guess.

As the Sports England Active Lives survey defaults to the 28 days description as its definition of participation, I guess the discussion on whether darts or Rugby League is more popular as a participation sport is still debatable, but darts certainly has more people playing it per year.

As I say, it all boils down to definitions.

[MZH]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I feel obliged to point out that I had just run round the park for the first time in months and didn't have my glasses on.

I'll just correct it now: surprised to see pool/snooker in the same ballpark, I'd figured pool would be a lot higher.

Depends what the criteria is I guess. Pool is a popular game, but in the vast majority of cases it is played casually for fun amongst friends. I don't personally know anyone who plays pool competitively in a league or whatever. I do however know a couple of people who play in snooker leagues.

[Dunbar]

Ok, seeing as though there have been a couple of posts.

Twice in the last 28 days:

Pool = 19,700

Snooker = 19,300

Ever in the last year, yes or no:

Pool = 3,535,400

Snooker = 1,035,600

[JohnM]

Being too lazy to do it myself, is it possible to check the darts numbers for the period of our season, rather than the whole year or the last 28 days?

 

[dkw]

10 hours ago, JohnM said:

Being too lazy to do it myself, is it possible to check the darts numbers for the period of our season, rather than the whole year or the last 28 days?

 

I've done all the hard work and checked for you, and yes, it is actually possible. 

[JohnM]

20 minutes ago, dkw said:

I've done all the hard work and checked for you, and yes, it is actually possible. 

Not ALL the hard work, though.

[Father Gascoigne]

On 24/12/2024 at 04:37, HawkMan said:

Well I did say it was bo***x. But if 15% of the RL heartlands have some interest in RL, does 15% of the entire country have a soccer interest? Don't know 

The pertinent point is take any geographical area outside the heartlands and ask is there a higher casual interest in RL or darts, the answer must be darts.

I've looked into this a bit and, while nothing I've concluded is scientifically provable, I'd hazard there are between 1.5-2 million avid football fans in the UK. 

Across the first five divisions, there are 1.77m that attend matches on a regular basis. This number is strikingly similar to what you'd end up with if you broke down the 1.5bn domestic PL broadcast deal to roughly gauge the number of households that would have to be paying 50-60 quid a month for the numbers to add up. 

On 24/12/2024 at 05:47, HawkMan said:

Now,  if a young up and coming Premier League footballer ,  Saka or Palmer, said he only plays football because of his talent,  but for relaxation he watches RL because that's infinitely better, that would be a game changer.  

No, it wouldn't. 

It's insane how many people have zero grasp of social values. It's borderline impossible to change people's habits past a certain age. You can scream and shout all day along about how much better this is than that, once those values are formed you've no hope of changing it. 

That's why the path towards greater popularity for anything is establishing an emotional attachment before the age of 15 (it may even be younger than that in reality). In sporting terms, you have to get kids playing the game. The first-mover advantage is also key here because, if a sport took root in a community a century ago, good luck building up anything without mass migration displacing the existing population. 

There are outliers that exist, and they'll regale you about how cultured they are by upgrading their sport of choice, but these people are a loud minority on the internet looking for attention/validation and can usually be counted on one hand. 

On 24/12/2024 at 19:25, HawkMan said:

This is a tad disingenuous,  as you say elsewhere on this thread, we're selling to the same people over and over. The aggregate of all people watching RL over a season is clearly higher than darts, massively so, but which has more DIFFERENT people? Casual viewers is the key,and RL has a committed band of core supporters but not great on the casual front.

As for tv deal, higher for RL at present but that may change. If darts really is the second highest viewership on Sky after football then they may go upward of what the article says they'll pay to keep it. It's noteworthy that Sky will at least go to 25million, but reluctantly went to 21.5 million for RL. Of course , no other bidders was the problem for us. 

The crossover between rugby league and football is probably higher than some care to admit, not least because both sports are popular in a very well-populated area of the country. 

When Sky is looking at doling out contracts, it would ask: If we didn't have the Super League, how many subscribers would leave? 

Due to the likely high crossover in viewership, they may conclude that a good percentage of subscribers would stay on for the football, or their drama offerings. 

Whether or not that's true is beside the point. What I'm getting at is that you can't look at viewership as the be all and end all to broadcast deals. 

They'll offer a large deal to that which keeps people subscribing. 

If someone isn't subscribing to Sky just for SL alone, there is little incentive for Sky to pay large sums for it. Even if they lost SL, many of those hundreds of thousands that regularly watch Sky may stay on for other sports or programming. 

These are things they need to work out internally. But you have to assume that the broadcast deals they have in place are a reasonably fair reflection of how important those properties are for the company's subscriber base/bottom line. 

Some people have said in the past that losing the PL would be the death knell for Sky. Maybe, I don't know. But when Canal+ lost Ligue 1, it saw no significant change to its subscriber numbers. As a company you'll never really know until you lose something how important it was.

Nonetheless, judging by the existing broadcast deal, Sky doesn't value SL highly. They could be completely wrong about how much value it brings, but that's the current perception, otherwise the deal would be higher. 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Father Gascoigne

[Wilderspoolmemories]

As a darts player and fan myself it's good to see something like this. Maybe next time give them some decent darts to throw with. Those looked like black coated brass ones to me which are a thing of the distant past!

[Dave T]

On 31/12/2024 at 08:46, Father Gascoigne said:

I've looked into this a bit and, while nothing I've concluded is scientifically provable, I'd hazard there are between 1.5-2 million avid football fans in the UK. 

Across the first five divisions, there are 1.77m that attend matches on a regular basis. This number is strikingly similar to what you'd end up with if you broke down the 1.5bn domestic PL broadcast deal to roughly gauge the number of households that would have to be paying 50-60 quid a month for the numbers to add up. 

No, it wouldn't. 

It's insane how many people have zero grasp of social values. It's borderline impossible to change people's habits past a certain age. You can scream and shout all day along about how much better this is than that, once those values are formed you've no hope of changing it. 

That's why the path towards greater popularity for anything is establishing an emotional attachment before the age of 15 (it may even be younger than that in reality). In sporting terms, you have to get kids playing the game. The first-mover advantage is also key here because, if a sport took root in a community a century ago, good luck building up anything without mass migration displacing the existing population. 

There are outliers that exist, and they'll regale you about how cultured they are by upgrading their sport of choice, but these people are a loud minority on the internet looking for attention/validation and can usually be counted on one hand. 

The crossover between rugby league and football is probably higher than some care to admit, not least because both sports are popular in a very well-populated area of the country. 

When Sky is looking at doling out contracts, it would ask: If we didn't have the Super League, how many subscribers would leave? 

Due to the likely high crossover in viewership, they may conclude that a good percentage of subscribers would stay on for the football, or their drama offerings. 

Whether or not that's true is beside the point. What I'm getting at is that you can't look at viewership as the be all and end all to broadcast deals. 

They'll offer a large deal to that which keeps people subscribing. 

If someone isn't subscribing to Sky just for SL alone, there is little incentive for Sky to pay large sums for it. Even if they lost SL, many of those hundreds of thousands that regularly watch Sky may stay on for other sports or programming. 

These are things they need to work out internally. But you have to assume that the broadcast deals they have in place are a reasonably fair reflection of how important those properties are for the company's subscriber base/bottom line. 

Some people have said in the past that losing the PL would be the death knell for Sky. Maybe, I don't know. But when Canal+ lost Ligue 1, it saw no significant change to its subscriber numbers. As a company you'll never really know until you lose something how important it was.

Nonetheless, judging by the existing broadcast deal, Sky doesn't value SL highly. They could be completely wrong about how much value it brings, but that's the current perception, otherwise the deal would be higher. 

I agree with your assessment on Sky in the main. In reality we are filler. And that isn't said disparagingly, most sports are to an extent.

I don't think Sky are necessarily peed off or anything or disappointed that we are underperforming, we are what we are, but they are firmly sticking to more realistic market values.

The cost saving is a real challenge for us as a sport. We are hardly in huge demand as it is, there is never competition for our comp and Sky have shown that they are relatively happy to have some days with little to no live sport on, which was unthinkable a couple of decades ago. To an extent they have addressed this with cricket, tennis, US sports and the new EFL deal which offers loads of content.

We should also remember that once upon a time Rugby Union was important to Sky Sports, now very little is on there. Things like WWE used to be major for them, now gone. Champions League, gone. They really are comfortable allowing things to go, and I do think that as a bit of an edge sport we are at real risk.

I expect if RL left Sky Sports the impact would be negligible.

 

[Father Gascoigne]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

We should also remember that once upon a time Rugby Union was important to Sky Sports, now very little is on there. Things like WWE used to be major for them, now gone. Champions League, gone. They really are comfortable allowing things to go, and I do think that as a bit of an edge sport we are at real risk.

I expect if RL left Sky Sports the impact would be negligible.

 

The same thing happened in Australia. In an era of free money Fox, like Sky, splashed out on all and sundry. When the belt-tightening began, the non-core sports that drive subscriptions got offered less or were done away with altogether. 

Of course, there are households that would cancel their subscription if Sky lost Super League, but only Sky has any real feel for what that number might be. If they felt it was a large contingent, it would reflect in the broadcast deal you'd think. And even assuming they can't stand football, how many households that regularly watch SL would stay subbed for other content like cricket, F1, comedy/variety or prestige drama? You could end up dwindling the number of subs that subscribe solely for SL to low-five-figures. Based on the size of the SL contract, I'd put 50,000 subs at a max attributed solely to SL. 

Anyhow, the problem for non-core sports is that Sky holds the leverage. Casual awareness and viewership would take a hit if SL had to find a new home, as the alternatives would have less reach. 

RU most likely drove little subscription uptake. If we're led to believe their audience skews more affluent than average, then it's fair to assume those households would subscribe for other content, not least because discretionary spending is less of a concern. 

Sky paying big money for the Champions League never made sense. Only the big clubs partake in the CL, and they already play in the PL. Which means they were paying two large contracts for half the return. The EFL is way more important to Sky as it actually drives new subscriptions.

 

Edited January 5 by Father Gascoigne

[RoyBoy295]

4 hours ago, Wilderspoolmemories said:

As a darts player and fan myself it's good to see something like this. Maybe next time give them some decent darts to throw with. Those looked like black coated brass ones to me which are a thing of the distant past!

When i used to be in the local leagues a few years back, there was an old chap who still used flights made from feathers. Quite a handy thrower with them too.

[Mark]

Ex Swinton player and I think marc Syned's brother, Carl "The Bomber" Syned made it through to the last 32 of qualifying today so got some useful points, this is of course phase 1 of qualifying so hopefully he can pick up more points and qualify over the next couple of days. 

[daz39]

I used to be an avid Darts fan and indeed played a bit in my younger days too, i loved watching the old tournaments with folk like Lowe, George, Bob Anderson, Phil Taylor etc but i started drifting off it and losing interest once it started to become a day out on the pee for a lot of folk, the fact the audience went from complete silence to booing/catcalling players at the oche totally turned it off for me, it may be 'entertainment for tv' but the game itself lost something when loud football style chanting and singing became the norm over a calm, respectful silence between throws.

How many people who claim to 'love the darts' have actually watched any of the action on the stage? i bet loads of them have never even seen a dart land on a board.

The old WC at lakeside, Frimley green, with Dougie Donnelly, Sid Waddell, John Gwynne, Dave Lanning Bobby George etc was a highlight of the sporting calendar for me, i watched it religously, i can't tell you the last time i watched a game of darts.

Sometimes what attracts new people to a sport/pastime is the thing that puts others off it.

[graveyard johnny]

3 hours ago, daz39 said:

 i can't tell you the last time i watched a game of darts

why? is it a secret? you really ought to start watching again - I  wish our game could generate half the intensity and atmosphere that they create in the darts these days - their game is fast flowing, un relenting, un forgiving and full of characters - just like our game USED TO BE - if the RFL  was running the PDC nobody would know it was on and we would be watching endless video ref replays of whether Littlers foot had encroached the oche or van gerwen had leaned over too far or having a 9 darter disallowed 10 mins later cos Buntings specs are too thick - they are have got it all right where we have got it all wrong - well done darts - we need to learn how to put on entertainment again  cos at the end of the day - thats what its supposed to be 

[Just Browny]

1 hour ago, graveyard johnny said:

why? is it a secret? you really ought to start watching again - I  wish our game could generate half the intensity and atmosphere that they create in the darts these days - their game is fast flowing, un relenting, un forgiving and full of characters - just like our game USED TO BE - if the RFL  was running the PDC nobody would know it was on and we would be watching endless video ref replays of whether Littlers foot had encroached the oche or van gerwen had leaned over too far or having a 9 darter disallowed 10 mins later cos Buntings specs are too thick - they are have got it all right where we have got it all wrong - well done darts - we need to learn how to put on entertainment again  cos at the end of the day - thats what its supposed to be 

Can you pay on the gate or do you have to buy a ticket? 

[Eddie]

4 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

why? is it a secret? you really ought to start watching again - I  wish our game could generate half the intensity and atmosphere that they create in the darts these days - their game is fast flowing, un relenting, un forgiving and full of characters - just like our game USED TO BE - if the RFL  was running the PDC nobody would know it was on and we would be watching endless video ref replays of whether Littlers foot had encroached the oche or van gerwen had leaned over too far or having a 9 darter disallowed 10 mins later cos Buntings specs are too thick - they are have got it all right where we have got it all wrong - well done darts - we need to learn how to put on entertainment again  cos at the end of the day - thats what its supposed to be 

Darts forums would be full of old blokes moaning about how many empty seats there were at the Masters and debating where the cameras should be positioned. 

Edited January 7 by Eddie

[Dullish Mood]

4 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Can you pay on the gate or do you have to buy a ticket? 

Kid for a quid.

[Gav Wilson]

Sky and PDC agree new 5 year TV deal for £125m, double the previous one...

CLICKY

[HawkMan]

9 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

Sky and PDC agree new 5 year TV deal for £125m, double the previous one...

CLICKY

And as we have learned on this thread RL is bigger than Darts, more popular by every metric apparently,  we can expect a similar doubling of our TV deal : £43 million a year,  very nice.

Edited January 11 by HawkMan

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Gav Wilson said:

Sky and PDC agree new 5 year TV deal for £125m, double the previous one...

CLICKY

It really does show the importance of having genuine competition for rights and not just name dropping competitors hoping it frightens Sky into action.

[Damien]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It really does show the importance of having genuine competition for rights and not just name dropping competitors hoping it frightens Sky into action.

Absolutely, it's competition that drives any increase. RL getting interest from Amazon, Netflix and TNT Sports, as Darts as, would be perfect.