Final Whistle: Money, money, money – and why rugby league has so little of it

[OriginalMrC]

14 minutes ago, Fly-By-TheWire said:

I think you know what.    Traditionally, it would be an incorrectly attributed slur by RU fans based on the odd slogathon game of RL.   However, the actual entertainment on show in RL (in this country anyway) has slowly declined over the last two decades in order to accommodate a war of attrition.    There are still some games with amazing attacking speed and skill, just not nearly as many.  

This validates most of the comments from the RU fans I know and meet.   They’re improving the spectacle in their sport, we are losing it (in this country anyway).

All relative to what you prefer of course.    Some people are happier with wars of attrition than marketable moments of action.    Horses for courses.

 

Seriously what games are you watching. RL is faster, and the ball is in play more than ever before. The 6 again rule just as an example is a recent rule change which has directly impacted on speeding up the game and making it harder to defend.

[JohnM]

War of attrition? It seems to me that we have seen an increasing number of fantastically acrobatic touch-line avoiding tries along with the relacement of endomorphs by mesomorphs.  Subjectively, more interception tries , too.

[Dunbar]

The article quoted is clearly nonsense, comparing Rugby League to one of the biggest sports leagues in the biggest sports market on the planet makes no sense.

But it has led to an interesting discussion on how our game is played and I have some sympathy with both sides of the discussion.

I can see why some people see that the modern game has become more formulaic.  While the ball is in play longer, there is a lot more structure to the modern game with a lot more set plays being run... every team does the same shift plays and it is the team that executes best that excels, but not necessarily the most innovative.  There was less structure and more innovation in previous era's... even the spectacular tries today often come from structured plays.

But that is not to say we don't have great individual players today and there is off the cuff play... I am talking about the aggregate. 

But, on the other hand, when you watch older games (full matches), you see that it is not as innovative and exciting as our memories suggest.  I recently watched the full matches from the 1982 and 1986 Kangaroo tours and it was amazing how many errors there were, the benefit of memories is that we only remember what the greats did and not how many balls they dropped.

There was so many errors in one game that I almost stopped watching and then I remembered these were some of the best players we have ever seen.

Maybe a prece of all that is the game is different, but still the best sport on the planet by an absolute mile.

[Wakefield Ram]

15 hours ago, Dunbar said:

The article quoted is clearly nonsense, comparing Rugby League to one of the biggest sports leagues in the biggest sports market on the planet makes no sense.

But it has led to an interesting discussion on how our game is played and I have some sympathy with both sides of the discussion.

I can see why some people see that the modern game has become more formulaic.  While the ball is in play longer, there is a lot more structure to the modern game with a lot more set plays being run... every team does the same shift plays and it is the team that executes best that excels, but not necessarily the most innovative.  There was less structure and more innovation in previous era's... even the spectacular tries today often come from structured plays.

But that is not to say we don't have great individual players today and there is off the cuff play... I am talking about the aggregate. 

But, on the other hand, when you watch older games (full matches), you see that it is not as innovative and exciting as our memories suggest.  I recently watched the full matches from the 1982 and 1986 Kangaroo tours and it was amazing how many errors there were, the benefit of memories is that we only remember what the greats did and not how many balls they dropped.

There was so many errors in one game that I almost stopped watching and then I remembered these were some of the best players we have ever seen.

Maybe a prece of all that is the game is different, but still the best sport on the planet by an absolute mile.

Formulaic and all the teams run the same set plays. 

There were more errors in 1982 and 1986 because they played more rugby, passed the ball more and took more chances. Partly down to 5 yard offside which forced teams to play rugby. 

The 10m law was brought in to encourage open play, it's had the opposite effect. 

It's horses for courses, but I'd rather watch the brilliance and the errors of 1982 and 1986 series compared to the recent England v Samoa series. 

[JohnM]

"I'd rather watch the brilliance and the errors of 1982 and 1986 series"

Well, you can't. Unless you've footage of games played 42 years ago. 

In any case, brilliance and errors are not just rose-coloured glasses constructs of half a century ago.

[Wakefield Ram]

4 minutes ago, JohnM said:

"I'd rather watch the brilliance and the errors of 1982 and 1986 series"

Well, you can't. Unless you've footage of games played 42 years ago. 

In any case, brilliance and errors are not just rose-coloured glasses constructs of half a century ago.

They are on YouTube. 

[Click]

*shock* 

Some people prefer the game as they knew/remember it in their younger days.

Having rewatched a few games from the 80s, I personally don't get it.

[Worzel]

On 27/12/2024 at 14:40, Rugby League World said:

WHICH person in the world received the best Christmas present in 2024? If we think purely in terms of money, I suggest that the man...

View the full article

This entire article only exists for Martyn to continue to propagate the myth that Nigel Wood was a successful leader, based solely on one TV contract, rather than the utter strategically incompetent failure who was responsible for the subsequent continued decline of the sport, extracting disproportionate personal wealth from the game in the process. There’s none so blind as those who will not see.

At this stage I’m genuinely starting to wonder if Wood has kidnapped some of Martyn’s loved ones and is using that as leverage

[RigbyLuger]

12 minutes ago, Worzel said:

This entire article only exists for Martyn to continue to propagate the myth that Nigel Wood was a successful leader, based solely on one TV contract, rather than the utter strategically incompetent failure who was responsible for the subsequent continued decline of the sport, extracting disproportionate personal wealth from the game in the process. There’s none so blind as those who will not see.

At this stage I’m genuinely starting to wonder if Wood has kidnapped some of Martyn’s loved ones and is using that as leverage

Let alone the issue of Odsal that everyone seems to want to go away, but has a million questions attached. Call something "iconic" and some will believe you forever. Remind me, who was at the RFL then?

[Wakefield Ram]

39 minutes ago, Click said:

*shock* 

Some people prefer the game as they knew/remember it in their younger days.

Having rewatched a few games from the 80s, I personally don't get it.

Absolutely, each to their own. 

[Wakefield Ram]

17 hours ago, Dunbar said:

The article quoted is clearly nonsense, comparing Rugby League to one of the biggest sports leagues in the biggest sports market on the planet makes no sense.

But it has led to an interesting discussion on how our game is played and I have some sympathy with both sides of the discussion.

I can see why some people see that the modern game has become more formulaic.  While the ball is in play longer, there is a lot more structure to the modern game with a lot more set plays being run... every team does the same shift plays and it is the team that executes best that excels, but not necessarily the most innovative.  There was less structure and more innovation in previous era's... even the spectacular tries today often come from structured plays.

But that is not to say we don't have great individual players today and there is off the cuff play... I am talking about the aggregate. 

But, on the other hand, when you watch older games (full matches), you see that it is not as innovative and exciting as our memories suggest.  I recently watched the full matches from the 1982 and 1986 Kangaroo tours and it was amazing how many errors there were, the benefit of memories is that we only remember what the greats did and not how many balls they dropped.

There was so many errors in one game that I almost stopped watching and then I remembered these were some of the best players we have ever seen.

Maybe a prece of all that is the game is different, but still the best sport on the planet by an absolute mile.

Most were part-time players and generally playing in muddier, wetter conditions would explain some of the errors. 

But to go back to the article, there is very little promotion of the game. US sports are national games and there is serious competition between broadcasters. Neither of these apply in the UK. 

RL is a minority sport and Sky is the only broadcaster interested in paying any serious money. 

[Worzel]

To address Martyn’s subject more seriously, the underlying factor is that in the era of Pay TV media rights skew progressively towards the #1 in each geographic market over time. These are the keystone sports that the local Pay TV market-leader has to have in order to drive subscriptions and viewership. Over time since 1995 Pay TV money has been ever more concentrated on that #1 sport, globally, as the media firms worked this out. Other sports are then fighting for crumbs at the table. Some are better at it, and get better crumbs, and some are not, but even the former are still really only getting crumbs.

That’s why the NRL has the riches it has, alongside AFL in Australia. It’s why the A-League football and Rugby Union have very small TV deals there by comparison. 

Baseball is a similar sport in the US, the #1 summer sport, not clashing with the NFL or NBA seasons and so vital for the broadcaster. 

Rugby League in the UK doesn’t have that. It could still sell itself better and get slightly more (the whole point of the IMG era), but it will never be at the big table with the big boys, it will always be getting the leftovers.

This market dynamic wasn’t as obvious to media companies or rights holders at the start of the Pay TV boom, which is why in the beginning we were able to get “overs”. It is what it is I’m afraid. And yes, the sport did waste a lot of that money, but then the sport didn’t think it was a short-term bubble at the time. Hindsight is always 20:20 eh. 

Edited December 30, 2024 by Worzel
Typo

[JohnM]

I wouldn't say "never"...but we need rich, powerful, motivated club "leaders" acting both individually and in concert as an entry fee to the real big league.

[Hello]

We can look for all the in-depth excuses that we like, and make comparisons with "lucky" other sports.   At the end of the day, though, RL seems to blow all opportunities to further itself - except for Austrlia and maybe NZ

Edited December 31, 2024 by Hello

[Archie Gordon]

8 hours ago, Hello said:

We can look for all the in-depth excuses that we like, and make comparisons with "lucky" other sports.   At the end of the day, though, RL seems to blow all opportunities to further itself - except for Austrlia and maybe NZ

Kind of agree. We are constrained by our size - though the idea we received 'overs' in the 1990s and have declined in value ever since isn't true - but we do almost nothing to break out of our lane.

The BBC has a page on sporting events to look out for in 2025. None of our Ashes series are on it. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Archie Gordon said:

The BBC has a page on sporting events to look out for in 2025. None of our Ashes series are on it. 

What's frustrating is that the narrative of a high profile women's Ashes would have easily fitted the framing the BBC have used.

But, as far as I'm aware, absolutely nothing beyond a one-off, randomly timed, Las Vegas test is in the diary?

[The Masked Poster]

9 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Kind of agree. We are constrained by our size - though the idea we received 'overs' in the 1990s and have declined in value ever since isn't true - but we do almost nothing to break out of our lane.

The BBC has a page on sporting events to look out for in 2025. None of our Ashes series are on it. 

Has the Ashes series been definitely confirmed yet? 

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

What's frustrating is that the narrative of a high profile women's Ashes would have easily fitted the framing the BBC have used.

But, as far as I'm aware, absolutely nothing beyond a one-off, randomly timed, Las Vegas test is in the diary?

Yes. The women's Ashes seems to me to be the easiest bit of marketing ever. With a high profile Vegas ko already sorted, you could then play 2 or 3 further games in either country either pre- or post- season. You have the best of the NRLW to showcase, for goodness sake and the BBC would bend over to broadcast it. 

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, The Masked Poster said:

Has the Ashes series been definitely confirmed yet? 

I think the NRL has set its players a March deadline for arranging post-season weddings and we may have a clearer picture then.

[M j M]

17 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Kind of agree. We are constrained by our size - though the idea we received 'overs' in the 1990s and have declined in value ever since isn't true - but we do almost nothing to break out of our lane.

 

The 1995 TV deal was definitely not a purely commercial one for Sky UK. Using that as a starting point to compare to anything later on is deeply misleading.

[Archie Gordon]

14 minutes ago, M j M said:

The 1995 TV deal was definitely not a purely commercial one for Sky UK. Using that as a starting point to compare to anything later on is deeply misleading.

Sure. But the highwater mark is still the 2017 deal and not the 1995 one.

[M j M]

7 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Sure. But the highwater mark is still the 2017 deal and not the 1995 one.

True. And that was another deal  which had some particular Sky-side circumstances behind it. As well as Nigel Wood's negotiating of course.

[Mark S]

Let’s face it, there is a sort of Crab Bucket mentality in RL (in the UK). As soon as a club starts to show any commercial acumen they are derided. We are our own worst enemy, rival sports can just sit back and watch the game eat itself.

 

[dkw]

22 hours ago, Click said:

*shock* 

Some people prefer the game as they knew/remember it in their younger days.

Having rewatched a few games from the 80s, I personally don't get it.

I've watched loads over the past few years, there's a youtube channel called Shaunsrugbyleague vids.

And honestly, there's as many terrible games I've switched off ones I've watched right through. These weren't the halcyon days some remember, the rugby was often dreadful, huge amounts of dropped ball, turgid 1 yard carries up the middle of the pitch, mrssy reset scrums that end as a random penalty etc.

When it's good it's really good, when it's bad it's really bad.

[M j M]

2 minutes ago, Mark S said:

Let’s face it, there is a sort of Crab Bucket mentality in RL (in the UK). As soon as a club starts to show any commercial acumen they are derided. We are our own worst enemy, rival sports can just sit back and watch the game eat itself.

 

I don't think that's the case at all really. There are lots of examples of clubs who have really turned themselves around who are widely recognised in the sport for the progress they have and/or are making.

Warrington are probably the best example of long term progression on and off field from where they were at the end of the winter era to now but there are lots of others, Bradford's ascent to the top was similarly lauded but sadly came to an end.