When will we know that 14 clubs is working for Super League?

[Martyn Sadler]

After last night's superb game at the LNER Community Stadium, I'm sensing that some people who opposed the move to 14 clubs from 12 in Super League are modifying their positions.

But of course it's very early to draw that conclusion after one game.

But how long will it take before we know whether the change has worked or not?

I'm curious to know what people think.

[Click]

I don't believe we will really know until at least half way though the season and most clubs have played eachother.

I guess one measurement will be the amount of one sided games but I'm not sure how I would compare that with previous seasons other than through "feelings"

[Archie Gordon]

I think that for 14 clubs in 2026 to have made sense we need to see:

- an increase in the new broadcast deal to cover those 14 clubs in 2027 onwards;

- I had other criteria but, actually, they are moot.

[Tommygilf]

I think anywhere from 1 third to half way into the season will be enough to give a decent early sign - enough to give the 3 promoted clubs (plus Hudds, Cas and Catalans) enough time to have a decent number of home and away fixtures. Probably somewhere between Easter and the Challenge Cup final.

Note that the title of the thread says "know that" not "know if", which reads a bit presumptuous.

One thing I will say is I that I think Toulouse and Bradford should have had home openers too

[Just Browny]

51 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think that for 14 clubs in 2026 to have made sense we need to see:

- an increase in the new broadcast deal to cover those 14 clubs in 2027 onwards;

- I had other criteria but, actually, they are moot.

I'd add that all 14 clubs getting through the season without going bust or some kind of firesale would be a good start.

Also, given a Super League of 14 clubs made the Championship/L1 merger a necessity, the success or otherwise of that merged league is a key component of whether the move to 14 was a success. Erm, looking good there.

[dkw]

Just before they change it back to 12 teams....

[dufftown1]

3-5 years. Any success or failure is unlikely to show greatly in the next broadcast deal but the one after.

If we can sustain 14 teams for 3-5years without serious financial issues, grow commercial and broadcast revenue and keep crowds in 5figures averages for 3-5 years its a success. 

[Wakefield Ram]

The next broadcast deal will determine whether it is a 12 or 14 team SL going forward. 

[RigbyLuger]

When Nigel or Abi tell us.

[Tommygilf]

Depends entirely what you mean by success too, which is not defined.

[Damien]

Ive always supported 14 teams as I think the variety and stories add to the competition. I am glad to see the back of loop fixtures (well almost as we still have Magic as one). I was though opposed to the rushed way it was done and 2 teams getting less funding and that hasn't changed.

[dkw]

23 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

When Nigel or Abi tell us.

When, or if?

[JT RL]

When England beat Australia 

[dufftown1]

This is obviously flogging a dead horse at this point but one would have expected a strategic review to tell us what success looks like, and how and when we measure it. 

[whatmichaelsays]

Define "working". What's the objective that the move to 14 is being measured against? 

If the whole objective was to get rid of loop fixtures, then it is already "working" (Magic aside). If that's the objective, then well done everybody. 

But if there is a broader, more strategic point to this, what is it? Revenue generation? That can only be measured really by commercial, broadcast and digital metrics. A larger market footprint? That depends on the audiences we reach? More competitive games? That's going to take time.  

[Ethereal]

When the broadcast deal is announced. It needs to go up at least in proportion with the increase in teams.

 

So probably 30m as about the bar.

[Archie Gordon]

25 minutes ago, Ethereal said:

When the broadcast deal is announced. It needs to go up at least in proportion with the increase in teams.

So probably 30m as about the bar.

That seems to be the gamble taken.

Then again, the coup was motivated by disillusionment with the current share and so you'd think there'd be uproar from the likes of McManus if Saints are still getting just £1.3m pa in 2027. So perhaps £35-40m pa is now the bar. 

Fingers crossed.

[Moominman]

I'm sure Wood and his acolytes like Ekoku will justify a 'Strategic Review,' to find an answer to this tasking problem...

[hunsletgreenandgold]

5 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

After last night's superb game at the LNER Community Stadium, I'm sensing that some people who opposed the move to 14 clubs from 12 in Super League are modifying their positions.

But of course it's very early to draw that conclusion after one game.

But how long will it take before we know whether the change has worked or not?

I'm curious to know what people think.

Steve Mascord admitting he might have got it wrong is the closest we'll ever get to some kind of rugby league nirvana, in this mortal realm 

[gingerjon]

6 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

After last night's superb game at the LNER Community Stadium, I'm sensing that some people who opposed the move to 14 clubs from 12 in Super League are modifying their positions.

It's one match.

It's also taken money from other aspects of the game to make it happen so I'm sure fans of, say, Halifax and Fev, might wonder if it could have been better spent.

But if it delivers a genuine uplift in income that can be used across the whole sport then it's a win.

If it just gives the same people some jollies but no more cash on a Thursday then ... nah. It's a failure.

[EagleEyePie]

I think you're probably looking at something like two years or more to really know whether it's worked. It's not just about whether the promoted clubs could be competitive (which was always a possibility, just look how London did in their dead rubber season when they knew they were going down - they still managed to match Hull FC for points). The issue is whether the reduced funding for the promoted clubs causes issues for them down the line, or if moving to 14 teams leads to a reduction in funding for all Super League clubs and causes financial issues.

You also have to consider the potential impact on the transfer market and the player pool. I remember a period in the early 2010's when we had a 14 team competition and the sport just seemed a bit flat. It felt like talent was spread too thin and the quality of games suffered. We have to make sure that all teams have the ability to improve on the field.

If it's mentioned as a factor in securing a bigger TV deal that's enough to sustain 14 Super League clubs at the same level of funding or more,  then that pretty much proves it was the right decision.

[Coggo]

Ten games in

[Hopie]

It's already failed, so time for change at the top of the RFL, no other option unfortunately.

[Agbrigg]

9 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

 

But how long will it take before we know whether the change has worked or not?

 

Its already been proven to have worked. The Bulls are now back in SL how much evidence do your need

[Prince]

Unfortunately success seems to be determined by how many pound notes we can afford to give to the elite. We could celebrate the variety of matches, no loop fixtures, and more players playing at the top level. Alternatively we could measure it by how much each team receives in central funding.

if the broadcast deal halved to £10m would 6 clubs become the desired number?