Next Broadcast Deal

[Hopie]

Magic Weekend an opportunity to enhance broadcast deal - Jones

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/articles/ce3edvr5e2wo

"The Magic Weekend is another shop window for us where we can deliver and portray the healthiness or the healthy state of the sport and the Super League in particular," Jones, who is also interim chief executive of the RFL, told BBC Sport.

I'm taking from this quote that the bidders will be invited to the Hill Dickinson Stadium for a bit of schmoozing.

This next TV deal feels like it is incredibly important, obviously TV coverage has paid for the game to be a pro sport in this country for a long time, but its barely doing that at the moment and many clubs are struggling. Next year's structure and funding will probably be dependent on it too. The last TV deal wasn't announced until the season was almost over, but that only leaves a few months to wait. 
 

 

[lucky 7]

On 03/07/2026 at 00:41, Hopie said:

Magic Weekend an opportunity to enhance broadcast deal - Jones

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/articles/ce3edvr5e2wo

"The Magic Weekend is another shop window for us where we can deliver and portray the healthiness or the healthy state of the sport and the Super League in particular," Jones, who is also interim chief executive of the RFL, told BBC Sport.

I'm taking from this quote that the bidders will be invited to the Hill Dickinson Stadium for a bit of schmoozing.

This next TV deal feels like it is incredibly important, obviously TV coverage has paid for the game to be a pro sport in this country for a long time, but its barely doing that at the moment and many clubs are struggling. Next year's structure and funding will probably be dependent on it too. The last TV deal wasn't announced until the season was almost over, but that only leaves a few months to wait. 
 

 

Do you or anybody know who's actually negotiating the TV deal?

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

Do you or anybody know who's actually negotiating the TV deal?

According to the editorial direction of League Express:

If its good, Nigel Wood.

If its bad, IMG.

[lucky 7]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

According to the editorial direction of League Express:

If its good, Nigel Wood.

If its bad, IMG.

Personally i wouldn't trust either of them to get much of an improved TV deal.

[RigbyLuger]

27 minutes ago, lucky 7 said:

Personally i wouldn't trust either of them to get much of an improved TV deal.

IMG, the global specialists in sports media?

Edited July 5 by RigbyLuger

[Tommygilf]

Apologies for the long post.

Looking at the next TV Deal there are several component parts, the 2 most important I would think are (1) the cash sum, and (2) the matches broadcast platform - both are also influenced by the number of teams in the comp, an issue which has not been settled.

1. This needs to be broken down to understand the starting figures.

To stand still, clubs on full funding currently reportedly receive around £1.3million per annum. To go up with inflation alone since the last deal was signed for 24/25/26, that probably needs to rise to the £1.4 million mark at a minimum (using the BoE inflation calculator). Including the full reported £21.5 million p.a. value which also covers the RFL cut and the broadcasting costs Sky cover, an at inflation only rate of increase for 12 teams on full funding in 2027 onwards is somewhere around the £24 million mark. This would also assume having all matches broadcast in a similar way to now. Interestingly, on the reported numbers that means that of the total announced sum, 72.5% of the deal actually comes to Super League clubs in cash terms.

If we were to stick with 14 teams, everyone on full funding and the commitment to all teams being broadcast, then that would require a reported sum of around £500k for the extra match per round broadcast. Then there is the at inflation increase of having 2 additional teams on full funding, which is around the £3 million p.a. mark as above. Thus a 14 team fully funded SL on current rates and terms adjusted for inflation would likely need a deal in the region of £27.5 million.

15 teams? Add £1.4/5 million on again as this would create a bye round. 

The major concern here is that the club owners are unhappy with the current funding amounts, and likely will want an above inflation increase to reduce their levels of spending. There is also the issue of how wages in SL have generally not kept pace with inflation over the past 25 years, so there should be a correction due if only for that reason. However, lets look at the numbers for that. 

If we were to take Mr Wood's previous aim (and indeed success) of having every club receive full funding up to the base standard Salary Cap, then, as the cap has risen, we would be looking at £2.1 million per club. That would mean that before any other costs or divisions are taken into account (ie broadcast production costs, RFL share etc.) the figures would need to be as follows:

12 teams = £25.2 million

14 teams = £29.4 million

15 Teams = £31.5 million

Given the current rate of "additionals" comes to around £6 Million in the current contract, and I suspect the RFL would want a bigger cash amount if they secured a salary cap covered funding deal, I think its clear to see how big a jump those numbers would end up having to be. The best part of a £40 million broadcast deal with 15 teams in.

 

2) Broadcast Platform

This is a major factor. Sky currently broadcast all games live, at an average of 2 full productions a week plus 5 on Sky Sports+. Those additional games are also live on Super League +. Some select fixtures (around 10 to 15 a year) are on the BBC too as a simulcast having previously been on Channel 4. As I understand, it is Sky who do the production of all these matches currently (unless the BBC have presenters at the ground for the pre, half time and post match) and it is not something SL controls in house. SL not controlling and distributing the production of match content is a tad old fashioned I'd wager, and limits us with regards to broadcast deals.

There is clearly a feeling from some that the relationship with Sky could change.

The Sky Sports plus platform essentially hinders the SL+ platform in the UK, whilst not really giving the exposure to matches that I think we would like to see and not resulting in a significant payment from Sky either. To some extent, those matches are more exposed by default because they are now on a broadcast where they weren't before, however I think there does need to be a serious discussion around the use of main Sky Sports channels for matches, as they clearly perform better on there than behind several menus on SS+. Likewise, Main Event should be a guarantee for fixtures - especially Thursdays for example or during the 3pm Saturday Blackout.

Likewise, the seemingly ad hoc nature of BBC FTA coverage needs to be looked at and constructed much better. There's no narrative to the season, games are seemingly random and feel disjointed as an overall product. Viewers can't expect when they will be on and I suspect many either forget or default to Sky coverage. I think these are key factors to viewing numbers not being great too. 

We need to decide who is producing the matches (I think it should be Super League). That then allows us to then say who we sell what to at what price and on what terms. 

If Sky reduce their broadcasting to just 2 mainline games per week, the question will be how do we broadcast and monetise those other 4/5 games. SL+ is the current in house favourite, I do not think another pay option will be viable or popular, FTA is another option for some.

 

Below is an interesting article on Super League's position on this topic too, including our disparity with RU's "Prem":

https://platformation.global/insights/will-2026-be-a-turning-point-for-super-leagues-tv-rights/

 

[Tommygilf]

*PS:

I don't see the numbers on SL+ adding up enough to cover what it would need to should Sky stop showing games 3, 4, 5, 6 (and 7).

[Ethereal]

I think when I ran the numbers somewhere on here a while back I ended up broadly similar but a bit higher than yours.

I think £30m is the par score for the deal, worse than that is disappointing since it'd probably mean a real terms cut per team.

Edited July 5 by Ethereal

[lucky 7]

16 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

IMG, the global specialists in sports media?

Lets judge that when we have our new TV deal

[whatmichaelsays]

Any increase we do get is predominantly down to IMG and the work that they have been doing over the last four years. Wood has no right to start claiming credit simply for swooping in at the end of the project. 

We're very quick, as RL fans, to apportion poor broadcast or commercial deals to poor salesmanship, or the RFL being useless, but it is far, far more nuanced than that. 

I've said it before, but when you hear a lot of people talking about this current TV deal, they seem incredulous that the TV deal didn't rise "just because". But that completely ignores what has happened in the media market over the last ten years or so - changing consumption patterns, the rise of women's professional leagues, consolidation in the industry, piracy and the lack of growth in the paid-TV model, and the dominance of the football and the Premier League. 

RL never responded to any of that until IMG came on board and started forcing clubs to invest on "boring stuff" that "wasn't important" to a lot of people, but absolutely does make a difference to how this sport might present itself to prospective broadcasters. 

It hasn't been perfect and not all of it has worked, but we went into these negotiations with a much stronger digital footprint, clubs that are producing high quality content, delivering bigger crowds and more vibrant atmospheres and a sport that looks a damn sight more professional than it did four years ago. 

There's a chance that might still not be enough to deliver on a materially bigger TV deal, because those factors I mentioned above still exist, but there's a much bigger chance that we would have been looking at an even smaller deal without it. 

Edited July 6 by whatmichaelsays

[The 4 of Us]

Possible impact https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2wwgeg041o

[Damien]

8 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

Lets judge that when we have our new TV deal

Whatever the deal is doesn't change the fact that IMG are global specialists in sports media.

[Amber Avenger]

1 hour ago, The 4 of Us said:

Possible impact https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2wwgeg041o

Yeah I was just about to post this - in that there is something in the wider announcement about a commitment to more live free-to-air sport than ever on ITV - so Sky potentially simulcasting some of their exclusive stuff on ITV, the obvious examples being F1 and the British GP which Channel 4 usually get the terrestrial rights to or continuing the Sky simulcast of the League Cup Final where ITV have just taken Sky's full coverage on ITV1 the past couple of years. 

In reality it might not mean much, especially since traditionally ITV have only been really interested in Union in the SL era, but perhaps it could mean that instead of the BBC as our FTA outlet for the league, it could be ITV if it's a similar contract to the current one - although realistically it would be ITV4 rather than the main channel.

Edited July 6 by Amber Avenger

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Any increase we do get is predominantly down to IMG and the work that they have been doing over the last four years. Wood has no right to start claiming credit simply for swooping in at the end of the project.

Everyone knows that IMG are handling the negotiations so I don't think it's a case of Wood or anyone else claiming the credit or the blame for whatever they might deliver.

As I understand it, TNT have made a strong bid that in financial terms exceeds what Sky has offered, but the differential isn't great enough, and nor is the offered term long enough, to make it certain that Super League will sign up with them, particularly as the takeover of TNT apparently means that a deal couldn't be finalised for some months, although I'm not sure why that should be so.

Whether Sky taking buying ITV will make a difference to the outcome, with the possibility of some games being shown free to air, remains to be seen.

But if so it would be a very good outcome.

[whatmichaelsays]

10 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Everyone knows that IMG are handling the negotiations so I don't think it's a case of Wood or anyone else claiming the credit or the blame for whatever they might deliver.

As I understand it, TNT have made a strong bid that in financial terms exceeds what Sky has offered, but the differential isn't great enough, and nor is the offered term long enough, to make it certain that Super League will sign up with them, particularly as the takeover of TNT apparently means that a deal couldn't be finalised for some months, although I'm not sure why that should be so.

Whether Sky taking buying ITV will make a difference to the outcome, with the possibility of some games being shown free to air, remains to be seen.

But if so it would be a very good outcome.

Just to be clear, my comment isn't a dig at Wood. It's a remark that whatever deal we do get is a reflection of the long-term work that has been delivered under the IMG partnership to make SL a more attractive proposition to broadcasters. 

Like I say, whether its falling TV deals or worthless pizza sponsorships, the deals we've had come down to more than just poor salesmanship and negotiation. 

[Martyn Sadler]

10 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Just to be clear, my comment isn't a dig at Wood. It's a remark that whatever deal we do get is a reflection of the long-term work that has been delivered under the IMG partnership to make SL a more attractive proposition to broadcasters. 

Like I say, whether its falling TV deals or worthless pizza sponsorships, the deals we've had come down to more than just poor salesmanship and negotiation. 

You obviously know more than I do about the work that IMG has done in Rugby League.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Just to be clear, my comment isn't a dig at Wood. It's a remark that whatever deal we do get is a reflection of the long-term work that has been delivered under the IMG partnership to make SL a more attractive proposition to broadcasters. 

Like I say, whether its falling TV deals or worthless pizza sponsorships, the deals we've had come down to more than just poor salesmanship and negotiation. 

I think for a good spell it felt like we lost our identity and became too much about value and a bargain basement proposition. It does feel like finally we are trying to flip that and become a quality premium product (in terms of presentation of our events).

When we are talking partners, sponsors etc. The big players arent normally looking for a bargain, this kind of stuff is expensive, but we have trouble tapping into that market. I can understand why companies choose Union of they want to invest in this kind of sport.

All out, quality entertainment with a deep-rooted presence in communities, with a modern slant (PDRL, LDRL, Wheelchair, Womens RL) should be where we are playing.

[whatmichaelsays]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think for a good spell it felt like we lost our identity and became too much about value and a bargain basement proposition. It does feel like finally we are trying to flip that and become a quality premium product (in terms of presentation of our events).

When we are talking partners, sponsors etc. The big players arent normally looking for a bargain, this kind of stuff is expensive, but we have trouble tapping into that market. I can understand why companies choose Union of they want to invest in this kind of sport.

All out, quality entertainment with a deep-rooted presence in communities, with a modern slant (PDRL, LDRL, Wheelchair, Womens RL) should be where we are playing.

I think that's a fair point, and I don't think RL has really understood what its value proposition is to sponsors in an era where they can buy targeted media very easily and very cheaply thanks to the digitisation of the ad industry. If you look at RL, we're very inconsistent on relatively simple things like whether or not we provide digital on-pitch branding - it's the sort of stuff where, if the main sponsor wasn't a "good mate", you'd be seriously frustrating. There were good things going on at Magic with sponsors and the interactive elements, but it's all very flash in the pan. 

Your last point is bang on for me and at the risk of trotting out another anecdote, I'm a marketing budget holder for the UK-arm of one of France's biggest companies and we are involved in RL through PD/LD and Wheelchair RL for exactly the reasons you cite. People will have seen our logo at Magic Weekend, but that's not why we do it - we do it because that community engagement is a lot more valuable than the flashes of screen time.

Now, we get very well looked after by the club we partner with and have a brilliant relationship with them, but for all the talk about "the French teams don't bring any French sponsors", I've not had a single email, call, meeting request or invite from anyone at RLC in the three years that we've had that partnership. We aren't in competition with any other SL partner, we're already involved in RL - it strikes me that if someone was in RLC and tasked with bringing partners into RL, I'd at least be worth a conversation with. But apparently not. 

Sometimes this sport misses opportunities right in front of its nose. 

Edited July 6 by whatmichaelsays

[Henson Park Old Firm]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think that's a fair point, and I don't think RL has really understood what its value proposition is to sponsors in an era where they can buy targeted media very easily and very cheaply thanks to the digitisation of the ad industry. If you look at RL, we're very inconsistent on relatively simple things like whether or not we provide digital on-pitch branding - it's the sort of stuff where, if the main sponsor wasn't a "good mate", you'd be seriously frustrating. There were good things going on at Magic with sponsors and the interactive elements, but it's all very flash in the pan. 

Your last point is bang on for me and at the risk of trotting out another anecdote, I'm a marketing budget holder for the UK-arm of one of France's biggest companies and we are involved in RL through PD/LD and Wheelchair RL for exactly the reasons you cite. People will have seen our logo at Magic Weekend, but that's not why we do it - we do it because that community engagement is a lot more valuable than the flashes of screen time.

Now, we get very well looked after by the club we partner with and have a brilliant relationship with them, but for all the talk about "the French teams don't bring any French sponsors", I've not had a single email, call, meeting request or invite from anyone at RLC in the three years that we've had that partnership. We aren't in competition with any other SL partner, we're already involved in RL - it strikes me that if someone was in RLC and tasked with bringing partners into RL, I'd at least be worth a conversation with. But apparently not. 

Sometimes this sport missed opportunities right in front of its nose. 

Well if the Super League had half a brain, they could have convinced and signed a  lucrative deal with a French beer company like 1664. Even though alcohol can't be shown in France, they can in the UK.

[whatmichaelsays]

2 minutes ago, Henson Park Old Firm said:

Well if the Super League had half a brain, they could have convinced and signed a  lucrative deal with a French beer company like 1664. Even though alcohol can't be shown in France, they can in the UK.

Alcohol advertising laws doesn't seem to stop other sports from attracting partners whilst operating in jurisdictions where it's prohibited. And even in France it's perfectly legal to advertise 0% variants - you'll see Heineken 0.0 advertising at French football matches and across various F1 races in the Middle East. 

Edited July 6 by whatmichaelsays

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Alcohol advertising laws doesn't seem to stop other sports from attracting partners whilst operating in jurisdictions where it's prohibited. And even in France it's perfectly legal to advertise 0% variants - you'll see Heineken 0.0 advertising at French football matches and across various F1 races in the Middle East. 

I think its a sign of how much RL has fallen from the days of "fags and booze" sponsorship, that none of the major beer brands (Guinness, Heineken, Peroni, Carling, Moretti, Strongbow etc) have come back in with their 0% branding (which is clearly a loophole for the main product).

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I think its a sign of how much RL has fallen from the days of "fags and booze" sponsorship, that none of the major beer brands (Guinness, Heineken, Peroni, Carling, Moretti, Strongbow etc) have come back in with their 0% branding (which is clearly a loophole for the main product).

It's possible that ABK has an exclusivity as "Official Beer of Super League" and they have also shown support for other RL properties (The Ashes and CC). I don't know what the deal is worth in cash terms and you can have the debate about whether we rely too much on a small pool of partners, but there's value in having engaged partners. 

No idea if they have a 0% alternative that could be advertised in France. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

It's possible that ABK has an exclusivity as "Official Beer of Super League" and they have also shown support for other RL properties (The Ashes and CC). I don't know what the deal is worth in cash terms and you can have the debate about whether we rely too much on a small pool of partners, but there's value in having engaged partners. 

No idea if they have a 0% alternative that could be advertised in France. 

I didnt see ABK with a presence in the fanzone this weekend. Feels like that would be something they'd do. 

I may have just missed them tbf.

[whatmichaelsays]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I didnt see ABK with a presence in the fanzone this weekend. Feels like that would be something they'd do. 

I may have just missed them tbf.

I didn't, but I can't say I looked for them. 

Although it wouldn't surprise me if the commercial deals with the venue might make it complicated. 

[RigbyLuger]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I didnt see ABK with a presence in the fanzone this weekend. Feels like that would be something they'd do. 

I may have just missed them tbf.

There was an ABK bar down one of the sides of the stadium, where other food outlets where.