Is Super Rugby economically sustainable?

[Jaguares]

I wouldn't put the CFL and MLS in this category at all, player salaries on the whole aren't that high, and most teams do not turn a profit(or much of one) breaking even is about the best the owners can hope for.

The CFL is an all Canadian league with 9 teams and averages in the 27,000 ish fans per game range. I think it normally cracks the top ten in per game attendance world wide.

Well, that pointed to my thinking. 27,000 per game is somewhat low for you. You can't compare the NFL's numbers (Only Americans teams) with CFL's numbers (Only Canadians team), so you have to be thankful that you are part of USA, in terms of sports.

... Yes, that's helped by the fact that Canada has 7 times the population of New Zealand, a stronger economy, a better standard of living, and that the Hockey games are all held in indoor arenas, so warmth/general comfort aren't factors.

I'm not sure if Canada is too better than NZ. In macroeconomic terms yes but you have 30 million and they have 4 million, that logically indicates that an economy is bigger than the other but in terms of living standards, both countries have a similar level.

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita:

9 - Canada: 43,472
10 - Australia: 43,073
30 - New Zealand: 30,493

So Canada is similar than Australia and NZ is a small Australia with 4 million IMO. For such a small country, which inevitably limits your economy, located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and your nearest neighbor distance of 2,000 km, the standard of living is very good in NZ.

You have 2 very strong economies as neighbors, USA (300 million) and Mexico (110 million), this is a plus for your economy, you do a lot of business with these countries.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Canada is an economic powerhouse, that is not the issue here. The issue is why can't any of the SANZAR countries get a half decent crowd out to a Super Rugby game? I think the CFL is a good comparison to Super Rugby and in terms of actual attendance it is far more successful. Granted some of the football clubs are over a 100 years old but it is a more successful product at the gate.

 

[SimonG]

It's so funny a sport which is regarded in England as an upper class entertainment, rugby, is cheaper to attend than the "working class hero" sport, soccer.

Simple economics. In football demand exceeds supply so prices go up. In Rugby supply almost always exceeds demand so prices stay low. Class is a moot point.

You can't compare a HUGE country like USA with 300 millions of population with a country like NZ (4 millions) or even South Africa (50 millions)..

True...btw South Africa it's more about 4 million (population of the mainly Rugby going whites). Meanwhile Australia has only 20 odd million and Union is quite a bit down the rung in sports. None of the three nations have a big population to buffer the hardcore fans who go week in week out. NZ is the only nation where Union is the most followed sport but has only 4 million people. Similar to here (we have 6 million) and no way could we regularly get big crowds for a team in any sport.

 

[Shaggy]

Canada is an economic powerhouse, that is not the issue here. The issue is why can't any of the SANZAR countries get a half decent crowd out to a Super Rugby game? I think the CFL is a good comparison to Super Rugby and in terms of actual attendance it is far more successful. Granted some of the football clubs are over a 100 years old but it is a more successful product at the gate.

Yep, I get the issue CR, just trying to point out that:

1/ If you don't have the disposable income to attend the matches, you won't go, hence, the smaller crowd size.

2/ It's a bit of a futile exercise comparing Super Rugby crowds with North American sports.

CFL crowd size is better compared to Australian Rules Crowd size ... both sports are only played domestically, the matches between the clubs are the premium product that the fan can attend. In Rugby, the premium product is test matches, and crowd attendance is usually pretty good at those. If I had to choose between attending a Super Rugby match, and a test match, I'd attend the test match every time.

 

[Jaguares]

CFL crowd size is better compared to Australian Rules Crowd size ... both sports are only played domestically, the matches between the clubs are the premium product that the fan can attend. In Rugby, the premium product is test matches, and crowd attendance is usually pretty good at those. If I had to choose between attending a Super Rugby match, and a test match, I'd attend the test match every time.

I'm not sure about that: 'AFL crowds are world's fourth-biggest'

AFL - Average attendance: 32,163 per game

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-03-05/afl-crowds-worlds-fourthbiggest

CFL - Average Attendance: 27,000 per game

http://stats.cfldb.ca/league/cfl/attendance/2013/

'And the crowd of 100,007 at the Grand Final made it the most attended professional team sports event in the world in 2013.

The AFL ranked behind only the US National Football League, the German Bundesliga and the English Premier League for average attendances in 2013'.

 

[Shaggy]

I'm not sure about that: 'AFL crowds are world's fourth-biggest'

AFL - Average attendance: 32,163 per game

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-03-05/afl-crowds-worlds-fourthbiggest

CFL - Average Attendance: 27,000 per game

http://stats.cfldb.ca/league/cfl/attendance/2013/

'And the crowd of 100,007 at the Grand Final made it the most attended professional team sports event in the world in 2013.

The AFL ranked behind only the US National Football League, the German Bundesliga and the English Premier League for average attendances in 2013'.

No, my point wasn't the crowd figures/actual attendence, it was that because CFL and Aussie Rules are both solely domestic sports, they don't have an international component to their game. If you want to go to the best match that a particular sport has to offer, in CFL and Aussie Rules, it's a "club" game by default (because there are no internationals).
If you want to go and see the "best" rugby in a SANZAR country, you'll go to a test match (not a Super Rugby game). I am pointing out, that a comparison between CFL and Super Rugby is a flawed argument, because CFL lacks the international component to compete for the fan's dollars, that Super Rugby has.

I had no intention of actually comparing CFL and Aussie Rules ... just pointing out that they are more "alike" in terms of competition within their own code, than what Super Rugby was to CFL

 

[ABs2011]

I'm not sure if Canada is too better than NZ. In macroeconomic terms yes but you have 30 million and they have 4 million, that logically indicates that an economy is bigger than the other but in terms of living standards, both countries have a similar level.

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita:

9 - Canada: 43,472
10 - Australia: 43,073
30 - New Zealand: 30,493
.

Maybe math not your strong point Conrad? You do realize the numbers you post as "similar" i.e. NZs per capita GDP compared to Canada's, are NOT similar at all. Canada's GDP per capita is nearly 50% higher than that of NZs (42.5% to be exact) according to your numbers. Far from similar I would suggest :huh:.

On a different note, the reason I think you rub people the wrong way is you speak ignorantly of other peoples countries when trying to construct arguments.

I think if you stopped making incorrect generalizations about people's countries, presumably based on your own opinion and random stuff you read on the net, you might find you receive less animosity.

That is of course assuming you are not making idiotic statements on purpose just to provoke arguments? Maybe that is just your thing?

 

[ABs2011]

Conrad, after reading your post on NZ rugby I think you should have a good read of this if you want to understand the economic state of Rugby in NZ. Its a report focused on ITM cup rugby, but much of what is said translates to Super Rugby as well, and IMO it is a well written report.

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom...itte_rugby_union_sports_review_2013_final.pdf

The stuff you posted on NZ is largely irrelevant or factually incorrect.

 

[Jaguares]

Maybe math not your strong point Conrad? You do realize the numbers you post as "similar" i.e. NZs per capita GDP compared to Canada's, are NOT similar at all. Canada's GDP per capita is nearly 50% higher than that of NZs (42.5% to be exact) according to your numbers. Far from similar I would suggest :huh:.

On a different note, the reason I think you rub people the wrong way is you speak ignorantly of other peoples countries when trying to construct arguments.

I think if you stopped making incorrect generalizations about people's countries, presumably based on your own opinion and random stuff you read on the net, you might find you receive less animosity.

That is of course assuming you are not making idiotic statements on purpose just to provoke arguments? Maybe that is just your thing?

I said: In macroeconomic terms, Canada is bigger than New Zealand. In microeconomic terms, New Zealand has a standard of living similar to Canada

PIB = Macroeconomic

GDP (PPP) per capita = Microeconomic

Even I gave the reasons why Canada is bigger than New Zealand in macroeconomic terms (I said they have 2 strong economies as neighbors: USA and Mexico). That totals 410 million citizens (USA: 300 million and Mexico: 110 million), 410 million people who are potential customers of Canada.

Then, macroeconomic and microeconomic isn't the same. Have you ever studied Economics?

Please, Next time, you must READ BETTER

Conrad, after reading your post on NZ rugby I think you should have a good read of this if you want to understand the economic state of Rugby in NZ. Its a report focused on ITM cup rugby, but much of what is said translates to Super Rugby as well, and IMO it is a well written report.

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom...itte_rugby_union_sports_review_2013_final.pdf

The stuff you posted on NZ is largely irrelevant or factually incorrect.

I said my thoughts as a Super Rugby fan. NZ has 5 teams, Crusaders and Chiefs have good crowds in their games. NZ teams that have attendance's problems are 3: Blues, Hurricanes and Highlanders. Of those 3 teams, which are REQUIRED to improve attendance are Blues and Hurricanes because they have big stadiums in big cities, then they have an obligation to improve. Dunedin is a small town, could never have the assistance of cities like Wellington or Auckland.

As in Australia, I think Waratahs have the OBLIGATION to improve their attendance. They are a traditional team in a big city with big stadiums. Force and Rebels are new teams, they aren't required. Nevertheless, this year the Force has an interesting crowd.

 

[Shaggy]

I said: In macroeconomic terms, Canada is bigger than New Zealand. In microeconomic terms, New Zealand has a standard of living similar to Canada

PIB = Macroeconomic

GDP (PPP) per capita = Microeconomic

Even I gave the reasons why Canada is bigger than New Zealand in macroeconomic terms (I said they have 2 strong economies as neighbors: USA and Mexico). That totals 410 million citizens (USA: 300 million and Mexico: 110 million), 410 million people who are potential customers of Canada.

Then, macroeconomic and microeconomic isn't the same. Have you ever studied Economics?

Please, Next time, you must READ BETTER



I said my thoughts as a Super Rugby fan. NZ has 5 teams, Crusaders and Chiefs have good crowds in their games. NZ teams that have attendance's problems are 3: Blues, Hurricanes and Highlanders. Of those 3 teams, which are REQUIRED to improve attendance are Blues and Hurricanes because they have big stadiums in big cities, then they have an obligation to improve. Dunedin is a small town, could never have the assistance of cities like Wellington or Auckland.

As in Australia, I think Waratahs have the OBLIGATION to improve their attendance. They are a traditional team in a big city with big stadiums. Force and Rebels are new teams, they aren't required. Nevertheless, this year the Force has an interesting crowd.

You know, I only mentioned the whole Canadian V New Zealand economics stuff to illustrate that Canadians (in general) might have a few more dollars in their pockets (like some of the people from some of the other countries), than a lot of New Zealanders, and thus, show that what seems like cheap tickets, aren't actually affordable to many New Zealanders.

Much like if we were having a discussion about Argentina, where you would clearly be more qualified to comment, as you are ACTUALLY THERE, I feel that in this instance, having been born in New Zealand, lived there for most of my life, experienced trying to bring up a family on a single, low income, before moving to Australia and then experiencing Canada for a few years ... yes, I might be a little more qualified to comment than you (in this instance)

On your second point, I don't think any team is OBLIGATED to fill their stadiums. As Cooky already pointed out, the majority of the revenue comes from TV revenue ... If there was an obligation to fill stadium seats (and I don't believe that SANZAR has one), I don't see why the Rebels should be cut any more slack than the Waratahs, as it would have been a condition stipulated before a franchise was awarded.

I think you have a misconception of the Waratahs crowd size too ... the Waratahs get decent crowds when they are winning in my experience (7 years in Sydney)

 

[TRF_heineken]

Conrad,

The stuff you posted on TRF is largely irrelevant or factually incorrect.

There, I Fixed it

 

[Jaguares]

You know, I only mentioned the whole Canadian V New Zealand economics stuff to illustrate that Canadians (in general) might have a few more dollars in their pockets (like some of the people from some of the other countries), than a lot of New Zealanders, and thus, show that what seems like cheap tickets, aren't actually affordable to many New Zealanders.

Much like if we were having a discussion about Argentina, where you would clearly be more qualified to comment, as you are ACTUALLY THERE, I feel that in this instance, having been born in New Zealand, lived there for most of my life, experienced trying to bring up a family on a single, low income, before moving to Australia and then experiencing Canada for a few years ... yes, I might be a little more qualified to comment than you (in this instance)

On your second point, I don't think any team is OBLIGATED to fill their stadiums. As Cooky already pointed out, the majority of the revenue comes from TV revenue ... If there was an obligation to fill stadium seats (and I don't believe that SANZAR has one), I don't see why the Rebels should be cut any more slack than the Waratahs, as it would have been a condition stipulated before a franchise was awarded.

I think you have a misconception of the Waratahs crowd size too ... the Waratahs get decent crowds when they are winning in my experience (7 years in Sydney)

I understand what you said, bud, my comment was more for ABs2011 who doesn't understand the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics. For example, Brazil and Mexico are countries with huge economies (macroeconomic terms) but poor in microeconomic terms. Switzerland and Norway in macroeconomic terms are lower than Brazil or Mexico but in microeconomic terms they are better than Brazil and Mexico.

With respect to the other, of course no team has the OBLIGATION to fill their stadiums. It's just an expression, it's like saying: Wallabies are required to win all their games because they were twice world champions. It's an expression of course no team is forced to do so, is not a requirement, just a suggestion. As traditional teams settled in big cities with big stadiums, one would expect them to have larger crowds.

Regarding Waratahs, I know that there is loyal Union supporters in Sydney, then one expects bigger crowds at their games. In the last years they were in low and declined crowds this year have a competitive team again and the crowd has improved a bit, but one expects more from a city like Sydney, the largest city in Oceania.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Gosh, what has become of this thread...

 

[ABs2011]

I said: In macroeconomic terms, Canada is bigger than New Zealand. In microeconomic terms, New Zealand has a standard of living similar to Canada

PIB = Macroeconomic

GDP (PPP) per capita = Microeconomic
9 - Canada: 43,472
10 - Australia: 43,073
30 - New Zealand: 30,493

Even I gave the reasons why Canada is bigger than New Zealand in macroeconomic terms (I said they have 2 strong economies as neighbors: USA and Mexico). That totals 410 million citizens (USA: 300 million and Mexico: 110 million), 410 million people who are potential customers of Canada.

Then, macroeconomic and microeconomic isn't the same. Have you ever studied Economics?

Please, Next time, you must READ BETTER

Sigh.... :huh: Mate, I think you will find it is you that needs to read/comprehend better .

In my original post I clearly say the (microeconomic) GDP per capita figures you post, which you say are "similar", are NOT similar. Do that math: Based on the figures that YOU post, Canadian GDP per capita is nearly 50% greater than NZ (42.5% greater to be exact). How can you say that is "similar" IT IS NOT! That is my point!

And not that it is important, but just to answer your question, yes I have studied economics, I have studied it for 8 years and am in my final year of a PhD in economics, so if you want to go down this road, be my guest!

 

[ABs2011]

I said my thoughts as a Super Rugby fan. NZ has 5 teams, Crusaders and Chiefs have good crowds in their games. NZ teams that have attendance's problems are 3: Blues, Hurricanes and Highlanders. Of those 3 teams, which are REQUIRED to improve attendance are Blues and Hurricanes because they have big stadiums in big cities, then they have an obligation to improve. Dunedin is a small town, could never have the assistance of cities like Wellington or Auckland.

As in Australia, I think Waratahs have the OBLIGATION to improve their attendance. They are a traditional team in a big city with big stadiums. Force and Rebels are new teams, they aren't required. Nevertheless, this year the Force has an interesting crowd.

Did you read the report?
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-...2013_final.pdf

 

[RoosTah]

Australia is a very different situation, they are the only country among countries with rugby tradition, where Rugby League is more popular than Rugby Union. So this is a big obstacle for them, even NRL isn't the most popular professional sport in the country, AFL is the most popular professional sport in Australia. Despite this, they have some places with a strong tradition in the Union as Brisbane, Canberra and Sydney. Among those 3 cities, Brisbane and Canberra have interesting crowds. Last year I spoke with the community manager of Queensland Reds and he said that Union is very popular in Brisbane, even he said that attendances of Reds are similar than Broncos (The NRL team of the city). Of the 3 big teams, which have lower attendance is undoubtedly Waratahs but from what I saw, this year has improved somewhat, I hope this is a sign that the Union will grow in Sydney. Melbourne and Perth are the cities with less tradition in Union but Force has an interesting crowd this year. I think the Rebels' situation is more difficult because in Melbourne the most popular sport is the f**king footy (Aussie Rules -AFL). However, Aussies from Perth appears to be more open and willing to give an important place to the Union, I hope Force continue improving to strengthen our sport in Western Australia.

Melbourne is a funny one. Yes it's an AFL town, but they have diverse tastes and Rugby League has a great amount of support there now. On the ANZAC triple header a couple weeks ago there were games in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, and all the stadiums were pretty packed (50k, 40k and 30k capacities respectively in that order). I was at the Roosters game in Sydney and it was brilliant, but I watched the Melbourne game afterwards against the Warriors and the atmosphere down there looked absolutely immense, with the game a complete sell-out.

The NRL really is getting a heck of a lot better at building "event weekends" around these big holidays and it really makes fans want to head out. The ARU are no where near as good at doing this and their business skills in general are way behind the NRL's.

With regards to the Waratahs, the team's attendances have improved of late, but with 9 NRL teams, 2 A-League teams, and 2 AFL teams, the Waratahs probably have more competition for 'football fans' than most other cities in the SH at the very least. This means they just need to be that much smarter about engaging with fans and building that tribalism. Sadly, they've taken fans for granted for too long and failed to understand that they're trying to sell a product in a highly competitive market.

 

[Shaggy]

Did you read the report?
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-...2013_final.pdf

Yeah, I wave the white flag on this one ... I think it's a waste of time and energy to argue with someone's largely irrelevant points ... CAPITALISES "REQUIRED" and "OBILGATION' to emphasis them in the context of what he's saying, and then tells me, they are just expressions

 

[Jaguares]

Sigh.... :huh: Mate, I think you will find it is you that needs to read/comprehend better .

In my original post I clearly say the (microeconomic) GDP per capita figures you post, which you say are "similar", are NOT similar. Do that math: Based on the figures that YOU post, Canadian GDP per capita is nearly 50% greater than NZ (42.5% greater to be exact). How can you say that is "similar" IT IS NOT! That is my point!

And not that it is important, but just to answer your question, yes I have studied economics, I have studied it for 8 years and am in my final year of a PhD in economics, so if you want to go down this road, be my guest!

I said similar, I never said: 'They are equal', ok? S-I-M-I-L-A-R.

I'll show you a picture to help you understand:

Ok? SIMILAR, if you look at the map, according to the colors, Canada and New Zealand are similar, not identical. Canada and Australia are equal.

South Africa and Canada, they are different, Canada and NZ are SIMILAR. Not soooo complicated understand

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

The best part of this is that GDP per capita is actually a macroeconomic measure.

Regardless, as ABs2011 has pointed out, Canada's GDP per capita is roughly 50% higher than NZ's. You can use charts all you want, Conrad, but I think most people will agree that a 50% difference is pretty major. Even with a 25% difference I'd be tempted to say that's not similar, 50% is nowhere near. It effectively means that Canada could spend 1.5 times as much as NZ on rugby (if you look at it in very basic terms).

 

[Jaguares]

The best part of this is that GDP per capita is actually a macroeconomic measure.

Regardless, as ABs2011 has pointed out, Canada's GDP per capita is roughly 50% higher than NZ's. You can use charts all you want, Conrad, but I think most people will agree that a 50% difference is pretty major. Even with a 25% difference I'd be tempted to say that's not similar, 50% is nowhere near. It effectively means that Canada could spend 1.5 times as much as NZ on rugby (if you look at it in very basic terms).

If we are to make a CAREFUL analysis we will be hours and hours. The point is that there is not much difference if you compare with ALL the world. You have to compare with other countries. NZ has a similar level of Europe, North America life (Except Mexico) and some countries in Asia (Japan). That's indisputable. I said SIMILAR not equal, S-I-M-I-L-A-R