Rugby breakaway league coming.

[Which Tyler]

So they're spending £40m on internationals, if that's split between the 8 teams then each side has a £5m wage bill before signing the additional 30+ players they need to make their squad
Sounds really viable

But they're also doubling the money of players like Dupont, Farrell, Russell, Kolbe and De Klerk who are already on a million or so...

 

[jordiev]

I just don't see this being an issue in the current climate, rugby at this current moment (in my opinion through mismanagement from world rugby) is a niche game that is huge in only a handful of nations, normally these break aways come in. Sports with large footprints and as others have stated with infrastructure in place. Rugby doesnt have that, rugby is more like cricket but without a nation as rich as India having it as their number 1 sport to drive private investment worldwide.

The sport cant even get a foothold in America never mind a privately funded supper league where your audience is limited and their is little money to be made. England, one of its biggest markets struggles to run a sustainable domestic game that it now ring fenced and still often runs at heavy losses.

We love rugby obviously, but on an international Money making level, it just isnt a factor, France is the only country that has somehow managed to get a league system that runs at a profit and increases private investment. Ireland or Leinster to some degree as well, but thats much more a region of a country being so in love with the sport they invest at a loss due to the passion for it.

Should it's be more popular worldwide? In my opinion obviously, especially 7's which in my opinion is one of the best shortened formats in sport and could easily bring in new audiences and help support 15's as Argentina have shown with their 7'ss being a pipeline into 15'.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

Saudis failed to buy game of golf – why would rugby’s breakaway fare better?

Despite what rugby’s rulers believe, the idea of a new global league with huge US investment and financial sustainability is far from the game’s priority

www.thetimes.com

 

[mdaclarke]

So they're spending £40m on internationals, if that's split between the 8 teams then each side has a £5m wage bill before signing the additional 30+ players they need to make their squad
Sounds really viable

I just don't see the market for it in the USA. Could work in the middle east though.

I think the only 2 countries that won't be hurt by this are
(a) France, the Top 14 have enough money to fight them off, and
(b) South Africa, the fans are used to their stars playing abroad, this will be another Japanese League, a place for their highly paid superstars to play, freeing up much needed places for their young talent.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

I just don't see the market for it in the USA. Could work in the middle east though.

I think the only 2 countries that won't be hurt by this are
(a) France, the Top 14 have enough money to fight them off, and
(b) South Africa, the fans are used to their stars playing abroad, this will be another Japanese League, a place for their highly paid superstars to play, freeing up much needed places for their young talent.

So basically the World Cup might become a battle between those two with every other country sending much lower quality teams.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Itoje saying the international game is his "Mecca". Which is very easy for him to say at his age and with his status and potential commercial power.

Thought this was quite an interesting take.

https://archive.ph/KTPLO

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Article kind of missed that the top 14 gives teams plenty of games to develop talent. The club plays 37 games not the players. The playoff allows teams to rotate and attempt a run at the double.

I just don't get how a team based Grand Prix system would be financially viable. Hell, just finding lodging for players and support staff would be hard. Team sports go hand in hand with community, where are teams going to build engagement?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Rugby's biggest problem has been correctly identified at least. The international game is so much bigger than the club game that the club game can't be financially viable across the board.

I don't know enough about SH to comment on that but the Top 14 works because it's an institution, many French fans would take a brennus over anything but a world cup. The URC is a great league format but not a big enough market to be a point of difference, the South Africans are in it out of necessity, it loses it's luster with less teams and the participating nations and the rest of Europe don't have the quality to replace them, most are happy still*. The prem is trying to tread water really.

Where Europe is failing is the European Cup. It's essentially turned into, at best, a two round tournament. Groups are a joke, the knockouts are low in quality in the r of 16 and quarter finals, the same teams seem to play each other year in year out.

The hierarchy in europe used to be:

Internationals
Heineken Cup / Top 14
Prem / Pro 14

It's now:

Internationals
Top 14
European semi finals and final
Prem / URC / Early European knockouts
European pool stages, they're the current equivalentof internationalbreaks in soccer, all the best players play but hardly anyone cares.

I hate everything about this breakaway, it's LIV golf minus the human rights. Taking the passion, pride and history out of sport has never worked. LIV golf's biggest star is Donald Trump Bryson Dechambeau and his youtube videos eclipse the sport in terms of viewers.

But rugby outside of France has left themselves vulnerable to this. I'll be against it if it happens and feel hard done by as a fan of a well run club that has always sought the best interests of European rugby. But equally, you can't feel sorry for the decision makers of the past 10 years. They let this happen and it's a consequence of the initial break up of the Heineken cup and every decision made in that tournament ever since to make it a secondary competition.

*Wales aside but they're primarily victims of their own failings.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I remember when I joined this forum nine years ago people were saying France putting the club game above the international game was a mistake. Well they now have a top four national team, the best player in the game, a sevens Olympic gold medal, and are the only country where the domestic game is financially viable.

You don't have a sport if you don't have a domestic league. Internationals draw 80,000 people five times a year. France has 100k+ going 34 times a year.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I remember when I joined this forum nine years ago people were saying France putting the club game above the international game was a mistake. Well they now have a top four national team, the best player in the game, a sevens Olympic gold medal, and are the only country where the domestic game is financially viable.

You don't have a sport if you don't have a domestic league. Internationals draw 80,000 people five times a year. France has 100k+ going 34 times a year.

They're the only self sustaining market in the region too (very French!) and really did a number on English rugby by encouraging them that they were the same.

Think a breakaway league really hurts Irish rugby though despite doing quite well, in terms of talent production anyway, for the past 10 years. The provinces will all have their resources cut significantly, don't know how the current pathways stay in place.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

International rugby would either die because of it or every country would have to select its players who are involved. If some did and some didn't the difference could destroy international rugby's competitiveness.

Maro Itoje makes England vow amid rebel league reports

Maro Itoje says playing for England is the priority for him and his international team-mates amid reports of a rebel league that would prevent him playing Test rugby if he joined.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[TRF_Olyy]

International rugby would either die because of it or every country would have to select its players who are involved.

Or the weird breakaway would die - which is insanely more likely

 

[Rugbyfan564]

Rugby's biggest problem has been correctly identified at least. The international game is so much bigger than the club game that the club game can't be financially viable across the board.

I don't know enough about SH to comment on that but the Top 14 works because it's an institution, many French fans would take a brennus over anything but a world cup. The URC is a great league format but not a big enough market to be a point of difference, the South Africans are in it out of necessity, it loses it's luster with less teams and the participating nations and the rest of Europe don't have the quality to replace them, most are happy still*. The prem is trying to tread water really.

Where Europe is failing is the European Cup. It's essentially turned into, at best, a two round tournament. Groups are a joke, the knockouts are low in quality in the r of 16 and quarter finals, the same teams seem to play each other year in year out.

The hierarchy in europe used to be:

Internationals
Heineken Cup / Top 14
Prem / Pro 14

It's now:

Internationals
Top 14
European semi finals and final
Prem / URC / Early European knockouts
European pool stages, they're the current equivalentof internationalbreaks in soccer, all the best players play but hardly anyone cares.

I hate everything about this breakaway, it's LIV golf minus the human rights. Taking the passion, pride and history out of sport has never worked. LIV golf's biggest star is Donald Trump Bryson Dechambeau and his youtube videos eclipse the sport in terms of viewers.

But rugby outside of France has left themselves vulnerable to this. I'll be against it if it happens and feel hard done by as a fan of a well run club that has always sought the best interests of European rugby. But equally, you can't feel sorry for the decision makers of the past 10 years. They let this happen and it's a consequence of the initial break up of the Heineken cup and every decision made in that tournament ever since to make it a secondary competition.

*Wales aside but they're primarily victims of their own failings.

This could kill international rugby because players taking party would be blocked by some of the big countries but maybe not all of them. So you might have South Africa keeping all their stars in international rugby but Ireland and England and France not.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

Or the weird breakaway would die - which is insanely more likely

Once players have left they probably not coming back to the current system. So it could take a decade or so to rebuild afterwards.

 

[Which Tyler]

Once players have left they probably not coming back to the current system. So it could take a decade or so to rebuild afterwards.

Depends how long the financiers are happy to throw 10 of millions at a product no-one watches.
If, after 3 years, the fan base is about the same as the Championship in England, or MLR in USA - but costing a hundred times as much; and the breakaway has ceased to exist; then I would imagine that those players who broke away would return to actual professional rugby, rather that find new jobs outside of the sport because they're sulking.

For rugby fans who are already fans - we have existing allegiances, and are unlikely to watch this as we'd be neutrals for every single match, and there will still be plenty of matches to watch, for which we're not neutrals. I'd expect the viewing figures to be broadly similar to viewing figures for the T14 as shown in Australia, the URC as shown in NZ, the Premiership as shown in SA or Super rugby as shown in Europe - ie. negligible.

But it'll attract new fans, because it'll have big names they've never heard of, because they're not existing fans. Non-rugby fans who occasionally watch rugby are vast in number, but the clue is that they're non-rugby fans who occasionally watch rugby. That's not going to suddenly change because there's a new league catering for people who want to watch rugby every weekend for half the year, with names they already choose not to watch play matches for teams that don't mean anything to them.

Sport is built on tribalism, history, allegiances and rivalries. Money doesn't build those, time does, eyeballs watching does.
Exeter were promoted into the premiership in 2010 - they still don't really have a rival. They're no-one's "we gotta beat these bastards" team (though they did have tall-poppy syndrome for a bit, and a bit of racism to dislike, and some weird covid conspiracy theorists to take offence at for a bit).
No-one really cares about the Welsh regions - and they're actually regional and Welsh, not entirely plastic teams with no location for a support base.

 

[Saintjay]

Some similar arguments here that were made about the 100 in cricket.

As far as I can tell World Rugby need to sanction it. If and it's a big if, they sign up 80% of the best players. Then world rugby might have to take a serious look or ban those 80% from the world cup. That or they look the other way.

Less games more money i could see why it's turning heads. As long as you probably have no issue playing In possibly Saudi or Qatar.

Still it's in the believe it when I see it box for me.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I remember when I joined this forum nine years ago people were saying France putting the club game above the international game was a mistake. Well they now have a top four national team, the best player in the game, a sevens Olympic gold medal, and are the only country where the domestic game is financially viable.

You don't have a sport if you don't have a domestic league. Internationals draw 80,000 people five times a year. France has 100k+ going 34 times a year.

That's the killer isn't it? Not supporting this idea but carrying on largely as we are smacks of rearranging deckchairs on the ***anic

Financial push comes to shove eventually.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

Some similar arguments here that were made about the 100 in cricket.

As far as I can tell World Rugby need to sanction it. If and it's a big if, they sign up 80% of the best players. Then world rugby might have to take a serious look or ban those 80% from the world cup. That or they look the other way.

Less games more money i could see why it's turning heads. As long as you probably have no issue playing In possibly Saudi or Qatar.

Still it's in the believe it when I see it box for me.

The 100 in cricket is different because it's just an additional tournament run by the governing body using existing venues and not a breakaway planning to travel the world mostly playing at venues that currently are not used for professional rugby.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Some similar arguments here that were made about the 100 in cricket.

As far as I can tell World Rugby need to sanction it. If and it's a big if, they sign up 80% of the best players. Then world rugby might have to take a serious look or ban those 80% from the world cup. That or they look the other way.

Less games more money i could see why it's turning heads. As long as you probably have no issue playing In possibly Saudi or Qatar.

Still it's in the believe it when I see it box for me.

It's a breakaway, LIV is the only comparison I can think of. It's soccer's super league idea that fell flat.

I'm worried because rugby is on the breadline whereas there was already plenty of money in soccer and golf.

For everything @Which Tyler said above, rugby is pretty vulnerable. The PGA tour was / is and it has far more history, viewers and money than rugby does.

It's naive to think that if this does get off the ground it won't irreversibly change rugby's landscape.

 

[Saintjay]

The 100 in cricket is different because it's just an additional tournament run by the governing body using existing venues and not a breakaway planning to travel the world mostly playing at venues that currently are not used for professional rugby.

In some ways but the arguments were used that nobody will back no name franchises. The true cricket fans would not watch and people have loyalty\ interest in 'County clubs' or only England and test cricket.

Does anyone really know what venues are being considered or is it rumour and speculation.