Rugby breakaway league coming.

[Rugbyfan564]

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.

It's meant to be travelling the world visiting lots of massive stadiums. So for Europe legs I iamgine will be looking at Twickenham or Wembley for London and Stade de France for Paris.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

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.

Even one world cup which is full of c list players because all the stars are banned or boycotting it could end international rugby.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

It's meant to be travelling the world visiting lots of massive stadiums. So for Europe legs I iamgine will be looking at Twickenham or Wembley for London and Stade de France for Paris.

England and France are ready made markets but I guess half their argument to get credibility will be to develop the game wider. So Rome and Buenos Aires as tier 1 countries with largely untapped potential to grow would be candidates. US money so New York, LA, Chicago….

This partly comes back to the argument on another thread about what you want from your rugby, whether you're supporting a team or just wanting to be entertained.

But who wouldn't be interested in seeing how M Smith would go with Dupont? (OK @Leonormous Boozer, F Smith). Or seeing Ox take on Malherbe? Or seeing if Etzebeth and Itoje is the perfectly balanced pairing?

It's probably not a flyer unless WR agrees, but as the article I posted earlier says Can they afford to? Can they afford not to? Robinson now at the helm of WR certainly recognises change is necessary.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

England and France are ready made markets but I guess half their argument to get credibility will be to develop the game wider. So Rome and Buenos Aires as tier 1 countries with largely untapped potential to grow would be candidates. US money so New York, LA, Chicago….

This partly comes back to the argument on another thread about what you want from your rugby, whether you're supporting a team or just wanting to be entertained.

But who wouldn't be interested in seeing how M Smith would go with Dupont? (OK @Leonormous Boozer, F Smith). Or seeing Ox take on Malherbe? Or seeing if Etzebeth and Itoje is the perfectly balanced pairing?

It's probably not a flyer unless WR agrees, but as the article I posted earlier says Can they afford to? Can they afford not to? Robinson now at the helm of WR certainly recognises change is necessary.

Even if World rugby sanction the RFU won't be legally able to u turn and select those players until the new 8 year contract with the league is up unless it wants to compensate the Premiership heavily.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Sevens series is dying a death, they don't even do London anymore, so is there even the market for people just looking for a weekends entertainment, especially if they're going to non traditional strongholds?

You might get the novelty factor like when international games go to the USA, but not sure that'd get people watching 6+hrs of low level rugby

I just cannot see a world where this succeeds, rugby is too niche if a sport to be spending that much with no guarantee of a fanbase

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

@Leonormous Boozer
I think Ireland will be fine. Might lose some Connacht guys or the bag holders who end up in MLR.

Separately how many rugby players bring their own gate. DuPont, who plays for the best club side, is the only one I'd say boosts away attendance.

I just don't see it, at least the soccer super league kept the teams intact.

 

[Reiser99]

I honestly don't see it working.

There just isn't the market for it.

Golf - Uses existing golf courses and there is a huge TV demand for golf, so even if they don't have huge numbers attending at the course, they still can make money through TV deals and sponsorships. LIV is basically trying to take the TV market share really.

Football - The idea was the best club form a league. This had potential as the clubs already had existing infrastructure and a fan base.

Cricket - IPL is in a cricket mad country, the hundred is based on existing teams and infrastructure. I'm not sure about the big bash, but again I imagine it uses existing infrastructure and clubs and is sanctioned by the Cricket Australia. The other two are also sanctioned.

Rugby - If it's a breakaway touring league then they will have to rent stadiums out. They will have travel costs as well. I don't see them selling out stadiums like Wembley, even if they can negotiate a deal. Wembley has a capacity of 90,000 and the average premiership attendance is 12,000. Average URC attendance is around 11,000. (I'm just googling numbers, so may not be exact, but I can't believe they are much higher.) Selling out Twickenham, Murrayfield, The Aviva and the Millennium are viable because they are only a few times a year and are special. I imagine TV numbers aren't great either so getting a great deal is unlikely. Going around to other countries with no clubs will just be a novelty. Finally, I don't see how it will benefit rugby as a whole. Even if it does work, where is this money going to go? Not back to the clubs and grassroots that develop the players. It will go to the shareholders. Only potential is to increase participation, but that would be a very long term goal.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

What facility is going to be okay with 4 (or is it 8) rugby games going on in one weekend? Turf would be destroyed by the third game.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I don't like it, I can't see it working.

But we shouldn't be complacent about it either. Things need to change and we've already seen players become much more financially mercenary (not a criticism BTW).

We also don't know who's behind this, bar it being 'US'. We assume it's a corporate looking to maximise returns. But there are also plenty of very deep pocketed individuals associated with the sporting world for whom the bottom line may not be everything.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I don't like it, I can't see it working.

But we shouldn't be complacent about it either. Things need to change and we've already seen players become much more financially mercenary (not a criticism BTW).

We also don't know who's behind this, bar it being 'US'. We assume it's a corporate looking to maximise returns. But there are also plenty of very deep pocketed individuals associated with the sporting world for whom the bottom line may not be everything.

Pretty much where I'm at with it. Maybe not likely but not something to ignore and expect it to go away.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I think everyone bar France needs to ask themselves what sustainable rugby should look like in their country.

England particularly needs to take a hard look at themselves.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

@Leonormous Boozer
I think Ireland will be fine. Might lose some Connacht guys or the bag holders who end up in MLR.

Separately how many rugby players bring their own gate. DuPont, who plays for the best club side, is the only one I'd say boosts away attendance.

I just don't see it, at least the soccer super league kept the teams intact.

If the salary is that attractive most players will consider it.

 

[mdaclarke]

I just don't see a market for it. The USA already has MLR and NFL and College Football.

The only way I can see this working is if it is a massive loss making sports washing project for dictators to use to keep their populations entertained so they don't rebel.

A bit like what is happening in Saudi.

I'm in the I'll believe it when I see it camp.

 

[Which Tyler]

Trouble is, even if it works, it wil kil itself.

If this goes ahead, and the predictions are all true, it will strip the best 400 players away from their current leagues, killing the leagues, killing internationals, killing the world cup and killing the unions.
Which will suicide for the new thing in itself, because eventually, those 400 players retire, and... there's nothing under them, and nothing behind them.

Without internationals, the unions are at serious risk, which puts the grassroots at serious risk.
The professional clubs all go to the wall as there's no audience left for them, so there's no academies to concentrate and coach the best talent. No professional clubs to them pay anyone outside of that top 400 to play rugby, and spread awareness of the game.
No international game to polish the best professional players, and to garner name recognition, so that the new league would want them.
Without the world cup, world rugby goes bust, or massively denuded financially, so no growth of the game to combat all of the above.


None of which is to say that it can't or won't happen. Theyll need more than £500M, just for player salaries, but throw enough money at it, and it'll happen.
There won't be an audience for it, or at least, of enough of one to actually sustain it, but that won't matter, because there won't be any players either.
Professional rugby will be dead, and the Saudis, or whoever else, will move on to another sport to try and clean it's image up with.

I just can't see the benefits, but a whole host of risks.
But hey, some rich **** get to play fantasy rugby for a few years, whilst not actually giving a damn.