• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Six Nations Rugby going behind a TV paywall

Rubbish.

If the leagues are on one sub, european games on another the 6N on another, while the autumn internationals are on yet another sub - then folks just won't buy them all and will not view.

I have netflix for the kids and amazon for deliveries. If games aren't on these, I'm not gonna bother acquiring whatever they are on. I already miss out on the Heineken Cup and much of URC. So be it.

I'm absolutely sure there will be others in the opposite positions, with BT sport, or Sky or ANOther.

Ultimately, going behind a paywall will fragment the viewership and will lead to declined mindshare.
Ok, so firstly let me point out I'm not advocating for subscription services, TV is dying.

Secondly and most importantly, despite every GB claiming the game is growing, viewership isn't increasing, it's just utilising new audiences in a desperate attempt to stay relevant


Look at the URC, making big claims that TV audiences have exploded every few years since inception lol. Ignoring the fact a new Italian and then SA market was added, viewership of URC games in Wales and Scotland has dropped, and Ireland have maintained barely.

Lastly, sports like MMA have exploded, despite there being multiple companies, on different platforms, promoting different types of the sport, UFC being the big one. Why has MMA blown past Rugby in global market share of Audience? Because it is lead by a younger audience, who want to see brutal gladitorial co.petition, and organisers have marketed it to them in a 2020s style manner, rugby has gone the opposite direction, making it less impact full, less gladitorial, more technical and overly complicated, while arguing about the scraps of audience left.
 
Slightly off topic, but this is part of the problem with the subscription model. They need to keep pumping content to gain new people and keep those they have. The rate they need to do this however is not sustainable and their answer to this (of course) is to drop the quality and hope viewers don't notice. Looks great in a marketing pitch though doesn't it? "30 exclusive shows/films".

For me, Rugby is not in a very healthy position and hiding itself behind paywalls will not help visibility or interest in the sport.
Again, 'HIDING BEHIND A PAYWALL' actually just means remaining behind the enforced paywall that is dying out, and excluding a new generation of fans.

If 8% of 18 to 24 year olds subscribe to TV license, and it's decreasing year on year, what would be the positive of staying?

If you had money in gold, and it lost 8% per year, how long would you keep pumping mo ey in?
 
Again, 'HIDING BEHIND A PAYWALL' actually just means remaining behind the enforced paywall that is dying out, and excluding a new generation of fans.

If 8% of 18 to 24 year olds subscribe to TV license, and it's decreasing year on year, what would be the positive of staying?

If you had money in gold, and it lost 8% per year, how long would you keep pumping mo ey in?
What do you think the answer is then? Because neither will work.
 
What do you think the answer is then? Because neither will work.
I agree, I don't think TV deals will make a difference.

IMHO rugby needs to radically change, becoming overly complex, technical and apologetic for the violence are major issues IMHO.

In the short term, rugby needs to look into 2025, as opposed to 2003. A social media strategy that is progressive would be a start.

Compare the rise of someone like Mr Beast, who promotes use of his content, by everyone regardless of intent, to world rugby restricting any use of the previous RWC footage. The RWC was hidden outside of very poor quality World rugby highlight videos. Not only does this stop accessibility, it hurts rugby's reputation.

That's where I'd start, I'd sell the rights to live games to the highest bidder to start, with a view to consolidate all rugby onto one platform eventually, rugby doesn't have the popularity of football or the draw to audiences... but it could!

Moving the European game to a club ownership model from union needs to be reversed, we all need to sing from the same hymn sheet, and linking league, European and 6N back together would be a good start.

Sadly, unification won't work, rugby is too far on the skids and everyone is scrambling for the crumbs, it's in survival mode for most ( France and Ireland aside are the last to be dragged into the doldrums, but it's coming).
 
I agree, I don't think TV deals will make a difference.

IMHO rugby needs to radically change, becoming overly complex, technical and apologetic for the violence are major issues IMHO.

In the short term, rugby needs to look into 2025, as opposed to 2003. A social media strategy that is progressive would be a start.

Compare the rise of someone like Mr Beast, who promotes use of his content, by everyone regardless of intent, to world rugby restricting any use of the previous RWC footage. The RWC was hidden outside of very poor quality World rugby highlight videos. Not only does this stop accessibility, it hurts rugby's reputation.

That's where I'd start, I'd sell the rights to live games to the highest bidder to start, with a view to consolidate all rugby onto one platform eventually, rugby doesn't have the popularity of football or the draw to audiences... but it could!

Moving the European game to a club ownership model from union needs to be reversed, we all need to sing from the same hymn sheet, and linking league, European and 6N back together would be a good start.

Sadly, unification won't work, rugby is too far on the skids and everyone is scrambling for the crumbs, it's in survival mode for most ( France and Ireland aside are the last to be dragged into the doldrums, but it's coming).
Your usual positive self a see, I have to confess though I can't disagree with most of what you say tbf, ultimately rugby needs to accept there are elements of brutality and is gladiatorial, see it as part of the alure and embrace it, I know exactly where you are coming from with the rights stuff itself and the paywall really not being the thing it is made out to be, whilst I'm from a different era and it may no be longer be relevant, my dad was a huge football fan which I played and watched, 6 nations was my only real gateway to the sport initially so does not having it available to all take some of that away? I'm not sure either way tbh.
 
I agree, I don't think TV deals will make a difference.

IMHO rugby needs to radically change, becoming overly complex, technical and apologetic for the violence are major issues IMHO.

The violence in the sport only became an issue when they decided looking part troll was a requirement to play. Not only does this cause violent issues, it also creates a barrier of entry for people who would like to play. I do agree they need to embrace social media more as that's where the youth are, but I stand by the higher pay wall and messy way it's handled does more damage then though. It needs to be easy as possible.
 
Ok, so firstly let me point out I'm not advocating for subscription services, TV is dying.
At this point, it would be remiss of me not to point out that iPlayer and ITVx make the matches available free-to-stream.

That would certainly not be the case if they were hosted on a subscription service.

What exact viewer model are you thinking? I think the following can broadly be agreed:

- any matches more than 2 days old should have no rights enforcement and if possible made available free-to-stream (otherwise, left to amateur content creators to host as they see fit).
- any highlights of 5 minutes or less of a match that is produced after that match has ended should have no rights enforcement at any time (so immediate highlights available)


A radical thought. Should World Rugby be making (at least) one game per game week (of all professional competitions) available live free-to-stream on its website?
A single point for anyone everywhere to take in the game. Rather than dancing around channels hoping to find something.

Chase mindshare now, then move to better balance it later. You might lose a chunk of TV money - but all sponsors have a much larger viewing audience, so stadia/shirt sponsorship could go up.
 
Last edited:
Again, 'HIDING BEHIND A PAYWALL' actually just means remaining behind the enforced paywall that is dying out, and excluding a new generation of fans.

If 8% of 18 to 24 year olds subscribe to TV license, and it's decreasing year on year, what would be the positive of staying?

If you had money in gold, and it lost 8% per year, how long would you keep pumping mo ey in?

Around 90% of households have a TV licence. What subscription service currently has a market of 90% of households in the UK.

I also wouldn't frame it as a subscription service it's a legal requirement you're not getting fined, interviewed or prosecuted for piggy backing your mates Netflix.
 
The violence in the sport only became an issue when they decided looking part troll was a requirement to play. Not only does this cause violent issues, it also creates a barrier of entry for people who would like to play. I do agree they need to embrace social media more as that's where the youth are, but I stand by the higher pay wall and messy way it's handled does more damage then though. It needs to be easy as possible.
I agree with thisn100%...

I would advocate for a 5 man bench, stop replacing 25 stone freaks and make them have to last 80 mins more often than not. Weights will drop, power outputs will stagnate, and injuries will reduce automatically.

Rugby league is a more attractive prospect having more space, no monster props and a simpler to understand set of laws. It has its own issues but I fully expect rugby league to take unions market share in the next few years
 
Around 90% of households have a TV licence. What subscription service currently has a market of 90% of households in the UK.
Plus the 10% that don't probably just watch without
If you don't have sky sports you have to pirate, if you don't have a TV license it means nothing

One's a paywall the other is a pay pebble
 
At this point, it would be remiss of me not to point out that iPlayer and ITVx make the matches available free-to-stream.

That would certainly not be the case if they were hosted on a subscription service.

What exact viewer model are you thinking? I think the following can broadly be agreed:

- any matches more than 2 days old should have no rights enforcement and if possible made available free-to-stream (otherwise, left to amateur content creators to host as they see fit).
- any highlights of 5 minutes or less of a match that is produced after that match has ended should have no rights enforcement at any time (so immediate highlights available)


A radical thought. Should World Rugby be making (at least) one game per game week (of all professional competitions) available live free-to-stream on its website?
A single point for anyone everywhere to take in the game. Rather than dancing around channels hoping to find something.

Chase mindshare now, then move to better balance it later. You might lose a chunk of TV money - but all sponsors have a much larger viewing audience, so stadia/shirt sponsorship could go up.
BbC Iplayer, and ITVX are not free, you are legally required to pay 17 pounds per month for the privilage of watching them play live TV.

I would agree with you that there could easily be some rugby live streamed for free on rugby GBs websites, starting with less desirable versions, women's, u20s semi pro etc...

I'm not a marketing expert, far from it, but I beleive a lot of brands refrain from giving away versions of their products for free to not reduce brand identity. The same way Louis Viton bins 100s of thousands of pounds worth of goods per year instead of giving them away or discounting them...

Rugby has to walk a tight rope of brand promotion, because currently a lot of sports are in the black fancy section of the supermarket and rugby has a yellow sticker on it.
 
Around 90% of households have a TV licence. What subscription service currently has a market of 90% of households in the UK.

I also wouldn't frame it as a subscription service it's a legal requirement you're not getting fined, interviewed or prosecuted for piggy backing your mates Netflix.
This is inaccurate...

90% of houses are licensable, only about 67% have a TV license.

30 odd million homes in the UK, 22 mill pay for TV licenses.

This number is dropping by about 1 million per year in recent years, and has dropped by 4 odd million in the last 6 years since it's peak.

The numbers don't seem damning, except when you realise other sports are realising that the majority of this drop off is 18-24 year olds, and their trends away from live TV in general.

Interestingly, the TV license deem the 10.5% of people without a tv license as the 'evasion rate', which is a disgraceful way of describing people who are doing nothing wrong, but have the potential for breaking the law. It would be like calling drivers license holders 'possible murder rate'.
 
Around 90% of households have a TV licence. What subscription service currently has a market of 90% of households in the UK.

I also wouldn't frame it as a subscription service it's a legal requirement you're not getting fined, interviewed or prosecuted for piggy backing your mates Netflix.
84% of people in the uk interact with social media, which in recent years has grown beyond TV in general. 92% access the Internet.

The stats for 18-24 are even bigger, it's like 85% who consume sport content online, compared to 8% who only watch sport on TV.

The projections for 2028, is that 96% of people will consume social media content at a rate of average 75% compared to TV.

We are moving to a digital world, and rugby is sat on the ***anic playing an old violin with wet toes.

Just look at how Football dominates the sporting landscape in the UK, everywhere you go it's there. Footballers have 10s of millions, with some around the 100m mark, Dupont has 160k followers, Maher has 3 odd million, mostly because of dancing with the stars.

Look at the top followed rugby names on social media...the top 10 are past players who have become celebrity, 1 is an American celebrity who also players rugby.

To caveat my position, I don't have social media at all lol, I'm a member of 2 forums and technically I have a youtube account for work haha
 
Plus the 10% that don't probably just watch without
If you don't have sky sports you have to pirate, if you don't have a TV license it means nothing

One's a paywall the other is a pay pebble
This is a very well made point, except it was explained to me recently that the 'paywall' sport is hiding behind, is one tiny part of everything you get in that package.

So rugby would be behind a pay pebble, or a pay pebble along side 50 other pebbles making a wall. Remember they package multiple sports to justify the expense.

Also, the TV license will be reviewed this year and 2027, the minute revenue becomes more realistic as a subscription they will ditch the license, and charge £19.99 per 6N game.

Imagine it, 2028, you sit down to super Saturday, you've paid your 29.99 3 for 2 offer for the BBC, and Gabby has detailed how Wales lost to Italy to win the wooden spoon, France secured 3rd place by beating Scotland, and next up England will play South Africa for the GS decider...

Good times!
 
BbC Iplayer, and ITVX are not free, you are legally required to pay 17 pounds per month for the privilage of watching them play live TV.
Ok, will address this and your ongoing point (which is valid) about younger people not paying licence.

This article outlines where the funding charter for the BBC may go in 2 years. The TV licence may be gone.
In which case, everyone is paying for public-service content, whether they use it or not.


Then addressing the contradiction in your argument. Why is asking a small segment of society to pay a ~£14 /month for BBC so unpalatable to you in comparison to asking everyone to pay a similar (at best) fee to access a single subscription service which holds some of the games? The former is objectively a far better deal for everyone than the latter.
 
This is a very well made point, except it was explained to me recently that the 'paywall' sport is hiding behind, is one tiny part of everything you get in that package.
So rugby would be behind a pay pebble, or a pay pebble along side 50 other pebbles making a wall. Remember they package multiple sports to justify the expense.

... and if I have no interest in the others, can I downselect the package?

Or do I have to pay out the £30-40 /month for the whole lot?
 
Pay Per view sport has only ever properly worked in the UK for Boxing . Football has tried it more than once and hasn't made it work. I don't think Rugby will ever be able to make it work.

Currently nobody checks if you have TV license if you access BBC or ITV online but if there was no license everything will probably end up behind a properly enforced paywall of some sorts or another. And it won't all be on one service as few sports are. Football, Cricket, Tennis all split over multiple Pay Services
 
Last edited:
Ok, will address this and your ongoing point (which is valid) about younger people not paying licence.

This article outlines where the funding charter for the BBC may go in 2 years. The TV licence may be gone.
In which case, everyone is paying for public-service content, whether they use it or not.


Then addressing the contradiction in your argument. Why is asking a small segment of society to pay a ~£14 /month for BBC so unpalatable to you in comparison to asking everyone to pay a similar (at best) fee to access a single subscription service which holds some of the games? The former is objectively a far better deal for everyone than the latter.
I get your point, I'm not a TV license holder and do not watch any live TV, I wouldn't object to the license fee for any reason (outside of the criminalisatiin of non payment).

6for the record I'm not saying rugby shouldn't stay on teredtrial TV, I'm saying the license fee is dying, young people have abandoned TV, and according to viewership and participation numbers young people seem to be abandoning rugby union also. If we want to stop this trend, being progressive in brand management, marketing and targeting has to be priority. The idea terrestrial TV is free, and that's where it can be easiest accessible is old thinking, the future is not TV, it's dying technology.
 
Of
... and if I have no interest in the others, can I downselect the package?

Or do I have to pay out the £30-40 /month for the whole lot?
Course you do, but so do other fans who don't watch rugby. Until rugby has the audience to demand it's own channel, or can demand part ownership by multiple channels, it has to suck it up and take what it can get.

I feel like people think Rugbybunion is an attractive prospect, but the reality is it's a sport on the decline in most aspects.
 
Pay Per view sport has only ever properly worked in the UK for Boxing . Football has tried it more than once and hasn't made it work. I don't think Rugby will ever be able to make it work.

Currently nobody checks if you have TV license if you access BBC or ITV online but if there was no license everything will probably end up behind a properly enforced paywall of some sorts or another. And it won't all be on one service as few sports are. Football, Cricket, Tennis all split over multiple Pay Services
Very strange how boxing managed that, I'm not in marketing or anything, so no idea why Boxing works and other sports can't make it work, because I'm sure they would all do it if they could.

The new paywall is coming, 100%. TV licensing just need to work out a strategy of conversion without losing 80% of its current forced customer base
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Top