Six Nations Rugby going behind a TV paywall

[AlRums]

I think Cricket has also has benefits for private schools that Rugby doesn't in terms of being easier to combine studying and playing as well.

But cricket is played on village pitches throughout the country.

 

[AlRums]

TNT seem a reluctant with their statement today in the updated article. Welsh politicians have been demanding the Six Nations be protected in Wales and it also Welsh language issues (TNT would have to provide p it if they didn't want it on S4C or face a massive political mess). The Irish government has always hinted it could protect the Six Nations in Ireland as well.

Don't forget France and Italy, they own a third of the six nations.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

Don't forget France and Italy, they own a third of the six nations.

But not relevant for TNT who would only want UK and Ireland rights.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

 

[AlRums]

But not relevant for TNT who would only want UK and Ireland rights.

Just assume Italy and France ban all home games being broadcast to UK & Ireland that's 5 games per tournament we don't see, if they ban any french or Italian rugby that's 9 games per championship gone. Won't be Six Nations it will be triple crown only

 

[dirty harry]

This is a really difficult subject, because attitudes to 'free to air' tv and 'paywall' havnt really caught up with the reality of today's media consumption, particularly for an ageing rugby audience.

Firstly, watching live TV isn't free, it costs a minimum of £170 per year.

Secondly, license fee purchasing, and live TV viewing figures are dying.

Thirdly, the agr group that shows the biggest decline on live tv viewing is 18-24 year olds, they've seen a 40% drop from pre pandemic to post.

So if rugby is looking for new, younger, and a trend toward a bigger audience, 'free to air' is certainly not the way to go.

Most of the instances of paywall destruction of a sport like the ashes, are from times where technology hadn't progressed yet, today's world is more digital than ever. Most under 18s don't even watch a TV at all, using it for the odd movie night or gaming more than watching any sport.

Ultimately, rugby is dying, it's run by stuffy blazers, who look at someone like Dana White, who has grown the UFC from little to massive utilising 2 things, a sophisticated digital engagement strategy, and an unapologetic stance of gladiatorial brute.

I'm not saying rugby should radically reform, but as it stands it's stuck in the past, falling behind more and more niche sports in market share, with competition coming from every other sport globally, as the world gets smaller and Kabadi, Slap fighting, and Reindeer racing can provide tailored entertainment, for 2 minutes with simple to understand highlights.

I was in Cardiff prison the other day, chatting to a prisoner about rugby, he was 19, and had absolutely 0 interest in learning the 987 rules he needed to know to fully understand, he claimed he could never grab a rugby ball and pop down the park with some mates, and only 'posh fucks' watched rugby.

I couldn't argue with any of that, and that's the problem, rugby has become unnecessarily overly complicated, asks too much of people trying to participate, and has done nothing to progress the old blazer middle class hoity toity image!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Just assume Italy and France ban all home games being broadcast to UK & Ireland that's 5 games per tournament we don't see, if they ban any french or Italian rugby that's 9 games per championship gone. Won't be Six Nations it will be triple crown only

That's not how TV deals work - it's worked out with the tournament itself not individual unions

 

[Rugbyfan564]

This is a really difficult subject, because attitudes to 'free to air' tv and 'paywall' havnt really caught up with the reality of today's media consumption, particularly for an ageing rugby audience.

Firstly, watching live TV isn't free, it costs a minimum of £170 per year.

Secondly, license fee purchasing, and live TV viewing figures are dying.

Thirdly, the agr group that shows the biggest decline on live tv viewing is 18-24 year olds, they've seen a 40% drop from pre pandemic to post.

So if rugby is looking for new, younger, and a trend toward a bigger audience, 'free to air' is certainly not the way to go.

Most of the instances of paywall destruction of a sport like the ashes, are from times where technology hadn't progressed yet, today's world is more digital than ever. Most under 18s don't even watch a TV at all, using it for the odd movie night or gaming more than watching any sport.

Ultimately, rugby is dying, it's run by stuffy blazers, who look at someone like Dana White, who has grown the UFC from little to massive utilising 2 things, a sophisticated digital engagement strategy, and an unapologetic stance of gladiatorial brute.

I'm not saying rugby should radically reform, but as it stands it's stuck in the past, falling behind more and more niche sports in market share, with competition coming from every other sport globally, as the world gets smaller and Kabadi, Slap fighting, and Reindeer racing can provide tailored entertainment, for 2 minutes with simple to understand highlights.

I was in Cardiff prison the other day, chatting to a prisoner about rugby, he was 19, and had absolutely 0 interest in learning the 987 rules he needed to know to fully understand, he claimed he could never grab a rugby ball and pop down the park with some mates, and only 'posh fucks' watched rugby.

I couldn't argue with any of that, and that's the problem, rugby has become unnecessarily overly complicated, asks too much of people trying to participate, and has done nothing to progress the old blazer middle class hoity toity image!

Considering the cost of living is pretty high putting it somewhere that costs £30 a month won't exactly bring in younger people!

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Considering the cost of living is pretty high putting it somewhere that costs £30 a month won't exactly bring in younger people!

Well, apparently they don't drink any more, so they've got to spend their money on something.

 

[dirty harry]

Considering the cost of living is pretty high putting it somewhere that costs £30 a month won't exactly bring in younger people!

It isn't bringing in younger people now, that's the thing.

A study last year compared social media engagements, between cricket and rugby. Kohli had 588 million engagements, Dupont 3 million. In fact the top 15 rugby players had around 7 million engagements...

The Cricket workd cup got 3.5 million followers on the gram, while World rugby went with an app, and got 350k subscribers...

World rugby restricted content online, while cricket let accounts use it, leading to ICC getting 29 million followers...

Amongst gen Z, cricket sits 8th in global market share, rugby sits 13th, despite it being the 4th top sport for adults.

Rugby has a massive problem!

 

[dirty harry]

.


Well, apparently they don't drink any more, so they've got to spend their money on something.

Drinking is down, as is sex, as is TV viewing...

What are late teens and early 20 somethings doing?!?!?! Smoking cannabis is up, more gen z ers smoke weed than drink booze, also scarily gen Z are the most medicated generation by a mile, added the least social generation...

 

[Which Tyler]

Wow, I never knew that cricket was popular in India before

 

[dirty harry]

Wow, I never knew that cricket was popular in India before

Where did you read the word India?

 

[dirty harry]

Wow, I never knew that cricket was popular in India before

But let's say you're point is Indians inflate the cricket numbers...

Let's talk other sports stars social media engagements... golf has similar global viewership than rugby:

Tiger Woods easily beats the interactions of the top 15 rugby players from 2023 (rugby world cup year).

Let's make a larger point, Saaid Marouf is an Iranian 39 year old volley ball player...with double the amount of social media followers/ presence of Antoine Dupont when Dupont became a rugby superstar at the 2023 RWC!!!

Hopefully this highlights just one aspect of how rugby is lacking, especially in the forums young people use

 

[AlRums]

It isn't bringing in younger people now, that's the thing.

A study last year compared social media engagements, between cricket and rugby. Kohli had 588 million engagements, Dupont 3 million. In fact the top 15 rugby players had around 7 million engagements...

The Cricket workd cup got 3.5 million followers on the gram, while World rugby went with an app, and got 350k subscribers...

World rugby restricted content online, while cricket let accounts use it, leading to ICC getting 29 million followers...

Amongst gen Z, cricket sits 8th in global market share, rugby sits 13th, despite it being the 4th top sport for adults.

Rugby has a massive problem!

India accounts for that engagement alone

 

[dirty harry]

India accounts for that engagement alone

But it doesn't count for golf, or Iranian volleyball.

My point is, sports grow through a number of strategies, World rugby aren't utilising many, of any of these.

So going from a dying platform, to a pay for service isn't going to restrict the media output, coverage, or influence of a sport. There are far more ways to damage rugby's growth than this, as world rugby are proving

 

[Amiga500]

A study last year compared social media engagements

Who gives a fuk about social media engagements.

Its about getting kids on a pitch when they are 8 years old. Then keeping them there.

Which is about making it accessible and safe at underage levels to get parental buy in - then fun and/or rewarding for the kids when they are there.

The real enemy is Playstations and Xboxes not other sports.

 

[Amiga500]

World rugby restricted content online, while cricket let accounts use it, leading to ICC getting 29 million followers...

Rugby has a massive problem!

Now that I 100% agree with.

There is absolutely no reason why content more than a week old is not completely derestricted.

You could even make a really good argument about being absolutely no reason content more than a day old is not completely derestricted.

 

[dirty harry]

Who gives a fuk about social media engagements.

Its about getting kids on a pitch when they are 8 years old. Then keeping them there.

Which is about making it accessible and safe at underage levels to get parental buy in - then fun and/or rewarding for the kids when they are there.

The real enemy is Playstations and Xboxes not other sports.

What?!?!

There is this thing called money...

 

[dirty harry]

Now that I 100% agree with.

There is absolutely no reason why content more than a week old is not completely derestricted.

You could even make a really good argument about being absolutely no reason content more than a day old is not completely derestricted.

I'd go even further, once the live event has ended, there is no reason to gatekeep the content, it can only be beneficial to the sport to push its visibility