Steve Tew getting the excuses in

[james5000]

I'm sure their initial contracts invasage the world cup and their sponsership deals take that into account. They're not losing anything or being penalised.


Comment stands about the sponsership regardless of aforementioned article.

Good point about the tours though....that said, does it not cost money to travel across the world to tour for 3/4 weeks?

That's right their current sponsorship deals would exclude The Rugby World Cup!

If countries could get promotional rights like they do in the football world cup they could potentially make more in that 2 month period than they would in a year of normal sponsorship. The Rugby World Cup is supposedly the third most watched sporting event in the world, that's big bucks right there.

 

[james5000]

No 1 team is bigger then a tournament, just as no player is bigger then a team.

Otherwise the tail is wagging the dog.

If that's the case why do FIFA allow it?

 

[monkeypigeon]

If that's the case why do FIFA allow it?

Because FIFA have buckets of gold.

I don't agree with that reasoning and I agree with mr New Zealand man that the thing should be restructured but this thread has turned into something else at this stage.

 

[Teh Mite]

If that's the case why do FIFA allow it?

FIFA however is not a model rugby should copy. Although corruption wise it's not a million miles away. In a masonistic sort of way.

 

[JW.]

I don't see the problem here? Who cares if NZ don't take part? (Except for the NZ's) a bigger chance of England winning!

In all seriously though, why aren't any other countries complaining? Or is it just NZ with the money problem? If so they need to look at how the others are able to do this without making a huge loss. If not where is all the money going? And why aren't they getting enough money in through sponsors/TV rights etc. The RWC is the 3rd most viewed sporting event in the world, that means loads and loads of money.

 

[Canucks]

I don't think that article is making excuses at all. It's definately fearmongering and a scare tactic by the NZRU but it raises valid points.

It does cost teams a lot of money to come halfway around the world for 4 games. Teams get no direct revenue for it, only whats handed out be the IRB. I can understand the IRB position on the no sponsors on jerseys but I think that they are going to have to allow it after a certain point.
If anything it will not only benefit the big nations but also the tier 2 and minnows. I mean for Canada alone, say BMO (a bank over here) sponsored Canada to attend to Rugby World Cup 2015 and could put a logo on the jersey. That would be huge, 225000 watched the replay of Canada vs France. The cost to sponsor team Canada (as pointed out by a previous poster) can't be more than 35,000-40,000 for a few weeks, add any surplus from the sponsors with a smaller amount of IRB cash and any funds from the Government and you could see some of these smaller nations becoming self-sustainable. Realistically speaking, BMO would gladly spend a lot more than 50,000 to be seen in a positive light by 225000 Canadians.
Conversly, it offers huge opportunities to teams like NZ, say a big international company like Visa offerred 10 million to the NZRU to sponsor the ABs for just the RWC.

It does make sense for the unions to have a degree of control over their finances. However it appears that the IRB wants to keep complete control for their sponsors. Hence, the minnows playing on a crap schedule while the bigger teams get a nice cushy schedule to not only control the gate revenue (which i imagine mostly goes to the IRb ) but also to maximise the number of people who watch the games thus satisfying any contractual agreements between the IRB and tournament sponsors.

Essentially, the IRB wants to keep the whole pie, citing the need to develop the game while adversly preventing the top unions from making any money due to a potential conflict of interest between sponsors. The top teams probably make quite a bit in the Autumn tests, but sacrifice that for the World Cup where they make a miniscule amount of money.
The current model is not ideal as the bigger nations don't make enough money and the smaller nations get a terrible schedule and get blown out in a few games.

In terms of the World cup being held in England and New Zealand, I can't see any better places. It's great for both countries and for the game. I think the Japan will be great to expand the sport but at some point, the World Cup should visit North or South America.

As well, I feel that there should be more games for certain nations, maybe even another pool added or 3 teams per pool make the qualifying with the team in 1st getting a bye. This allows for teams like Scotland to irk out a bit more cash before being sent home.

I am wondering though, where is this rugby is the 3rd most watched sporting event. I don't have a source ready but last time I heard the RWC final only had 14.4 million viewers. Whereas Superbowl, FIFA World Cup final, UEFA Champions league final, FA cup final, NBA final, NCAA bowl games and basketball march madness and Olympics all draw a ton of viewers.
Heck, even the 2011 Hockey Gold medal game drew at least 50 million viewers in North America alone (30 million in Canada, quite literally the entire country and another 20 million the States.)

If you would like to argue I'll go find sources but I'm lazy.

 

[james5000]

NZ alone won't be able to change the current system, but if other nations got behind it there is a chance.

Even the competing minnow nations could make a quick buck instead of needing a hand out.
The IRB probably wastes away profits any way.

 

[JW.]

I think it was over the complete period of time, not just the final match. But the whole tournament. I'm to lazy to have a look around.

*Edit* Google helped me, http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/mediazone/news/newsid=2039040.html.*Edit*

Broadcast coverage of Rugby World Cup has also doubled during the partnership with all the action from 2011 tournament in New Zealand set to be watched in over 200 countries. With a potential television audience of over 4 billion, Rugby World Cup is now firmly established as the world's third largest single sports event.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I think people are missing the point.. He isn't talking about losses from NZ hosting the tournament, he is talking about losses from taking part in the tournament, two separate issues.

As a side, how would hosting the tournament in Japan do anything for the game in the bigger picture? Would the majority of the Japanese population even care about it? If Hong Kong (with it's huge ex pat population) can't sell out one game a year between the top 2 ranked sides then how would Japan go selling out games between Georgia and Romania?

 

[smartcooky]

If the Old farts and Masons hadn't moved heaven and earth to stop expansion of the game and let Japan rightfully have the tournament, they wouldn't be losing anything at all. In fact, this tournament would probably be the biggest so far.

You are so far off the mark that its hard to know if you were actually reading the same article as me.

Firstly, Tew is not talking about the losses in this world cup. We all knew going into it that THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT and the NZRU would make a loss on RUNNING THE TOURNAMENT. Also, I don't know where people get the idea that this RWC will be a financial disaster for the IRB. Perhaps they have been reading and believing too much of the bullshit spewing from the British media. Its the same bullshit that they espoused when they said we would not have the accommodation to cope with the extra 60,000 visitors that would be coming here for the Cup. Well, there are more than 95,000 extra visitors (over 50% more than the estimate) and accommodation is not even being pressed at all. Kiwis knew this, because we are a toursim based country. We deal with over a million international visitors every year, and the RWC takes place during the "shoulder" season, when accommodation is readily available.

The event itself will run at a NZ$39M loss. However, much of this has already been recouped from the NZ$110m spent already by visitors, and conservative estimates put the total visitor spend at $780m by Cup's end; a tax take of NZ$117m for the NZ Government in GST (VAT) alone. That is more than the hosting fee.

The IRB will make a very handsome profit from this tournament. They already have the Tournament fee (£55m) paid to them by the NZ Government, and then all of the Television rights and Sponsor income stitched up by the IRB too. I expect the IRB to make an operating profit, after expenses, of about £140m; for reference, 2007 was £128m

But now to what Tew is really taking about... the cost to National Unions of going to the RWC. In any RWC year, there is a contracted international programme, a shortened Tri-Nations tournament and no June tours. To Unions like the NZRU, the ARU and SARU, these matches = dollars in the bank. Without those three tests in June and the extra Tri-Nations matches, the NZRU loses $13 million in revenue. The RWC in its current form is a burden on the national unions who support it and incurs big losses for them. Almost all avenues to recoup those loses are closed off by the IRB, teams cannot use their regular jersey sponsors, or any of their regular sponsors unless they meet the approval of the IRB, who only give it if it is one of their Tournament sponsors.

The IRB is more restrictive in this regard than FIFA, and something has to change, otherwise teams like New Zealand a Australia may not be able to afford to go to the RWC in 2015.

 

[Shaggy]

I doubt that New Zealand will stand alone on this issue now that they have made the initial stance ... if you look at the profits (or losses) that some of the major unions face on a year by year basis, let alone a world cup year, if it's a profit, it's not a big one.

The bottom line is, players still need to be paid, and the unions need the revenue to do that ... if what Steve Tew says is correct, and they've tried to get this issue resolved before, then it's probably a good thing that he's upping the anti now.

... I doubt that it will result in any nations not attending the next cup, as it will hopefully spark some dialogue/urgency on the matter

 

[FlukeArtist]

There are quite a few posters on here completely missing the point.So let me spell it out for those that can't read the articles properly.

Firstly -What Tew is saying has got NOTHING to do with hosting the tournament.

Secondly - the financial loss refers to lost earnings through sponsorship and gate takings from missed Tri-Nations games and the End of Year tour.

And just as aside to all those that think the tournament going to Japan was the right thing, and it was wrong to go to NZ; here is what I have been hearing from all the RWC tourists here in NZ over the past few weeks:
1. They cannot see the point in going to japan for the tournament in 2019 as they won't be able to tour around Japan by camper van like they can in NZ- so hence; will not be able to afford to go to Japan.
2. They simply cannot see Japan being able to make the actual event as fun as what it is in NZ (with local involvement)
3. Japan is too expensive for most.
4. Whether or not the game increases in popularity in Japan as a result of the tournament is a moot point. There is an argument that states that the game will never be all that strong in Japan due to the difference in body types between the eastern and western countries. (but thats a moot point really)

 

[monkeypigeon]

On the point of the tri-nations teams shortening their schedule, that shouldn't be an issue once Argentina join, seeing as two matches can take place in one week(end).

Allow sponsers and the only loss becomes the Tour income which I'm sure is somewhat more sustainable.

 

[Canucks]

I think it was over the complete period of time, not just the final match. But the whole tournament. I'm to lazy to have a look around.

*Edit* Google helped me, http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/mediazone/news/newsid=2039040.html.*Edit*

Ahh thanks for that. I couldn't find that on google but I might be blind.
I doubt validity of the claim but I can't prove anything and I'm lazy. 4 billion potential viewers but I wonder how many actual viewers it gets.

 

[james5000]

I am wondering though, where is this rugby is the 3rd most watched sporting event. I don't have a source ready but last time I heard the RWC final only had 14.4 million viewers. Whereas Superbowl, FIFA World Cup final, UEFA Champions league final, FA cup final, NBA final, NCAA bowl games and basketball march madness and Olympics all draw a ton of viewers.
Heck, even the 2011 Hockey Gold medal game drew at least 50 million viewers in North America alone (30 million in Canada, quite literally the entire country and another 20 million the States.)

If you would like to argue I'll go find sources but I'm lazy.

14.4 million sounds like a terribly small estimation, I am sure South Africa alone would have had 5 million viewers at least. England must have had a few million being such a large country. Cant see it having less than 20 million viewers world wide. Probably 40 million is a fairer estimation

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I've just seen that the RWC Final for 2007 had 13.1millions viewers from the UK alone, so I think that figure is way off

ITV1's most watched item was the Rugby World Cup final, with 13.13 million.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7195761.stm

 

[Dizzy]

In all seriousness, and I mean SERIOUSness, would anyone want the All Blacks to be left out of the World Cup?

 

[smartcooky]

There are quite a few posters on here completely missing the point.So let me spell it out for those that can't read the articles properly.

Firstly -What Tew is saying has got NOTHING to do with hosting the tournament.

Secondly - the financial loss refers to lost earnings through sponsorship and gate takings from missed Tri-Nations games and the End of Year tour.

And just as aside to all those that think the tournament going to Japan was the right thing, and it was wrong to go to NZ; here is what I have been hearing from all the RWC tourists here in NZ over the past few weeks:
1. They cannot see the point in going to japan for the tournament in 2019 as they won't be able to tour around Japan by camper van like they can in NZ- so hence; will not be able to afford to go to Japan.
2. They simply cannot see Japan being able to make the actual event as fun as what it is in NZ (with local involvement)
3. Japan is too expensive for most.
4. Whether or not the game increases in popularity in Japan as a result of the tournament is a moot point. There is an argument that states that the game will never be all that strong in Japan due to the difference in body types between the eastern and western countries. (but thats a moot point really)

I have done business regularly in Japan over the last 15 years. Japan is HELLISHLY expensive place to go, across the board; food and accommodation. You can stay in NZ for a week in the same class and quality of accommodation for what will get you two nights in Japan.

We have over 100,000 extra visitors in NZ for the RWC. There won't be anywhere like as many as that for Japan 2019 (once the punters see what it going to cost them) unless there is a dramatic upturn in the global economy over the next 8 years.

 

[Saintjay]

So it would seem that the arguement is based on, not being able to afford running the AB's for a six week comp and the loss of money from sponsers on shirts etc etc.

Don't get me wrong I fail to see why England can't play in a world cup with O2 on there shirts and make some money to the RFU etc.

Seems to be this is more to do with making threats to the IRB and getting money.

If it costs a fortune why not threaten to bail on the tri-nations and why did NZRU agree to allow the argentina team into the tournament. Seems a litle silly if your skint, you don't then add another fixture that is going to cost a fortune in travel, logistics and to compete.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

I personally think Tew and a plethora of other rugby administrators are bumbling idiots... The WC provides the All Blacks with a far greater revenue stream then the 13.1 million he loses off not hosting a couple of try nations games. It provides them with world wide brand recognition which is what generates big bucks in the sports industry. The WC is the one time every 4 years where rugby is front and centre, if rugby is to grow it needs the WC. This is just an empty threat Tew is using to try to get a larger share of the revenue pie generated by the RWC. Its kind of funny how he brings this up "AFTER" NZ have hosted their money losing WC and we are going to have two WC's (England and Japan) which will probably break all prior financial records.

This is the emptiest of threats.