Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
Steve Tew getting the excuses in
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Canucks" data-source="post: 451972" data-attributes="member: 43938"><p>As stated before, that assertion (bolded) has been misquoted previously. I believe a previous poster clarified earlier with a link. The IRB states that because the Rugby World Cup can <strong>potentially</strong> reach 4 billion viewers, that it is the 3rd largest <strong>single</strong> sporting event. The IRB sells the TV rights for a low amount so they have more buyers and are able to attract more potential viewers thus allowing them to charge more for possible advertising. I'm very curious to see the actual results on number of viewership. Realistically, while the sport is growing, it's not THAT popular. I doubt there weren't even 4.2 billion viewers for the entire FIFA world cup. Rugby really is a marginal sport in a number of countries especially North America which has roughly 530 million people, a lot with a television. Hockey is a marginal sport </p><p>(for the entire continent, not Canada where it's a religion) and players make on average 1.2 million and it only had 50 million viewers in North America for the gold medal game.</p><p></p><p>The reason the IRB won't allow sponsors on jerseys is because it wants to control the income from the tournament and dole it what funds it feels necessary to who. From a business standpoint, the IRB is screwing the bigger nations over, essentially capitalising on they're successes (or brands if you want) but only dishing out a miniscule portion of the pie. Another reason, is that the IRB probably gets some lucrative advertising deals based on exclusivity. Say Coca Cola sponsor the tournament and have an ad come on only the be immediately followed by a Pepsi logo on the USA teams jersey, it would be a conflict of interest.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I do think a tournament in New Zealand is great for the sport, any nations that has a passion for the sport should have the tournament. As someone previously pointed out, things are ridiculously expensive in Japan and I can see there being some issues regarding attendance there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Canucks, post: 451972, member: 43938"] As stated before, that assertion (bolded) has been misquoted previously. I believe a previous poster clarified earlier with a link. The IRB states that because the Rugby World Cup can [B]potentially[/B] reach 4 billion viewers, that it is the 3rd largest [B]single[/B] sporting event. The IRB sells the TV rights for a low amount so they have more buyers and are able to attract more potential viewers thus allowing them to charge more for possible advertising. I'm very curious to see the actual results on number of viewership. Realistically, while the sport is growing, it's not THAT popular. I doubt there weren't even 4.2 billion viewers for the entire FIFA world cup. Rugby really is a marginal sport in a number of countries especially North America which has roughly 530 million people, a lot with a television. Hockey is a marginal sport (for the entire continent, not Canada where it's a religion) and players make on average 1.2 million and it only had 50 million viewers in North America for the gold medal game. The reason the IRB won't allow sponsors on jerseys is because it wants to control the income from the tournament and dole it what funds it feels necessary to who. From a business standpoint, the IRB is screwing the bigger nations over, essentially capitalising on they're successes (or brands if you want) but only dishing out a miniscule portion of the pie. Another reason, is that the IRB probably gets some lucrative advertising deals based on exclusivity. Say Coca Cola sponsor the tournament and have an ad come on only the be immediately followed by a Pepsi logo on the USA teams jersey, it would be a conflict of interest. I do think a tournament in New Zealand is great for the sport, any nations that has a passion for the sport should have the tournament. As someone previously pointed out, things are ridiculously expensive in Japan and I can see there being some issues regarding attendance there. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
Steve Tew getting the excuses in
Top
