The shock of Super 14 ticket prices
By Brett McKay, 22 Mar 2010 Brett McKay is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- ANZ stadium, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, ticket prices in sport, Waratahs
Despite playing a role in bringing together a gathering of Roarers, to happen at the Waratahs-Brumbies blockbuster (ANZ Stadium, 24 April for those interested), I’ve only just organised my own tickets to the game in this week just gone. And didn’t I get a shock.
Since when have tickets to the Super 14 – and remember, this is essentially the rugby equivalent in Australia of the AFL and the NRL – been so expensive?
I’ll qualify that a little bit. Because I’ve been a season ticket holder for several years now, I buy my tickets annually for a one-off fee. And what’s more, the price has only gone up maybe ten dollars in the time I’ve had them. I’ve just not had to buy tickets individually as a result, and thus, it’s been easy to lose track of prices.
Hence my surprise to find that the better seats at ANZ Stadium for this big match are $58 for adults. Even in the next category down, closer to ground level (or up in the rafters, holding up the stadium lights), you get next to no change from $45.
As my mate and I discussed, amidst our shock and surprise at the ticket prices, it’s little wonder the crowds for Super rugby have been on their way down for the last few seasons.
Why would mum and dad take the kids to a night at the rugby, watching the best players in Australia taking each other on, when just getting in the gate is more expensive than pay-TV for a month?
And of course, that’s just getting into the ground for one game! And they haven’t eaten yet.
But then, I thought, maybe this is just the price for the ANZ Stadium game? Maybe the games at the SFS aren’t that dear?
Wrong. Same across the board.
So maybe it’s just a Sydney thing? Surely the prices in Canberra, Perth, and Brisbane aren’t this steep?
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
Across the country, prices are unbelievably high. The best seats in Perth and Brisbane will set you back $65. Canberra seems positively cheap at $51 for a grandstand seat.
The picture gets worse when you start looking at the other codes, too.
The same seat in Canberra will be nearly $18 less if you’re watching the Raiders instead of the Brumbies. The Broncos are $15 cheaper than the Reds in Brisbane (though strangely, the comparison falls in favour of the Reds as you go down the seat categories).
The same $58 seats in Sydney are around $40 for the handful of NRL clubs in action at ANZ and the SFS. For Souths’ ANZ Stadium games, the same seat is nearly half-price, at only $30.
Even the AFL games at ANZ Stadium come out cheaper, though it should be said that they run to three seat categories (with the best seats more expensive) compared to the two in operation for the NRL and Super 14.
(I’ve not done a comparison in Perth due to the completed A-League being the only other code played at ME Bank Stadium, the Western Force’s home ground. Likewise, I’ve not looked at what A-League prices were like in Brisbane or Sydney, now that the season is done.)
So at the risk of asking an obvious question, why are regular season rugby tickets so expensive? These sorts of prices might be expected at finals time in May, but in March, really?
Is it not obvious to the Australian Rugby Union that ticket prices – before we even start thinking about performance of the Australian teams – would have to be a major contributing factor in dwindling crowd numbers?
This all brought me to a conclusion (obvious in hindsight, I admit): accountants should be kept well away from marketing rugby in Australia.
Much has been written and said about the ARU’s ever-dwindling ‘war chest’ since the successful staging of the 2003 Rugby World Cup. It seems, on the surface, that the accountants have decided that the only way to recoup these losses is through the hip pocket of punters.
How else can we explain such prices in times of multiple entertainment choices for the viewing public? Do the ARU accountants seriously believe people will keep paying through the nose when there are so many cheaper options around?
The Australia A program and the much-needed Australian Rugby Championship were all done away with due to financial constraints. High ticket prices aren’t going to suddenly bring these essential rugby development streams back.
With the accountants involved, we get rugby development and growth by bottom line; what is affordable (or worse, what is cheapest) rather than what the game needs, or what the supporter can afford.
It’s incomprehensible to me that watching rugby should be so much more expensive in Australia.
Recommend this story.
Follow Brett McKay on Twitter: @BMcSport
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- ANZ stadium, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, ticket prices in sport, Waratahs


March 22nd 2010 @ 9:25am
Rugby1 said | March 22nd 2010 @ 9:25am | Report comment
I’d be happy with paying $35, get a better seat, I’d go 3 times a year and I would be happier for it. That means I can have more beer and lord behold I would start catching the train and help out QLD rail (sponsers).
March 22nd 2010 @ 9:25am
Justin said | March 22nd 2010 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Went to the Tahs v Sharks at SFS a few weeks back. Bought tickets at the ground for $20 each and sat pretty much where we wanted too. Ended up mid tier not far from the posts.
When most matches arent close to sell out just go for the cheap seats and then move around. The ground inspectors didnt check our seats once we were in the ground.
It doesnt excuse the high [rices but its a short term solution IMO.
I dont think I will be able to do that when the Rebels start though
March 22nd 2010 @ 9:44am
Rugby1 said | March 22nd 2010 @ 9:44am | Report comment
8 more home games, assuming your talking super 15…..super 15 for me means I’ll buy a membership, more home games, more games in general, 2 oz teams in top 6 every year, rebels in the comp, the price of tickets will not bother me now. It’s a far better comp.
March 22nd 2010 @ 10:06am
Brett McKay said | March 22nd 2010 @ 10:06am | Report comment
8 home games in total Rugby1, once we go to S15. Each team will play four home and four away games within their own conference, and then 2H & 2A against the other two conferences (so 4H & 4A inter-conference, and 4H & 4A cross-conference).
Hopefully membership prices don’t rise disproportionately…
March 22nd 2010 @ 10:25am
Hammer said | March 22nd 2010 @ 10:25am | Report comment
don’t think you’re guaranteed 2 teams in the top 6 every year … it winners of their conference only that get a free ride in .. and given the state of some of the rugby on display this year from the Australian sides (reds a notable exception) and the introduction of another team to water down the quality even further – I’d say it’s a safe bet that the Australian conference won’t have more than 1 representative come finals for quite a few years …
March 22nd 2010 @ 10:33am
Rugby1 said | March 22nd 2010 @ 10:33am | Report comment
I thought 2 teams from each conference went through to top 6?
March 22nd 2010 @ 10:47am
Brett McKay said | March 22nd 2010 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Rugby1, I thought that was the case too..
Hammer, don’t the top two from each conference go through to the final six? And one home final in each country in the first week??
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:00am
Hammer said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:00am | Report comment
That wasn’t the original case – I might be wrong here – but I thought only the winners of each conference were guaranteed a spot … and then it’s a free for all of the next best placed teams ….
it may have been changed – but there was certainly plenty of talk as to how the overall table was going to work – and who played who cross conference …. if it is top 2 from each conference – then why have cross conference games at all .. and that will do away with the need for 1 overall table …
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:12am
Brett McKay said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment
I have to admit Hammer, it will be interesting to see how they work out the cross-conference matches, and a matter of time shortly after before claims of ‘easy rides’ or ‘draws of death’ emerge. You can just see the outcry when someone plays (say) the Lions and Force (to use this years eg) but not the Bulls and Crusaders (again, just for eg)…
March 22nd 2010 @ 10:58am
Justin said | March 22nd 2010 @ 10:58am | Report comment
According to this site – http://www.rugby-talk.com/?p=5085
“Under the new Super 15 format the top two teams from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa will enter the finals which will be played over a three week period potentially in August each year.”
NZ are the ones who should be dirty, they have had 3 teams in the top 6 every year in the Super series bar 2.
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:11am
Hammer said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Well just to make things that little bit more complicated …. which is no surprise given we’re talking about SANZAR here … while you were finding that Justin – I found the below ….
http://www.superxv.com/format/
.. so who knows …
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:24am
reds fan said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:24am | Report comment
From everything I’ve read and also looking at the link posted by Hammer to the SuperXV site, it is only one team from each conference that is guaranteed a spot, that being the conference winner. The other three spots are based on points and can come from any country. So yes NZ, who typically have 2 or 3 teams towards the top end can get two or more teams into the finals.
In reality, a country could manage 4 teams in a final series. But I dont think we’ve ever seen one country that dominant.
The interesting thing from the link Hammer put up is the mention that the comp is suspended for the June tests and returns for finals after that. I thought the continuation of the early start date was to ensure it was completed prior to the June tests, and also that immediately after June tests we went into Tri-nats and SA and NZ started their provincial comps.
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:25am
Brett McKay said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:25am | Report comment
geez, no wonder we’re not sure how it’ll work…
March 22nd 2010 @ 12:01pm
Sam Taulelei said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Reds Fan the addition of a 15th team was to ensure that the expanded competition would run from February through to August which for Australia in particular ensures there was a visible rugby presence on the sporting calendar when their rival codes are gearing up for their September finals. The link that Hammer submitted explaining how the competition and finals series would run is how I’ve always understood it following the announcement last year. The arguments from mainly us Kiwi’s was that guaranteeiing one team from each conference a finals spot irrespective of their points tally on the overall ladder and comparative total to teams in other conferences was unfair.
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:33am
Sam said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:33am | Report comment
I hope thats not true. The Australian teams have been the weakest over the last 4 years, and they aren’t going to get stronger with another team. I hope its the conference winners plus the other top 3 ranked teams.
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:12am
Rugby1 said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Excellent can’t wait for next year!! And bugger the kiwis with their 3 in top 4, we all get 2 now!!! Far better for the game in oz and Africa
March 24th 2010 @ 6:38pm
Ora said | March 24th 2010 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
By saying that I guess your saying you don’t want to see the best teams in the finals.
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:30am
Rugby1 said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Well I’m at a loss now as to how it works.
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:37am
CK said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:37am | Report comment
Brett, I agree the accountants are not dumb; but they certainly don’t seem to put the welfare of the game first. Certainly there’s a price / attendance equation to find, but they are not finding it.
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:52am
Brett McKay said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:52am | Report comment
and CK, that’s my central theme here today…
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:38am
bazza said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:38am | Report comment
If one can not afford these ridiculously high prices to watch the rugger, then one is not welcome
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:49am
Rugby1 said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Bazza I want people to be able to afford a ticket and watch the game, I can afford it, my worry is other codes are cheaper, and don’t have to get pay TV to watch rugby.
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:57am
Brett McKay said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Rugby, I think Bazza’s taking on an upper-class persona here, to make his point (unless Bazza, you’re most very upper-class already, in which case I say welcome to my humble column and discussion…)
But yes, that’s the point that I’m making too: rugby fans shouldn’t be expected to pay any more or less just becuase of preconceptions of wealth or lifestyle…
March 22nd 2010 @ 2:23pm
bazza said | March 22nd 2010 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
The lower classes do not have the brainpower to comprehend the subtleties and nuances of our fine game and so are unlikely to attend if we paid them the $50.
I believe that we are best served keeping the ticket prices up to fund the salaries of our outstanding players and officials and leaving others to more boorish pursuits.
March 22nd 2010 @ 7:08pm
Brett McKay said | March 22nd 2010 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
Bazza, hope you haven’t spilt chardonnay on your tweed while typing this…
(Great post, for the record)