As the 2010 tournament draws to a close, I thought I would take the time to reflect on what has been an incredibly engaging tournament filled with, at times, scintillating running rugby.
The general feeling is that rugby has made a move in the right direction, but has it?
So to get a feel for things, I have pulled together the various crowd figures from the round play for some analysis and revealed some interesting things.
Firstly, overall number of bums on seats was an astonishing 1,832,867 at an average of 20,141 per game. If that is not an indication of a sport that’s in rude health I don’t know what is.
Country records and breakdowns (Including high and low range games):
South African total 856,930 (46%) at 25,967 per game
v NZ 337,440 at 25,956 per game:
High: Saders 80,429 at 40,214. Low: Blues 42,142 at 14,047
v OZ 229,999 at 22,999 per game:
High: Brumbies 69,936 at 34,968. Low: Force 36, 876 at 12,292
v SA 289,491 at 28,949 per game
High: Sharks 74,387 at 37,193.Low: Lions 34,938 at 17,649
Australian total 513,852 (28%) at 19,763 per game.
v NZ 195,624 at 19,562 per game
High: Canes 46,317 at 23,158. Low: Chiefs 33,217 at 16,608
v OZ 132,878 at 22,146 per game
High: Brumbies 57,539 at 28,769. Low: Reds 18,023 at 18,023
v SA 185,350 at 18,535 per game
High: Stormers 47,437 at 23,718. Low: Cheetahs 29,633 at 14,816
New Zealand total 462,085 (25%) at 14,440 per game.
v NZ total 164,060 at 16,406 per game
High: Saders 38,048 at 19,024. Low Blues 29,700 at 14,850
v Oz total 140,087 at 14,008 per game
High: Brumbies 44,000 at 22,000. Low: Force 32,680 at 10,893
v SA total 157,938 at 13,161 per game
High: Bulls 30,600 at 15,300. Low: Cheetahs 23,856 at 11,928
As expected, the local derby games raised more interest than overseas teams. Not too much in the preferences for games against SANZAR partners, but then, that would depend on the local stadium size.
Team records:
Team most supported: Stormers 296, 674 at 42,382 per game.
Team least supported: Highlanders 35,060 at 5,843 per game.
Most attended game: 50,000 for the Bulls v Sharks at Loftus.
Least attended game: 3,527 for the Lions v Blues at Ellis park (I’m also sure this counted the cleaning, vending and security staff).
Most watched away team: Brumbies 171,475 at 28,579 per game.
Most unwatched away team: Force 89,572 at 12,796 per game.
So here it, the Super 14 supporter log:
Stormers – 7 at home. Total: 296,674. Average: 42,382. Stadium: 83%
Bulls – 7 at home. Total: 240,035. Average: 34,290. Stadium: 66%
Sharks – 6 at home. Total: 152,002. Average: 25, 333. Stadium: 46%
Tahs – 6 at home. Total: 145, 227. Average: 24, 204. Stadium: 59%
Reds – 7 at home. Total: 159,707. Average: 22,815. Stadium 43%
Saders – 7 at home. Total: 150,068. Average: 21,438. Stadium: 59%
Blues – 6 at home. Total: 106, 400. Average: 17,733. Stadium: 29% *
Force – 6 at home. Total: 102, 121. Average: 17,020. Stadium 83%
Brumbies – 7 at home. Total: 106,797. Average: 15,256. Stadium 62%
Canes – 6 at home. Total: 89,157. Average: 14,859. Stadium 43%
Cheetahs – 7 at home. Total: 101,384. Average: 14,483. Stadium: 32%
Chiefs – 7 at home. Total: 81,400. Average: 11,628. Stadium 42%
Lions – 6 at home. Total: 66835. Average: 11,139. Stadium 19%
Highlanders – 6 at home. Total: 35,060. Average: 5,843. Stadium 29%
* not aware of reduced capacity seating numbers.
Look at the capacity utilised and you can get an appreciation for the, at times, vast rows of empty seating in games which are actually reasonably attended.
For instance, the average crowd at the ME stadium in Perth would disappear at Eden Park.
Speaking of the Force, despite being one of the most unloved teams away, they attract a near capacity crowd on average.
Overall, though, it would seem crowds and interest are up from previous years. This is probably in large part to the return of an attack orientated game and the resurgence of the Reds on the back of it.
Recommend this story.
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:
- Rugby Union, super 14 crowds, Super Rugby
May 18th 2010 @ 1:58am
Fuchal said | May 18th 2010 @ 1:58am | Report comment
That’s a good amount of homework there. Thanks for sharing this with the Roar Rugby community. I wish more articles here (journo and user contributed) would feature this sort of interesting and useful info which will, hopefully, spark some excellent discussions in the reply comments.
Cheers
D
May 18th 2010 @ 5:59am
kovana said | May 18th 2010 @ 5:59am | Report comment
Just to add.
The Actual Total Attendance for the 91 matches for all round robin games is 1’838’198
Match AVG= 20’200
Record attendance was the Stormers vs Bulls match last weekend- 51’900
May 18th 2010 @ 6:03am
kovana said | May 18th 2010 @ 6:03am | Report comment
They should get rid of the Highlanders.. Use a promotion relegation system next year…
Hopefully the same can be done in SA with the Lions playing a relegation match against the Kings?
May 18th 2010 @ 7:09am
Kuri said | May 18th 2010 @ 7:09am | Report comment
The Force should also go, The Highlanders finished one spot higher did they not?
Only problem with Australia is they don’t have anyone to play relegation matches with.
The Central Vikings were denied a shot at applying for the 15th licence to appease their Australian Counterparts which was a blight on the NZRU they had everything that they needed Financial backing from a very wealthy Russian based New Zealand businessman as well as a great source of local talent.
What this season has shown us is that none of the Sanzar partners can cope with their allocated lot as it is.
Every year one or two of both the Kiwi and Saffa teams struggle as does one of the Australian teams and with the addition of the Rebels this is likely to only further impact on the poor performance of the lower teams.
The bottom Saffa and NZ teams really struggled ok the Chiefs were decimated by injury as were the Force however they still ended up at the wrong end of the ladder. Every year someone is going to end up last it’s the nature of the beast. What happens should the Bulls have a awful run like the Chiefs did this year will we then be calling for them to be axed?
May 18th 2010 @ 11:01am
kovana said | May 18th 2010 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Based on crowd averages…
The force had 6 home games with avg attendance figures of 17’020
The Highlanders had 7 games with avg attendance of 5843…
Hmm now you do the math… Which team did better with crowd pulling..
May 18th 2010 @ 11:03am
Kuri said | May 18th 2010 @ 11:03am | Report comment
So your telling me that a team like the Highlanders should be axed when overall their performances year in year out have been better than the Reds this year aside, the Lions, Cheetahs for example.
Or do on field results not matter kovana is that what you are telling us now?
Only teams who get great crowds are worthy of being in the competition
May 18th 2010 @ 11:12am
kovana said | May 18th 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Good crowds = money
Highlanders are mid table AND they suck with the crowds.
BUT if a relegation/promotion type system is implemented From next year then maybe fans wont take the highlanders for granted and come out in support to prevent the Team from being relegated..
OR do you think promotion/relegation is a waste of time..?
May 18th 2010 @ 11:22am
Kuri said | May 18th 2010 @ 11:22am | Report comment
How do you propose that to happen in the New Zealand sytem Kovana, do enlighten me you seem to have all the answers.
I’m not sure if you realise this but the New Zealand teams are the combined product of their Provinces, every single union is aligned to a franchise.
Your argument that a team should be relegated due to low crowd numbers is absolutely ridiculous. If there was to be any relegation match it should be the bottom two teams not the team with the smallest crowd.
No one is going to be demoted so best to shut up shop and move on me thinks
May 18th 2010 @ 11:12am
JF said | May 18th 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment
What are you blokes on about? Neither of these teams should be axed, both teams played some good rugby this year, every competition has minnows. Even with relegation you will still get floggings, didn’t Chelsea beat Wigan 8-0 the other day?
May 18th 2010 @ 11:17am
Kuri said | May 18th 2010 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Excuse me I am not saying any team should be axed, what I did say was should teams be axed their is a very strong argument to suggest a team from each country could be cut.
May 18th 2010 @ 3:01pm
sunshinecoaster said | May 18th 2010 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Well id stick with the Highlanders,i see the Crusaders are looking to snare what talent they have for next year already,the NZRU should be stepping in to do something
Main reason they should keep the Highlanders,the new indoor stadium,that could bring the crowds back if the NZRU can get a decent squad on the go,another boom time in Otago rugby such as the 90s would be great for the game
May 18th 2010 @ 6:12am
kovana said | May 18th 2010 @ 6:12am | Report comment
Oh… Do we go by ticket sales…
The bulls vs Stormers match was sold out… BUT the attendance was 48K+.
May 18th 2010 @ 8:27am
Rusty said | May 18th 2010 @ 8:27am | Report comment
As you guessed – numbers are taken from actual attendance rather than tickets sold
May 18th 2010 @ 6:32am
Matt said | May 18th 2010 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Blues reduced capacity is 18,000 I believe. So they all but sold out their home games for the season.
No doubt the good performance of the Reds, Tahs, Stormers and Bulls (and the late run of the Sharks) helped boost their attendances to a solid level. Although Saders and Bulls fans are probably a little apethetic these days!
No surprises with that the woeful performance of the Lions was matched by a woeful crowd attendance, or that the Highlanders continue to struggle. Next seasons change of format will hopefully add to a levelling of talent in NZ at least where the Highlanders might get a chance to build a competitive team.
I wonder if South Africa will ever adopt a system that allows for a more equal spread of talent across the 5 teams, instead of the big 3 and small 2? I believe the NZ model is based on equal revenue sharing for the TV money and jersey sposors (which are the same for all jerseys). The differences will come in local sponsorship and gate money.
I think the next step for the competition is surely more revenue equalisation, so you have 15 equally competitive teams off the park, leading to more entertainment on it. Then onwards to 6 team conferences and the introduction of Argentinean, Pacific Island, Namibian and Zimbabwean players into the SANZAR teams to help grow the game inside and outside the Super comp.
May 18th 2010 @ 7:08am
ohtani's jacket said | May 18th 2010 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Things are only going to get worse for the Higlanders next season. The Super 15 squads expanding from 28 to a minimum of 30 and maximum of 32 means that the NZ sides will be able to protect 28 players each instead of 24.
May 18th 2010 @ 8:50am
Matt said | May 18th 2010 @ 8:50am | Report comment
My take was that the new system is a positive for the Highlanders though?
The NZRU will evenly distribute the money to the 5 franchises and the franchises then have to pay thier squad from there. The All Blacks will get top-ups, but not to the same degree as present.
So while it isn’t a salary cap, it does mean that teams will have to balance the books and that the Highlanders should have more money to pay players and retain them. Guys like Isaac Ross will no doubt be able to get paid more to play for the Highlanders in 2010 than he would at the Crusaders (as a 4th string lock).
It will mean that players might have to take less pay to stay in a strong team, compared to what they’ll get in a weaker team. But the times of the province dictating your Super franchise are over. So Canterbury no longer have to contract players for them to play for the Crusaders. And no more strange loan back deals either.
It will also make the Highlanders more attractive in that you sign a contract to stay in the South for most of the year. So players won’t have to wait until the protection and draft stage to know where they are living next season etc. They’ll get a contract on the table for Super rugby from one or more franchises, with different pay rates. They can then decide where to play.
But essentially the Highlanders can now build a squad and afford to bring in more talent.
May 18th 2010 @ 9:07am
Rusty said | May 18th 2010 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Someone is telling porkies then as the attendance for the Canes game was marked at 23,000.. Which I am guessing is probably the full house capacity
May 18th 2010 @ 9:32am
allblackfan said | May 18th 2010 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Nope; it’s 38,000 if the Canes are playing at the Cake Tin
May 18th 2010 @ 9:43am
Rusty said | May 18th 2010 @ 9:43am | Report comment
the game was played in Aukland
May 18th 2010 @ 10:32am
SamSport said | May 18th 2010 @ 10:32am | Report comment
It was at the North Shore wasn’t it? First round match. They should have played more matches there because the Eden Park capacity was only 17500 because of the upgrade.
May 18th 2010 @ 10:37am
Kuri said | May 18th 2010 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Yes it was played at Albany on February the 12th
May 18th 2010 @ 12:23pm
Rusty said | May 18th 2010 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
my bad – got stats and what was considered “home” but not actual venue!
May 18th 2010 @ 1:07pm
Bob said | May 18th 2010 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
“I wonder if South Africa will ever adopt a system that allows for a more equal spread of talent across the 5 teams, instead of the big 3 and small 2? ”
Not a chance – the Currie Cup is still more important to South Africans than Super Rugby and no way will they let CC teams intermingle again after the lions/cats debacle.
May 18th 2010 @ 10:08pm
Barry said | May 18th 2010 @ 10:08pm | Report comment
Saying that the Currie Cup is still more important to South Africans is a gross generalisation. It’s not true for the South Africans I know.
May 26th 2010 @ 8:05pm
Wess said | May 26th 2010 @ 8:05pm | Report comment
Yup, I agree with Barry the Curry Cup has lost it’s charm over recent years. S14 is way more important, for everyone I know at least.
May 18th 2010 @ 6:55am
Matt said | May 18th 2010 @ 6:55am | Report comment
I think these figures, in a way, show why it’d be dangerous to allow All Black, Wallaby or Springbok selection for players based in any of the Super franchises. If, for example, Dan Carter could be selected for the All Blacks while playing for the Waratahs or Stormers then it opens up a can of worms regarding market forces.
Clearly the economy and cities in South Africa and Australia outweigh those of NZ, so the bigger teams (without revenue equalisation) will have more money to spend on player recruitment. People already want to see the weaker teams (like the Highlanders and Lions) getting axed from the comp, but the question must be asked:
What is being done to ensure that all teams have an equal chance at recruiting players?
How can a guy like Jaque Fourie leave the Lions mid contract for the Stormers, or how can the Crusaders be allowed to target Adam Thomson and Israel Dagg from the struggling Highlanders when they’ve already shown they have great Looseforward and Back-3 depth. How can the Tahs be allowed to pick up players like Drew Mitchell and Berrick Barnes from the struggling Force and Reds.
All of this is weakening the weaker teams more and leading (most likely) to more blowout scores and calls to axe the weaker teams. I’m not suggesting the introduction of a salary cap, but maybe Super rugby needs to look at a means of ensuring all teams and their fans have a realistic chance of retaining their stars and achieving victory?
May 18th 2010 @ 7:43am
chris said | May 18th 2010 @ 7:43am | Report comment
The Highlanders,Lions,Cheetahs and Chiefs are dragging the comp down and the comp be better without them.The Brumbies,Sharks and Hurricanes crowds have dropped off a fair bit but somethings to be done to get 25000 plus for Wellington and A.C.T. and 40000 plus for the Durban side.
The rest iam quite happy with but the name of the comp is Super 14 Rugby then we should be seeing super sized crowds esp when it’s played across 3 countries.
May 18th 2010 @ 8:20am
Kuri said | May 18th 2010 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Lets look at the stats for a moment and see how each country stacks up come end of year.
Super 14 2006-2010 20 bottom four placings four per season.
South African teams have featured in the bottom four a total of 9 times @ 45% ( Lions 5 years in a row)
Australian teams have featured in the bottom four 6 times @ 30% (Reds 4 years in a row)
New Zealand have featured in the bottom four 5 times@ 25% (Highlanders 4 years in a row)
The most compelling thing here is that even with one less team the Australian sides have a high bottom four finish ratio
Super 14 2006 – 2010 top four finishers
New Zealand teams have featured in the top four a total of 10 times @ 50% (Crusaders 5 years in row with 2 tiles ex 10)
South African teams have featured in the top four a total of 7 times @ 35% (Bulls 4 times with 2 titles excl 2010)
Australian teams have featured in the top four a total of 3 times @ 15% (Tahs on 3 occasions – 0 titles)
If there was a case for teams to be cut it could be argued that one each from both Australia, NZ and South Africa maybe two at a push for the latter. 2010 is the only year where two teams from SA have not featured in the bottom four teams.
May 18th 2010 @ 8:57am
Matt said | May 18th 2010 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Personally I think this whole mentality of cutting the worst performing teams is wrong. If we’d done that from Day one then there’d be no Reds, Highlanders, Bulls, Force, Cheetahs or Lions left now.
If we start cutting the bottom teams, whats to say that in 4 more years you’ll have some other team with less money who becomes the perenial cellar dweller. So do you cut them etc until only one team is left in the competition from each nation? Obviously that’s just Tri-nations.
If anything I’d prefer to see the competition expanded to move it away from a pseudo Tri-nations and more towards a domestic comp, which then has qualifiers in cross border finals (like the H-Cup). Add in some form of equalisation, so every set of fans has a fair chance of supporting a winner and you’d have a comp that connects even better with the supporters.
May 18th 2010 @ 9:05am
Willy said | May 18th 2010 @ 9:05am | Report comment
If we started cutting underperforming teams from Day 1 there would be no Crusaders…
May 18th 2010 @ 9:27am
Kuri said | May 18th 2010 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Matt if you read the threads I am in no way saying the bottom team should be cut as you can see from my first post.
I was replying to Kovanas claim that the Highlanders should be axed and offering statistics to support what is well known. South African teams are by far the worst performers at the bottom end of the table of Super rugby since it’s inception followed closely by Australia when you take into account they have one less team.
The competition has been diluted somewhat due to expansion however I do not believe teams should be cut however if there was to be teams cut there is a argument that 1 from each nation should go and an even stronger argument that maybe two should go from South Africa.
May 18th 2010 @ 11:07am
kovana said | May 18th 2010 @ 11:07am | Report comment
actually i should have based it on the teams that pull the least amount of crowd support,,
That being the Highlanders and Lions.. But the Lions did better then the Highlanders..
May 18th 2010 @ 11:15am
Kuri said | May 18th 2010 @ 11:15am | Report comment
They may have pulled bigger crowds but they couldn’t buy a win this year and they have been bottom 4, 5years in a row Finshing dead last in 2010 and 2008, Since expansion no kiwi team has ever come last the lowest placing being the Highlanders this year at 12th still ahead of the Force and Lions.
Look I’m no Highlanders fan but I’d rather have a team with little support who can actually win and challenge others than a team who would struggle in a club competition
It’s a little disappointing that crowd figures are the only justification that you can think of for why they should be removed from this competition.
May 18th 2010 @ 11:41am
kovana said | May 18th 2010 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Well.. money talks. Its a professional sport
May 18th 2010 @ 11:43am
kovana said | May 18th 2010 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Oh and the only other team i would want relegated would be the Lions, even thou they bring better crowds then the Highlanders… They suck too much.
May 18th 2010 @ 1:00pm
Rusty said | May 18th 2010 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
I dont know – I kind of like having an underdog who can upset the apple cart. For instance who can forget the Highlanders v Tahs this year? or against the Bulls in ’08? There are similar stories for the Reds, Cheetahs and even the Lions over years..Be pretty bland tipping if they werent part of the tournament. Besides what would the criteria be for being cut? A single season in the bottom 3? or coming last in for each region? If that was the case we wouldnt have the resurgent Reds this season as they came 13th last season…
Not everyone can win but I suppose you want teams to lose well
There was a proposal made my another contributor the other day on different tiering of super rugby. I think there is some major merit here. Need to see next years format a bit more so I can flesh the potential out a bit better
May 18th 2010 @ 7:56am
dave said | May 18th 2010 @ 7:56am | Report comment
42,382 average for the Stormers. thats got to be the biggest average in any rugby competitions.
May 18th 2010 @ 10:46am
JF said | May 18th 2010 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Yeah that is an amazing figure – albeit over only small amount of games. The other big names in terms of average home attendance (RU/RL) are the Broncos 34,587 for 2009, and Stade Francais 34,722 for 09/10.
May 18th 2010 @ 1:23pm
Rusty said | May 18th 2010 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Its actually below the average – in 2008 when the Stormers came 5th, missing out on a semi spot due to not being able to beat the Lions with a BP in the final round. The total crowd for 7 games that year was 312,877 at an average of 44,696 per game. The lowest attendance was an incredible est of 41000. Even in ’09 when they came 10th, the team still pulled over 6 games 201,747 at 33,624.
Unfortunately I dont have all the data for their home games across all the super 14 seasons but I do have numbers for 23 games of the 40 played and the overall attendance average is 40,356. I think thats a little inflated by a couple of thousand but would still put them as one of the most well supported rugby teams on the planet.
May 18th 2010 @ 8:02am
Red Rooster said | May 18th 2010 @ 8:02am | Report comment
Reds doubled their crowds this season by all reports – not bad considering they are only 1800 behind the Tahs on crowd average in 2010. Despite the Tahs “success” the fans dont seem to have been going to the Tahs games
May 18th 2010 @ 8:37am
Rusty said | May 18th 2010 @ 8:37am | Report comment
The Tahs figures are bumped up by the game versus the Brumbies at ANZ stadium with and attendance of 40,271
May 18th 2010 @ 8:42am
JK said | May 18th 2010 @ 8:42am | Report comment
So the attendance figures were bumped up by ummmmmmm………………..the attendance figures??????????????
May 18th 2010 @ 9:22am
Rusty said | May 18th 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment
haha – good point. I was trying to draw attention to the fact it was a special game played in a diiferent venue but you are right -it doesnt matter
May 18th 2010 @ 8:39am
pothale said | May 18th 2010 @ 8:39am | Report comment
“All of this is weakening the weaker teams more and leading (most likely) to more blowout scores and calls to axe the weaker teams. I’m not suggesting the introduction of a salary cap, but maybe Super rugby needs to look at a means of ensuring all teams and their fans have a realistic chance of retaining their stars and achieving victory?”
Everyone has a chance of achieving victory? I would have though the dynamic and organic nature of a league should allow that to ebb and flow. Equalising everything will make it very bland, no?
May 18th 2010 @ 9:12am
Matt said | May 18th 2010 @ 9:12am | Report comment
“Equalising everything will make it very bland, no?”
Is that your opinion, or a stir pothale?
The word “chance” was preceded by the word “realistic”, which I don’t believe currently exists in Super Rugby anymore.
I guess you go back to the age old EPL arguement, whereby only a few teams (out of 20!) have a REALISTIC chance of winning, but in that league you have other “goals” for teams (such as various European qualification and also relegation).
I guess many of our Australian posters would argue that equalisation in sport certainly doesn’t add to blandness. The NRL and AFL both do well from equalisation, as does the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB. I guess you could argue it helps in the Guinness Premiership too.
Equalisation means that it isn’t a whole decade before your team has a positive win-loss ratio (like the Reds). It means that teams only wain for a few years before being a title contender and capturing the hearts of local fans.
Teams rising and falling often is great for the bottom line of the competition really. Like the Stormers and Reds this season. After years of mediocre results they have both come good and swept huge audiences along in their campaigns. Whereas teams like the Crusaders, who won consistently ended up with apathetic fans who expect improvement year on year.
The problem with organic pothale is that it turns into a food chain. The weaker teams get their bones picked over by the strong teams (Lions in 2010 anyone!) and the gap increases.