Another record year for Super crowds
The Chiefs perform the Haka after their win against the Sharks in the Super Rugby grand final (Image: AFP / Marty Melville)
Related coverage
This is a follow up piece to my previous article on the 2011 Super Rugby (SR) crowds.
Unlike last season, which was the inaugural ‘conference’ system, it was quite hard to compare the 2011 to 2010 seasons.
But now we have completed our second season of the conference system. But the question is, does the conference system work on increasing public interest?
The verdict is in, and the answer is yes. The conference system does work. Again we have record crowds this season.
At the end of the Super Rugby 2012 regular season:
Total Crowds = 2,575,158
Total matches = 120
Average = 21,460
Compared to last season’s crowds, this is an increase of seven percent.
At the end of Super Rugby 2012 finals:
Total Crowds = 2,725,929 (an increase of ~5.86%!)
Total Matches = 125
Average = 21,807
So compared to last season, this is again an increase of close to six percent.
Now the list of teams and their crowd averages and whether they have increased or decreased from last season:
Blues – 17,555 (up)
Crusaders – 17,250 (up)
Canes – 14,364 (up)
Chiefs – 17,632 (up by more than double)
Highlands – 16,655 (up)
Waratahs – 20,937 (up)
Brumbies – 14,419 (up)
Force – 13,255 (down)
Rebels – 13,914 (down)
Reds – 34,480 (up)
Lions – 23,589 (up)
Stormers – 42,671 (up)
Bulls – 33,562 (up)
Sharks – 23,984 (up)
Cheetah – 20,266 (up)
So of the 15 teams, only three decreased from last year’s figures, two from the Australian conference and one from the South African conference.
The reasons for the Australian conference decreases are easy enough to me. They need to start getting results on field, especially the Force.
They seem to have a very loyal fan-base who have stuck with them all these years even though the team struggles, let’s hope next season will see things turn around.
At this rate of growth, by the next TV deal in 2015, I would like each conference to have six teams.
Before I finish this article, a very big thank you to the respective franchises’ admin staff who all helped me in putting these figures together.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
![]()
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Where is Deans in the pecking order of rugby coaches? (407)
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (268)
- With Quade, Deans faces a real dilemma (249)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (246)
- SPIRO’s Lions Diary: Deans goes for experience, plus Folau (242)
- Australia, time to get behind the Wallabies (232)
- Wallabies 25-man Lions squad: analysis (214)
- Stormers vs Reds: Super Rugby live scores, blog (194)
- Western Force vs Highlanders: Super Rugby live scores, blog (173)
- Blues vs Brumbies: Super Rugby live scores (209)
- Well, that’s almost done it for the Tahs (176)
- Rebels upset Tahs 24-22: dash finals hopes (65)
- Chiefs grind down Crusaders to win 28-19 (26)
- Reds back to scene of Super triumph (2)
- Stormers vs Reds: Super Rugby live scores, blog (194)
- Western Force vs Highlanders: Super Rugby live scores, blog (173)
- Blues vs Brumbies: Super Rugby live scores (209)
- Has McKenzie cost Cooper the Lions Tour? (120)
- Does Quade Cooper really matter? (28)
- Rebels vs Waratahs: Super Rugby live scores, blog (415)
- Chiefs vs Crusaders: Super Rugby live scores (182)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby


August 15th 2012 @ 6:17am
Vincent said | August 15th 2012 @ 6:17am | Report comment
Woohoo, awesome news. And it was all due to your efforts K-growing the game on line and in real life.
August 15th 2012 @ 11:01am
Vic said | August 15th 2012 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Super Rugby is a tv product, the attendances are important but at the end of the day tv is a massive chunk of what makes this all possible.
So, what are the tv ratings in all the markets? It is a pay tv game in the 3 countries as far as I know, how will this improve the overall interest in the sport when you have limited reach?
A highlights package that runs even for half an hour after the games would be reasonable on free to air surely? Like they used to do when you were in the city of origin of the cricket. They blacked out broadcasts, but showed an hours highlights after 10pm of the day’s play.
August 15th 2012 @ 11:14am
kovana said | August 15th 2012 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Vic, im hoping another Roar member by the name of Emric can help out in regards to TV ratings.
Im sorry, but TV ratings to me are somewhat hard to gauge.
August 16th 2012 @ 6:17pm
simon said | August 16th 2012 @ 6:17pm | Report comment
there is a highlights package on australian free to air
August 15th 2012 @ 11:13am
kovana said | August 15th 2012 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Thanks for support Vincent. However im not sure if serious about what you are saying about ‘growing the game online’.
August 15th 2012 @ 12:19pm
Vic said | August 15th 2012 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
This is the future, online streaming of matches, highlights, stories etc.. like they do on NBA.com and the BBC did for the Olympics if you had a British ip address.
It allows you to view all games, catchup, key moments etc on your computing device. Now with tv’s being sold with internet connectivity I think it seems to be heading more and more that direction so you can directly look after your core group rather than trying to appear to the greater audience. The NBN being built in Australia will completely change the media dynamic in Oz and you can see why News Ltd is doing whatever they can to pooh pooh the concept because it makes their sister company and monopoly of Foxtel redundant. That will fare a lot worst than free to air tele, I just do not see a point in Foxtel once NBN is built.
August 15th 2012 @ 4:19pm
Angus said | August 15th 2012 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
nba.tv is a game changer and next TV deal if SANZAR seriously wants the game to grow they will launch a similar product.
August 17th 2012 @ 1:15pm
El Gamba said | August 17th 2012 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
“The NBN being built in Australia will completely change the media dynamic in Oz”.
Perhaps, however because of the cost structures, the NBN will only change life for those that can afford it in the short term.
August 15th 2012 @ 6:53am
biltongbek said | August 15th 2012 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Great work Kovana.
I am quite pleased with the SA numbers although I would have expected the Sharks numbers to be closer to 30 000.
The Lions and Cheetahs are quite good considering their home performances.
August 15th 2012 @ 11:15am
kovana said | August 15th 2012 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Bil, the Sharks average this season is 23,984, which is actually down from last seasons average of 29K+.
And yes, good to see the Lions and Cheetahs still get good crowds.
August 15th 2012 @ 7:12am
Leo said | August 15th 2012 @ 7:12am | Report comment
Thanks Kovana. The Blues and Waratahs crowds are up this year imagine what they would get if they had a decent season.
August 15th 2012 @ 11:51am
kovana said | August 15th 2012 @ 11:51am | Report comment
In deed, if the Blues were Contenders, they would rocket to maybe a 25-30K average.
Same with the Tahs IMO.
August 15th 2012 @ 7:22am
Terry Tavita said | August 15th 2012 @ 7:22am | Report comment
what figures actually say,
1. All New Zealand crowds are below super average,
2. Figures are misleading because Reds, Stormers and Bulls crowds are disproportionately higher than the other 12 franchises,
3. Bottom dweller the Lions had 25 percent higher crowds than eventual champs the Chiefs from Waikato,
4. Stormers average crowds are about twice the average Super crowds
5. Break downs of total super crowds, south africa – 44 percent, Australia – 30 percent, kiwis 26 percent..
August 15th 2012 @ 7:38am
biltongbek said | August 15th 2012 @ 7:38am | Report comment
Terry, the television numbers are closer to 60% for the South African market and has been like that for years, yet the money is split 1/3 each.
August 15th 2012 @ 3:41pm
Chris said | August 15th 2012 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
Yeah but the average income of an Aussie is $65,000, the average for a Kiwi is $36,000 and the average for a Saffa is $8,000. So going off ratings is misleading. It is a lot more valuable to advertise to someone with an income of $65,000 than an income of $8,000.
August 15th 2012 @ 3:54pm
biltongbek said | August 15th 2012 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Chris the average income of people in a country has little to do with this. You need to look at the market that follows rugby. The rugby watching public in SA consitutes about 20% of the SA population and it is the more fortunate and financially established segment that follows rugby.
From the last reports I read a few years ago when the new contract was signed the SA market brought in about 60% of the television revenue. Super rugby is not available on free to air TV and if you want to watch it you must have satellite.
It costs R750 per month which is about 80 Australian Dollar a month. 80% of the population can’t afford DSTV.
The reality is about 10 million population brings in more revenue to the pot than NZ and OZ put together.
August 15th 2012 @ 5:29pm
Darwin Stubbie said | August 15th 2012 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
The question is then why we’re SA so dumb to sign up to such a deal then …. Wouldn’t have something to do with the fact that SR isn’t the cash cow in all this – it is actually the international game and the revenue from that is driven by the ABs being part of the competition ? … At the end of the day all the partners need each other for different things
August 15th 2012 @ 5:36pm
biltongbek said | August 15th 2012 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
Why were we so dumb? Ask our previous administrators.
Perhaps Darwin Stubble, if SARU didn’t agree to splt the money equally, there would be no sustainable system for OZ and NZ to continue.
August 16th 2012 @ 1:36am
AndyS said | August 16th 2012 @ 1:36am | Report comment
Or maybe SuperSports said to them that, unless they were only paying 1/3 of the SANZAR bill for 60% of the TV audience, they wouldn’t be in a position to pay SARU big numbers for the Currie Cup…?
August 16th 2012 @ 6:30pm
Emric said | August 16th 2012 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
Biltongbek.
Super Rugby makes up only part of the money – the tri-nations/RC make up the biggest piece of the rugby pie the tv stations have said it over and over they value the international competition more then they value super rugby.
Anyway if SA didn’t divide the cash evenly Aus would collapse, NZ would do better but would be in a bad place mostly because SkyTV is reliant of Rugby to keep its numbers up and while there is no competition in NZ against Sky people would turn off Sky if they didn’t have Rugby so the two are a symbiotic relationship Sky can’t afford to let Rugby go and the NZRU can’t afford to bleed sky dry.
Aus would collapse without NZ/SA.
August 16th 2012 @ 7:04pm
biltongbek said | August 16th 2012 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
Emric, absolutely, the last I read about the revenue breakdwon said that the Tri Nations brought in about 70% of the revenue.
And it has always bugged me why SANZAR would put so much focus on expanding the Super Rugby if by revenue per match it was s much less than the Tests.
August 16th 2012 @ 7:23pm
Emric said | August 16th 2012 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
Biltong
I’m a die hard believer in expansion. If I was running the NZRU I would be backing the expansion to 16 teams and allowing the kings to be involved why? because South African Rugby is the heart which pumps the life money around NZ/Aus let them have another team as long as the original agreement is honoured until the end of 2015 and SA fund the new team out of their portion the time table is not that hard to rejig and it won’t change how many cross over games would happen.
I’m also for expansion in NZ/Aus as well as bringing in Argentina so we can start racking in the cash for their TV stations as well (as well as splitting the money 4 ways rather then 3) hopefully we will get the point of around 750 to 800 USD million in the next tv deal
August 16th 2012 @ 7:51pm
biltongbek said | August 16th 2012 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
Emirc, to be honest with you I would like to see expansion go down rather than sideways.
I don’t have an issue with having 6 teams per conference, but then it has to stop.
My personal opinion is when it comes to keeping the “super” in Super rugby we have to be realistic and realise that our countries can only have a certain number of “Super” teams.
For me the quality and intensity of Super rugby must be enhanced and not compromised ever.
So the expansion in my view and perhaps you would rather call it “SANZAR EXPANSION” is to start looking expandig down, rather than sideways.
We have the Rugby Champioship
We have the Super Rugby.
What can we do at a level below that to help these three countries produce a sustainable pool of talent by working together?
Be it a way to accommodate the Provincial Competitions or U21 competitions, or a second division competition, whatever.
But continuing to expand laterally and not building the bottom up, we will dillute the quality of the Super rugby comp.
August 19th 2012 @ 12:52pm
FraggleWrangler said | August 19th 2012 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
All this talk of ‘expansion’? I mean expansion is obviously needed in SA. They have the crowd numbers, the player numbers and the obvious expansion locations (Both the Southern Kings and the Lions in at the same time).
Australia doesn’t have the support or the depth to warrant a 6th team. I’d be more in favour of adding a Japan based team (similar time zone), or a pacific islands combined side (based in the Australian conference and administered by the ARU but playing wherever – even the odd home game in NZ). I’d love to see an Argentinian side but the logistics would be ridiculous (distance, time zone, etc)
I don’t know enough about the situation in NZ to comment on expansion there, but they definitely have the player depth. Any suggestions as to where the new franchise would be based?
August 15th 2012 @ 11:16am
kovana said | August 15th 2012 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Agree bil, it seems unfair that the Saffas get a equal amount when they contribute the most in TV ratings.
Its a hard fact for kiwis to understand, but the actual fact is that they need the Saffas more than the saffas need them.
August 15th 2012 @ 11:25am
AndyS said | August 15th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Only if Sanzar makes money in direct proportion to the TV audience. If not, then the SA broadcaster needs NZ and Aus more than anything.
August 16th 2012 @ 5:04pm
Emric said | August 16th 2012 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Kovana
I know that we need SA – but SA also need NZ/Aus its not super rugby which makes the real money but the Tri-Nations which pulls in the real ratings and provides the TV stations with a real marketable product.
August 15th 2012 @ 7:38am
kovana said | August 15th 2012 @ 7:38am | Report comment
hey sorry, but the increase in total is 6% not 40%.. also sharks crowds are actually down. please amend mods. cheers
August 15th 2012 @ 7:57am
chris said | August 15th 2012 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Very poor crowd’s considering that it’s a comp that spans 3 countries plus the South African games suffer the NRL problem with 2 big a stadium with too many empty seat’s.Rugby Union and Rugby League are not like NFL or top club Soccer or even AFL where they are playing in front of 50000 every 2 week’s.Both Rugby codes are suited to club Rugby in a 8000-16000 ground’s ala Northampton Saint”s.
August 15th 2012 @ 8:41am
Sailosi said | August 15th 2012 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Total opposite, actually very good crowds when you consider that one conference has 5 teams spread across a population base of 4 million people. Two teams(Western Force and Melbourne Rebels) are in an area that is not a tradiltional rugby area and their crowds are very comparable if not higher than the other exapnsion teams in Australian sport, i.e GWS Giants, Gold Coast Suns and the Melbourne Storm and the other factor that makes these crowd numbers amazing is the fact that the chance to attract opposition supporters is hindered due to the vast disatnces between each franchise.
August 15th 2012 @ 11:18am
kovana said | August 15th 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Why are you trying to ruin the article.
Most of the Saffa crowds are big.
You state the the Rugby crowds should be in 8000-16000 capacity stadiums…. When i have just shown you the average crowds for matches are 21K+?
Also, are you also asking for International Test team competitions as well?
August 15th 2012 @ 11:35am
Brett McKay said | August 15th 2012 @ 11:35am | Report comment
11 of 15 average crowds above 16,000 would suggest that’s clearly not the not the case, Chris…
August 15th 2012 @ 12:28pm
Justin2 said | August 15th 2012 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
Wow imagine analysing figures and coming up with 2+2 = 3.
August 15th 2012 @ 10:29pm
Spikhaza said | August 15th 2012 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
This is a really silly comment, your saying the Stormers who average 42000 people per game out of a 48000 seat stadium should be in a 16000 seat stadium.
I would say some grounds should be ‘suburban’ i.e. 25000 limit and a few are, but the big teams need big stadiums. The Reds average 35000 per game, you can’t hope to fit 35000 into a suburban stadium.
August 15th 2012 @ 9:44am
tc said | August 15th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Kovana
Good news mate ,on this side of the Tasman the crowds have been amazing ,I went to the first game at Forsyth Bar Stadium down in Dunners between the Crusaders and the Highlanders and the roof was just about lifting off.
Oh well Chris we cant all be massive in Melbourne or absolutely massive in America ,but hay after 2015 me and millions of others around the world are going to enjoy our teams smash or get smashed by there opponents in places like Tokyo ,Buenos Aires ,San Francisco and Apia ,but hay were just a small club competition so don’t mind us.
August 15th 2012 @ 11:21am
kovana said | August 15th 2012 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Cheers TC…. Dont mind chris, dont know what his problem is.
August 15th 2012 @ 12:01pm
Angus said | August 15th 2012 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Excellent article. A tad surprised that crowds were down in Melbourne this year, as someone who has been to all the Rebels home games I’m starting to see more and more regulars wouldn’t be shocked if we average 20k a game in a few seasons.
August 15th 2012 @ 12:17pm
kovana said | August 15th 2012 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Yea, just need to get a few good results together next season… perhaps a shot at the playoffs and the crowds will grow.
August 15th 2012 @ 1:49pm
Lee said | August 15th 2012 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
Any idea of the median crowds for the aussie teams? Gives us an idea of the loyalty of the fans, discounting those that only go to one or two big games.
August 15th 2012 @ 3:37pm
kovana said | August 15th 2012 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Well i cant give you the median, but i can give you the overall average of the Oz conference alone.
It is 19,349/match.
August 15th 2012 @ 3:51pm
Christo the Daddyo said | August 15th 2012 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Astonishing that the Waratahs crowds are up this year. Is that really true?
August 15th 2012 @ 6:15pm
nickoldschool said | August 15th 2012 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
Yes, was agreeably surprised too. I couldnt even recall crowds over 20000!
Just had a look at the crowds and realised than we got more than 30000 on only 2 occasions (Red and Crusaders, 32k and 30k respectively) and more than 20000 only once v the Brumbies (22k). All other games are below 20k, some under 15k too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Super_Rugby_season
August 16th 2012 @ 10:39am
kovana said | August 16th 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Thats why it is called an average.