Is the TV rights deal the best news in NRL history?
By Ryan O'Connell, 22 Aug 2012 Ryan O'Connell is a Roar Expert
136 Have your say
Dave Taylor is tackled by Gareth Ellis during the Round 21 (AAP Image/Action Photographics, Renee McKay)
Related coverage
Before you dismiss the headline as mere hyperbole, let’s breakdown the news that the NRL is set for a massive financial windfall with the new TV rights deal, and what it will mean to clubs.
Listed below are some potential ramifications from the deal, which were projected earlier in the year:
Based on $1 billion over five years to the NRL
- $120 million a year in grants to the NRL clubs.
- $7.5 million annual grant to each club – increased from $3.65 million.
- $7 million annual salary cap – increased from $4.3 million.
- Grant to be $500,000 more than the salary cap, for clubs to spend on promotion and development.
- Squads increased from 25 to 30, creating an extra 80 positions for league players across the game.
- Minimum wage increased from $55,000 to $70,000.
- $80 million to the NRL administration for staff wages, travel and accommodation costs of 16 clubs, referees, junior development and setting up a war chest for any future ‘bidding war’.
Now take a breath, and read those bullet points again.
While the financial figures quoted above may not end up being the exact amounts, they won’t be far off. Which means rugby league will be extremely well placed to strengthen its position in Australian sport.
It’s easy to be bedazzled by large amounts of cash, but what does it actually mean for the NRL?
- Firstly, with the salary cap getting a huge increase, it’s less likely that the game will lose players to the UK Super League, rugby union or AFL.
- Players that are currently playing in those leagues and codes will be enticed to return to the NRL.
- Players will not be forced into an early retirement because of a team’s salary cap squeeze.
- The NRL will also be in a better position to poach players from other codes.
- Both the clubs and the NRL will be able to spend more on promoting the game which, in turn, will bring more people to the game, generating even more revenue.
- Expansion will become a reality, and not just talk. And any expansion into Perth, Central Coast or South East Queensland will not impact on the handouts to the clubs, because the extra television revenue generated from an additional game each weekend would offset the difference.
- It guarantees the survival of all clubs, ensuring no fans or regions will be lost to the game.
- Perhaps the least obvious, but the best news to come out of the deal, is the impact on junior rugby league and development. It means that more kids, with better skills, will be coming into the game.
When it comes to the benefits of the pay day, these are just the tip of the iceberg, as there are numerous advantages to having the coffers full of cash.
But it all adds add up to one thing: an improved game.
Or, if you want to talk in business terms, a better product.
While it’s certainly not a guarantee of success – the Independent Commission will need to ensure that the money is spent wisely – it is unquestionably a fantastic foundation for the game to build on.
In the battle to be Australia’s number one football code, if not sport, rugby league’s war chest just received a healthy boost.
Ryan is an ex-representative basketballer who shot too much, and a (very) medium pace bowler. He's been with The Roar as an expert since February 2011, has written for the Seven Network, and been a regular on ABC radio. Ryan tweets from @RyanOak.
- Explore:
- Australian Rugby League Commission, NRL, Rugby League

August 22nd 2012 @ 1:32am
NF said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:32am | Report comment
It’s pretty damn good but it could of been better in regards to FTA coverage, all the ARLC should of ask 9 to show Sunday games live and put on a Saturday night game on FTA that’s it. Other than that, the deal is pretty good in particular the relinquishing of first/last rights of 9/foxtel which will help NRL come next TV deal as they will have the freedom to negotiate to whatever network first instead of going to 9 first & last. Fixed scheduling for the first 20 rounds is a win as fans can prepare to attend games in advance.
Only negative it’s the same ole same ole which sparked alot of the emotional outbursts as seen on this site, leagueunlimited, and other sites but take the emotion out of it’s not entirely bad. 6 live games (fox + 9) & only 2 delayed. Ideally they should be live but in life you win some and lose some, the NRL got some major wins in the deal but some losses to go with it that’s life.
Saturday night games would be perfect to show Cowboys game on FTA since it’s there timeslot majority of the time just like Friday Night Broncos lol. Also, the money needs to be use at grassroots league as without it there’s no foundation no matter the code.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:42am
Dayer said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:42am | Report comment
I agree NF.. the money is good but in my opinion, we, league fans have being ripped off again by NINE and now the ARLC, why is there no “LIVE” FTA game on Sat. All we ask for just 1 game. It is a bloody joke that the vast majority of fans without PTV have again been dumped. BLOODY BIG DISGRACE. AFL rules the TV land and also AUSTRALIA. and also have the intelligence over NRL.
August 22nd 2012 @ 8:26pm
Mick said | August 22nd 2012 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
Free to air TV is just that. There are fewer breaks in LIVE games and consequently less advertising throughout the broadcast. I respectfully disagree with your opinion that league fans have been “ripped off” by NINE. In business terms the network has a responsibility to cater for various demographics and although we may be league enthusiasts, the reality is that a strong percentage of the Australian population prefer alternative programming on free to air television – in particular family viewing on Saturday nights as per NINE’s current schedule. Sunday’s time slot compliments the codes comitment to grass roots football; in my town most local league and representative games are played on a Sunday afternoon and this scheduling allows for these players and their families to enjoy playing as well as watching Rugby League. AFL has a fascade of being a dominant code; you can’t argue against their crowd sizes and devoted fan bases across all clubs. It should be noted however that the AFL is strong in the condensed population of Melbourne and mainstream media constantly feed the sport nation wide. Not so much intellegence – AFL up to this point has been a more profitable business.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:50pm
Sportz said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:50pm | Report comment
According to Roy Masters in the smh…..
“It is understood Channel Ten made a serious bid of $800 million for four games, all in prime time, nationally, on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday nights. This must have been a tempting offer, given Ten would be scheduling one more free-to-air game around Australia.”
Geez, how brilliant would that have been? If that’s true, it makes this decision just incredibly ridiculous. That’s without any extra money from Fox Sports for the remaining games, so even if that wasn’t a lot, surely the total wouldn’t have been that far short of the $1billion mark.
I would have much preferred they settled for less money but got a better deal for viewers. And that certainly would have been it!!!
August 22nd 2012 @ 3:08am
Gremlin said | August 22nd 2012 @ 3:08am | Report comment
How can this deal be good for expansion when current squads are going to be increased????? Thats the playing roster of two teams.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:05am
Renegade said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Current squads aren’t going to be increased….i think Ryan is just being hypothetical with that statement.
August 22nd 2012 @ 3:10am
AndyMack said | August 22nd 2012 @ 3:10am | Report comment
Hi R’OC
i guess the issue a lot of fans will have is how well the money is spent, as you rightly point out.
The fans have to give up live coverage as well as putting up with a pretty average coverage (at least from channel 9) so they want a decent trade off in terms of junior development and national exposure, the latter im not sure we are going to get.
i am only one voice, but cannot help but feel we have given up a little of want we really want, for a little more cash.
August 22nd 2012 @ 6:51am
steve b said | August 22nd 2012 @ 6:51am | Report comment
AndyMack yes some good points their ..for the fans not much has changed its still about the same as it was extra Sunday game ,still delayed telecast ,I have to agree with Thurston they still have SOO on wed night which dosen’t give the players any rest if they want to back up for club duties ..The money is a good thing i just hope it ends up in the right places i guess its just a wait and see now ..i notice the opinion polls this morning are deadset against the nine network getting the deal …
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:07am
Renegade said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Thurston needs to suck it up…..the bloke gets $750,000 a year which will probably be a $1million now with the injection of cash into the game….and his whinging about having to go to work twice in the same week.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:27am
steve b said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Its not just Thurston that is on about a mid week game that is very taxing on players and clubs , its about player welfare,, the premeirship should be the biggest concideration ,,not SOO ,,We have seen year after year the effect Soo has on clubs and players due to injury ,,its not always about the money ….
August 22nd 2012 @ 10:00am
Ian Whitchurch said | August 22nd 2012 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Steve B.
Unfortunatly rugby league got on the SoO tiger a while ago, and it cant get off.
Yes, the NRL premiership is mostly a series of trial games for Origin for the first third of the season.
Yes, the NRL premiership is skipped by Origin players, or sat out by players hurt during Origin, in the middle third of the season.
But the reality is that the majority of Legaue fans love Origin to death, and Origin reciprocates by strangling the NRL premiership to death.
August 22nd 2012 @ 12:06pm
AGO74 said | August 22nd 2012 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
“Yes, the NRL premiership is mostly a series of trial games for Origin for the first third of the season.”
Wrong. You could pick at least 80%-90% of SOO players (injuries aside) in Round 1.
I don’t disagree that SOO materially effects the middle third of the season.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:49am
Ryan O'Connell said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:49am | Report comment
I would have liked to have seen more live games on free-to-air as well, AndyMack.
I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford Foxtel, so it doesn’t impact me as greatly as some fans. But I can’t help feeling a Saturday afternoon/night game would been a great addition to Channel 9′s coverage.
August 22nd 2012 @ 12:12pm
oikee said | August 22nd 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
That will be a nice top-up to the next deal Ryan, when we sell them a Saturday game and a couple Toyota cup fixtures.
Anything short of 1.5 billion next deal will not be accepted.
August 22nd 2012 @ 12:27pm
Brett McKay said | August 22nd 2012 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
One more NRL game and any Toyota Cup is not going to be worth $500M to a FTA network Oiks, that’s pie in the sky…
August 22nd 2012 @ 12:32pm
Hamish said | August 22nd 2012 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
Fox has retained Saturday exclusivity and Nine has determined that only Brisbane and the big Sydney clubs get on Free TV so its hardly a win for the small clubs and Storm. BTW the AFL’s SOO started to slide when Hawks Tony Hall did his knee for a year in an SOO game… If Slater or Cronk did the same thing would the RL Soo be in danger or do they just cop it on the chin…Of course SOO midweek evens up the comp because the big clubs suffer with SOO players suffer when SOO is on so good NZ players are going to become more important still…
August 22nd 2012 @ 1:21pm
mick h said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
4 more games a year live on nine 3 thursday nights and anzac day
August 22nd 2012 @ 3:29am
Steve said | August 22nd 2012 @ 3:29am | Report comment
I’m pretty sure I read that expansion would provide little value to the rights. The issue regarding losing players to other codes is a myth and always has been. If a player wants to move somewhere for money they still could. If a $100,000 a year player gets an offer to play another sport somewhere for $250,000 per year then chances are they will leave.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
August 22nd 2012 @ 7:42am
mushi said | August 22nd 2012 @ 7:42am | Report comment
also what is the percentage of players that do this?
Off the top of my head I can think of players 14 legitimately lost over the past decade (Orford, wing, Williams, gasnier, cross, tiquiri, sailor, thorne, ryan, folau, hunt, walker, rogers, king) rather than squeezed out. If if that number is tripled it’s still only 1% turnover. hardly something that need urgent attention.
And as for squeeze outs not happening, as long as there is any fiscal constraint it will happen. Wage inflation will be near immediate and lead to teams again being at the cap which will again lead to decisions being made on who to retain and who not to.
August 22nd 2012 @ 8:46am
eagleJack said | August 22nd 2012 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Agreed. I tend to think the top players will move quickly to cash in on the bonanza. A few years ago Thurston was the first to negotiate a percentage of the Cowboys cap which is believed to be 18%.
Try telling him he can’t now have 18% of the $7m. In no time clubs will be pressed against the cap.
Yes having money in the NRL coffers is a positive. But I was shocked how little negotiation actually went on with the underlying dollar being the only barometer for measuring the success of the deal. Gyngell continually repeated yesterday that he wrote a big cheque so he got what he wanted.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:11am
Renegade said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:11am | Report comment
I think it’s naive to think there was no negotiation,….from all reports it started on monday night and didnt finish until tuesday morning. Getting rid of the first and last rights, setting the schedule in advance, etc are all a part of the negotiation……And Gyngell comes off as a bit of a wanker however if i paid $1b for something, i’d want to have a say in my investment as well – that’s just how it works.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:31am
eagleJack said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Look I realise there were negotiations. And no doubt they went for months. Gyngell stated that you could tell it was a good negotiation as both sides walked away unhappy. Meaning both had conceded something.
But you can’t tell me that it wasn’t the almighty dollar that held sway in every decision. Fair enough from Gyngell’s perspective. But from what I can see very little changed. The ARLC were too busy trying to measure themselves against the AFL that they lost sight in what the consumer wanted.
Gyngell quite arrogantly said that if you wanted a happy, family afternoon BBQ then you get $500m. If you want the $1bn then the Grand Final has to be at night.
August 22nd 2012 @ 10:46am
Renegade said | August 22nd 2012 @ 10:46am | Report comment
I think the impact of getting rid of the F&L rights is going over peoples heads, that would have been a massive discussion point…..I believe if it wasn’t for that being abolished – Channel 7 or 10 would be airing the NRL next year.
August 22nd 2012 @ 9:58am
Ryan O'Connell said | August 22nd 2012 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Mushi, the NRL has lost many more players than the ones you have listed. You can add names like Ryan Hoffman, Brett Hodgson, Luke O’Donnell, Craig Gower, Dallas Johnson, Steve Menzies, and many, many more.
The churn of players may only be 1%, but the list of names illustrates that they are upper echelon players – especially some of the ones you listed, who were out-and-out superstars when they left. Surely the ability to keep them in the game is a good thing?
I grant you that it may not be something that needs urgent attention, and the increased TV right deals may not have even kept them anyway, in some cases. But by the same token, having the finances to hold onto to great players, or older experienced ones, only improves the overall standard of rugby league, which I think is important.
August 22nd 2012 @ 10:04am
Matt F said | August 22nd 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
The increased salary cap can also mean that the current trend of English players coming to the NRL is continued, even increased, which should improve the overall quality of the league
August 22nd 2012 @ 2:52pm
Ken said | August 22nd 2012 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Is that really a positive? I mean it’s great watching players like Burgess, Elllis etc running around in the NRL but the SL could really use stars like them to promote their comp – they don’t have any billion dollar deals in the pipeline.
August 22nd 2012 @ 3:03pm
Matt F said | August 22nd 2012 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
From the NRL’s perspective it’s a big positive. Attracting more and better players will improve the standard of the competition and might draw in new fans to the NRL. It’s probably not good news for the SL though
August 22nd 2012 @ 10:20am
mushi said | August 22nd 2012 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Ryan I just don’t see it happening as I said you still have a system of fiscal constraint which will still lead to the back end of career types being forced out.
I’d liken the Menzies departure as one of those.
Is it better to keep players – the answer to that should always be “depends”. As in what was the opportunity cost.
But it is funny how no matter how many super stars come and go the game survives. Hmm maybe our following of the sport ahs far less to do with individual athletes and much more to do with irrational loyalties.
August 22nd 2012 @ 10:28am
Ryan O'Connell said | August 22nd 2012 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Mushi, the game may survive, but I’d love to see it thrive. Keeping the best talent is an ideal stepping stone to that objective.
August 22nd 2012 @ 12:58pm
mushi said | August 22nd 2012 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Ah semantics it is then.
You can have retention of late 20s outside backs as your IDEAL stepping stone but outside of also discovering the fountain of youth your game is probably in terminal decline within 5 years, definitely within 10.
My IDEAL would be to ensure that future generations of talent are produced to fill the league when the inevitability of age, injury or dissatisfaction strikes. Hence what’s the opportunity cost of retaining those players.
The game is not going to “thrive” by focusing on the most short term asset you have – the players
Money spent on today’s players is money that can’t be spent on, or forgone for, the fixed asset of the NRL, our tribal attachment to the game.
August 22nd 2012 @ 1:08pm
Ryan O'Connell said | August 22nd 2012 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
I think the ideal mix is a balance of both short term and long term planning.
Sure, the players are the most short term asset, but they’re also far and away the most important asset.
I believe making the existing product as strong as possible is a vital tool in building for the future.
August 22nd 2012 @ 3:29pm
mushi said | August 22nd 2012 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Ah the existing product. Great call problem is you think the product is 26 guys hitting each other for 80 minutes.
The product the NRL is selling is actually us. Our attention on a screen, a field, a jersey or whatever.
That attention is manufactured by more than just 26 athletes and some guys in pink it is manufactured via tribalism and engaging that strange human need of belonging.
Just look at the code wars on here, it’s irrational babble of the my dad could beat up your dad genesis.
I haven’t done the research but I would think it isn’t going out onto a limb to suggest that there would be a reasonably high correlation between people’s sports viewing tendencies and what they grew up watching (hence exposure is important) and playing (hence junior development). Either that or it is the greatest coincidence in the world that sports tend to have geographic bias.
Sure the NRL still needs quality players, but as stated lost about 1% and the NRL just simply kept chugging along with no noticeable decline in the on field standard. We lose more players to actual retirement that to code swapping. If the game is not in a position to replenish that 1% then it is already dead as we are entirely reliant on this one group of players that even a bad spate of injuries would cripple our game to the point of no return.
If rugby league focuses resources on maximising the revenue for one group of players in order to solve a problem which doesn’t exist it runs the risk of under investing in the exposure and junior development that actually builds the tribalism necessary to generate our attention.
I’m not begrudging the NRL players their pay rise, that would be highly hypocritical of me, I do however question the balance of this deal and the subsequent re-investment.
August 22nd 2012 @ 3:38pm
Ryan O'Connell said | August 22nd 2012 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
I’m not suggesting losing players overseas or to other codes is the biggest issue in the NRL. Nor am I therefore suggesting that the majority of the money earned from the TV deal should be spent on the players.
In fact, what I did write is almost in perfect harmony with what you just wrote: “. . . but the best news to come out of the deal, is the impact on junior rugby league and development. It means that more kids, with better skills, will be coming into the game.”
I also wrote “Both the clubs and the NRL will be able to spend more on promoting the game which, in turn, will bring more people to the game, generating even more revenue.”
This last point translates to communicating and dialing up the tribalism you speak of. So I think we’re almost in violent agreement!
August 22nd 2012 @ 3:40am
Steve said | August 22nd 2012 @ 3:40am | Report comment
One of the interesting things will be what will happen in 5 years time for both codes. As it stands the current deals will probably be the highest they will be for a long time and the next deals will probably be the same or lower.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
August 22nd 2012 @ 10:03am
Ian Whitchurch said | August 22nd 2012 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Steve,
The AFL is investing heavily in AFL Media. The next step for them is to bypass Foxtel completely, and have you subscribe directly to see games over the Net.
My guess is TV Membership will be $25 a month, and will include a slate of shows about your club, including exclusive interviews, game wrap ups and segments by the assistant coaches.
My guess is that come the next contract, the NRL will stick with Foxtel’s guaranteed payments.
August 22nd 2012 @ 10:11am
Matt F said | August 22nd 2012 @ 10:11am | Report comment
I was reading something a few days ago (it might have even been here) that the AFL has been talking with NBN co about how they can use the project for it’s next deal for exactly the reasons that you’re suggesting Ian. Not surprisingly NBN co hadn’t received any contact from the ARLC…..
August 22nd 2012 @ 12:01pm
Australian Rules said | August 22nd 2012 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Yes I think we’ve seen the last of these deals as far as the AFL is concerned.
They’re taking a similar approach to NBA and NFL Media.
August 22nd 2012 @ 3:48am
NF said | August 22nd 2012 @ 3:48am | Report comment
Chances are steve both deals will be around the same NRL if going expansion wise will got a little bit more with an extra 9th game in the future whenever that may be considering this is RL where talking about with it’s super- conservative approach which has been spurred from the SL war and been the attitude since then.
August 22nd 2012 @ 4:04am
Pete said | August 22nd 2012 @ 4:04am | Report comment
The reality is that Foxtel placed a value on the exclusivity of Monday and Saturday that was worth more then an extra FTA game. Unless you know what the value was, its pure speculation to suggest the decision to go one way or the other was wrong.
August 22nd 2012 @ 8:07am
Lachlan Pudney said | August 22nd 2012 @ 8:07am | Report comment
It is wrong. Maybe not for channel 9 but they only care about the 5 years. I am living in Wollongong NSW and can see 5 AFL matches most weeks on Gem. Almost all of them are live and if they are delayed its only an hour or so. If I want to watch league all you get is one Friday game at a reasonable time and one Sunday game where you have to avoid media if you don’t want to know the result beforehand. Its an absolute joke. The reason i watch more AFL and it is getting more of my interest is I can see my team play every second week, and thats when I support a Victorian team. The NRL are taking a bit of short term cash for a long term loss in disgruntled viewers which always have the option of switching on the tele and seeing other sports.
August 22nd 2012 @ 4:18am
Johnno said | August 22nd 2012 @ 4:18am | Report comment
-I sure hope test footy gets a pay rise. For rugby league to survive i think it needs strong international window.
-Aust ,NZ, England or GB, France,PNG, Fiji,Samoa,Tonga USA, Lebanon,Serbia,Ukraine,Jamaica. But at least 4 strong teams aust,NZ,England, and France. it should pay big time to test footy and not increase origin too much instead give the origin bonuses to test footy otherwise origin wont be able to survive long term with out test footy being the pinnacle .it needs to be restored to no 1.
August 22nd 2012 @ 5:46am
Leo said | August 22nd 2012 @ 5:46am | Report comment
Why will the Australian tv rights deal pay for international players from USA, France. Samoa and Lebanon?
August 22nd 2012 @ 5:01am
JVGO said | August 22nd 2012 @ 5:01am | Report comment
Yes it means the league will be back to sides like post SL days where teams had household names all across the park. It should be great.
Person with most to gain out of all this? Benny Barba? Seriously how much of this billion is he going to get for himself in the next 5 years?
Hopefully the league doesn’t waste hundreds of millions of it on pie in the sky expansionism like GWS but uses the money wisely.
August 22nd 2012 @ 6:20am
smithy said | August 22nd 2012 @ 6:20am | Report comment
I was amazed by David Gyngell’s comments. Does he work for Channel 9 or for the NRL? His distaste for the Australian game I found alarming. If you like league good and well, but to knock Australian “rules” football is beyond the pale. Does he realise that Aust footy was created by an Australian for the enjoyment of Australians…is there something wrong with this? Due to the fact he is the mouthpiece of that organisation, what he said has coloured my opinion of Channel Nine…that is for sure.
The writer above states that this deal ” guarantees the survival of all clubs, ensuring no fans or regions will be lost to the game.”
What does this mean? “regions”? Do you mean that Australians on the Gold Coast aren’t allowed to play Australian football as it is a “region” owned by league?
August 22nd 2012 @ 7:40am
peeeko said | August 22nd 2012 @ 7:40am | Report comment
i thought AFL was a derivation from irish football?
August 22nd 2012 @ 10:04am
Ryan O'Connell said | August 22nd 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Smithy, of course Australians on the Gold Coast are allowed to play Australian football. Who said anything to the contrary?
And I never said rugby league ‘owned’ regions. I just said the NRL is now in a better position to not lose its presence in certain regions.
August 22nd 2012 @ 10:04am
Ian Whitchurch said | August 22nd 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Obvious code warrior troll is obvious.
August 22nd 2012 @ 12:08pm
AGO74 said | August 22nd 2012 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
The guy leads a network who has just committed to spending hundres of millions to NRL. What do you expect him to do? Spruik AFL?
Sure he sounds like a bit of a wally, but I think you are being a wee bit sensitive on this mate.