Dwindling crowd attendances are never a good omen in any sport or competition. The bad news is that it’s what we are facing in Super Rugby, particularly in Australia and New Zealand.
From averaging 25,000 in 2004-05, we are now down to 19-20,000 in Australia alone.
A “bad year’ can always happen, but when for the fifth year in a row you struggle to bring 20,000 bums on the terraces, you know you’re in trouble and reversing the trend will take something (or someone) special.
Why is it happening? Why are we deserting our rugby stadiums? How low can numbers go without affecting Super Rugby’s very own survival?
Results, quality on the field, costs, TV, big-name drawing cards, comfort, PR… reasons which bring us, or not, to the stadium are endless. Yet, the correlation between attendances and results is obvious and unquestionable: although each team has a core fan base who will attend no matter what, a substantial number of fans will come only if you are offering quality and, if possible, getting results on the pitch.
Look at Western Force’s figures: 2006, first year of Super Rugby, 28,300 Aussies, Kiwis and South African expats pack Subiaco Oval at every game to watch their new team take on ‘their other team’.
Exciting rugby despite many losses, great atmosphere… in other words, a success. Except on the pitch. ‘Fair enough, we are new in the comp, wait and see!’ In 2007, 27,500 spectators on average, nice one – still plenty of tries and excitement, but…’hang on a sec, do I really want to pay 50 bucks to watch my team get hammered?’ Same story in 2008, ’09, ’10, ’11, except that only 16,000 people paid a ticket last year. That’s a 43 percent decline between 2006 and 2011. Ouch!
No pointing fingers. It’s the same story everywhere in Oz. The 30,000 mark used to be an ‘okay crowd’ at Sydney’s SFS (then Aussie Stadium) a few years ago, something you expected when SA franchises or Highlanders, Canes or Chiefs (no offense) were visiting. Bring on the Brumbies, Reds or even Crusaders or Blues and you would get close to a packed house. Those days are gone.
A half empty stadium is the norm at the SFS these days. If you are unlucky enough to have some rain on the same weekend the Lions or Cheetahs are in town, numbers will go down to 15,000 max.
For obvious reasons, the Reds had a good year in 2011 with a few 40,000-plus crowds, but there is no certainty 2012 will get the same numbers. In Melbourne, Rebels’ managers are anxious to see if O’Connor and Beale will bring a few extra bums at home games. Averaging 18,000 for their first year was good but not spectacular, either. They will need a few early wins to pass the 20,000 mark on a regular basis and put a smile on their sponsors’ faces and say “we told you so”.
Figures weren’t any better in New Zealand last year (averaging roughly 13,000 during the regular season, that’s 10 to 12 percent down) and it will be interesting to see if people come back en masse now that the sword of Damocles that was hanging over their head is gone (yes, they won the RWC).
Yet, it’s hard to be optimistic as Crusaders won’t draw big numbers at their home games again this year. Highlanders and Chiefs have limited potential (supporter numbers won’t surpass the total population) and the Hurricanes could have a tough one on the field without Hore, Nonu and Weepu. The Blues can probably be slightly more optimistic as they have the population and venue to attract a 30,000-plus crowd at every game if they get things right on the pitch. And on paper, they have the players to do so this year.
South Africa traditionally boasts higher figures but their three most successful franchises (Bulls, Sharks and Stormers) lost some spectators last year – the Bulls and Sharks falling under the 30,000 mark. Paradoxically, the big gainers in 2011 were the Cheetahs and Lions who rose from 15,000 to nearly 20,000.
With the likes of Botha, Matfield, Du Preez etc gone from SA rugby, they now have the opportunity to get some success on the pitch and attract supporters out of their core fanbase, which means extra money that can be used to retain and develop young talent as players’ exodus is becoming the number one issue in SA rugby, but that’s another issue.
So what’s in store for 2012? Will the trend persist and numbers continue to go down? Are we going to see Super Rugby games in Australia attracting less than 10,000 spectators?
We hope not as it would eventually mean the end of Super Rugby as we know it – a competition with some of the best players on the paddock.
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
Player hoarding dosnt exist ... players sign for who offers them a contract .. and fight for a place. Until Queensland won last year no one would have every accused them of hoarding .. and now people are saying they have too many talented fly halves! its called coaching .. coaches take gambles ... on who to sign .. and its down to the individual to decide if they want to or not. Anyway, the reality is that 80% of australian super players are from NSW or Qld originally ... poaching dosnt exist ... the Force and Rebels are only competitive because they have players fron Qld or NSW .. because they are not traiditonal rugby states and only 1 or 2 of their players originate from there.
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
exactly ... that is the whole premise of the Super 15 .. now you play all teams in your own country twice .. so there are more local games and derbies ..
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
Yep .. a national comp .. great idea ... and who is going to pay for it .. or watch it? NOOOO ONNEEEEEEEEEEEEEE With super rugby and the rugby championship from March to September .. rugby supporters have more than enough rugby. Club rugby only gets a few thousand per game .. and the ARC had no one watching, and the ARU had to pay for it to be televisesd. The whole idea of Super expansion, with Australia having 4 and then 5 super teams is that with 5 teams of 30 players .. there is no need for an additional tier or rugby between club and super rugby. by the way sheek ... i think you need to steamline your ideas a little .. the other day you were promoting super rugby expansion to all parts of the planet including russia .. now you want countries to return to national competitons instead of super rugby. Get off the drugs buddy ..
allblackfan
Guest
How are the NZRFU the silent assassins of SH rugby? If there's any assassinating being done, it's the South Africans doing it (and not so silently at that).
google
Guest
The problem is franchises. The South African teams do well because they are very closely linked to their currie cup teams, the Bulls are the Blue Bulls in currie cup, Sharks are the sharks the lions are the golden lions. The storemers are WP but we have seen the stormers adopt the blue hoops pn their jerseys to align with WP. Also the players are exactly the same in all comps. NZ have thrown away their tradition (i have in another post highlighhted NZ prostitution to the marketing men) supporters have to support Hurricanses and wellington lions, In Oz the force, and no rebels are brand new, and only on field success will create a true following like the brumbies. The reds have changed the colour of their jersey and also got rid of the Q and hence lost all of their history in a marketing masterstroke. The NZ teams should go back to the provincial sides that was the point of Super rugby back in the early 90's before the marketing guys cam in and brought night games and american franchise names, The super 6 and Super 10 was between the SA, NZ and Australian Provinces not these marketing franchises. NZRU are the flag bearers but also the silent assasins of rugby Union in the Southern hemisphere.
Bakkies
Guest
Matt, the ACT rep side was called the Kookaburras before they were introduced to the Sydney club competition.
crip
Roar Pro
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/chris-hewett-the-irb-must-also-take-blame-for-putting-players-in-peril-6671035.html
crip
Roar Pro
Imagine the world surfing tour changed the boards to malibus or formula 1 changed the cars to Toyota camrys. That's what happened to Rugby Union and it's not cool.
crip
Roar Pro
All your theories are wrong. The rules of rugby have changed so much that it doesn't look like rugby anymore. Whole rugby families just don't care anymore its really god dam boring. That is the answer.
Rugbug
Guest
NZ has only had 4 teams in the bottom 4 of super rugby since 2006 the Highlanders 3x and the Chiefs once the lowest finish was 12th before the second expansion to teams
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
But there's a comp just sitting here which IS NOT merely a pre-International season, where we warm up to the season proper ;) That's the problem my friend with many fans of Super Rugby they just don't understand that there is tribalism in the comp (and the code if I might say my personal opinion) which is a good unto itself, not merely the trial matches before the real season.
kiwidave
Guest
It was actually quite good, having it all squeezed in. I'm tempted to suggest they should repeat the short format.
kiwidave
Guest
I'm not a fan of the new system for some of the same reasons. It pointlessly lengthens the season and, as mentioned by persons above, if I want local rivalry I'll watch Auckland in the ITM cup (mrs is a Counties supporter).
kiwidave
Guest
I'd keep an eye on the Highlanders this year though.
mikeylives
Guest
"...drop the ticket prices" - Would be the first thing I would do. Crowds create atmosphere and buzz, which creates sponsorship $ - a no-brainer. Agree with all the other points as well.
p.Tah
Guest
KPM, did you write this article? :) http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/super-rugby/super-rugby-could-expand-into-usa-japan-and-argentina-in-bold-plan-to-reap-big-money-tv-rights-deal/story-e6frf4qu-1226268362834
Onor
Guest
I dressed up as myself infront of the TV screen.. :P couldnt get tickets for finals.. they sold out 45minutes after going on sale.
Rugbug
Guest
All history has a starting point as do rivalries. They will develop over the years you can't just add a team to the competion and go right I expect you to have fierce and personal battles with said team from said district. Sometimes rivalries are formed by an incident in one particular game which can then lead onto huge battles, yes they are generally depicted by geographical boundaries in general but a little animosity is normally beneath all rivalries
Matt
Guest
Two out of Five ain't bad, must be a new rehash of the old Meatloaf classic Bakkies? Aside from the Queensland vs NSW rivalry there isn't a lot of strong history of Victoria, ACT or Western Australia in high level domestic rugby. Sure there have been and were great players to come from those areas, and I do admit there were rugby sides representing those areas. But I don't think you could argue there was much for the ARU to use to promote those sides based on any traditional rivalries. The Rebels went back to the Eureka stockade and the ARC naming option to leverage a past. The Force just made a brand up and the Brumbies reshashed the Kookaburas who only were admitted to the NSW club comp in the mid 90's. If you compare that to the traditional rivalries of the South African and New Zealand provinces then the original comment "The Aussie conference is still finding it’s feet as there is next to no histrory there to leverage off..." almost seems like an understatement. The ACT Brumbies have built a solid brand identity thanks to their success under MacQueen and Jones, but even that is only 10-12 years old. It doesn't look like Super Rugby will be cutting it's number of teams any time soon though, so the Australian conference will continue to create new heroes and sides who'll make history and create rivalries. The Reds of 2011 will no doubt be one of these, as were the brumbies of the new millenium. But the Force and Rebels are obviously yet to leave any kind of mark other than positive foundations.
Bakkies
Guest
''The Aussie conference is still finding it’s feet as there is next to no histrory there to leverage off and not as many superstars to make for an entertaining series of matches'' I guess you need to look at how long the Waratahs and Reds have been playing each other. Victoria has a long history and they beat NSW early on in their history. ACT were known as the Kookaburras and they beat Queensland and NSW convincingly just before the Brumbies were set up and created their own history. Brumbies, Force and Rebels are new teams representing older identities. WA and VIC are rivals in other sports and WA got the Super Rugby team before Vic which took them a long time to get over