Australian rugby may have been a big hit on TV screens last year but the same can’t be said for 2012.
The Waratahs anus horriblis, the Reds mid-season form slump and ordinary seasons from the Force and Rebels meant that rugby union has failed to rate with the same power in did in 2011.
The lack of the Rugby World Cup effect, as well as the introduction of several afternoon games and the unpredictable form of the Wallabies has combined to see rugby fail to capitalise on the gains of last year.
The Super Rugby season started with a solid result, 193,000 tuning in nationally to see the Reds’ dramatic last second opening round win over the Tahs.
That was the highest rating sports broadcast in week 8, beating AFL’s NAB Cup and the cricket.
The next weekend, with the return of the NRL, was not so good. No Super Rugby game was in the top 10 or rated higher than 112,000.
In week 10 (round 3 of the Super Rugby season) the Reds vs Rebels at Suncorp managed to sneak in at 10th place with 136,000 viewers.
The next weekend the derby match of the Tahs vs the Force pulled in 134,000, which placed 7th in the top ten.
The following weekend Super Rugby managed to snag 9th and 10th place with the Rebels vs Force receiving 130,000 and the Waratahs vs Sharks getting 99,000.
Round 6 of the Super Rugby season saw no match pick up more than 129,000 viewers, with the Force vs Reds failing to interest viewers, while round 7 was the same story – no Super Rugby game in the top ten, with the Reds vs Brumbies not receiving an audience higher than 145,000 viewers.
In Round 8 no game rated higher than 173,000 or was in the top 10, but in Round 9 the Waratahs vs Rebels game was the 9th highest sports program for the week and pulled in 149,000. Round 10 failed to fire ahead of NRL or AFL, with nothing over 194,000, and in Round 11 the Brumbies vs Tahs clash wasn’t watched by more than 162,000.
In Round 12 no games rated over 167,000, Round 13 also had nothing in the top 10 and nothing higher than 181,000, the same as Round 14 which had nothing higher than 200,000.
In Round 15 nothing was watched by more than 153,000 and then we had a four week international break. The Wallabies headed to Newcastle to play a mid-week Test against Scotland and then had a three-Test series against Wales.
Channel Nine bumped the Scotland game to a late-night timeslot and less than 165,000 metro free-to-air viewers tuned in. On Fox Sports live coverage of the game was much better received – 256,000 watched Australia lose in terrible conditions, which was the fourth highest rating sports broadcast of that week.
For the Wales-Wallabies clash at Suncorp, 258,000 watched on pay TV and 288,000 metro viewers watched on Nine.
The next Wales Test received audiences of 305,000 metro viewers on Nine and less than 227,000 national viewers on Fox, as the match failed to score in the top 10. The third and final Test, this time played in the afternoon in Sydney, had a poor result. While a record crowd attended at Allianz for the 3pm kick-off, only 142,000 watched on Fox Sports and just 212,000 on Nine.
We then returned to Super Rugby action for Round 16, with games such as the Force vs Brumbies, but nothing was watched by more than 121,000 viewers. In Round 17 again no Super Rugby game was in the top ten, with nothing rating higher than 148,000, and in the final Round (18) there was a little change. With finals places for the Brumbies and Reds on the line, the Reds vs Tahs match was watch by 176,000 and was the eighth most watched sports program of that week.
Plenty of necessary raw data – now for the analysis.
What do all those figures tell us? Well, a few obvious things, for starters.
The Waratahs have the largest fan base and attract the most TV viewers – which was not surprising considering they represent the largest player base and biggest state. And their poor season has not only hurt their pulling potential but the overall figures for Australian rugby as a whole. People have turned off the Tahs this year.
The Reds set 2011 alight with brilliant, attacking rugby. For a number of reasons, that has not happened this year. Injuries, new debutants and the improvement of other teams has meant the Queensland team has not been able to replicate its 2011 run.
They are still in the hunt to defend their title, but it appears unlikely they will win again. Their 2011 semi and final pulled in huge TV ratings but it’s a long shot for this to happen this year.
The Brumbies have a smaller fan base than the Tahs and Reds but have had an outstanding 2012 – apart from the last round. But their rugby hasn’t really been the most pleasant on the eye, grounding out teams and playing a tough but consistent kind of defensive rugby more common in South Africa.
I say this as a Brumbies fan, and while winning is the ultimate, they don’t seem to have been able to pull in other Aussie fans to watch this ACT side like the great attacking Brumbies teams of 1999-2004 did.
The Force and Rebels are still developing, building their fan bases and their brands. But both sides haven’t had great seasons on the field this year, or won many games, which can’t have helped the ratings.
Injuries across all five franchises has also played a big part – we have missed the talents of the great entertainers like Quade Cooper, Kurtley Beale, James O’Connor and others. These players not only bring in more rugby fans they also attract the neutral sports fans.
Compounding all of this has been the play of the Wallabies. They lost to Scotland in one of the worst conditions and worst games in recent memory (I was there, and 30 minutes of one-out pick and drive puts most people to sleep).
They then beat Wales 3-0 in a series that had its exciting and dramatic moments but wasn’t edge-of-your-seat stuff. Tries were hard to come by and the Wallabies kicked a lot. This didn’t excite the fanbase and the ARU needs the Wallabies to play entertaining rugby. Poor coverage from Channel Nine hasn’t helped either.
Another fact has been the capture of the AFL rights by Foxtel and the huge investment the pay TV broadcaster is making in the sport. AFL has rated well on pay TV all year, has its own dedicated channel and Foxtel is doing all it can to promote the code to its existing subscriber base.
I believe there are some warning signs for the ARU. Super Rugby is regularly out-rated on pay TV by both NRL and AFL, often by between 50,000-150,000 viewers on average each week, despite these sports having free-to-air coverage as well.
The ARU needs to put an emphasis to its all its teams, including the Wallabies, to play attacking, entertaining rugby. Engaging and exciting fans is key.
The mess at the Tahs needs to be sorted out and the Force need a coach who will get his team playing an attractive brand of rugby. They also need a free-to-air TV partner who will support the game and not take the piss – it’s time to ditch Nine and go back to Network Ten.
Yes, Ten hasn’t been the best rugby partner in the past, but Ten are looking at all the sports content it can get and can be easier convinced to get behind rugby than Nine or Seven either would.
Tough decisions need to be made at the top of Australian rugby. Afternoon rugby is popular with attending fans but not those watching on the box. 2011 was a step ahead for the code, with playing participation levels growing. But I believe this year crowd attendances for Australian Super Rugby teams have declined, and TV figures obviously have been poor.
It’s been one step forward, one step back. Over to you, John O’Neill.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
You may not read this but I was meaning in terms of being global, which has to be a good thing, but in order to be global the code has to start off being a one person converts another person sport. Beyond that nobody knows. But I genuinely believe that there is a niche for Rugby in absolutely every culture on Earth...which is after all how Soccer got started.
Matthew Skellett
Guest
So far this year Super Rugby hasn't been that great, certainly the Scotland debacle put a dampener on proceedings (sic) ; however the series against the Welsh was really exciting and i sincerely hope that the Rugby Championship will be the 'shining light on a hill' it was meant to be -and i think Argentina will be followed by Russia, the USA and Canada into our competition with other south american nations in hot pursuit so cheers to a new era in world rugby and long may it evolve , develop and become a hope for many :-)
AndyS
Guest
And that SuperSport didn't get what they wanted is the clearest indicator that they don't contribute even half the money. That deal was about money and nothing else, so there is no way any of the countries would have pissed off the majority of funding. NewsCorp used to cop the blame for all the perceived wrongs of Super rugby; if that is not now SuperSports, it is because they are cashing in without pulling their weight. But you are right, for all the indications we don't have any definitive data. It boils down to this though: the only way SARU deserves the money in proportion to viewers is if SANZAR gets money in proportion to viewers, in which case SuperSports is the reason Super Rugby is the way it is and interferes with Currie Cup the way it does.
David
Guest
SA have to take their share of the blame but to answer your question "Not Really" SANZAR is a 1 country 1 vote I think. SANZAR negotiate with the networks. The networks influence their home union via direct channels. Of course the TV networks have a say though via what they are prepared to pay. Of course if Supersport were prepared to pay a lot more for a different format (and it was not offset by a decline elsewhere) all 3 countries would factor that into their vote (because they all share in the revenue) But Supersport did not get what they wanted. They wanted the Currie Cup better protected because that has always guaranteed lots of viewers. I do know that Supersport were not that happy with SARU who failed to properly look after their financial stakeholder. But we dont know what went on behind the scenes. That didnt stop ONeill from giving press conferences giving his side of the story. ONeills version has been regaled as fact in many newspapers. SARU's PR was at the same time pathetic.
AndyS
Guest
So you are saying that we can blame SA for the competition structure then? If SuperSports pay the majority of the money, then you can guarantee that SR is exactly what they want it to be.
David
Guest
Well we don't know the revenue contribution to SANZAR Prices are usually a function of likely viewership. Granted it wont be linear. The cost per viewer wont be the same You can be sure that Supersport pays more than Fox and Sky. Probably more than both put together. Is is 2X as much as those put together? Dont know My point is that since SA generate more revenue it seems fair that bthey receive a greater share. Alternatively another concession (LIke protection of Currie Cup or the 6th team).
David
Guest
Sorry. Silly me SA are 2/3s of the total
mikeylives
Guest
"SA has 67% of the SH viewers (not sure about revenue contribution). That’s 3X Aus and NZ put together" 67 % is 2x Aus and NZ put together
Kasey
Guest
Depends on if you believe that a bunch of Lebs from Lakemba representing Lebanon in the RLWC adds or detracts from the credibility of international RL I guess.
Im Obsessed With SBW
Roar Rookie
I struggle to see how rugby league is a major sport in Australia according to its fans but its only really play and love in two states yet rugby union is the same or even bigger and more spread out in places like Ireland, France, England and South Africa but the leaguies constantly says its a minor sport there. how do they work that out?
Im Obsessed With SBW
Roar Rookie
Maybe there's a reason rugby union has more fans and players than rugby league in many places Mango Jack. It might not be exciting to you or a few rugby league fans but it sure beats league hands down everywhere.
Im Obsessed With SBW
Roar Rookie
And where does that leave rugby league MD?
Mick H
Roar Rookie
Ahaha, it's all too true mate.
AndyS
Guest
What they got was the revenue. The money received by SANZAR is not proportionate to viewer numbers, it comes from individually negotiated contracts with the broadcasters. So when that revenue was evenly split but SA gets all the viewers, it is the SuperSport that coins it while the teams get the corresponding benefits of the sponsorship and tickets.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Make it 10s and I might get on board. The Wallabies issues continually is with the tight five and particularly the front row. Playing a game designed for backs and back rowers will do nothing to bring the players we need into the fold. What continually frustrates me is that guys with the potential to be union front rowers if they grow up in league or AFL heartlands are unlikely to be good at the sports they are raised on. We need to find those guys and bring them into the game.
Jagman
Guest
Perhaps there'l be more people like me next year who are willing to pay the month to month fee on the foxtel app for smart tvs in order to watch super rugby. I'm not willing to pay for foxtel otherwise but I reckon I might get it for 4 or 5 months next year while super rugby's on. Got it until the final for this year.
Matt
Guest
I agree with Midfielders comments regarding the KEY need to have the game being played by more participants across more walks of life. Rugby will continue to struggle to perform on the pitch if it struggles off the pitch. When you have a sport that relies on a handful of private Sydney schools (plus a couple from Brisbane) to develop your talent pool (plus the fortunate migration of a lot of Kiwi's and Saffas) you will get quality players coming through, but not enough of them. The Wallabies have always been able to put out a competitive 1st XV, but when injuries strike then the cupboard is laid bare. It is the same issue at Super Rugby level. The system produced enough talent (only just) to provide talent to 3 pro sides (Tahs, Reds, Brumbies). But when you add two more sides you weaken all teams and dramatically lower the bar. To combat the increased need of depth, in order to make the Australian Super sides competitive, what has been done by the ARU to find the extra amount of talent? Participation numbers are up, but not enough. The ARU needs to find a way into the state schools of all Australian states to get kids playing Rugby Union in some form. This will drastically increase the awareness and demand for the sport and also will provide a pyramid base for moving talent up the slopes towards professionalism. The best answer, I believe, is to split the rugby season in two. First half of the year (Autumn/Winter) is for XV a side rugby. Allow Super Rugby to stay where it is, whilst moving the club competitions around Australia to align to the same window. That will mean no professionals in Club Rugby, but that's no different to RSA or NZ. The GPS schools can continue to play their own private competitions during this time as well, with state competitions running in parellel. The key though, is to create a dedicated 7's season through Spring/early Summer. New competitions would be created in all states across Australia, with a freshly designed league structure to be administered by each local Union. The major air of the 7's season would be participation, particularly of non traditional rugby player. That means getting Australian Football and Rugby League players giving 7's a crack. Teams only need 12 players to have a full squad and it could even be played midweek in areas where competitive sports are still being played during this period. With 7's about to hit the Olympic funding cycle, the ARU should be heavily targeting this avenue as a means of increasing awareness and participation in the game, which will provide a new avenue to identifying and capturing new fans and participants. 7's is a much more open, running, game than XV's. We've already seen the success of sides like Keebra Park from the gold coast having a crack at the sport after their regular League season has finished. Why not extrapolate this cross over success with a fresh faced sport that conjures links with youthful assertive playmaking and global progression and inclusiveness (think participation growth in America, Africa and Eastern Europe along with massive strides by the womans game). 7's lacks all those tie-wearing old boy images that the traditional game seems to harbour and should be leveraged to give Australia a powerful tool to add depth and width to the pyramid. Only then will we see 4 or 5 (or more) competitive Super Rugby sides. And only then will there exist a large enough fanbase to push the game onto the desks of the executives controlling FTA TV.
p.Tah
Guest
It's an enjoyable game to play but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it if you haven't played it. Lots of kiwis and Saffas who love the game who've never played it. Probably quite a few Aussies as well.
Matt H
Roar Guru
So true, it is a game for the participants. I actually think golf is sort of similar in that way. Any others?
IT's cuase we sent eejits to the boardroom.