So here we are, at the end of pool stages of the Super Rugby season. There has been some scintillating play and some less-than scintillating performances on all three continents.
There has also been the usual upsets and egg for the faces of the pre-season predictors (like me).
This was the second season with fifteen teams in the competition. To look at the popularity of this season, I have been reviewing the viewership facts coming out of South Africa (RepUcomSA) for this season. Overall cumulative viewership across SuperSport (SA), Sky Sports (NZ) and Fox Sports (Aus) was a whopping 54, 972, 678.
Broken down regionally, you get a sense of demand and consumption of rugby in each country.
SuperSport 36 831 694 – 67% (175 389 per game)
Sky Sports 12 093 989 – 22% (57 590 per game)
Fox Sports 6 046 995 – 11% (28 795 per game)
The SuperSport number is colossal. At 36 million, it is over 1.5 times the population of Australia. However, given the population of New Zealand, the Sky Sports number is perhaps more impressive.
New Zealand (4 million) = 1 in 69 people
South Africa (50 million) = 1 in 285 people
Australia (22 million) = 1 in 764 people
This is an astonishing number for NZ. It would be pretty interesting to also have the subscriber numbers for each service, which I think would provide some economic levelling to the South Africa numbers. Either way it demonstrates the level of interest in each country, with Australia lagging considerably behind.
From a viewership point of view, it would also appear that the conference system is working. 18 of the 20 most watched games were hosted in SA and 13 of these were derby matches. The Bulls v Stormers match was the most watched game so far.
Of those 20 most watched games, New Zealand teams were involved in six and Australian teams only three.
Top five games by audience:
Game | Date | Supersport | Fox Sports | Sky Sports | Combined
Bulls v Stormers | 2/6/12 | 990,062 | 8,168 | 7,410 | 1,005,640
Sharks v Stormers | 26/5/12 | 919,914 | 24,044 | 6,860 | 950,818
Lions v Sharks | 2/6/12 | 888,840 | 10,607 | 5,080 | 904,527
Stormers v Bulls | 31/3/12 | 843,244 20,342 | 24,460 | 888,046
No real surprises given the SuperSport numbers that the South African games would be the most watched. Interesting, though, that the 12th most watched game was in New Zealand and was heavily watched across the Southern Hemisphere.
The teams most watched, sorted by cumulative audience, are ranked:
Stormers, Sharks, Lions, Waratahs, Bulls, Crusaders, Blues, Cheetahs, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Brumbies, Reds.
The numbers (which were submitted to the site but were not published in full detail) are skewed due to number of appearances, but I think that’s a fair indication of popularity. If you consider that 64% of the Bulls and Stormers games made it into the Top 20 viewed, that is incredible. Overall though the Stormers, with their broadcast popularity and crowd averages over the last few years, must be one of the best if not the best supported non-international rugby team in the world.
I think that what this shows in terms of the overall consumption is that South Africa will always be the biggest market due to population, but that New Zealand is dominant per capita.
However, due to the smaller population in NZ, significant growth appears limited. So unless South Africa can overcome a number of socio-economic hurdles to increase its subscriber base, it should be Australia with the greatest room for an increase. Australia comes with its own hurdles, the number one being the congestion of the Australian sports market.
Throw on top a poor performing conference with three teams in the bottom third and it becomes clear how much Australian rugby depends on its New Zealand and South African neighbours to bring home the broadcast bacon.
Overall though, the numbers are very good and show an appetite for the sport that can only be a positive when the broadcast agreement is re-negotiated in 2015.
Matt
Guest
I think also, just because a country like NZ has market saturation for the current five teams it doesn't mean that there isn't more money to be made. There is clearly a strong demand for product in NZ, so the idea of a sixth team must be a strong option. Most likely in the Auckland market. It is interesting to note the popularity of viewing figures in NZ for the worst ever season of the flagship franchise. The Blues have been poor, but viewership remains high. These figures also point towards the HUGE added value that a conference system brings. By far the highest rating programs have been the Derby games. An additional 6th side into each conference would lead to a 50% increase in the number of derby's (making it 30 derby games per conference, up from the current 20). There is certainly the scope for a significant TV contract increase in 2016, especially if expansion occurs into the biggest markets in both Australia and NZ (Sydney and Auckland) and if South Africa get's a 6th side in Port Elizabeth.
Johnno
Guest
The beauty why this is in the warriors favour expanding is this. The warriors have historically relied a lot on aussie talant, playing wise, coaching, and player leadership. -Think Kevin campion, steve price, robert mears, jason bell, nathen fine, nathan friend now, and also wade mckinnon. Plus aussie coaches like Ivan cleary.. -So they can always top up the player and coaching market with foreigners, where as the auckland blues have import restrictions. So depth is less of an issue for the warriors.
alblackfan
Guest
Ryan, I said I was curious. I wasn't taking a pot shot although I accept that it sounded like I was. Unfortunately, I don't have access to emoticons so as to soften the nature of my inquiry. That news about what the Warriors owners will be doing isn't exactly news to me. I have been expecting it for some time. But I know enough about NZ to realise that what's big in Auckland is not necessarily shared by the rest of the country. That article also mentions the club's growing popularity -- largely in Australia. I don't think the forced inclusion of RL players in Auckland RU's schhol competition is helpful to either code. About time they were seperated. I'm just wondering if Auckland will be big enough to sustain it especially if the NZRU gets its act together and does more to develop Auckland (ie another northern NZ Super franchise?)
Well the easiest way to do it and also a short to medium term solution is to have these coutries hosted in SA, as we have the facilities, get Supersport to televise the natches (they are already present in most african countries as they cover football for them) and build viwers interest first. That waybSupersport can also be the one who would contract the tournament for the African vodacom conferences when it dors expand, similar to how they are already contracting vodacom in SA.
Johnno
Guest
Biltongbek i agree, south africa have to play a major role to help african rugby, if it is to advance. They are doing some good stuff already at the lower tier, sending development teams to play african nations and the vodacom cup of course. -With the vodacom cup what they could do as a way to bring in funds would be to conference model it. Like super rugby. Have like east african ,west north african ,o south african teams play in the vodacom cup.. -could generate good money then. Places like Lagos Nigeria, or nairobi kenya, or cairo egypt, or harraree zimbabwe could maybe pull a crowd as well as madagascar and up in morocco to as well as namibia . -But the cost of building modern facilities and infrastructure will be massive no question as it is amateur facilities.
Johnno the biggest challenge that the development of African rugby will face though is almost insurmountable though. To sustain rugby development past just amateur clubs on hard grounds will need a lot of money. The capital injection needed to just build facilities and infrastructure will be huge, then you face the challenge of misappropriation of those funds, then you will have to finance the competitions. Unless these african countries build sustainable economies it is going to be very difficult indeed. That's why I think SARU can play a big role to assist our neighbouring countries by including them in the Vodacom cup, it might not be tier one or two rugby, but it will provide their teams quality and sustainable competition.
Sure thing mate.
Johnno
Guest
yep african rugby is promising but it is in the early stages BB outside of south africa. Kenyan 7evens is promising, but at 15 a side there is big gap between south africa and Namibia, and morocco, and madagasscer, and kenya
Johnno
Guest
BB Namibia is a small nation the bamburi cup is good tha involves the african nations but here are some promising article son the IRB website. But african rugby outside of south africa is still in the early stages. http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2063259.html#ground+breaking+coverage+africa+cup http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/qualifying/news/newsid=2063227.html#madagascar+climb+rankings+after+sh
Johnno
Guest
good idea crusader in aukland. It has potential, but like BB said Africa don’t have the money yet. A comp needs corporate support and pay tv subscribers. And in south africa itself the pay tv subscriptions rates are pretty low for a nation which has 40 million but it has potential and Africa economically is moving in the right direction overall and rugby is expanding and growing year by year . The recent rugby tests in Madagasscer were wonderful. 40,000 crowds to watch madagascar. So rugby is on the up. The sevens stuff to that biltong bek was talking about is good. It is a start, but as BB said Africa is different entity as the playing gap between south africa and all other african nations is still too big a gap at 15 a side rugby at least. http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2063259.html#ground+breaking+coverage+africa+cup http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/qualifying/news/newsid=2063227.html#madagascar+climb+rankings+after+shock
crusader-in-auckland
Guest
righto mate, thanks for your input
Johnno
Guest
good idea crusader in aukland. It has potential, but like BB said Africa don't have the money yet. A comp needs corporate support and pay tv subscribers. And in south africa itself the pay tv subscriptions rates are pretty low for a nation which has 40 million but it has potential and Africa economically is moving in the right direction overall and rugby is expanding and growing year by year . The recent rugby tests in Madagasscer were wonderful. 40,000 crowds to watch madagascar. So rugby is on the up. The sevens stuff to that biltong bek was talking about is good. It is a start, but as BB said Africa is different entity as the playing gap between south africa and all other african nations is still too big a gap at 15 a side rugby at least. The bamburi cup is a good tournament though http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2063259.html#ground+breaking+coverage+africa+cup http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/qualifying/news/newsid=2063227.html#madagascar+climb+rankings+after+shock
Namibian rugby is very small, it is centered around Windhoek with a population of roughly 250 000.
Johnno, I agree with most of your points, however Africa doesn't have money, there is very little chance of us splitting our top sides away to form an association with Africa. What is most likely the situation is to develop the Vodacom Cup further to encompass more African teams. Currently we have Namibia and Argentina involved, argentina would most likely move up into Super Rugby which could entice SARU to bring back Zimbabwe who has been part of it before. We are already involved with the Kenia 7's tournament as well tby sending a provincial team there every year. But like I said, I see the African development as a totally seperate entity.
crusader-in-auckland
Guest
What alternatives? Expansion in southern Africa. A Namibian SR team, one from Madagascar, perhaps the Southern Kings and Griqas etc,. could still have play-offs against my tans-tasman finalists. Standard-wise SA could help its neighbours develop as would we with OZ in forming a wider competetion there as well as pacific teams down the track. Two overarching super conferences in the same competition, a southern African one and an Oceanian one. Whatdoyarek?
It is just gamesmanship mate, the same thing happens in Europe, those that think they are the "financial powerhouses" use it as a bargaining tool, it won't happen. We may not need OZ and NZ for financial benefit, but we won't be stupid enough to move away from the structures that could see us walk away from the structure that benefits us and keep our players on top.
Johnno
Guest
biltongbek. Some great points about SA rugby i always like to here overseas rugby news from other countries. -I think as well South Africa will never join Europe at all. Time Zone wise very good but that is about all. -The seasonal issue to will only no longer be an issue if rugby goes global rugby calendar. -Also Europe to be honest don't need south africa. They have enough good sides and countries, and can build and are building a really good continent europena HEK cup, so having teams from Africa would devalue it , and make it meaningless. -And so many big markets in europe getting better at rugby. Russia, Spain, Portugal,Italy, so don't need south africa. -I think over the next 20 years eventually Africa will move to it's own super rugby comp. Teams from south africa, Zimbabwe,kenya,uganda, nigeria, morocco,madagasscar,tunisia,egypt, botswana , will all have basically a super rugby tournament for Africa. And eventually south africa will leave SANZAR , but i can see it happening before 2025. -And Australia/NZ will join a Asia-paicifc champions league with Japan,India,china, maybe USA/canada. -And USA/Canada will join up with Argentina/brazil and have a copa america super rugby club championship Either way exciting times for global rugby. But African rugby is advancing. Some great crowds in Madagasscar lately,. It rugby is booming there and in kenya, and morocco, and zimbabwe and many other countries in Africa. Some record tv ratings biltongbek.
crusader-in-auckland
Guest
South Africa would stay in SANZAR and remain a stakeholder n the Rugby Championship, just go their own way domestic competition-wise. Theres always that clamouring within SA to leave SR for exactly that financial reason and the viewing figures do show things to be out of balance. I feel NZ and Oz should be prepared to go it alone if it comes to that. Ofcourse I'm happy for your prediction to be correct though :)
crusader-in-auckland
Guest
agree Johnno +1
I seriuosly doubt that would happen mate, there is no real benefit for SA to move away from SANZAR other than financial. What alternatives would they have? Either go alone or join Europe. If they go alone they will be in the same boat as NZ, just have the Currie Cup, if they join with Europe, the first issue is not the same seasonal structure, secondly we are alreay complaining about the SR not being able to be completed in one go. The European season is as confused as a chameleon in a Smartie Box. Plus why would SARU move away from the one tournament where they can expose 150 plus players to the best provincial and most competitive tournament in world rugby? Remember there is a new chief in town, Jurie Roux, he is smarter, has more vision and a definite goal where he wants to take SA rugby.