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.
HBG
Guest
Nope.
Queensland's Game Is Rugby League
Guest
I'd like to see $25,000,000 to $50,000,000 reserved for the Queensland Cup. The money could go towards travel expenses for future expansion clubs that are based outside of Queensland, securing the future of struggling clubs like the Magpies, bringing back the Western Suburbs Panthers, Toowoomba Clydesdales and Logan Scorpions and upgrading the grounds of all the current clubs. I'd like to see the Central Coast Bears, West Coast Pirates and a PNG team compete in the QLD Cup. Allowing these bids to compete in the Queensland Cup will make it easier for them to make the transition to the NRL when expansion is given the go ahead.
Pete
Guest
I think the biggest gain will be for juniors and people wanting to play Rugby League. With an increase in the base salary, it suddenly becomes alot more attractive, and kids seeing the superstars earning big bucks will make them want to reach that level
JVGO
Guest
Well I imagine the difference is that league may attract players that can actually play the game, that would be possibly from RU and SuperLeague. I doubt they would be attracting or luring unproven talent for purely promotional purposes from sports like soccer, AFL or basketball.
JimC
Guest
I can't quite understand the desire for more FTA coverage. I prefer my sport to be rationed a bit and the wider population would probably agree - quality, not quantity and it makes finals time that bit more special. Much better than ubiquitous AFL mismatches.
Floyd Calhoun
Guest
In the scheme of things, throwing a billion bucks at the NRL is a bit like trying to convince Andrew Forrest that if he follows your advice carefully, he too, may become a millionaire. No promises though.
Sportz
Guest
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!!!
sheek
Guest
Bimgo Ryan, I suggested on another thread that it was all about bragging rights. A fellow called Gaz (original) took umbrage with me. Anyway, that was before I saw the front page of the Daily Telegraph. That confirmed to me that bragging rights had a lot to do with it..... Anyway, it's late at night & you probably won't get to read this.
BigAl
Guest
AFL radio ratings have plumeted since the new media deal as a result of telstra download apps. etc
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Jog along, Grumpy, jog along.
waterboy
Guest
Just from a very general perspective. I must say he has copped a heap of criticism from a lot of people, especially the Telegraph crew, but in my eyes he made the tough decision with Gallop and he has now delivered the $1b+ deal. From where I am sitting he's 2 from 2. He also looks like a guy who doesnt give much credence to what other people think, he has a plan or philosophy that he believes in and gets on with implementing it. I think the narky attitude of Gyngell at the press conference was a clear indication that he wasnt happy about what he had to pay.
Sid
Guest
Says a lot about Australians actually that a game like RL is popular. And people still want to come here. The mind boggles at the thought. 'Orstrayen Kultcher'
Mick
Guest
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.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Did Grant discuss at all where the additional money might be spent, waterboy?
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Great post, Von. And some exellent points. No deal was ever going to be perfect, but there are plenty of positives with the one that's been struck.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Sorry mate, I missed this question! No, I don't know what the current amount spent on these items is.
waterboy
Guest
I also heard Grant on the radio in Sydnney today with Ray Hadley. He made a few important points 1. Hadley when he asked him about the media rights being a battle between Telstra and optus, Grant disagreed and said he was suprised how many entities had expressed interest in these rights 2. Hadley inferred the NZ rights were not that important. Again Grant disagreed and indicated that the rights are very important to their current NZ broadcaster, hinting there would be an increase from the current $15m per year 3. Grant said the radio rights had been undervalued in the past.......Hadley nearly choked on his cornflakes!!
marco
Guest
its probably true that the NRL wanted a big figure to try and keep up with the AFL. I don't think the AFL would be taking much notice. they just do their own thing anyway. League has missed an opportunity to get more exposure with this deal. Channel 9 should be playing more games live.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
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!
mushi
Guest
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.