Europeans question English rugby TV deal

We don't want Rugby turning in to cricket where players like Ed Joyce are swapping nations at various stages in their careers. Joyce went from playing for Ireland then switched to England lost his place and is now playing for Ireland again.

I'm under no illusions about the motives of the English clubs. It's still not clear to me whether their ambitions for the game are good for the national team, let alone other leagues, and the sport in general. Having said that, to paint them as the only bad guys in this affair seems unhelpful. Whatever you think of their opinions, the French and English clubs have long made clear their disatisfaction with the structure of the Heineken Cup. They both declared their intention not to continue under the terms of the old agreement once it expires, in order to compel a renegotiation. The Rabo clubs may be unwilling to change - we don't really know - but it can hardly come as a surprise to them that maintaining the status quo was not an option for the other two leagues. Given that, you have to say that ERC's decision to announce a new Heineken deal with Sky, before any renegotiation has taken place, seems just as much an act of brinkmanship as anything by Premiership Rugby.

It might be reassuring to dismiss this as the usual sabre rattling that goes on every few years in the run up to the expiry of the European Rugby Cup agreement. Nevertheless, the guardians of the game as we know it can't afford to fall asleep at the wheel or the whole shebang might come off the road. What's happened here? The English Premiership Clubs have signed a deal with an unproven media company to cover their matches in a non-existent tournament without any prior agreement (so far as we know) with its other likely participants. In what surely must be the quote of the week, The Guardian newspaper reported the Chief Executive of Premiership Rugby Mark McCafferty saying : "We have come up with a financial solution and now we have to get a rugby one." As we say on the web: "ROTFLMAO :) :) " Talk about getting the cart before the horse! A great Welsh politician of a bygone age once said in respect of his then prime minister's justification of his disastrous foreign policy: "If he is sincere in what he is saying, and he may be, then he is too stupid to be prime minister." Likewise, if that is really Mr McCafferty's position, then he is swimming way out of his depth and had better hope that when he tries to climb out of the pool, nobody has their foot on his head. The most sensible and viable "rugby solution" that Mr McCafferty and his gang will eventually sign up to will be some sort of (slightly) rejigged version of what we already have. The worst thing that could happen to this guy is that his bluff gets called. In that case, if his game plan is as he states it, Mr McCafferty will have to explain to his munificent new sponsors that all they will have to show will be the same old English Premership that they have been rattling on with for some years and a great hole in the schedule where the European games used to be. Maybe he hopes to initiate a new tournament with the French? But if the French want to play in Europe at all (and there is ample evidence that for the most part they do not) it is in a meaningful diverse genuinely pan European competition. They don't want an exclusive Entente Cordiale with their oldest enemy. Who else will play with the English? The Welsh, you might say. But then, they do that already in the Anglo Welsh Cup previously called the PowerGen Cup and the EDF Energy Cup. Quick, without looking it up: Who are the current champions and the current sponsors? On the tip of your tongue? Didn't think so. The attempts down through history of wiseacres trying to "steal" a sport away from its incumbent administration and "sell" it to the same audience via a brand new media partner in a supposedly new "competitive structure" have always eventually foundered on the rock of the innate conservatism of those sports' enduring fans. Ask Kerry Packer. Ask David Lord. Ask Ross Turnbull. All were sooner (Lord, Turnbull) or later (Packer) outmanoeuvred and sent packing (so to speak) by the traditional ruling bodies of the sports they tried to hijack. And a jolly good thing too. Rugby Union has been professional for less than 20 years and ongoing change in its priorities and organisation were and are inevitable. There will be tweaks to the format when next the ERC contract comes up for renewal. That’s fine. But that’s what we should be debating, not pretending that Mr McCafferty has hit on some fabulous new way to get rugby fans around the world to drop their existing loyalties in favour of adopting an English premiership club as the new object of their affections. That sort of nonsense might work with soccer, but with Rugby? No. Mr McCafferty could do worse than sit down with Spiro Zavos and have the subtleties of “l’esprit de clocher” explained to him. :)

go on planetrugby forum and have look just before kickoff.

The Celtic Nations won't vote to change the eligibility rule which rules out many islanders in NZ and Australia playing for their nations.

Just as an aside, does anyone know if there's streaming (live or delayed) sites for the ABs game this weekend ?

I'd have more time for the allegation the English clubs are selfish and money-grabbing if there was evidence that other clubs and unions around the world are paragons of virtue, only interested in player welfare and the good of the sport. The main concern for me is whether a move to secure their own financial stability risks undermining club and provincial rugby elsewhere. At the moment, I'd say we just don't know enough about what is being proposed to draw any firm conclusions.

Rubbish Leo. The celtic unions have toured the pacific islands more often then the Wallabies, All Blacks and Springboks. Even the French have toured the islands. The ARU pulled Australia A out of the PNC after a couple of seasons. They have employed players from these nations so they can make a living out of the game whereas 4 Aussie Super Rugby teams only have one spot available to recruit a player from the PIs (the other is for a project player like Speight to qualify for Australia so that won't help Fijian rugby). There won't be a third tier comp. Spanish, Romanian teams are already in the Amlin Challenge Cup. Portugal and Russia will get their eventually when they sort out internal issues. As for blocking RWC votes? The IRFU voted for the inferior NZ RWC 2011 bid. That helped rugby in the pacific islands!

I was against the English clubs when this news broke out yesterday cause I know it was all about money now that the English and French have mention a third tier comp involve teams from Georgia, Spain, Portugal, Romania and Russia. I'm starting to have second thoughts and past events from the three Celtic nations not helping Pacific Island nations and blocking rugby world cup votes and so on. One thing for sure the three Celtic Nations will not want rugby to develop or other nations to be stronger than them and therefore will vote together to make it stay that way.

Should France and England fully commit to this threat then they hold all the aces. Should the Pro12 and ERC not agree to the changes proposed by the English and French clubs, and the latter two pull out, then it will effectively leave a second Pro12 competition which just has Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Italian clubs. The Heineken Cup survived in the early days when English clubs weren't involved because the Celtic clubs competed in their own domestic leagues. Now, of course, that doesn't happen. I tend to agree with the English and French clubs though. It will also make the Rabo more competitive if there's something to pay for right at the end.

BT Vision is basically a monthly subscription service where you get a box which includes TV channels, an 'on demand' service which has films, music, sport etc. It's difficult to explain fully if you don't understand the way TV works in the UK, but that's what it is in simple terms. The thing is, BT don't currently have a channel, so I presume they will put a sports channel on BT Vision which is good for me because I have a BT Vision box!

I wonder whether BT have made an open-ended commitment to pay up regardless of what kind of European competition surfaces, or whether they have the right to scale back if they believe it isn't up to snuff. If they are committed to stumping up, even if we end up lumbered with just a Franglo deal, then PRL might think they've got more room for manoeuvre than if they had signed with someone demanding a Heineken Cup replica. That is, the PRL wants the amended Heineken deal you describe but can now dangle a more plausible threat to walk away. As you say, it could be a risky strategy. No sport can afford to take the goodwill of supporters for granted.

This has always been about the money really. PRL have shown their hand - but not completely. They have tied up a deal with BT to cover the English league for four years starting from 2014. Al fine and dandy and more power to their elbow. The deal is worth €38m a year. It also covers the exclusive TV rights for English teams playing in European games. Whether this applies to home games only is not clear. PRL have said recently that European rugby represents about 20% of their income. 80% of it is domestic. Whether this deal changes that ratio is not known. The French clubs through LNR are negotiating a similar deal. Meanwhile, European Cup Rugby has been preparing for a meeting to be held between the relevant unions to discuss agree the format of the next European Cup. The current agreement runs out in 2014. On the table already are proposals from English and French rugby to A) reduce the number of teams in the top tier - H Cup - from 24-20 B increase the number participating in the second tier - Challenge Cup with more Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italian clubs C) create a third tier comp for countries such as Georgia, Russia, Spain and Portugal. The monies coming in from the BT deal - amount unspecified - will be out into the central TV deal pot - and distributed to all. Proportions of who gets what is not known. The English and French also want the qualification structure changed from being a country guaranteed number of places to league position basis. Thus currently England and France get six guaranteed spots, Ireland and Wales get three, Scotland and Italy have two each. This would switch to top 6 across the three leagues plus the previous season's two cup winners. What's been curious about the whole affair so far is that English and French clubs have being doing all the shouting, ably supported by media commentators and fans on blog sites. The IRFU, WRU, SRU and FIRA have said nothing beyond that they will be sitting down to discuss matters in September. The IRFU conceded that there will have to be change accompanied by give and take on both sides. Other than that, not a peep as to what the respective decisions/viewpoints of the other four unions are. There's a running assumption that the four unions will act as one under the Pro 12 banner, but there's sufficient history between the Celtic unions in IRB decision-making where they rarely have seen eye-to-eye. There's always suspicions that the Welsh will pull a fast one and do a deal with the RFU as happened in the setting of the Anglo-Welsh Cup in 2005 when Wales were nearly banned from the then Celtic League as a result. It promises to be an intriguing ding-dong over the coming weeks/month. On the face of it, the English and French hold all the strong cards, and they expect the other four to fold their hands. But the PRL's actions this week may well have crossed the line in attempting to dictate publicly to its supposed partners the terms on the future of European rugby and its revenues. A European comp without England and France be financially stable - unlikely. A Franglo Cup without Munster, Leinster, Ospreys, Ulster would have less appeal and cachet. For better or for worse, all six need each other ideally. But it's not essential. Will it be a case of who blinks first?

So far, there is no coherent reaction in England because no-one is really very clear about what this will mean. All we can safely say is that the Premiership clubs believe they now have a stronger bargaining chip in negotiations for a European championship. There's no way of knowing whether they are right, or if they have overplayed their hand. Most sports fans like continuity so there is apprehension over the future of the Heineken Cup. It hasn't been around very long but it has become a well-loved part of the rugby calendar and so there are fears that an alternative competition might be inferior. Of course, English clubs have not taken part on two occasions so it hasn't been plain sailing since 1995. The Premiership claims it is looking to expand the pie for everyone rather than fighting over shares of current revenue. It's a heartwarming story but rugby at most levels around the world has a poor record at distributing cash equitably. It would be nice to know what endgame the various parties want to see for European competition but that's not going to happen while negotiations are under way.

Thanks for the info Leo. I still think we should be cautious: in your first post you are comparing rugby games to the canal football club which is a talk show about football (its like if we compare the rugby club to a ab v wallabies game) Secondly, the football game you're referring to in your 2nd post (montpellier v toulouse) was against the Olympics which was on fta tv and got a record audience of nearly 9M. I still think football is by far the n1 sport in france although rugby is definitely catching up. (also hard to compare tfa audiences to canal plus which isn't). tx for the info anyway! thats good news! http://www.leblogtvnews.com/article-flop-pour-la-ligue-1-vendredi-sur-c-face-aux-j-o-sur-france-2-109019773.html

The Top 14 does well considering it generally only has one Friday night game and the rest on a Saturday (which includes one evening game). Ligue 1 gets free reign on Sundays.

£90 million is peanuts given the amount of games from the SL get shown every week along with the magazine shows, Championship games. The SL does get good ratings. The AP in comparison only gets one Sky game a week as per the contract.

The Top 14 starts well Sunday, August 19, 2012 - 14:18 The first game released for the new season Top 14 , Toulouse-Castres (23-22), drew more viewers than the first Ligue 1 between Montpellier and Toulouse a week ago. Competition from the London Olympics, the Ligue 1 match that had attracted 350,000 subscribers to Canal + . An audience that is likely to remain bottom of the table throughout the season. Top 14, he starts with 750,000 subscribers on Friday night. A more honorable the week of August 15.

Interesting numbers from France where Top 14 rugby is now rate better than some Ligue 1 fixture. 1. F1 to A (TF1) : 3 million viewers and 23% share of the audience. 2. Téléfoot (TF1) : 1 million 250 18% .000 & pda. 3. Stage 2 (France 2) : 1 million 100 000 10% & pda. 4. Automoto (TF1) : 1 million & 17% pda. 5. Canal Football Club (Canal +, 2 e part . 7:30 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.): 930 000 4% & pda. 6. Canal Football Club (Canal +, 1 e part . 7:05 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.): 480,000 & 3% pda. Formula 1 (TF1), Italian Grand Prix 2 million 800 thousand viewers and 23% of pda. Rugby (Canal +, 21.00), Top 14 Racing Métro-Clermont: 870.000 & 4% pda.

Thanks mate.