How to fix Australian rugby, Part 2: Reducing operating costs

By @Jeremy.Atkin / Roar Rookie

For rugby in Australia to survive, it needs to cut costs. Given the deterioration in the media landscape and the game’s waning popularity, revenue will decline and cuts are necessary to balance the books.

Click here to read Part 1 of this series

Rugby Australia’s current operating budget is $80 million (excluding the $30 million paid to the Super Rugby franchises) and the four Super Rugby franchises have annual expenditure of roughly $20 million each for a total spend of about $160 million per year. Taking the dual mindsets of desperate times call for desperate measures and never waste a good crisis, I am setting myself a goal of reducing this by 50 per cent, i.e. $80 million.

Step 1: Eliminate a layer
Anyone who has done corporate transformation projects knows the easiest way to find efficiencies is to reduce the layers in the middle of the system. In most organisations, this means reducing middle-management headcount, in the case of Australian rugby it means scrapping Super Rugby altogether.

The current format isn’t delivering for the Wallabies, it’s not delivering for fans and it’s not delivering commercially. Rather than performing complicated reconstructive surgery, the better solution is just to get rid of it altogether. Of the $80 million spent by the Super Rugby clubs, about $22 million is player payments so assuming for a moment that you don’t touch the players at all, the pool you’re looking at is $58 million.

(Photo by Patrick Hamilton/AFP via Getty Images)

You could assume that you just take these costs out altogether but even in my structure you do need some infrastructure at the state level (especially for coordinating grassroots) so I’ll assume a saving of $50 million, which leaves $8 million to be spread out among the state bodies.

We also pay $1 million to SANZAAR central funding, which doesn’t make a lot of sense with no Super Rugby and no Rugby Championship (I’m scrapping that too) so that can go as well.

Step 2: Pay fewer players
Current
Of the 195 professional rugby players in Australia about 150 are aligned with the four Super Rugby teams — 36 to 40 for each. Extrapolating from the various annual reports, it appears the total cost of employing these guys is $38 million annually — a bit over $250,000 each, which seems about right.

Options
To get this number down there are only two options — pay each player less or employ less players. The first option doesn’t work without accelerating the player drain to Europe and Japan but employing less players means supporting less professional teams so what do you do? The question is answered above — you cut the Super Rugby teams and pay less players.

Solution
Cut the number of contracted players down from 150 to 50, structured as follows:
• 25 contracts for the most valuable players (Wallabies contracts)
• 25 contracts for the players aged 23 and under deemed to be the most promising (junior contracts)
• All contracts are for fixed pre-set values and for a fixed period of three years, awarded on a rolling-basis, i.e. eight of each contracts awarded each year
• Wallabies contract values: six worth $1 million, six worth $900,000, six worth $800,000, seven worth $700,000 (all per annum) = total cost of $20.4 million
• Junior contract values: six worth $200,000, six worth $190,000, six worth $180,000, seven worth $170,000 (all per annum) = total cost of $4.4 million
• Total player cost of $26 million plus another $3 million or so in match fees for a saving of $9 million

I’ll fully explain the logic for this in another post but it boils down to paying more to attract the best young talent, keep the best players in Australia year-round and letting everyone else fend for themselves.

(Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)

It obviously means a lot less professional rugby players in Australia at any given time but changing the competition structure and eligibility rules hopefully means this doesn’t impact either the product for fans or the success of the Wallabies.

Step 3: Trim the fat
Somehow, Rugby Australia manages to spend close to $19 million between Wallabies team costs and high performance and national teams. I would love to see a breakdown of these costs because this seems ridiculous.

If you assumed a staff of ten rugby staff on an average of $400,000 plus $100,000 in costs per person and costs of $100,000 per contracted player, that still only gets you to $10 million. Where does the other $9 million go?

It goes in the bin — another $9 million in savings.

Step 4: Outsourcing
I am going to say up front that I don’t know too much about how any of these functions truly operate other than to say that every single thing I have read regarding the current financial state of Rugby Australia says that head office is bloated and this is reflected in the match-day and corporate cost lines, which together come to $26 million.

One simple solution could be outsourcing. Instead of having an in-house match-day operations team, why not outsource to a specialist event-promoter like TEG? Instead of having an in-house sponsorship sales team, why not outsource to a specialist rights commercialisation agency like GroupM or IMG? We already seem to outsource a lot of the rights negotiation so why not outsource the other commercial functions to people who do this stuff for a living.

You’d need to structure the deals the right way to align the incentives but very basic economics tells you that putting specialists in charge leads to better outcomes and at a minimum you’d dramatically reduce the fixed cost base. Operating under this outsource model could save you another $10 million easily.

Some combination of these two steps seems to have already been completed with the recent round of cost savings at Rugby Australia so it will be interesting to see what (if anything) the consequences are.

Summary of savings
Super Rugby — $50 million
Player costs — $9 million
Rugby costs — $9 million
Admin costs — $10 million
SANZAAR payment — $1 million
Total — $79 million

So not quite the achieved goal of $80 million but pretty close and a much smarter and leaner operating model for Rugby Australia. Cost is only half the problem though — maintaining and growing revenue is every bit as important and will be tackled in the next post tomorrow.

This post was originally published on Medium.

The Crowd Says:

2020-07-15T03:13:27+00:00

The Set Peace

Roar Rookie


None of the Wallabies know where to position themselves, look at the World Cup results.

2020-07-14T04:30:11+00:00

jcmasher

Roar Rookie


I don't know why Koroibete kept getting picked, if it was any other country than Australia and any other coach than Cheika he probably wouldn't, as for Folau it is only in the eyes of some here that he was ever considered good let alone the best player. I'd suggest the most over rated player in Australia but that's all. He could do 2 things well; catch a ball and run if given space. he couldn't tackle, couldn't kick, couldn't pass and never knew where to be on the field. Again if it wasn't Australia or Cheika he would never have been picked

2020-07-13T08:51:03+00:00

Guess

Roar Rookie


Agreed, aru will need to spend/borrow more money once they have a clear vision. Cost saving can't resolve the problem, it's just a necessity, cause it slows down the decline, basically buying some time until they find some solution, which is not guaranteed ofc.

2020-07-13T00:48:13+00:00

concerned supporter

Roar Rookie


Sheek, The bloke is a Roar Guru, do come research. He has written 43 Articles. made 95.3 K comments, he has been a positive contributor to Roar Rugby.

AUTHOR

2020-07-12T23:03:14+00:00

@Jeremy.Atkin

Roar Rookie


My structure is an effort to (1) attract enough of the best young players to stay with union and stop what has happened with Angus Crichton, Kalyn Ponga, Cam Murray, Tyson Frizell etc. etc. choosing league over union and (2) keep our very best players here & make an rugby career as financially attractive as an elite NRL career. At the moment Sean McMahon, Will Skelton, Tolu Latu, Isaac Rodda, Rory Arnold, Samu Kerevi are all probable selections in the Wallabies best 23 but aren't available because they're overseas. We just can't win without picking our best players. I agree it's not perfect but without paying big money for the best players they will ALL leave (rather than my model which would see a lot of the mid tier guys go to Europe but have the best guys stay).

2020-07-12T22:47:48+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Never heard of Fionn. Obviously never had anything of importance to say.

2020-07-12T22:47:05+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


TWAS - I will give you the same parting shot as Oblonsky. I would rather walk the track alone that head in the wrong direction with a bunch of fools.

2020-07-12T22:45:53+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Oblonsky's other pun, Here's my parting shot to you. I would rather walk the track alone than head in the wrong direction with a bunch of fools.

AUTHOR

2020-07-12T22:45:02+00:00

@Jeremy.Atkin

Roar Rookie


$70k isn't enough - league can outbid that all day. And without big contracts at the top end all the best players will just go to Europe.

AUTHOR

2020-07-12T22:42:39+00:00

@Jeremy.Atkin

Roar Rookie


This is a good point. Lack of clarity in terms of the overall goal is a huge part of the problem. There's also no sense that any sort of competitive analysis has been done. i.e. where do we sit relative to NRL / AFL. What are our advantages / disadvantages and how should we operate to capitalise on our strengths and mitigate our weaknesses...

2020-07-12T22:41:09+00:00

stillmissit

Roar Guru


OK74: I think that the article generates a thinking process and at least he has read the annual reports from my take on the article. So I suspect he is only a catalyst and not an in-depth analyst.

2020-07-12T20:20:41+00:00

AndyS

Guest


Depends what you mean by tribalism. If you mean at club level I would disagree, and think that professionalising that level is a proven fools errand. But the biggest rivalries in all the Australian sports have tended to be between states, and plenty to go around with that being the basis of the rugby up through all the age development levels to this day. So it is hard to miss how the NRC teams now correspond almost directly to those teams, each correlating to a major sub-union. The opportunity to integrate the development programs in each major community grouping from juniors right through to the senior NRC team seems obvious, if RA could sort their proverbial out and those with agendas could look up out of their bellybuttons. There is tribalism and to spare between those groupings, always has been. But the structure of the teams has to reflect it, rather than being like mini-franchises.

2020-07-12T19:43:46+00:00

The Set Peace

Roar Rookie


Well why do they keep picking Koroibete, why was Folau the best player in Australia for many years?

2020-07-12T19:32:53+00:00

Micko

Roar Rookie


And my point was the third tier has to be based on, or utilise the tribalism of the main grassroots support. How does the NRC do this?

2020-07-12T19:31:20+00:00

AndyS

Guest


Pfft, how hard can it be? Stick it on the list right after solving global hunger and sorting out world peace... :laughing:

2020-07-12T19:17:56+00:00

Micko

Roar Rookie


Mate, you have to convince that basket case of an organisation to completely sort themselves out. :silly: Good if that would happen! :thumbup: NZ is lucky in being a small country and economy they don’t have the rampant corporate greed and self justification of administrators, CEO’s etc. The AFL CEO gets rewarded with millions for running a sport that is played in one country…and half of the country hates it! :shocked:

2020-07-12T19:08:46+00:00

AndyS

Guest


Yet there is simply no money anywhere that could be better used to fund a professional third tier, so no point even thinking about it? Which is it?

2020-07-12T19:05:46+00:00

Micko

Roar Rookie


Are you serious? You obviously haven't read many of my comments! I've constantly criticised the basket case top heavy administration with $800,000+ per year CEO's and how many other parasites...but this problem is prevalent in all aussie sports leagues.

2020-07-12T18:59:17+00:00

AndyS

Guest


And coming full circle, RA already have as much money each year as NZR do. And by your own argument, with less to support with that money. Yet they still have enough to pay for a professional third tier, so clearly it can be managed financially on the sort of money that RA is already receiving. Not perhaps on top of whatever RA is currently squirting it away on, but addressing that is exactly what this thread is about. Unless what you are leaving unsaid is that in your opinion the current RA financial position represents the best possible use for every dollar received?

2020-07-12T18:58:07+00:00

Honest Max

Roar Rookie


Point one is not true. Point 2 I’ll go along with. Point 3 makes me want to kiss you on the mouth. Your solution may not appreciate the Japan rugby market. Companies like Toyota and Sony own those clubs and pay the crazy salaries because of the rivalry between the companies. Toyota wants to beat Sony - they may not care less about the Reds, Tahs and Crusaders. The Sunwolves didn’t have big money sponsors and couldn’t pay their own way. So, no dice.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar