rugby rip off

[teaktop]

The losers are us ,the deal between Sky Sports and BT Sport to share the rights to the games 50/50 was ultimately necessary for the European Rugby Champions Cup to get the green light, but with access to BT Sport through the Setanta Sport's package costing fans €240 a year on top of their €432 Sky Sports subscription.
Is that the same in the U.K?

[Oswald]

I agree this broadcasting deal, as with almost every other, doesn't take into consideration the true fans who simply can not afford those ridiculous subscription prices. On a point of principle I would not subscribe to any Sky TV package.

[rupertramjet]

Sadly broadcasting deals are now the only way that sports can make money, the deals struck between Sky and BT, where necessary because the existing contract ran until next year, so Sky could have held things up for at least that year. The terrestrial broadcasters, either can not, or will not, try to challenge Sky and BT on buying programs. Look at what happened to ITV with then debacle of buying the lower English Football leagues, it almost bankrupted the company!

I completely agree with the true fans sentiment, and the cost of the various satellite programs, but a lot of local Rugby Clubs do show the programs in the Clubhouse!

[Oswald]

BT Sport is available online. However, I object to paying in excess of £35 per month to watch their Rugby output. I suppose there is YouTube where some people do upload highlights of recent matches.

[rupertramjet]

To think about the new competition if we may, I think it will be a far better one than what we have now. The top six English sides will qualify and the last places decided in a play off, which it is hoped will mean that the sides that, in my view should not be there in the first place, will not get through. There, at the moment, appears to be a straight qualification from the Rabo, which may mean fewer Welsh sides, but will I hope mean the best sides from that league, will now qualify, and it is nice to see that Glasgow look very much like being there, which can only be good for Scottish Rugby, in view of our discussion on the Six Nations thread.

The second tier, will at least guarantee that European competition will be played by the other sides, as now, with an automatic qualifying place up next season, the balance may well be redressed. Here's hoping!

[a435843]

This is an unfortunate, but an interesting counter example to what's going on with pay-TV costs in the US. Leagues like the NBA & MLB prosper, not because small numbers of people are willing to pay enormous sums to watch the endless number of games, but because of "bundling". Bundling is where all of the customers are forced to pay a huge amount, albeit for a large number of channels, including sports. The result is that people who don't watch sports are forced to pay for them anyway. This "tax" has allowed less popular sports (pretty much everything other than the NFL) to prosper despite a decline in popularity.

The ultimate irony is that the NFL is the sport with the most free coverage, over CBS (especially having recently expanded their contract into Thursdays), NBC, and Fox. ESPN's Monday Night Football & the NFL Network's smaller Thursday package are the only two exceptions. The NFL is the only sport that is popular enough to be a sure-fire hit for the broadcast network's money. These networks rely mainly on commercials, but also some on "carrier fees" from cable companies, which have become more contentious recently (see Aereo's trip to the Supreme Court tomorrow as a sign of this). However, the NFL's ubiquitousness is part of its appeal. If it tried to start getting too greedy by going all-cable, like the NBA, I think its appeal would be severely taxed. As US cable customers leave in droves for services like Netflix, because they're tired of paying for things they don't watch, the NFL keeping themselves on free TV is a shrewd way to keep themselves well out in front of sports that are either regionally popular only, such as baseball, hockey, or college sports, or sports that are demographically popular only, such as the NBA's popularity among younger and teenage viewers.

Which is why this move by Rugby Union is strange. On the one hand, historically, Union fans tend to be more affluent, so I guess that the assumption is they'll the cough up the money. As an aside, Rugby Union's image in the US is that it's a sport for rich college kids, drunk 20-something hipsters, and prep schoolers in Britain, so my assumptions are a bit based on that perception.

My conclusion is that, as a secondary sport whose fortunes in Britain have been on the rise recently, this is a bit of a risk. Customers might walk away, as many have already in the US. This also sounds a little like the Rugby League War in Australia in the 90's, where new pay services tried to get off the ground, but by starting a new league, rather than splitting up a current one. Either way, the sport was nearly dealt a fatal blow in the country, and Australian Rules now rules the scene, so to speak.

In the interests of full disclosure, I live in the US, and am primarily of fan of the NFL and college basketball, with baseball, college football, and hockey being of merely casual interest, while I actively loathe the NBA and NASCAR. However, due to the fact that I do watch a lot of sports on cable TV, I have, over the years, begun to follow the Super League and the NRL. Rugby League is a faster game than Union, and is, for an outsider, a more interesting product on the field. It does seem to have an inferiority complex though, especially in Britain, primarily due to socioeconomic class and regional considerations, which is unfortunate, because I think it would do well in the US, if it weren't already the world's most crowded sports market. Soccer has only made inroads in the US in those same groups as Rugby Union (rich hipsters) and is pretty much cable-only in the US, as an attraction to affluent traditional cable TV customers and to Hispanics, as a draw to pay-TV services.

[rupertramjet]

Originally Posted by a435843

It does seem to have an inferiority complex though, especially in Britain, primarily due to socioeconomic class and regional considerations, which is unfortunate, because I think it would do well in the US, if it weren't already the world's most crowded sports market. Soccer has only made inroads in the US in those same groups as Rugby Union (rich hipsters) and is pretty much cable-only in the US, as an attraction to affluent traditional cable TV customers and to Hispanics, as a draw to pay-TV services.

At risk of being a bore, the history of Rugby League is completely socioeconomic in its roots. The Game of Rugby Union was 'amateur' until 1995, then Rugby Union became an open game, allowing players to be openly paid for playing the game. Too late in the day for me to see a real chance of leaving the Army and making a living as a player! I was offered semi professional forms at £15k, (as were two other full internationals at my club) but we all opted to stay on expenses, as without paying tax, we earned more!


To return to League, it was formed as a break away from the Rugby Football Union in 1895, at first the major reason was that as a lot of the players worked in jobs which paid either by the hour, or by piece work, ie work done, the poorly paid workers were loosing money. The RFU refused to allow players to be paid, so the Northern Rugby Union came into being with twenty two clubs.

There certainly is a conception that Rugby Union is played by ex public school boys and hooray Henrys, but the reality is very different, and with more players getting media profiles, the reality is begining to be seen. To me one of the games biggest attractions has always been, that size and shape do not matter, it is a game for all. Sadly this is changing.

To give a perspective of the cross section in a senior Rugby team, I played in a side that comprised: Two soldiers: one officer, one corporal. Three teachers, a doctor, a couple of steel workers, a roofer, a plumber, an electrician, a shop keeper, a couple of cops, a construction site manager, a couple of miners and a brewery representative, I also played under a man who led his Country on Saturday and signed the Unemployment register on Thursday. A great cross section I think!

[richardoe]

Rupert lets be honest, Rugby Union until 1995 was a "shamateur" game. I remember David Campesie saying in the early ninties that he had made over a million quid from playing Rugby.

[rupertramjet]

My 'expenses' were paid as follows: Penzance Cornwall to Llanelli, twice a week for training and again for Match days, that is 1579 miles by car a week, or at speed limits and with little traffic 27 hours driving time a week. It aint ever going to happen! I lived when training and on match weekends at Pontarddulais, seven miles from the ground, in a house owned by the club with a couple of other players. So Richard, yes a sham, there were players earning thousands, but only in the big clubs and only when the reputation was high enough to get the pay outs.

The problem today is that the small clubs, have not got the financial muscle to climb the slope, even in the lowest three divisions, players are getting paid, to the extent that the RFU are about to take action. I find it very very sad, that there may never be another Dunvant, who in the last days of amateur Rugby reached the Welsh Premiership. I played against them and remember one of their committee men saying to me how the old clubs looked down on them on the way up, that is sad, but at least they reached the top, many of the old clubs never did. If you look on google, you will see the club, it still has a huge stand, I hope one day, it will be full again. For myself? I am proud to say I played a Premiership match at friendly Dunvant!

[richardoe]

I didnt say every one was at it Rupert. But the blazers knew it was going on but turned a blind eye. I can recall on the nationwide programme in the seventies Gareth Edwards admitted to being paid for wearing a certain make of boos.