DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 132273--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: Fearless Fred
Date: December 31, 2024, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think that the top 4 in the rankings (England, Canada New
Zealand & France) are fairly good bets for making the
Semi-finals, being further down the development path compared to
the other nations. That said, having some of the international
players playing in the PWR will only help bring along the player
fitness & skillset. It's up to the respective National Unions to
set up the right coaching structures for their national squads
to make the best use of them.
#Post#: 132275--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: poorfour
Date: December 31, 2024, 12:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ticket sales so far are apparently 250,000 - but with an overall
target of 400,000 and capacity in the venues to sell over
600,000. For comparison, RWC2021 (played in 2022) in NZ had
total attendance of 150,000. The other key measure is whether
they can sell out Twickenham for the double header final, which
looks to be on track.
I think attendance is likely to be strong given that (as far as
I can tell) every allocation so far has sold out. The real
question is whether tv coverage gets eyeballs and the tournament
as a whole stokes interest in the game.
As for the semi finalists, the top 4 are a good bet - but New
Zealand have Ireland in their group, who beat them in WXV this
year, and England’s pool is technically the hardest (they drew
the top ranked team from every tier) and likely to get harder
with the US and Australia bringing their 7s players into their
15s squads. One slip up could see some very tough QFs.
That said, I suspect England’s pack and midfield will improve
dramatically with Sadia Kabeya and Meg Jones back, so maybe the
battle in Pool A will be for second place.
#Post#: 132281--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: QuincyJones
Date: December 31, 2024, 7:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: poorfour link ---
>
> How are you using “fitness” here?
>
> Being fully pro won’t deliver strength equal to the men, but
that’s not what I was talking about. As you say, expecting that
to happen would be delusional - but then why would anyone choose
to use something physically unattainable as a criterion of
quality?
>
> Being fully pro will deliver the fitness to have teams where
all the players can maintain their pace and skills for 80
minutes. Compare the fitness of men’s players now to the fitness
of their “amateur”counterparts in the 90s and there’s a world of
difference; women’s rugby is only starting to go through that
transition.
>
--- End Quote ---
The major difference is, though, that men's rugby was generating
money in its amateur state and then turned professional.
Things become professional because they generate money, not the
other way around. You don't pay players money from a pot that
doesn't exist in the hope that the product becomes better and
generates income later. Women's rugby can be very good and
enjoyable in its current form, but it's still a money pit
because generally, people aren't willing to pay healthy sums to
watch.
The 18k attendance figure is great exposure but it's still
little more than number fudging. Like putting on a women's rugby
match before the NYE fireworks and claiming the rugby attendance
was 100k.
I like women's rugby, it's sometimes great to watch but it
shouldn't be professional. Professionalism isn't an equality
right, it's a matter of business.
#Post#: 132284--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: poorfour
Date: January 1, 2025, 2:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: QuincyJones link ---
>
> The major difference is, though, that men's rugby was
generating money in its amateur state and then turned
professional.
--- End Quote ---
Men’s rugby was, and is, generating money in one very specific
arena, and that’s top tier international rugby. Pretty much
every other aspect of the game is unprofitable and always has
been (with the possible exception of French club rugby, at some
levels).
It turned professional because the players (rightly) felt they
deserved a share of the revenue, and rich backers looked at what
was happening in soccer and thought it could be replicated (so
far, incorrectly)… and because other unions were
professionalising and it became an arms race.
--- Quote from: QuincyJones link ---
> Things become professional because they generate money, not
the other way around. You don't pay players money from a pot
that doesn't exist in the hope that the product becomes better
and generates income later. Women's rugby can be very good and
enjoyable in its current form, but it's still a money pit
because generally, people aren't willing to pay healthy sums to
watch.
--- End Quote ---
Men’s professional club rugby has never been profitable.
Leicester were, until they built their new stand, and Exeter
were until the pandemic. Every other club has made losses year
on year for over a quarter of a century.
By your logic, the whole game should pack up and go back to
being amateur.
--- Quote from: QuincyJones link ---
> The 18k attendance figure is great exposure but it's still
little more than number fudging. Like putting on a women's rugby
match before the NYE fireworks and claiming the rugby attendance
was 100k.
>
> I like women's rugby, it's sometimes great to watch but it
shouldn't be professional. Professionalism isn't an equality
right, it's a matter of business.
>
--- End Quote ---
Why can’t it be both? There is a genuine equality issue in sport
(and other forms of entertainment), where the gender pay gap is
far higher than in most industries, and we should as a society
work to address that - which means dismantling a century or more
of prejudice in administration, coverage and the fanbase.
But it is a matter of business, and the matter is this: men’s
rugby has limited opportunity for growth, but still doesn’t make
a profit. Women’s rugby has huge potential for growth and can
share infrastructure with the men’s game.
The people who fund rugby, and the people who run it, have
identified it as one of the two key markets that the sport has
to crack to survive, the other being the US. They are investing
in developing it, because the level of investment needed,
relative to the men’s game, is small and the potential upside is
large enough to save the game. The total cost of running a
women’s rugby programme is less than the annual loss on the
men’s team for many of the clubs.
#Post#: 132287--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: Mayor West
Date: January 1, 2025, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the double header is a bit of a “free sample” strategy
by Quins. If some of the 18,000 enjoyed the occasion maybe
they’ll go to the games at the Stoop. As for profitability, I
think the RFU must be making money now. There have been sell out
crowds at the club grounds the England team have played at and
50/60,000 crowds at Twickenham. This is a large increase on the
crowds achieved only a few years ago.
#Post#: 132301--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: QuincyJones
Date: January 2, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: poorfour link ---
>
> Men’s rugby was, and is, generating money in one very specific
arena, and that’s top tier international rugby. Pretty much
every other aspect of the game is unprofitable and always has
been (with the possible exception of French club rugby, at some
levels).
>
> It turned professional because the players (rightly) felt they
deserved a share of the revenue, and rich backers looked at what
was happening in soccer and thought it could be replicated (so
far, incorrectly)… and because other unions were
professionalising and it became an arms race.
>
> Men’s professional club rugby has never been profitable.
Leicester were, until they built their new stand, and Exeter
were until the pandemic. Every other club has made losses year
on year for over a quarter of a century.
>
> By your logic, the whole game should pack up and go back to
being amateur.
>
> Why can’t it be both? There is a genuine equality issue in
sport (and other forms of entertainment), where the gender pay
gap is far higher than in most industries, and we should as a
society work to address that - which means dismantling a century
or more of prejudice in administration, coverage and the
fanbase.
>
> But it is a matter of business, and the matter is this: men’s
rugby has limited opportunity for growth, but still doesn’t make
a profit. Women’s rugby has huge potential for growth and can
share infrastructure with the men’s game.
>
> The people who fund rugby, and the people who run it, have
identified it as one of the two key markets that the sport has
to crack to survive, the other being the US. They are investing
in developing it, because the level of investment needed,
relative to the men’s game, is small and the potential upside is
large enough to save the game. The total cost of running a
women’s rugby programme is less than the annual loss on the
men’s team for many of the clubs.
>
--- End Quote ---
I didn't actually mention profit, only the generation of money.
So that's not my logic at all. Club rugby makes money, but isn't
profitable because clubs spend beyond their means, for a variety
of reasons. How sound those reasons are is another matter
entirely. But such as can be the case in football, rich owners
know it's not profitable but can afford to spend £5m+ each
year... while being the owner of a club can bring benefits to
their other business interests and potentially make them money
elsewhere. Not always, I guess it depends on the popularity of
the club.
There is no gender inequality whatsoever in professional sport.
Their respective markets dictate which male and female sports
are popular and those that make money, get paid accordingly. It
is the exact opposite of equality to strive to pay women the
same as men just because they're women. If the product was the
same I'd agree with you, but it isn't. Also, how can a fanbase
be prejudiced?! Are we all prejudiced against the things we
don't actively enjoy watching?! It is SUCH a weird concept that
because someone likes men's rugby they should automatically have
to like women's rugby too, otherwise.... 'prejudiced'! On
coverage...again, the market dictates what's popular, it isn't
prejudiced. Women's rugby is shown on live tv now, but you can't
find the viewing figures anywhere online. I wonder why? TNT
won't show women's rugby forever, because it won't make business
sense for them to do so. But when it's dropped they can act like
they've done their bit for 'equality'. Nor can you find the
attendance figures of the Premier 15 games, unless it's piggy
backing on the gate receipts of the men's game and then it's
plastered everywhere.
Women's rugby might have potential for growth, but to do so it
needs to start generating its own money rather than taking
resources from the men's game. The men's game has been so poorly
managed for decades, why would the route to success for the
women's game be to share infrastructure and copy that model?!
The whole 'women's rugby will save the sport' and 'biggest
growth opportunity' narrative is so disingenuous, it's
unbelievable. All in the name of appearing PC from those who
keep spewing it.
Women's rugby can be great and hopefully it gets better and
better, but it should do so on its own merit, with its own
funds, irrespective of what's happening in the men's game.
#Post#: 132306--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: Wirralquin
Date: January 2, 2025, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A very well written piece 👏👏
#Post#: 132307--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: QuincyJones
Date: January 2, 2025, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mayor West link ---
>
> I think the double header is a bit of a “free sample” strategy
by Quins. If some of the 18,000 enjoyed the occasion maybe
they’ll go to the games at the Stoop. As for profitability, I
think the RFU must be making money now. There have been sell out
crowds at the club grounds the England team have played at and
50/60,000 crowds at Twickenham. This is a large increase on the
crowds achieved only a few years ago.
>
--- End Quote ---
Totally agree that it's a 'free sample' strategy and it's a very
good strategy at that, because it gets more eyes on the women's
game.
What does an England women's rugby ticket cost, maybe £25 on
average? (Some more expensive but offset by plenty of £5-10 kids
tickets). 60k x £25 = £1.5m
To put on an event at Twickenham stadium for 60k people costs a
huge amount more than £1.5m. There's just no way it's profitable
for the RFU.
#Post#: 132310--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: never sleep
Date: January 2, 2025, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: QuincyJones link ---
>
> Totally agree that it's a 'free sample' strategy and it's a
very good strategy at that, because it gets more eyes on the
women's game.
>
> What does an England women's rugby ticket cost, maybe £25 on
average? (Some more expensive but offset by plenty of £5-10 kids
tickets). 60k x £25 = £1.5m
>
> To put on an event at Twickenham stadium for 60k people costs
a huge amount more than £1.5m. There's just no way it's
profitable for the RFU.
>
--- End Quote ---
I can't imagine that Twickenham costs £1.5 for the RFU to hire.
Surely, the RFU will get it at cost as they own it?
I know there is a cost to staffing the bars and hospitality -
but, these are profit centres - so, bar turnover, etc should far
exceed the costs.
Some of the stewards are volunteers - but, there is still a cost
- but, can't be huge.
The games are televised - so there is some TV money
So - I can't think of where the £1.5 million cost would come
from.
There was a recent article about Big Game 1 where it suggested
that 40,000 tickets (where some adult tickets were on £10) was
the break even.
#Post#: 132312--------------------------------------------------
Re: PWR: A New World Record
DIR By: poorfour
Date: January 2, 2025, 7:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Men’s club rugby was not generating a ton of revenue when it
went professional, and a large part of the reason it is not
profitable now has been the investment by the various owners to
attempt to grow revenues to a point where they can grow faster
than the cost base.
I’d like to see a documented example of a football club owner
who gains enough from the impact on other interests to offset
the losses from the club on a sustainable basis. The only ones I
am aware of are the type of deals that split the land from the
sporting business, or load the club with debt so the owner can
extract value through the interest, neither of which is healthy
for the club.
There is massive and structural gender inequality in women’s
sport, because of the decades in which all of the investment in
the game, support from governing bodies and media coverage went
towards men’s sport. Women’s versions of the game were
suppressed or banned by governing bodies - the second women’s
Rugby World Cup was nearly cancelled because the then IRB
refused to support it, leading to several leading nations
withdrawing at short notice and Scotland taking over the hosting
from the Netherlands at 6 weeks notice.
Yes, there is currently less of an audience for women’s rugby
(and women’s sport in general), but it’s only in the last decade
or so that women’s team sports have had anywhere near the level
of investment, support and coverage that men’s have.
This isn’t about people being compelled to watch or like a sport
they don’t want to watch; it’s about removing the structural
barriers that have denied women’s sport an opportunity to build
a fan base that would make it sustainable.
And where are you getting the idea that women’s rugby is “taking
resources from the men’s game”? The women’s side at Quins runs a
separate P&L; the investment it receives is accounted for
separately. Sharing infrastructure is mostly about using the
stadium; aiming for a point where Quins can hold twice as many
profitable home games in a season is a sensible goal.
While there has been some bad administration in rugby, the
universality of difficulties in running rugby clubs and sports
franchises in general - outside the small number that have huge
tv audiences - suggests more that it’s a very difficult thing to
do than that the people doing it are universally poor at it.
Fans like to knock the suits, but if it were easy to do a better
job, someone, somewhere would be doing it.
As it is, women’s rugby has learned from some of the worst
mistakes of men’s rugby. The key one is that player salaries are
set to be based on a revenue sharing agreement, so that player
salaries are linked to revenues.
The point about women’s rugby being a growth opportunity is not
that it’s an easy source of additional revenues - I don’t think
anyone imagines that it will be anything other than a decade or
more of hard work to make it sustainable. But the unions and
investors recognise that in many ways it’s the only growth
opportunity: there is no space to fit more men’s games into the
season, no additional tv deals to be done, for many clubs not
much scope to increase their attendances without stadium
redevelopment.
If you think there’s another big revenue opportunity that rugby
is missing, then say what it is. Perhaps write to the RFU and
World Rugby - because what they see is an opportunity to make
the assets they have work harder by attracting a different pool
of fans to the game, and that it will take less investment to do
that than to find more revenue in the men’s game.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page