Revenue Sharing
-
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:
It would seem common sense that Tier 2 countries, that never get visited reciprically, should get a fee or a split (a fee would require less accounting overheads), and for simplicity's sake it should just be negotiated between the two parties, with an expectation that can be 'policed' by the media if it is too stingy.
In fac, maybe the match fees should be part of the hosts costs. Then the SRU can divert that 650 pounds x 23 = (14,950 quid) to something else such as an administrators slush fund ..... , and the RFU can stump up e.g. 2k each for match fees etc
But there are 2 'battles' going on and I think the PI nations etc are getting sucked into the collatoral damage.
Ritchie (who has now gone I think anyway) is reluctant to set a precendent while Tew and co are sniffing around.
The SRU should ask, like Fiji, my understanding from the original article is that they haven't (yet).
I think you're right here. There are two issues. One is very much a problem and the other much less so. Tier 2 nations, in particular the PIs are financially fucked. The money that they receive from the likes of the RFU is pitiful (as an aside is there any reason why this issue always gets raised when one of the PIs is playing England Why not Wales, Scotland or any of the Tier 1 SH nations? Is the revenue position that different?). Nonetheless I am amazed that the RFU don't put their hands in their pockets for these sort of games. It really wouldn't take much to make a real difference and as it is, it is a PR disaster. In the meantime PI rugby continues to suffer.
The broader argument for revenue sharing is not really such a problem. All the Tier 1 nations either have the funding or have the wherewithal to arrange their funding. They have the infrastructure, the fan base and the sponsorship opportunities. It is just a desire to get a larger slice of an already large pie and in this instance I agree with Ritchie's comment that it is not England's responsibility to fund world rugby, although he could have clarified that by saying Tier 1 world rugby.
Definitely 2 different issues though.
I think it is because the revenue position is that different.
Firstly think TV rights and telative populations.
But gate tskings and corporate revenues are apparently huge at Twickers. So the comparison is more stark and makes a better story.
The fact is that England stands to lose the most if there is any form of revenue equalisation. That's why they're against it.
Any other nation even Tier 1 nations just don't generate as much $$$.
-
@booboo Yeah I get that England are (probably in line with the French) the most cash generative unions. What I was thinking about regarding the revenue position being different was whether there was a different agreement on revenue sharing. Like do Wales, Scotland, Aus, SA, NZ etc have any forms of revenue sharing? Probably should have clarified that better.
-
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:
It would seem common sense that Tier 2 countries, that never get visited reciprically, should get a fee or a split (a fee would require less accounting overheads), and for simplicity's sake it should just be negotiated between the two parties, with an expectation that can be 'policed' by the media if it is too stingy.
In fac, maybe the match fees should be part of the hosts costs. Then the SRU can divert that 650 pounds x 23 = (14,950 quid) to something else such as an administrators slush fund ..... , and the RFU can stump up e.g. 2k each for match fees etc
But there are 2 'battles' going on and I think the PI nations etc are getting sucked into the collatoral damage.
Ritchie (who has now gone I think anyway) is reluctant to set a precendent while Tew and co are sniffing around.
The SRU should ask, like Fiji, my understanding from the original article is that they haven't (yet).
I think you're right here. There are two issues. One is very much a problem and the other much less so. Tier 2 nations, in particular the PIs are financially fucked. The money that they receive from the likes of the RFU is pitiful (as an aside is there any reason why this issue always gets raised when one of the PIs is playing England Why not Wales, Scotland or any of the Tier 1 SH nations? Is the revenue position that different?). Nonetheless I am amazed that the RFU don't put their hands in their pockets for these sort of games. It really wouldn't take much to make a real difference and as it is, it is a PR disaster. In the meantime PI rugby continues to suffer.
The broader argument for revenue sharing is not really such a problem. All the Tier 1 nations either have the funding or have the wherewithal to arrange their funding. They have the infrastructure, the fan base and the sponsorship opportunities. It is just a desire to get a larger slice of an already large pie and in this instance I agree with Ritchie's comment that it is not England's responsibility to fund world rugby, although he could have clarified that by saying Tier 1 world rugby.
Definitely 2 different issues though.
I think it is because the revenue position is that different.
Firstly think TV rights and telative populations.
But gate tskings and corporate revenues are apparently huge at Twickers. So the comparison is more stark and makes a better story.
The fact is that England stands to lose the most if there is any form of revenue equalisation. That's why they're against it.
Any other nation even Tier 1 nations just don't generate as much $$$.
But it doesn't need to be % based. That would certainly cause inequalities.
WR should simply insist that for the good of the game a touring Tier 2 country playing a Tier 1 country should receive x amount as an appearance fee.
If they are good enough to attract a crowd they are good enough to be paid. -
We’ve had this discussion before but it’s worth re-stating some of the factors to take into consideration.
In my view, using England RFU as an example or reason to do this is wrong headed. They are so far out in front in revenue/turnover that they are the exception rather than the rule.
If revenue-sharing is to be considered then the cause and effect for all parties has to be considered.
Look at the respective turnovers of the unions amongst NZ, SA, Irl, Wal, Aus and Sco - let’s call them Tier B unions. (France are not on the same scale as England - partly because they don’t often own the stadia they play in, however, they probably join England in the small Tier A Unions ).
As a crude measure of the turnover, Irl, Wal & Sco earn most of it from test matches. For example, IRFU turnover last year was €76.5m approx. €10.5m of that came from PRO12 and Euro Cup comps. Test revenue is about €51m all told between TV rights and test gates. Commercial income about €10m. The rest is kit sponsorships, sporting grants, etc.
€41m goes back out the door on Professional Game Costs - the test coaching staff, player test bonuses, 15 player central contracts, and contributions to the costs of the four provincial teams. Other monies head towards the Elite Development Squads in the four provincial academies and their coaching staffs, the women game, the sevens game, and the 240 clubs around the country, the partial funding of the semi-professional and amateur leagues, etc, etc.
The IRFU made a loss last year of €2.8m for the first time since 2007/08, but should break even or make a small profit this year - according to their annual report.
So how much should IRFU agree on their Nov matches to share with opposing teams? (Generally travel costs, etc of the opposing team are met by the host team - even during in-window tests.) A lot of it is dependent on the opposition, attendances and the right ticketing strategy. In 2010, with the newly opened Aviva Stadium, the IRFU got it badly wrong in their pricing strategy and fans stayed away in their droves. They've got it right more often than not since then. But it's not always a full-house, even though Lansdowne Road is one of the smallest of the Six Nations stadia at 51,000. Across the Irish Sea, the newly-renamed 74,000 Principality Stadium puts up full houses and squeaking for games against England or Ireland, a few less squeaks for New Zealand, but then drops off considerably for the likes of Australia and South Africa - posting about the same attendances as Dublin. A look at recent attendances in the stadium shows matches against Fiji or Japan getting better houses than the two SH heavyweights , possibly due to combined ticket packages. Nonetheless, the stadium has other revenue generating events, and last year the WRU posted a bigger turnover and a profit than the IRFU.
Other questions arise on the issue of revenue-sharing. Should it be reciprocal and happen in mid-year tests as well?
Should there be minimum size stadia requirements for maximising revenue?
What percentage should be spent on marketing the game?
Should there be sharing of merchandising revenues/opportunities?
Should there be a guaranteed minimum for the host nation no matter what? Surplus is then split accordingly?In summary, I’ve no problem with the theory of revenue sharing. Polarising it around the RFU won’t get agreement. Making it a “rich NH v poor SH” argument won’t help either. I do think the six Tier B unions could shape and argue for a new agreement collectively that benefits themselves and potentially Tier C and Tier D unions.
-
@catogrande Ignore all the convulated mathematical and moral arguments.
Two reasons: RFU are fluffybunnies and the rest of us are jealous of how they get to wallow around in the cash like Scrooge McDuck.
Perfectly reasonable arguments IMO
-
@pot-hale It's a fair point to highlight the RFU are a massive outlier.
It would be nice if Australia, New Zealand and South Africa owned a national stadium, but we don't.
-
The RFU are certainly an extreme but is it not valid to highlight an extreme in order to illustrate a point? That is how you get attention to a matter. Show the ridiculous extremes that the current set up can lead to then work backwards to find the right balance.
-
@crucial I see your point but I'm not sure the extremes are particularly useful for a wider discussion. If we take England as one extreme and say Samoa as the other, it is quite a feasible exercise for England to stump up enough cash to make a material difference to the Samoan situation without it causing any problems for England. Whereas if you look at revenue sharing across the board this would hugely impact the RFU finances and not make anywhere near as much difference to say SA or NZ as a more modest payment would to Samoa.
However in order to address the bigger picture I feel we should include a formal structure for open-side flanker sharing too.
-
Neither does France, Italy, USA, Canada, Argentina. Ireland jointly own Aviva with the Football Assoc of Ireland and its still being paid off.
-
All this talk about Piutau or Fekitoa using the Olympic back door to play for Tonga. Forgets the real reason they left NZ, to provide for their families. If Bristol pay more then Tonga then the equation doesn't change and international rugby is all the worse for it.
Got to be honest with you if I was a player representing one of the island nations and had to choose between club or country. I would see that 33 times pay disparity and decide its just not worth the risk.
-
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
@crucial I see your point but I'm not sure the extremes are particularly useful for a wider discussion.
No but they are very useful in bringing attention to a subject so the wider discussions may kick off. Otherwise the call is simply 'Oh, it isn't an issue, let's move on'
The thing that annoys me is that you can be damn sure that a England/ Samoa game will be marketed as if it is a genuine challenge from Samoa.
I'm not looking for some multi-million pound share to the opposition, just a more equitable acknowledgement that the opposition are contributing to the product. -
@crucial said in Revenue Sharing:
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
@crucial I see your point but I'm not sure the extremes are particularly useful for a wider discussion.
No but they are very useful in bringing attention to a subject so the wider discussions may kick off. Otherwise the call is simply 'Oh, it isn't an issue, let's move on'
The thing that annoys me is that you can be damn sure that a England/ Samoa game will be marketed as if it is a genuine challenge from Samoa.
I'm not looking for some multi-million pound share to the opposition, just a more equitable acknowledgement that the opposition are contributing to the product.Are you saying for all matches? Just Nov ones? June ones as well?
-
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@crucial said in Revenue Sharing:
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
@crucial I see your point but I'm not sure the extremes are particularly useful for a wider discussion.
No but they are very useful in bringing attention to a subject so the wider discussions may kick off. Otherwise the call is simply 'Oh, it isn't an issue, let's move on'
The thing that annoys me is that you can be damn sure that a England/ Samoa game will be marketed as if it is a genuine challenge from Samoa.
I'm not looking for some multi-million pound share to the opposition, just a more equitable acknowledgement that the opposition are contributing to the product.Are you saying for all matches? Just Nov ones? June ones as well?
I guess that during comps (TRC,6N,RWC etc) the revenue or profit share situation is under those rules. So yeah, I guess I am talking about the June and November windows.
-
@crucial said in Revenue Sharing:
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
@crucial I see your point but I'm not sure the extremes are particularly useful for a wider discussion.
No but they are very useful in bringing attention to a subject so the wider discussions may kick off. Otherwise the call is simply 'Oh, it isn't an issue, let's move on'
The thing that annoys me is that you can be damn sure that a England/ Samoa game will be marketed as if it is a genuine challenge from Samoa.
I'm not looking for some multi-million pound share to the opposition, just a more equitable acknowledgement that the opposition are contributing to the product.The bolded bit I couldn't agree with more and as nations such as Samoa have little chance of generating much in the way of revenue themselves it ought to be incumbent on all the richer tier 1 nations to do something about it. England should do their part and they blatantly aren't, which is shameful.
-
Sport: Samoa Rugby Union close to bankruptcy
Samoa Rugby Union's CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai says that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts.
The Samoa Rugby Union is close to filing for bankruptcy.
CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai told the Daily Mail newspaper that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts, and that they are close to insolvency.
He said without desperate support from the Samoan Government the SRU would not survive - a point referenced by the Prime Minister and SRU Chair Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi in the Union's 2016 Annual Report.
"I wouldn't like to speak about the worst-case scenario. We don't want to go down the road where there is no Samoan national team because our people have a lot of passion. This must not happen," Faleomavaega said in the Daily Mail.
"This year's tour is going ahead as planned. If we can't afford to put together a team then there will be no tours. World Rugby give us funding but we still need a system of revenue sharing.
"Money is at the centre of everything. The economic model is absolutely wrong."
The Samoa Rugby Union has requested a fee of $US200,000 for taking part in next month's test against England at Twickenham, in an attempt to ease their financial problems, but World Rugby guidelines do not require host countries to share in their match-day revenues, unless the test is scheduled outside the international window.
The SRU's 2016 Annual Report revealed a net loss of $US42,000, after the High Performance Unit posted a six figure loss ($US103,000).
The report, obtained by the Samoa Observer, also said debts had been reduced from $US274,000 to $US192,000, having been closer to $US400,00 0 in 2015.
-
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:
Sport: Samoa Rugby Union close to bankruptcy
Samoa Rugby Union's CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai says that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts.
The Samoa Rugby Union is close to filing for bankruptcy.
CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai told the Daily Mail newspaper that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts, and that they are close to insolvency.
He said without desperate support from the Samoan Government the SRU would not survive - a point referenced by the Prime Minister and SRU Chair Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi in the Union's 2016 Annual Report.
"I wouldn't like to speak about the worst-case scenario. We don't want to go down the road where there is no Samoan national team because our people have a lot of passion. This must not happen," Faleomavaega said in the Daily Mail.
"This year's tour is going ahead as planned. If we can't afford to put together a team then there will be no tours. World Rugby give us funding but we still need a system of revenue sharing.
"Money is at the centre of everything. The economic model is absolutely wrong."
The Samoa Rugby Union has requested a fee of $US200,000 for taking part in next month's test against England at Twickenham, in an attempt to ease their financial problems, but World Rugby guidelines do not require host countries to share in their match-day revenues, unless the test is scheduled outside the international window.
The SRU's 2016 Annual Report revealed a net loss of $US42,000, after the High Performance Unit posted a six figure loss ($US103,000).
The report, obtained by the Samoa Observer, also said debts had been reduced from $US274,000 to $US192,000, having been closer to $US400,00 0 in 2015.
I know.
They could build an 80,000 seat stadium. Isn't that the 'E'RFU's answer to everything?
-
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:
Sport: Samoa Rugby Union close to bankruptcy
Samoa Rugby Union's CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai says that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts.
The Samoa Rugby Union is close to filing for bankruptcy.
CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai told the Daily Mail newspaper that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts, and that they are close to insolvency.
He said without desperate support from the Samoan Government the SRU would not survive - a point referenced by the Prime Minister and SRU Chair Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi in the Union's 2016 Annual Report.
"I wouldn't like to speak about the worst-case scenario. We don't want to go down the road where there is no Samoan national team because our people have a lot of passion. This must not happen," Faleomavaega said in the Daily Mail.
"This year's tour is going ahead as planned. If we can't afford to put together a team then there will be no tours. World Rugby give us funding but we still need a system of revenue sharing.
"Money is at the centre of everything. The economic model is absolutely wrong."
The Samoa Rugby Union has requested a fee of $US200,000 for taking part in next month's test against England at Twickenham, in an attempt to ease their financial problems, but World Rugby guidelines do not require host countries to share in their match-day revenues, unless the test is scheduled outside the international window.
The SRU's 2016 Annual Report revealed a net loss of $US42,000, after the High Performance Unit posted a six figure loss ($US103,000).
The report, obtained by the Samoa Observer, also said debts had been reduced from $US274,000 to $US192,000, having been closer to $US400,00 0 in 2015.
US£200,000 is a piddly amount to the RFU. I would be very interested to know how much they are paying the Samoa RFU. If it isn't as much as US$200k they should hand their heads in shame.
-
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:
Sport: Samoa Rugby Union close to bankruptcy
Samoa Rugby Union's CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai says that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts.
The Samoa Rugby Union is close to filing for bankruptcy.
CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai told the Daily Mail newspaper that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts, and that they are close to insolvency.
He said without desperate support from the Samoan Government the SRU would not survive - a point referenced by the Prime Minister and SRU Chair Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi in the Union's 2016 Annual Report.
"I wouldn't like to speak about the worst-case scenario. We don't want to go down the road where there is no Samoan national team because our people have a lot of passion. This must not happen," Faleomavaega said in the Daily Mail.
"This year's tour is going ahead as planned. If we can't afford to put together a team then there will be no tours. World Rugby give us funding but we still need a system of revenue sharing.
"Money is at the centre of everything. The economic model is absolutely wrong."
The Samoa Rugby Union has requested a fee of $US200,000 for taking part in next month's test against England at Twickenham, in an attempt to ease their financial problems, but World Rugby guidelines do not require host countries to share in their match-day revenues, unless the test is scheduled outside the international window.
The SRU's 2016 Annual Report revealed a net loss of $US42,000, after the High Performance Unit posted a six figure loss ($US103,000).
The report, obtained by the Samoa Observer, also said debts had been reduced from $US274,000 to $US192,000, having been closer to $US400,00 0 in 2015.
I know.
They could build an 80,000 seat stadium. Isn't that the 'E'RFU's answer to everything?
No, but it might answer some of NZRFU problems.
-
@catogrande but it isn't the "English" Rugby Union's responsibility to fund world rugby... according to the "English" Rugby Union.
Am seriously passionate about this.
The "E"RU would make no money if they played nobody.
People paint revenue sharing as a money grab by NZ. But here is the evidence of the results of selfishness.
Remember NZ, who are NOT the richest union in world rugby, have on more the the one off occasion, shared or provided 100% of the gate profits to the minor nations. Has the ENGLISH Rigby Union?
Personally I'd like to see broadcast revenue spread in addition to gate takings.
But the arrogant fuckwittedness of "build a bigger stadium ... haw haw haw ... " is exposed here.
Signed
Seriously grumpy and a tiny smidgen piddly
Booboo -
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
@catogrande but it isn't the "English" Rugby Union's responsibility to fund world rugby... according to the "English" Rugby Union. Not sure where you got this from
Am seriously passionate about this. I have no doubt about this
The "E"RU would make no money if they played nobody. This is true, but is also true of every other RU. Why should this mean that England should help fund every other Union?
People paint revenue sharing as a money grab by NZ. But here is the evidence of the results of selfishness. I can't say in regard to "people" but most of the discussions I've had in regard to revenue sharing have been on TSF. I have heard little from the Aussie, Saffer, Welsh, Irish, Scots or occasional French Ferners in regard to this topic but have heard from a fair few Kiwi Ferners. This is often based on the premise that the All Blacks are the draw card in world rugby (Which I agree is mostly true). Thus I can see the NZ view that they would like to see some recompense for their being the draw, though this I feel is selfish. The England view (and I can see this being viewed as selfish also) is that draw or no draw, Twickenham gets filled for games v Aus and SA and mostly Argentina as well as all the 6N games. We don't need NZ to earn £££
Remember NZ, who are NOT the richest union in world rugby, have on more the the one off occasion, shared or provided 100% of the gate profits to the minor nations. Has the ENGLISH Rigby Union? Richest or not, the idea of revenue sharing is, to my mind a complex situation. The real concern with money in the game is to ensure the sustainability of the game worldwide. In the current climate this means ensuring countries such as Samoa and the other PIs can continue to select from strength and continue to field teams for tours and one-off games while encouraging the grass roots in these countries to be nurtured. It is also about encouraging the lower tier nations by helping them financially where appropriate and by providing them with opportunities. It is not about the richer nation(s) helping out the not quite as rich nations. BTW I am not suggesting here that the RFU are actually doing all they should and certainly not all they could
Personally I'd like to see broadcast revenue spread in addition to gate takings. I don't agree (perhaps not surprisingly)
But the arrogant fuckwittedness of "build a bigger stadium ... haw haw haw ... " is exposed here. How?
Signed
Seriously grumpy and a tiny smidgen piddly Accepted as fact
Booboo
