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.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 -
@catogrande your logic does miss the point that ticket prices set by the RFU differ with the opposition
eg this year the prices go up in each respect from Samoa to Argentina to Australia. (Baabaas v NZ pricing sits halfway between Argentina and Australia)
The drawcard argument that NZ makes is that the (E)RU makes more money out of NZ playing because NZ have put investment into being the best in the world.
-
@crucial it's difficult to quantify as NZ haven't played at Twickenham for a coupe of years now but my understanding is that for the Autumn Internationals the ticket prices for Tier 2 nations are less, and also Argentina to a lesser degree. However for Aus, NZ or SA they are generally the same. I'm paying £95 to see England V Australia this autumn and I can't recall tickets v NZ being dearer than that.
Having said that I do not feel that it is much of an argument either way. Each of the Tier 1 unions has it within their power to maximise their own revenues and I would not expect any other country to supplement the gin bill at Twickenham any more than I would like to see England helping to pay for the development of yet another world class 7 for NZ.
The case for helping out the Tier 2 nations and below is to me pretty cut and dried. We (the Tier 1 nations) need to help more in providing funding (for some) and opportunities (for others.
-
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
Having said that I do not feel that it is much of an argument either way. Each of the Tier 1 unions has it within their power to maximise their own revenues and I would not expect any other country to supplement the gin bill at Twickenham any more than I would like to see England helping to pay for the development of yet another world class 7 for NZ.
It's not as if that are using the money to find a world class 7 for themselves (or if they are they aren't achieving their goal)
-
The quip about the "build a bigger stadium" was the somewhat dismissive response from Ritchie the last time this came up.
It was illogical and arrogant when applied to NZ. Given this is the same argument it's even more so to apply that to Samoa.
Let's put it this way. If you put on a concert as a promoter you own that concert, but you pay your performers. No performers = no concert. No concert = no profit.
I understand your impression about NZ fans thinking we're special. We are ... errr ... we do. But I really think the model is unfair.
Yes England will sell out Twickers and make millions of broadcast dollars no matter who they play. But will they be able to attract anyone if they don't front with a reasonable appearance fee? Is Samoa going to keep playing for $200K? Can they afford to? Again no opposition no revenue at all.
I maintain the current system is selfish and unsustainable. NZ is going into bat for sharing. Yes they'll be a primary beneficiary. But so will every other nation.
I maintain that if every other country gets on board the benefits are huge.
I do understand that it seems like English bashing, but you guys offer the most stark contrasts.
And I'm not hungover.
Think I covered everything ...
-
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
The quip about the "build a bigger stadium" was the somewhat dismissive response from Ritchie the last time this came up.
It was illogical and arrogant when applied to NZ. Given this is the same argument it's even more so to apply that to Samoa.
Let's put it this way. If you put on a concert as a promoter you own that concert, but you pay your performers. No performers = no concert. No concert = no profit.
I understand your impression about NZ fans thinking we're special. We are ... errr ... we do. But I really think the model is unfair.
Yes England will sell out Twickers and make millions of broadcast dollars no matter who they play. But will they be able to attract anyone if they don't front with a reasonable appearance fee? Is Samoa going to keep playing for $200K? Can they afford to? Again no opposition no revenue at all.
I maintain the current system is selfish and unsustainable. NZ is going into bat for sharing. Yes they'll be a primary beneficiary. But so will every other nation.
I maintain that if every other country gets on board the benefits are huge.
I do understand that it seems like English bashing, but you guys offer the most stark contrasts.
And I'm not hungover.
Think I covered everything ...
England is the outlier. Why would it make sense for the IRFU/sRUWRU to share AI revenue with the NZRU a union that has a greater income than them?
-
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
The quip about the "build a bigger stadium" was the somewhat dismissive response from Ritchie the last time this came up.
It was illogical and arrogant when applied to NZ. Given this is the same argument it's even more so to apply that to Samoa.
Let's put it this way. If you put on a concert as a promoter you own that concert, but you pay your performers. No performers = no concert. No concert = no profit.
I understand your impression about NZ fans thinking we're special. We are ... errr ... we do. But I really think the model is unfair.
Yes England will sell out Twickers and make millions of broadcast dollars no matter who they play. But will they be able to attract anyone if they don't front with a reasonable appearance fee? Is Samoa going to keep playing for $200K? Can they afford to? Again no opposition no revenue at all.
I maintain the current system is selfish and unsustainable. NZ is going into bat for sharing. Yes they'll be a primary beneficiary. But so will every other nation.
I maintain that if every other country gets on board the benefits are huge.
I do understand that it seems like English bashing, but you guys offer the most stark contrasts.
And I'm not hungover.
Think I covered everything ...
England is the outlier. Why would it make sense for the IRFU/sRUWRU to share AI revenue with the NZRU a union that has a greater income than them?
AI? Artificial Intelligence? Oh you mean the End of Year Tours ... I do find the fact that you buggers up north think you're the only hemisphere with seasons up there with the English forgetting other countries have rugby unions. It's a bug bear of mine ... but I digress ...
Back on topic:
Because they would share revenue on outbound tours. -
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
The quip about the "build a bigger stadium" was the somewhat dismissive response from Ritchie the last time this came up.
It was illogical and arrogant when applied to NZ. Given this is the same argument it's even more so to apply that to Samoa.
Let's put it this way. If you put on a concert as a promoter you own that concert, but you pay your performers. No performers = no concert. No concert = no profit.
I understand your impression about NZ fans thinking we're special. We are ... errr ... we do. But I really think the model is unfair.
Yes England will sell out Twickers and make millions of broadcast dollars no matter who they play. But will they be able to attract anyone if they don't front with a reasonable appearance fee? Is Samoa going to keep playing for $200K? Can they afford to? Again no opposition no revenue at all.
I maintain the current system is selfish and unsustainable. NZ is going into bat for sharing. Yes they'll be a primary beneficiary. But so will every other nation.
I maintain that if every other country gets on board the benefits are huge.
I do understand that it seems like English bashing, but you guys offer the most stark contrasts.
And I'm not hungover.
Think I covered everything ...
England is the outlier. Why would it make sense for the IRFU/sRUWRU to share AI revenue with the NZRU a union that has a greater income than them?
AI? Artificial Intelligence? Oh you mean the End of Year Tours ... I do find the fact that you buggers up north think you're the only hemisphere with seasons up there with the English forgetting other countries have rugby unions. It's a bug bear of mine ... but I digress ...
Back on topic:
Because they would share revenue on outbound tours.You must be blissfully unaware of Spring Tours in your part of the world then.....
So how would that balance out since the June Tours make less money? Even if it was the same then there would still be no benefit between the teams.
Providing more money for Tier Two teams such as Samoa, Fiji, Georgia, etc makes sense to me. Put a fee or tithe on the gate revenues so that players get paid well as well as covering travel and logistics costs. On the issue of player match fees, I would prefer WR set a flat fixed fee for players (separate from performance bonuses) to play test matches. There are some wide disparities on these amongst unions with Eng, NZ and Wales amongst the top payers sometimes double or triple that other Tier one unions pay. This would help to equalise income and costs for tests somewhat.
-
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
The quip about the "build a bigger stadium" was the somewhat dismissive response from Ritchie the last time this came up.
It was illogical and arrogant when applied to NZ. Given this is the same argument it's even more so to apply that to Samoa.
Let's put it this way. If you put on a concert as a promoter you own that concert, but you pay your performers. No performers = no concert. No concert = no profit.
I understand your impression about NZ fans thinking we're special. We are ... errr ... we do. But I really think the model is unfair.
Yes England will sell out Twickers and make millions of broadcast dollars no matter who they play. But will they be able to attract anyone if they don't front with a reasonable appearance fee? Is Samoa going to keep playing for $200K? Can they afford to? Again no opposition no revenue at all.
I maintain the current system is selfish and unsustainable. NZ is going into bat for sharing. Yes they'll be a primary beneficiary. But so will every other nation.
I maintain that if every other country gets on board the benefits are huge.
I do understand that it seems like English bashing, but you guys offer the most stark contrasts.
And I'm not hungover.
Think I covered everything ...
England is the outlier. Why would it make sense for the IRFU/sRUWRU to share AI revenue with the NZRU a union that has a greater income than them?
AI? Artificial Intelligence? Oh you mean the End of Year Tours ... I do find the fact that you buggers up north think you're the only hemisphere with seasons up there with the English forgetting other countries have rugby unions. It's a bug bear of mine ... but I digress ...
Back on topic:
Because they would share revenue on outbound tours.So how would that balance out since the June Tours make less money? Even if it was the same then there would still be no benefit between the teams.
If there were simply 'appearance fees' then it is up to the home union to fund however the need to rather than have some kind of gate % thing going on.
e.g an appearance fee for a top 3 country may be US$500,000 you can fund that from gate or the TV rights. NZ playing England in NZ can command bigger TV revenue from sales to the UK market. -
@crucial said in Revenue Sharing:
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
The quip about the "build a bigger stadium" was the somewhat dismissive response from Ritchie the last time this came up.
It was illogical and arrogant when applied to NZ. Given this is the same argument it's even more so to apply that to Samoa.
Let's put it this way. If you put on a concert as a promoter you own that concert, but you pay your performers. No performers = no concert. No concert = no profit.
I understand your impression about NZ fans thinking we're special. We are ... errr ... we do. But I really think the model is unfair.
Yes England will sell out Twickers and make millions of broadcast dollars no matter who they play. But will they be able to attract anyone if they don't front with a reasonable appearance fee? Is Samoa going to keep playing for $200K? Can they afford to? Again no opposition no revenue at all.
I maintain the current system is selfish and unsustainable. NZ is going into bat for sharing. Yes they'll be a primary beneficiary. But so will every other nation.
I maintain that if every other country gets on board the benefits are huge.
I do understand that it seems like English bashing, but you guys offer the most stark contrasts.
And I'm not hungover.
Think I covered everything ...
England is the outlier. Why would it make sense for the IRFU/sRUWRU to share AI revenue with the NZRU a union that has a greater income than them?
AI? Artificial Intelligence? Oh you mean the End of Year Tours ... I do find the fact that you buggers up north think you're the only hemisphere with seasons up there with the English forgetting other countries have rugby unions. It's a bug bear of mine ... but I digress ...
Back on topic:
Because they would share revenue on outbound tours.So how would that balance out since the June Tours make less money? Even if it was the same then there would still be no benefit between the teams.
If there were simply 'appearance fees' then it is up to the home union to fund however the need to rather than have some kind of gate % thing going on.
e.g an appearance fee for a top 3 country may be US$500,000 you can fund that from gate or the TV rights. NZ playing England in NZ can command bigger TV revenue from sales to the UK market.Not sure if I understand what you’ve said. Are you saying that amount of monies paid would be based on WR ranking which could change during a tour or series of global tests on a weekly basis?
Leaving England out of it, how does this balance out unless you create an additional unplanned test from which revenues are shared?
For argument’s sake, Ireland are playing SA, Fiji and Argentina in November. Let’s say that each visiting team is going to get €250k per match as a fee on top having their travel costs covered. The IRFU is now down €750k on its income for the year. What’s the next step for them? Wait until they tour Australia next June and be paid €750k by the ARU on top of their travel costs?
-
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
The quip about the "build a bigger stadium" was the somewhat dismissive response from Ritchie the last time this came up.
It was illogical and arrogant when applied to NZ. Given this is the same argument it's even more so to apply that to Samoa.
Let's put it this way. If you put on a concert as a promoter you own that concert, but you pay your performers. No performers = no concert. No concert = no profit.
I understand your impression about NZ fans thinking we're special. We are ... errr ... we do. But I really think the model is unfair.
Yes England will sell out Twickers and make millions of broadcast dollars no matter who they play. But will they be able to attract anyone if they don't front with a reasonable appearance fee? Is Samoa going to keep playing for $200K? Can they afford to? Again no opposition no revenue at all.
I maintain the current system is selfish and unsustainable. NZ is going into bat for sharing. Yes they'll be a primary beneficiary. But so will every other nation.
I maintain that if every other country gets on board the benefits are huge.
I do understand that it seems like English bashing, but you guys offer the most stark contrasts.
And I'm not hungover.
Think I covered everything ...
England is the outlier. Why would it make sense for the IRFU/sRUWRU to share AI revenue with the NZRU a union that has a greater income than them?
That's the complexity in a nutshell. The AI matches over here generate more income than a reciprocal match in NZ, so Ireland, Scotland and Wales lose out yet their Unions are not as rich as the NZRFU. To add to the complexity, stir in the Lions issue where there is no reciprocal equivalent. NB I do realise that we have been down this road before and that there is a payment from the hosting Union towards Lions' costs but not, I understand actual revenue sharing.
-
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@crucial said in Revenue Sharing:
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
The quip about the "build a bigger stadium" was the somewhat dismissive response from Ritchie the last time this came up.
It was illogical and arrogant when applied to NZ. Given this is the same argument it's even more so to apply that to Samoa.
Let's put it this way. If you put on a concert as a promoter you own that concert, but you pay your performers. No performers = no concert. No concert = no profit.
I understand your impression about NZ fans thinking we're special. We are ... errr ... we do. But I really think the model is unfair.
Yes England will sell out Twickers and make millions of broadcast dollars no matter who they play. But will they be able to attract anyone if they don't front with a reasonable appearance fee? Is Samoa going to keep playing for $200K? Can they afford to? Again no opposition no revenue at all.
I maintain the current system is selfish and unsustainable. NZ is going into bat for sharing. Yes they'll be a primary beneficiary. But so will every other nation.
I maintain that if every other country gets on board the benefits are huge.
I do understand that it seems like English bashing, but you guys offer the most stark contrasts.
And I'm not hungover.
Think I covered everything ...
England is the outlier. Why would it make sense for the IRFU/sRUWRU to share AI revenue with the NZRU a union that has a greater income than them?
AI? Artificial Intelligence? Oh you mean the End of Year Tours ... I do find the fact that you buggers up north think you're the only hemisphere with seasons up there with the English forgetting other countries have rugby unions. It's a bug bear of mine ... but I digress ...
Back on topic:
Because they would share revenue on outbound tours.So how would that balance out since the June Tours make less money? Even if it was the same then there would still be no benefit between the teams.
If there were simply 'appearance fees' then it is up to the home union to fund however the need to rather than have some kind of gate % thing going on.
e.g an appearance fee for a top 3 country may be US$500,000 you can fund that from gate or the TV rights. NZ playing England in NZ can command bigger TV revenue from sales to the UK market.Not sure if I understand what you’ve said. Are you saying that amount of monies paid would be based on WR ranking which could change during a tour or series of global tests on a weekly basis?
Leaving England out of it, how does this balance out unless you create an additional unplanned test from which revenues are shared?
For argument’s sake, Ireland are playing SA, Fiji and Argentina in November. Let’s say that each visiting team is going to get €250k per match as a fee on top having their travel costs covered. The IRFU is now down €750k on its income for the year. What’s the next step for them? Wait until they tour Australia next June and be paid €750k by the ARU on top of their travel costs?
You may be overthinking it.
The 'fees' and balancing would have to be part of the international schedule planning. If teams play home and away on an even basis then there isn't an issue.
Obviously any tournament can make its own arrangements on sharing the package income eg 6N, TRC so we are talking about the June and November periods.
