Revenue Sharing
-
The latest IRB schedules (I think it's a 4 year cycle), agreed recently after the global season / revenue sharing stoush.
It sees way more tier 1 v tier 2 games.
I think it is mostly 6N teams that will play those T1 v T2 games. As there are 6 of them and only 4 Sanzar unions. Plus the Lions year.Will be able to crow about 'your' zeal to play in far flung corners of the tier 2 globe.
-
@rapido If you listen carefully you can hear my crowing right now. Or maybe not. Have you got a link to that info at all?
-
Latest News | World Rugby
The latest World Rugby news, including about the World Rankings, Tournaments, Player Welfare and the Laws of the Game
- 39 per cent increase in tier one v tier two fixtures with emerging nations integrated on merit
- Tier one tours to Pacific Islands, Japan, Canada, USA, Georgia and Romania
-
That's why I put the the quotes around 'your'. I agree it's clumsily written.
-
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:
Latest News | World Rugby
The latest World Rugby news, including about the World Rankings, Tournaments, Player Welfare and the Laws of the Game
- 39 per cent increase in tier one v tier two fixtures with emerging nations integrated on merit
- Tier one tours to Pacific Islands, Japan, Canada, USA, Georgia and Romania
Looks like a step in the right direction.
-
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
@rugger-quizzes said in Revenue Sharing:
Frankly the RFU seems to have very little desire to grow the game globally.
Since England toured North America in 2001 (Presumably during the Lions tour that year) they have not played a single game outside the 6 Nations countries or the Rugby Championship Countries.
Which is pretty shameful. In that time NZ have played Samoa in Apia once and other than that, zip. Unless of course you want to count playing Ireland in Chicago as growing the game? Aus have (bizarrely) played away in Spain and that's it. So whilst England's record is pretty damn poor, it's no outlier.
2015 Samoa
2014 USA
2013 Japan
2012 Scotland
2011 Fiji (in NZ but from memory Fiji were invited and received a gate share as a pre RWC hitout)Also the NZ v Samoa game this year was wrapped with the moved Tonga v Wales to reduce costs to Tonga and help provide a bigger take for them.
-
-
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
They're less minnowy than Wales, France and Argentina at the moment
-
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
Worth noting also that since 2006 the England Saxons have played away in Canada, Russia, USA, Belgium and Portugal.
Not really relevant. Have a look at Maori and NZ A tours. The 'B" teams don't count in this discussion that's just development for all unions involved. How is the revenue shared there? I honestly don't know.
-
@snowy said in Revenue Sharing:
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
Worth noting also that since 2006 the England Saxons have played away in Canada, Russia, USA, Belgium and Portugal.
Not really relevant. Have a look at Maori and NZ A tours. The 'B" teams don't count in this discussion that's just development for all unions involved. How is the revenue shared there? I honestly don't know.
I'm not so sure it's not relevant. For the Tier 2 nations and below it is not just about the money but also about opportunity to play at a higher level, in that the tours of the Saxons, Maori etc are very important. I have no idea about how any revenue is shared or how costs are covered.
-
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
I have no idea about how any revenue is shared or how costs are covered.
Anyone know how that works for Saxons, Maori, NZ A?
As for relevance can we compare an England match v Samoa for example, to a Saxons v Canada for revenue and how it is distributed? I guess that is just scale of funds. I thought the point was that the cash should be shared whomever the host nation is?
-
@snowy said in Revenue Sharing:
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
I have no idea about how any revenue is shared or how costs are covered.
Anyone know how that works for Saxons, Maori, NZ A?
As for relevance can we compare an England match v Samoa for example, to a Saxons v Canada for revenue and how it is distributed? I guess that is just scale of funds. I thought the point was that the cash should be shared whomever the host nation is?
I don't know, but I believe it works on the traditional host keeps all method.
But.
Often these teams are piggy backing on tournaments (Churchill Cup, Pacific Cup) that have IRB funding.
I'd say it's fluid.
No tier 2 team are going to invite a tier 1 nation's A team on a loss making tour.
I think the MABs have enough brand power to generate profits for the hosting nation. Where as NZ A (re-branded as the JABs) are little bit less sexy.
-
For everyone's info, the IRB do directly fund T2 nations, via tournaments and the June and November tour windows.
file:///C:/Users/758313/Downloads/World_Rugby_Investment_Programmes_brochure.pdf
Funded Competition: 15s ā¢ RWC 2015/2019 and qualification ā¢ RWC Womenās 2017 and qualification ā¢ World Rugby Pacific Nations Cup, World Rugby Nations Cup, World Rugby Tbilisi Cup (HPT2 teams) ā¢ June and November Tours (HPT2 teams) ā¢ World Rugby Pacific Challenge, World Rugby Americas Cup (HPT2 āAā teams) ā¢ World Rugby U20 Championship, World Rugby U20 Trophy ā¢ Regional 15s Tournaments Sevens ā¢ RWC Sevens 2018 and qualification ā¢ HSBC Sevens World Series and qualification ā¢ World Rugby Womenās Sevens Series and qualification ā¢ Olympic Games 2016/2020 qualifiers ā¢ Regional Sevens Tournamentsand from;
Home | Women's and Men's Rugby World Cup
The official site of Rugby World Cup, with ticketing and event information, live streaming, news, videos, fixtures and results.
RWC 2015 and the four-year RWC cycle ending in December 2015 In this cycle World Rugby will have invested directly and indirectly approximately: Ā£85m in tier one high performance unions or Ā£8.5m each Ā£50m or Ā£5m each in tier two performance unions Ā£28m in the remaining member unions and regional associations The tier two figure includes a new specific allocation of Ā£5m directly focused on the costs of preparation for RWC 2015. In addition to the above investments, every participating union in RWC 2015 receives a participation fee of Ā£150,000 [a further Ā£75,000 if they reach the quarter-finals and a further Ā£100,000 if they reach the semi-finals]. In percentage terms, this amounts to investments of approximately 52 per cent in tier one and 48 per cent in tier two/other unions. This represents a significant redistribution of wealth as more than 85 per cent of the revenues for RWC 2015 are sourced from the high performance markets. The investments in the next tier of performance unions and elsewhere are starting to yield enhanced returns on and off the pitch in a number of those markets.http://www.rugbycanada.ca/media/leagues/3817/graphics/170327_jf_rwc_2019_press_pack_usa.pdf
In total, between 2012-15, World Rugby invested Ā£50m for the benefit of the 10 tier two unions participating in RWC 2015 ā **Ā£34m in direct grant funding** and a further Ā£16m indirectly via provision of competitions.So on average, a union like Samoa diretly receive Ā£3.4m form the IRB over 4 years. Which in post brexit world is about $7m NZD, BTW, why do the IRB report in pounds? They are in Dublin? Plus have about Ā£1.6m of their costs covered via IRB competions
I've looked for Samoa's annual reports but can't find online.
So Samoa average $1.75m NZD a year in IRB funding. I'd say Samoa lose money hosting games, unless it is a funded tournament like RWC qualifying, and they must get a bit for jersey sponsorship and kit supplier. TV RIghts? for 1 game in the calendar year (which i watched on Sky and it looked like it was recorded on an analogue handycam) ... not much.
Asking for $200k USD (300K NZD) from the RFU would be approx 20% of their annual income.
-
There are going to be more 1 v T2 fixtures over the next 4 years, as discussed above. They are almost all being hosted by the T1 unions (I think) except in a Lions year where 2 to 3 of the 4 Home Unions get an expense paid opportunity to fulfil their outbound part of reciprocal tours by sending almost B teams (to T2 nations)......
So, this is going to come up more often. Each time 1 PI plays Twickenham (& maybe some of the others, but it is Twickers that generates the huge turnover and therfore the nespaper inmches).
I really think that the quick way (and easy way) is for the IRB, with voting power dominated by the 10 T1 unions, to agree a nominal fee when a T1 union host a T2 union. Say $100kj USD or $50k USD etc.
I really think that trying to go for a % of turnover (which is something only SANZAR unions are angling for) is going to be a handbrake on progress.
So then take Samoa as an example, and the year 2017:
- v NZ in Auskland (part of Pacfic double header, new on distribution of profits is murky)
- v Wales in Apia (100% of profits needing to cover 100% of costs)
- v Tonga in Nukualofa (doubled as a RWC Qulaifier / Pacific Nations Cup). The IRB pay the costs of RWC 2019 tournaments. (Assume Tonga get to keep any profits, crowd was around 10k. Tonga's first home game in a decade in newly refurbished stadium)
- v Fiji in Apia (doubled as a RWC Qulaifier / Pacific Nations Cup). The IRB pay the costs of RWC 2019 tournaments. (Assume Samoa get to keep 100% of any profits)
- Scotland v Samoa in Edinburgh. (Scotland keep 100% of profits)
- Romania v Samoa in Bucharest (Romania keep 100% of profits)
- England v Samoa in Edinburgh. (England keep 100% of prfits)
Now. If tier 1 teams paid a appearance fee to T2 unions. Then in 2017 a dirt poor union like SRU would be looking at $400k USD for the 2017 year - if set at a 100kUSD per match rate.
-
Samoa, and other PI nations, are the extreme case. As we are talking tiny economies, small home stadiums, and professional players playing in Europe.
But if talking another T2 union like USA for e.g. They played Ireland in June during Lions tour to a 20k odd crowd. They got a licensing fee for the 2016 Ireland V NZ match in Chicago in 2016, and similar for NZ v USA in Chicago in 2014.
So, not all are in the same situation with few prospects for independent income.
-
I would like to see some portion of any fee to be designated as player fees and paid directly to them to ensure no greedy hands intervene.
Each player should receive a minimum of ā¬5k for playing. The overall fee minimum should be in the region of ā¬:250k. Thatās strong without it being exorbitant on smaller T1s. If it came to it, if every ticket sold for a T2 test in NH had a ā¬2 premium for a Grow the Game Player Fund, thatās ā¬80-100k minimum to get started in most cases.
Paying the players would also have a useful effect on those players āencouragedā not to play in tests. Bugger that. Letās incentivise them to play.
-
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:...
- Scotland v Samoa in Edinburgh. (Scotland keep 100% of profits)
- Romania v Samoa in Bucharest (Romania keep 100% of profits)
- England v Samoa in Edinburgh. (England keep 100% of prfits)
Do we know if Samoa (in these instances) are paid an appearance fee from the hosting Unions? i.e., a set figure, not a percentage of profits?
-
No, they aren't.
-
Remember the protests led by Mahonri Schwalger (and his subsequent blacklisting by the powers that be) about the inappropriate allocating of money and gear by officials of the Samoa RFU. Is this current situation the chicken coming home to roost, again?
