Revenue Sharing
-
@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 • RWC 2015/2019 and qualification • RWC Women’s 2017 and qualification • World Rugby Pacific Nations Cup, World Rugby Nations Cup, World Rugby Tbilisi Cup (HPT2 teams) • June and November Tours (HPT2 teams) • World Rugby Pacific Challenge, World Rugby Americas Cup (HPT2 “A” teams) • World Rugby U20 Championship, World Rugby U20 Trophy • Regional 15s Tournaments Sevens • RWC Sevens 2018 and qualification • HSBC Sevens World Series and qualification • World Rugby Women’s Sevens Series and qualification • Olympic Games 2016/2020 qualifiers • 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: £85m in tier one high performance unions or £8.5m each £50m or £5m each in tier two performance unions £28m in the remaining member unions and regional associations The tier two figure includes a new specific allocation of £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 £150,000 [a further £75,000 if they reach the quarter-finals and a further £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 £50m for the benefit of the 10 tier two unions participating in RWC 2015 – **£34m in direct grant funding** and a further £16m indirectly via provision of competitions.So on average, a union like Samoa diretly receive £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 £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 €5k for playing. The overall fee minimum should be in the region of €:250k. That’s 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 €2 premium for a Grow the Game Player Fund, that’s €80-100k minimum to get started in most cases.
Paying the players would also have a useful effect on those players ‘encouraged’ not to play in tests. Bugger that. Let’s 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?
-
@higgins said in Revenue Sharing:
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?
He was quite right to whistleblow. It's a shame nothing has changed. I know of stories from within the Manu Samoa camp in those days from someone involved and they were basically along the lines of players and staff being treated like crap while the management hangers on all stayed down the road in luxury.
I don't want to make accusations on something I know little about but there seems to be a large 'cultural' aspect to what goes on. -
@crucial said in Revenue Sharing:
@higgins said in Revenue Sharing:
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?
He was quite right to whistleblow. It's a shame nothing has changed. I know of stories from within the Manu Samoa camp in those days from someone involved and they were basically along the lines of players and staff being treated like crap while the management hangers on all stayed down the road in luxury.
I don't want to make accusations on something I know little about but there seems to be a large 'cultural' aspect to what goes on.Yeah, it's no secret the governance has been an issue for all 3 PI unions, and this why when IRB re-jigged their voting structure a few years ago that the PIs didn't get their voting power increased, and didn't get individual votes per country.
As an example from Tonga 2 years ago. The IRB pay the salary on behalf of the TRU for the TRU head coach and high performance manager.
After 2015 new TRU CEO Faeo Vunipola sacked both these guys without consulting IRB. The IRB subsequently froze distributions to the TRU.
Sport: Former Tonga Rugby boss hits back at criticisms
The former head of the Tonga Rugby Union says claims the organisation is broke are incorrect.
Epeli Taione said funding from World Rugby had been frozen because due process wasn't followed when key staff, including high performance manager Peter Harding and national coach Mana Otai, were removed without explanation.
"When the new regime took over...you cannot sack the high performance, manager, the coach and CEO, which is the main head of rugby, so obviously he didn't know where to start and I just think to be honest he's just completely out of his depth. All these words that they're saying that Tonga Rugby Union is broke is far from the mark, it's misinformed and it's untrue. Why World Cup funding is freezing is because he (Vunipola) doesn't follow due process."
-
-
http://www.sportcal.com/News/FeaturedNews/112954
Interesting interview with Beaumont.
World Rugby wants more sponsors to reduce dependence on Rugby World Cup
In a separate interview, Bill Beaumont, the chair of World Rugby (pictured), suggested that the governing body could go so far as to seek to pool revenues with the national rugby unions to ensure that it is not perpetually forced into returning to the sport’s biggest markets to host the tournament, simply in order to maximise revenues. He said: “What we have to try and do is make sure all our competitions are self-funding and self-sufficient. We’re very reliant on the four years of the Rugby World Cup. We want to make sure we don’t always have to go to where we make most money. “We also have to consider lots of other markets in North and South America, if we’re talking about a world game. World Rugby is reliant on its constituent bodies [the unions], so we have to be extremely careful we don’t tread on their toes. But we’d like to try and get more collaboration of all the unions – it could be in the best interests of the game to pool resources.” It seems questionable whether the larger unions would agree to share their revenues with the smaller ones, but Beaumont insisted: “Being collaborative with all the stakeholders means there might be more in the pot for everyone.” Pointing out that he was himself formerly the chair of England’s Rugby Football Union, the sport’s largest and richest, Beaumont added: “If we can make certain there would be more for them, they’d be more likely to agree.” Beaumont is 14 months into his first four-year term as World Rugby president (he said he would consider standing for a second term “if people still want me”). Asked what are the biggest challenges facing World Rugby, he said: “In trying to grow the game globally, we’ve got to make sure the major unions are viable; that while this successful game is being expanded, we’re not losing but keeping existing territories. It’s well documented that not many unions are generating a great deal of money. There’s huge inflation in players’ salaries driven by the English and French clubs.”Now. The only way I can see the IRB creating an environment where the T1 unions are pooling resources with T2 and T3 unions (e.g. TV Rights) is if they are in a shared competition/tournament.
The only way I can see the IRB 'forcing' T1 unions into shared tournaments with T2 unions is via RWC Qualifying.
Interesting. Maybe we won't see 12 direct qualifiers for RWCs in the future. May see just 2 or 3 direct qualifiers -
and the rest go into continental qualifying competitions. With the IRB selling (or getting a cut) of TV Rights and sponsorship which it then adds to its 4-yearly distributions cycle. -
Other interesting parts of that interview, from a general IRB revenue POV:
World Rugby’s revenues over the current four-year Rugby World Cup cycle up to the 2019 Rugby World Cup are expected to total about £500 million ($676 million), according to Gosper, albeit the organisation is budgeting for a 20-per-cent shortfall in the period after the 2019 edition. The 2019 tournament is being held outside the circle of the traditional heavyweight rugby union nations for the first time, and in a time zone that is less attractive to broadcasters in Europe than the 2015 edition hosted by England, although reduced media rights income is partly counterbalanced by record sponsorship revenue and an increased hosting fee. Of the £500-million total, 85 per cent derives from the Rugby World Cup, Gosper said, with the remaining 15 per cent coming mainly from the annual HSBC Sevens World Series, plus other tournaments such as the Women’s Rugby World Cup. -
Another interesting article I found, when searhcing for above,
NBCUniversal to televise Rugby World Cup in 2019, 2023
NBCUniversal has reached a deal to televise the next two Rugby World Cups in an attempt to make a sport that is wildly popular in other parts of the world more mainstream in the U.S.
IRB's sale of TV rights to NBC includes a profit sharing clause apparently. Incentive for NBC to see it grow.
-
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:
Interesting. Maybe we won't see 12 direct qualifiers for RWCs in the future. May see just 2 or 3 direct qualifiers -
and the rest go into continental qualifying competitions. With the IRB selling (or getting a cut) of TV Rights and sponsorship which it then adds to its 4-yearly distributions cycle.More of a FIFA WC style competition where only the host is a guaranteed qualifier?
-
@antipodean said in Revenue Sharing:
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:
Interesting. Maybe we won't see 12 direct qualifiers for RWCs in the future. May see just 2 or 3 direct qualifiers -
and the rest go into continental qualifying competitions. With the IRB selling (or getting a cut) of TV Rights and sponsorship which it then adds to its 4-yearly distributions cycle.More of a FIFA WC style competition where only the host is a guaranteed qualifier?
Host(s) and reigning champ
Wasn't that the case in the 90s?
May have been 3rd place up to try and give some meaning to that game.
Aussie had to play qualifier(s) one year.
-
England had to qualify for the 1999 World Cup.
They played a tournament in northern England (Huddersfield) . England, Italy, Netherlands.
This was pre Italy being invited into the 6 Nations, so both teams were seen as 'exotic'.
I think they spanked Netherlands by 100.
I think that year(1999) was the most comprehensive qualifying. It must have been top 3 from 1995 (as England came 4th in 95). Australia also must have had to qualify that year as they were knocked out in 1/4 finals in 95. I don't remember Australia qualifying, but they would have just had to play 'normal' Oceania teams.
