NRL $200m USA TV Rights

[Alan79]

It's spare change for a US streaming service really. They're only grabbing a handful out of petty cash. 40 million a year for exclusive access is a fucking insult. People congratulating Vlandys for this deal aren't considering the prices other codes would earn there.

Sounds a little better if you list the whole amount in the eye grabbing headline. But it's 8 hours a week of NRL and if they need it, it'll probably include the lower grades if content is needed. So it's hardly even a consideration at that price. But it's a nice headline for Vlandys.

 

[GoTeamRaRaFunky]

what other foreign sports leagues get that amount of money from US television?

 

[CMP]

Not sure how anyone can think this is a bad thing. I'm no Vlandys fan by any means, but this brings in additional revenue with no additional content required and grows the game through exposure to the US domestic market.

There is huge upside potential in this market, with people's attention spans becoming shorter and shorter, they may be receptive to a game that's 80 minutes of fat pace, high intensity contact where NFL games take 4 hours to complete with endless stoppages.

Don't try to twist my words, I'm not saying we are going to take over the NFL, but I think there's a place for NRL over there.

My only concern is the NRL actually using the money effectively (grass roots, etc) but this is an existing concern, not specific to the US venture.

I think at some level they should be reinvesting some of this into a local US league. Without people playing the game even at a low level. The game will struggle to get a hold of the people. Even watching on TV.

 

[Cook]

It's spare change for a US streaming service really. They're only grabbing a handful out of petty cash. 40 million a year for exclusive access is a fucking insult. People congratulating Vlandys for this deal aren't considering the prices other codes would earn there.

Sounds a little better if you list the whole amount in the eye grabbing headline. But it's 8 hours a week of NRL and if they need it, it'll probably include the lower grades if content is needed. So it's hardly even a consideration at that price. But it's a nice headline for Vlandys.

You can’t be serious in suggesting someone generating 200mil for the game is an idiot. If it was so easy, why hasn’t it been done before??

 

[Cook]

The agendas on this place are next level.

 

[Alan79]

Not sure how anyone can think this is a bad thing. I'm no Vlandys fan by any means, but this brings in additional revenue with no additional content required and grows the game through exposure to the US domestic market.

There is huge upside potential in this market, with people's attention spans becoming shorter and shorter, they may be receptive to a game that's 80 minutes of fat pace, high intensity contact where NFL games take 4 hours to complete with endless stoppages.

Don't try to twist my words, I'm not saying we are going to take over the NFL, but I think there's a place for NRL over there.

My only concern is the NRL actually using the money effectively (grass roots, etc) but this is an existing concern, not specific to the US venture.

The price is my sticking point. I was just reading about our current sponsorship deal. Fox Sports had to pay $40 million a year for rights to a Saturday game.

I understand that the NRL has virtually no presence over there compared to the popular sports (baseball, hockey, NFL and basketball). A two year deal at this price I could swallow. But if Fox in Aus and channel 9 look at this as a competitor who's got a much larger potential market getting a 200 million dollar 5 year deal for what our market is paying 2 billion for, they might be a little pissed off about it next time they drop a deal on the table.

I'd be ok with giving them a couple of years at a low price to establish what advertising revenue they're generating and the popularity after a brief time to establish some followers. But it's dramatically under selling the code IMO.

 

[TABOO]

The price is my sticking point. I was just reading about our current sponsorship deal. Fox Sports had to pay $40 million a year for rights to a Saturday game.

I understand that the NRL has virtually no presence over there compared to the popular sports (baseball, hockey, NFL and basketball). A two year deal at this price I could swallow. But if Fox in Aus and channel 9 look at this as a competitor who's got a much larger potential market getting a 200 million dollar 5 year deal for what our market is paying 2 billion for, they might be a little pissed off about it next time they drop a deal on the table.

I'd be ok with giving them a couple of years at a low price to establish what advertising revenue they're generating and the popularity after a brief time to establish some followers. But it's dramatically under selling the code IMO.

Agree that the length of the contract should've been shorter. I assume that the US broadcaster obviously held the balance of power and demanded it. Is it perfect? No, but we're minimum $40m a year better off and gaining exposure over there. It's a step in the right direction.

 

[Alan79]

You can’t be serious in suggesting someone generating 200mil for the game is an idiot. If it was so easy, why hasn’t it been done before??

He's not an idiot. He's very crafty. He already admitted to selling the game as great gambling content. I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue, telling the truth wasn't the aim. Should've said great sporting content, but it's clear where his priorities were. I'm sure the broadcast deal was an afterthought. It's easier to entice gamblers if they can watch the games.

The ARL tried a few times, the NRL made attempts before streaming was such a huge thing to infiltrate the US market. As a niche sport in a time of free to air tv, it was going to be hard to push it into the mainstream. Times are different now.

The big difference now is that streaming services are worth billions if they have good content. The good content draws subscribers. If you can take a punt on something that might spark interest it's worth a gamble and despite the flaws we fans see with the game nowadays, it's still an exciting game. As a niche sport in the US it can develop a market by broadcasting at the right times. Generating 40 million in advertising wouldn't be a big ask in the US for 8 hours per week of content with the possibility to repeat that a few times if there's demand. Sports mad people will watch lawn bowls if it happens to be on when no other sports are. So screening NRL at a time when there's no other contact sports on could help develop a profile quickly. Even a small profile in a market that large would earn significantly better money than $40 million a year from advertising IMO.

I personally think a short term deal with a renegotiation in a couple of years would serve the game better. But I suspect that the real fish he's baited up for is getting Americans to gamble on the NRL. So IMO he's under selling it for the benefit of his gambling agency masters. "We'll take whatever chump change you offer if we can get this sport in the sights if the gamblers in your country".

I don't care if people think I have an agenda. I have a few.

1. I want the game to look like a level playing field, not to have new grey areas added which increase my suspicion that games are rigged.

2. I've never seen a time when there's such huge gaps in roster quality. And I attribute that to the fact that in spite of gradually increasing sponsorship deals since the big jump some years ago. Grass roots football is constantly ignored by those at the top. It's been about 20 years that we've had CEOs running the game that don't seem to know the game or give a shit about it. So improving grass roots funding might in ten years mean there's enough quality players to mean every game is up in the air. We currently have a system where it takes 3-6 years to realise that the dropkicks running the show need to be kicked out. Unfortunately know they won't be round to take credit for long term plans, so they don't bother starting them.

We as fans have no ownership of the game. If we did we wouldn't have a constant stream of CEOs tearing through the job. I'm sure that somewhere there's a competent enough lover of the game to actually implement beneficial plans. I don't think Vlandys is that CEO.

 

[Cook]

He's not an idiot. He's very crafty. He already admitted to selling the game as great gambling content. I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue, telling the truth wasn't the aim. Should've said great sporting content, but it's clear where his priorities were. I'm sure the broadcast deal was an afterthought. It's easier to entice gamblers if they can watch the games.

The ARL tried a few times, the NRL made attempts before streaming was such a huge thing to infiltrate the US market. As a niche sport in a time of free to air tv, it was going to be hard to push it into the mainstream. Times are different now.

The big difference now is that streaming services are worth billions if they have good content. The good content draws subscribers. If you can take a punt on something that might spark interest it's worth a gamble and despite the flaws we fans see with the game nowadays, it's still an exciting game. As a niche sport in the US it can develop a market by broadcasting at the right times. Generating 40 million in advertising wouldn't be a big ask in the US for 8 hours per week of content with the possibility to repeat that a few times if there's demand. Sports mad people will watch lawn bowls if it happens to be on when no other sports are. So screening NRL at a time when there's no other contact sports on could help develop a profile quickly. Even a small profile in a market that large would earn significantly better money than $40 million a year from advertising IMO.

I personally think a short term deal with a renegotiation in a couple of years would serve the game better. But I suspect that the real fish he's baited up for is getting Americans to gamble on the NRL. So IMO he's under selling it for the benefit of his gambling agency masters. "We'll take whatever chump change you offer if we can get this sport in the sights if the gamblers in your country".

I don't care if people think I have an agenda. I have a few.

1. I want the game to look like a level playing field, not to have new grey areas added which increase my suspicion that games are rigged.

2. I've never seen a time when there's such huge gaps in roster quality. And I attribute that to the fact that in spite of gradually increasing sponsorship deals since the big jump some years ago. Grass roots football is constantly ignored by those at the top. It's been about 20 years that we've had CEOs running the game that don't seem to know the game or give a shit about it. So improving grass roots funding might in ten years mean there's enough quality players to mean every game is up in the air. We currently have a system where it takes 3-6 years to realise that the dropkicks running the show need to be kicked out. Unfortunately know they won't be round to take credit for long term plans, so they don't bother starting them.

We as fans have no ownership of the game. If we did we wouldn't have a constant stream of CEOs tearing through the job. I'm sure that somewhere there's a competent enough lover of the game to actually implement beneficial plans. I don't think Vlandys is that CEO.

Thanks for input. Whilst I disagree with a lot of what u said, mainly on the game itself, was still an interesting read from your point of view. I’m just glad the game is generating money to ensure its survival. Don’t want to become like union.

 

[Wahesh]

200m/40m a year over 5 years, he’d have to sell 170k+ sub in the US a year on watchNRL to make that money.. can’t believe he managed to get that.

I dare say there would be tens of thousands of Aussies in the US who would sign up to this but that's nowhere near the target they'd need.

Basically, it won't generate enough money to break even, because there is simply no interest in Rugby League in America. It will never get anywhere near the following the Basketball, Football, Baseball, even Ice Hockey, Soccer, Tennis and Volleyball have.

 

[John Matrix]

I dare say there would be tens of thousands of Aussies in the US who would sign up to this but that's nowhere near the target they'd need.

Basically, it won't generate enough money to break even, because there is simply no interest in Rugby League in America. It will never get anywhere near the following the Basketball, Football, Baseball, even Ice Hockey, Soccer, Tennis and Volleyball have.

Thats why he'd be cheering at 40m a year, to make that he'd need 174k subs and I doubt that there would be that much.