Can South Africa and New Zealand afford their third tiers?

http://www.bdlive.co.za/sport/rugby/2014/10/16/currie-cup-deserves-more-than-paltry-applause-in-empty-stadiums

ONE of the overriding images of the pool stages of 2014 Currie Cup — now reaching its climax with semifinals this weekend — is of empty stadiums...These are local teams playing at local stadiums, yet local fans cannot be bothered to get themselves there to watch...The fantasy of legions of fanatically loyal local fans, ostensibly the bedrock of provincial rugby and a major justification for its existence, is exposed as just that...

...It raises the question: can rugby afford it? And, even if it can, would the millions spent not be better spent elsewhere?...Crowds at the First Division games — those played in Welkom, Wellington, Potchefstroom, George, Kimberley and East London — are particularly sparse. One of the arguments used to justify the continued funding of the smaller unions is that they unearth talent that would otherwise go unnoticed. But this happens so seldom — and at such a cost to the rugby fiscus — that it hardly seems worth the outlay. What this argument ignores is that it is the rugby schools that unearth and nurture rugby talent. The unions just piggyback it...Serious questions should be asked about the First Division’s viability as a professional league, though...

I have no idea if this journalist has a valid point but there have been similar noises about New Zealand's NPC:

http://www.3news.co.nz/sport/tew-itm-cup-struggling-2014092311

The NPC is becoming a financial burden for the New Zealand Rugby once again despite attempts to improve the playing product. New Zealand Rugby chief executive Steve Tew has revealed provincial rugby referees were told to encourage a free-moving game this season to encourage greater crowd numbers. However, empty seats are a growing blight, forcing some unions into difficulty. "We've asked the referees to change a few things to keep the ball alive. I think we've seen some very good rugby actually," Tew said. "But we are struggling to get people through the gate."

Significant revamps to the NPC in 2006 and 2011 had initially helped stave off financial previous problems but Tew says diminishing crowds and the reduction in gaming money was hitting hard. [Tew] says only two or three of the bigger unions earn more money from gate takings than they do from NZR financial support, which isn't sustainable in the long term. "We don't want to get in a situation where we're entirely supporting provincial rugby because if we catch a cold, they're going to get sick pretty quickly."

You wonder about the viability of Australia's new domestic set-up if NZ and South Africa are concerned about competitions with much longer histories and traditions.

Rugby Fan, you are correct in wondering if the jounalsit has a valid point as the NPC ceased to exist about ten years ago.

The first issue here is that this lady doesn't provide much fact.

The Currie Cup Premier division has higher TV viewership than Super Rugby per game. Whereas people choose Super Rugby to watch live.

For some years now the average around Currie Cup attendances has been 15 000 per match.

Attendance figures for Super Rugby in SA.
2012
Stormers - 38 123
Bulls - 31 783
Sharks - 23 616
Cheetahs - 17 364
Lions - 15 914

2013:
Stormers - 33 545
Kings - 31 783
Bulls - 29 134
Cheetahs - 19 986
Sharks - 19 491

Currie Cup attendances in 2013
Western Province 25 113
Lions 24586
Bulls 17 756
Sharks 15761
Cheetahs 14 231
Griquas 6674

For the 2014 season there were two teams added to make it 8 teams, and when you look at the spectator numbers of the Kings, their spectator numbers have been averaging 8000 per match and the Pumas around 5000

You won't get high spectator numbers from the smaller teams ever, the populations are too small.

TV revenue is what is funding the lower tiers in SA, there was a big ruckus a few months back when the ARU and NZRU were questioning the numbers paid for Currie Cup by Supersport.

The other factor is our blokes playing currie cup doesn't get paid all that much.

SPectators choose which type of rugby they will go to. SUper Rugby is more popular as you see only the top teams play, which by the nature of professional sport have marginalised currie cup.

Remove Super Rugby or have less of it put more emphasis on Currie Cup and you will see more spectators.

ANother point to note, Test rugby is and has always been the cash cow, test revenue subsidises our lower tiers and have always done so.

We run our rugby with around 80 million US dollars a year, but if you compare our expenses to those of the ARU who pays their players top heavy salaries and top ups, something we don't do at all.

Bryan Habana was reportedly on around 1,6 million Rand per year plus a match fee of around R 70 000 per match.

The rest of his revenue came from elsewhere total (R6 million) and he was at the time the highest paid SA rugby earner in SA.

It isn't about how much money you earn, it is how you spend it. SARU have the stance development is the foundation of our rugby, we have many tiers of rugby.

Test Rugby
SUper Rugby
Currie Cup Premier division
Currie Cup 1st division
Vodacom Cup
Currie Cup U21
Currie Cup U19
--------------------- Up to this point these players are all contracted by their unions and earn salaries.
Varsity Cup ------- Most of these players are contracted by a Union and earn salaries.
LOcal CLub Rugby - gets little funding and rely on sponsorships

They all get funded from the total revenue or at least subsidised.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rugby Fan, you are correct in wondering if the jounalsit has a valid point as the NPC ceased to exist about ten years ago.

Splitting hairs. I know a few, admittedly long in the tooth, kiwis who refer to the NPC when I guess they mean the ITM Cup?

So is this level self financing, or subsidised by NZRU?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rugby Fan, you are correct in wondering if the jounalsit has a valid point as the NPC ceased to exist about ten years ago.

I was wondering that because it's always ITM when I look up the TV schedules. It looks like NPC still gets mentioned a good deal in New Zealand, though. The Herald, Stuff.co.nz, NZCity and 3News all use NPC at times in articles on the web.

How many spectators do these competitions need to be commercially viable? The numbers posted here sound healthy enough. If tv viewing audiences are what count maybe they could play in smaller grounds so the place looks more respectable. Or lower the price to get more people in so that it looks good on tv.

Just put the people who show up to the game in the stand opposite the tv cameras and wrap large canvas advertising sheets over the empty sections of the stands at each end. Games will look packed.

Intotouch wrote:How many spectators do these competitions need to be commercially viable? The numbers posted here sound healthy enough. If tv viewing audiences are what count maybe they could play in smaller grounds so the place looks more respectable. Or lower the price to get more people in so that it looks good on tv.

I know this might not be the same, but in Wales, having games shown on BBC and S4C is the equivalent to getting 10,000 people through the gates for the regions every week.

Its a problem that the big stars have been kept away, means less people want to attend and most of those who will do are season ticket holders. The final will be a sell out mind which isn't bad considering their will hardly be a current test player amongst the players.

a few years ago (as in 3-4 years ago) the final stages were popular because the boks came back into the squads. Now they don't the lure is less bar the final.

Too much rugby? Not enough rugby stars that people to go round that people want to pay in to see? (what with injury, resting, rotation and big money sides in certain parts of the world buying them up!)

I'm only putting that out as a suggestion because afterall, the truth is more complex.  And one of those complexities is just when it is you want to experience a 'star' player playing?

Do you want to see him in his prime, when he's already a national or International star - when he could be very coy about his performance levels in sub International/sub play off games.  Play a little, get subbed early.
OR...do you want to have it to say that you saw one or two future stars of the rugby world before anyone else cared, before they were stars; when you could see their natural gifts and their hunger in spades in the little games for the little teams that knowbody wanted to go to.

So..................  it depends what kind of rugby supporter you are, I suppose, which determines how interested you are in games where the 'big crowd attracters' don't show up.

Example.  A guy called Darragh Fanning scored two of Leinster's tries at the weekend which saw them drag themselves back into the game against Wasps.  I first saw him not all that long ago at a pre-season training ground run-out, when I didn't know him and he looked a true blue rookie and one Seán O'Brien was doing laps of the pitch with him and absolutely growling at the young guy to keep going!!!  The rookie was knackered, O'Brien had the unsympathetic whip.  
I never dreamed this young red headed buck would be in a European game so soon, or that he'd score the tries that mattered.  He might never develop, he might fall away - but if he becomes a star in the future, that's the memory that will always come to me, O'Brien snorting at him as they did their laps.  And if he does make it all the way, I'll be happy I witnessed him before he was famous.  I like looking at games when Leinster play (or are forced to play) their less than famous players - it's always an opportunity to see if anything extra good is lurking just around the bend.

SecretFly wrote:Too much rugby? Not enough rugby stars that people to go round that people want to pay in to see? (what with injury, resting, rotation and big money sides in certain parts of the world buying them up!)

I'm only putting that out as a suggestion because afterall, the truth is more complex.  And one of those complexities is just when it is you want to experience a 'star' player playing?

Do you want to see him in his prime, when he's already a national or International star - when he could be very coy about his performance levels in sub International/sub play off games.  Play a little, get subbed early.
OR...do you want to have it to say that you saw one or two future stars of the rugby world before anyone else cared, before they were stars; when you could see their natural gifts and their hunger in spades in the little games for the little teams that knowbody wanted to go to.

So..................  it depends what kind of rugby supporter you are, I suppose, which determines how interested you are in games where the 'big crowd attracters' don't show up.

Example.  A guy called Darragh Fanning scored two of Leinster's tries at the weekend which saw them drag themselves back into the game against Wasps.  I first saw him not all that long ago at a pre-season training ground run-out, when I didn't know him and he looked a true blue rookie and one Seán O'Brien was doing laps of the pitch with him and absolutely growling at the young guy to keep going!!!  The rookie was knackered, O'Brien had the unsympathetic whip.  
I never dreamed this young red headed buck would be in a European game so soon, or that he'd score the tries that mattered.  He might never develop, he might fall away - but if he becomes a star in the future, that's the memory that will always come to me, O'Brien snorting at him as they did their laps.  And if he does make it all the way, I'll be happy I witnessed him before he was famous.  I like looking at games when Leinster play (or are forced to play) their less than famous players - it's always an opportunity to see if anything extra good is lurking just around the bend.

If we're talking about general fans I would say they want to see their marquee players on the field. Take WP for instance. We have Burger, Vermeulen, Kolisi, Malherbe, Leibenberg, Kitsoff, De Villiers, Allende, Etzebeth all not playing.  Fans pay big money to come and watch their side and they are less interested in seeing them if it means seeing WP without those players. In essence they pay first rate prices to watch second team rugby. To be honest though the prices are not huge... most expensive tickets for the final are about £20.

Yet people here are not rich.. Its expensive for many in SA and to bring your kids etc its a big effort so you do it when they get to see their heroes... that's what matters for kids in the end.

Would you go and watch U2 live if only the drummer turned up? Can't think of another Irish band sorry. Am sure you would turn up to a westlife concert even if they were missing all but one right????

I've seen U2 play so often now - and bumped into them on the street! - that I wouldn't care if none of them turned up.  

I still say if fans only want to see their 'heros' then they're not coming for the games.  It's star worship rather than wanting to see a good game - which can happen without the stars.

As for Westlife...............................................   ......... an Californian Heavy metal Band?

SecretFly wrote:I've seen U2 play so often now - and bumped into them on the street! - that I wouldn't care if none of them turned up.  

I still say if fans only want to see their 'heros' then they're not coming for the games.  It's star worship rather than wanting to see a good game - which can happen without the stars.

As for Westlife...............................................   ......... an Californian Heavy metal Band?

In some ways yes, but for kids I think its different. They first get attachments to particular players, not the team.

Well true there.. I won't argue with that. It's a personality cult world we live in for a certain generation.  Yes, we've always had personality cults but the social networking global reach of marketing these days, makes it much more potent.  People (of a certain age) want to see the guys live who they follow on their computer screens and HD TVs.

There are a few mentioned problems but the big thing, I suspect is the optical illusion. 15 000 through the gates is still a lot of people - if I'm not mistaken (I might be), that would be the most watched league in the world (using attendance per match). The problem is 15 000 people in a 60 000 seater will never look like anything more than a few kids waiting for the bus.

FA, the Lions are a team of professional rejects nobody lse wanted, they have played the most exciting rugby in the Currie cup, it isn't all about the stars

Manawatu vs Hawkes Bay currently playing in the final of the Championship, a full stadium and a bloody great match. It's what the ITM Cup is about. If there was a money crisis get rid of the Super competition, the ITM is bloody brilliant.

Biltong wrote:FA, the Lions are a team of professional rejects nobody lse wanted, they have played the most exciting rugby in the Currie cup, it isn't all about the stars

It is if you're worried about your future.

Stars bring sponsorship, bring TV viewership, puts people in seats and has them increase merchandise.

Put a star, a genuine star in a lions jersey and see the number of shirt sales increase they get.  Their are a load of old Transvaal supporters who no longer support the team.... maybe even like yourself? Why because they have been in the doldrums for years. A vicious cycle of poor performances, losing their stars = less revenue for their academy, for player retention etc.

Where do you think these stars originate from?

If you look at the quality of rugby from the Lions without their stars, who doesn't want to watch that?

I'll have you know that I bought the 2014 S15 jersey. Haven't been to Ellis Park for the Currie Cup yet, but that's got more to do with me not finding a sucka willing to risk his car by parking in Doornfontein

Just in case there is anyone actually interested in the rugby, Taranaki tonight won the ITM cup over Tasman 36-32.

Perhaps noteable that neither side is the home team team of a Super xv franchise.

Irony,in previous years Canterbury have struggled in the League stages all year
then won the playoffs.This they started like a rocket then with key players on
super or test duty fallen away.[6 on the trot]

ITM must get considerable tv cash as its on most weeks,ditto Currie Cup,its
where the players get experience.Before they get Super/test experience or
move to Japan/Europe.

It maybe considered Tier 3 by SH standards but most ITM/Currie Cup sides
would be on a par with best Premier/Top14 sides in Europe.

emack2 wrote:Irony,in previous years Canterbury have struggled in the League stages all year
then won the playoffs.This they started like a rocket then with key players on
super or test duty fallen away.[6 on the trot]

ITM must get considerable tv cash as its on most weeks,ditto Currie Cup,its
where the players get experience.Before they get Super/test experience or
move to Japan/Europe.

It maybe considered Tier 3 by SH standards but most ITM/Currie Cup sides
would be on a par with best Premier/Top14 sides in Europe.

The ITM Cup coverage by Sky is worth approx $30 million to the NZRFU.

emack2 wrote:Irony,in previous years Canterbury have struggled in the League stages all year
then won the playoffs.This they started like a rocket then with key players on
super or test duty fallen away.[6 on the trot]

ITM must get considerable tv cash as its on most weeks,ditto Currie Cup,its
where the players get experience.Before they get Super/test experience or
move to Japan/Europe.

It maybe considered Tier 3 by SH standards but most ITM/Currie Cup sides
would be on a par with best Premier/Top14 sides in Europe.

Bit rubbish that really they would be well beaten by most in them leagues. Not taking anything away from the ITM Cup, after Wales & Ospreys the Mighty Taniwha are my team and despite living in Napier I will continue to support them with a 14 hours round trip to watch them for some games.

Yes, there was a time where Auckland (and latterly Canterbury) would have beaten most, if not all, test playing nations quite easily. The Wellington NPC winning team had Cullen, Lomu, Umaga, Ieremia, Collins, Tiatia etc etc. The backline alone was probably the best in world rugby!

Since about 2006 however, the emphasis has come off the NPC. From what I have read, although physical crowd numbers are down, the game is still a big draw on TV, hence the $30m rights with Sky. Most of the teams could compete in the Aviva, Pro 12 and Top 14 (they’d beat Newcastle, LW and the like for example) but I think it would be far-fetched to suggest they are on a par with the best Top 14/Aviva teams. Add in the All Blacks for those provinces and then it is a completely different story – same with the Currie Cup sides.

As an aside, glad to see the rise of Tasman, Taranaki etc etc. The provinces are the heartbeat of our game. Didn’t see the final but I hear it was about a 22,000 crowd?