Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
[November Tests 2017 EOYT] Scotland vs. Australia (25/11/2017)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AM_Bokke" data-source="post: 881233" data-attributes="member: 76028"><p>I don't know a lot about Australia but it's interesting to think about what Union needs to do differently to be more financially secure. I personally don't understand the Free to Air argument. The future of content is that it is paid for directly by the consumer. I sort of get that union might need the exposure that free to air would provide BUT Australia has already won two world cups and played in the most recent final. Does union really need more exposure then that? How does a sport get more exposure then that?</p><p></p><p>It appears that union has always tried to be the "premium" sports product trying to best leverage its private school heritage and international scope. This has basically worked for soccer in the States (middle class not private school) and it seems like a decent enough approach for rugby to take. I guess it just hasn't been sustainable. </p><p></p><p>Rugby is very approachable with both women's and sevens varieties. Embracing both is the future of the sport. Aren't some parents getting turned off by violence in league? </p><p></p><p>I personally think that Super Rugby will be much better next year. Hopefully it will show some modest growth and Australia can build from there. I actually thought that TV ratings were up last year. Is that wrong? Ireland coming next year should also help. Italy and Fiji were just not winners this year from a fan engagement perspective. And why did Italy play in Brisbane and Fiji in Melbourne? Shouldn't it have been the other way around? </p><p></p><p>In theory, I can see how ditching South Africa would help Australia in Super Rugby from a time zone perspective but South Africa and Argentina give Super Rugby access to the more established European and American spectator sports markets. Total revenue for the comp would surely slip without them. I'm not sure how less revenue for Super Rugby would help union in Australia.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AM_Bokke, post: 881233, member: 76028"] I don't know a lot about Australia but it's interesting to think about what Union needs to do differently to be more financially secure. I personally don't understand the Free to Air argument. The future of content is that it is paid for directly by the consumer. I sort of get that union might need the exposure that free to air would provide BUT Australia has already won two world cups and played in the most recent final. Does union really need more exposure then that? How does a sport get more exposure then that? It appears that union has always tried to be the "premium" sports product trying to best leverage its private school heritage and international scope. This has basically worked for soccer in the States (middle class not private school) and it seems like a decent enough approach for rugby to take. I guess it just hasn't been sustainable. Rugby is very approachable with both women's and sevens varieties. Embracing both is the future of the sport. Aren't some parents getting turned off by violence in league? I personally think that Super Rugby will be much better next year. Hopefully it will show some modest growth and Australia can build from there. I actually thought that TV ratings were up last year. Is that wrong? Ireland coming next year should also help. Italy and Fiji were just not winners this year from a fan engagement perspective. And why did Italy play in Brisbane and Fiji in Melbourne? Shouldn't it have been the other way around? In theory, I can see how ditching South Africa would help Australia in Super Rugby from a time zone perspective but South Africa and Argentina give Super Rugby access to the more established European and American spectator sports markets. Total revenue for the comp would surely slip without them. I'm not sure how less revenue for Super Rugby would help union in Australia. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
[November Tests 2017 EOYT] Scotland vs. Australia (25/11/2017)
Top