Play Nice 2024 Non AFL Crowds/Ratings and other Industry thread

[threenewpadlocks]

Hes not wrong in so far as the practice of aggregating average viewers is concerned. This is a practice done by the NRL, AFL and Cricket Australia and others.

But AFL and Cricket Australia don't explicitly use it as a point of comparison across the sports, the NRL does.

And if you're defending the general practice of aggregating average viewers then yes, we cannot disagree, that it a method of coming up with a number that has some value an merit, in some contexts.

I would argue devoid of context of explaining why it's being aggregated this way, using terminology such as "viewers" rather than "full-games-watched-equivalent", or siimlar, would be better.

You know as well as I do thats not what hes claiming.

But he is claiming that one sport is "most watched" when compared to others.

Which is incorrect as pointed out, and even the article doesn't point out the flaws that are consistently pointed out in this thread. The different match lengths and the natural result of matches overlapping as a result leads to that.

Abdo is I suppose correct in saying that, 153.7 million times, the equivalent of a full match broadcast was viewed in Australia.

But that's also a meaningless statement. The AFL could turn around and state that a quarter of a match becomes a single match, a match lasts 20 minutes plus time on and then after a short break, scores reset to 0 and you play another match for the purposes of a TV broadcast, it is a new event, teams plays 92 matches in a year, and a person sitting down and watching 120 minutes of footy is suddenly "four viewers" and that therefore the AFL has a four-time increase in number of viewers and therefore is almost four times more watched than the NRL, and is the "most watched" sport in Australia.

The AFL could claim that using the identical underlying logic that Abdo is making here, even though we would all understand it to be preposterous and ridiculous.

 

[RedV3x]

You know as well as I do that's not what hes claiming.

Yes, but it's a conscious effort to suggest large number of viewers as against a large number of views.
Pedantic you say (in response)
Well, a person like Albo seizes on this as look at what we're doing for all these viewers
rather than look at what we're doing for some tragic people.

 

[RedV3x]

But he is claiming that one sport is "most watched" when compared to others.

is he claiming that one sport is "most watched in lounge rooms" when compared to others ?
is he claiming that one sport is "most watched multiple times in lounge rooms" when compared to others ?
is he claiming that one sport is "most watched " because they are not.attending the sports like other sports.

Obviously if you're claiming most watched, then you would have to add the extra 4 million attendees to AFL over NRL to the AFL's ratings.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

is he claiming that one sport is "most watched in lounge rooms" when compared to others ?
is he claiming that one sport is "most watched multiple times in lounge rooms" when compared to others ?
is he claiming that one sport is "most watched " because they are not.attending the sports like other sports.

Obviously if you're claiming most watched, then you would have to add the extra 4 million attendees to AFL over NRL to the AFL's ratings.

But even if it was that, it still wouldn't be correct.

Both because not every viewer elects to watch the entirety of the match, for both sport, when they begin watching it, so converting into full-length game equivalents (which is what average does) is highly dependent on the length of the broadcast.

Like I said the AFL could make each current quarter of a current four quarter game its own "game", the broadcasters would consider it four different games with four different averages, and they'd quadruple their number of viewers and the AFL could claim that "3.9 times as many people watch AFL as NRL" by the same logic, even though there's no meaningful difference in the physical actions of the people who are sitting down and watching AFL year on year.

It's basically mathematically comparing things that cannot be compared in this way given the different broadcast lengths.

 

[Bjo187]

‘The No. 1 sport in Australia’: PVL reveals record revenue for rugby league​

https://archive.md/9NeKj

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=DTWEB_MRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fsport%2Fnrl%2Fnrl-records-record-revenue-for-2024-outstrips-afl-in-viewer-numbers%2Fnews-story%2F3074cb8ddedcf952cb5796df6a8e18c7&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=LOW-Segment-1-SCORE

They're at it again ladies and gentleman. Fresh off an absolute disaster of a finals series where they were smashed on every metric, the propoganda machine is up in full motion.

Look at this for one of the most ridiculous articles ever written. 'Record revenue', then it's only 20 mill more than last year .

I'll give him one thing Peter, he has the Sydney media wrapped around his finger putting out absolute b.s like this. I'm actually thinking maybe he wrote the article himself and got some poor journo to put it out under his name lol.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I'm starting to wonder if the NRL instead of just propagandising is just fundamentally stupid to not realise the mathematics behind different broadcast lengths.

If a person flicked on the TV from 7pm to 10pm on a Friday, despite their viewing being identical, would count as 1.5 people for the NRL and 1.0 people for the AFL in aggregated averages. Even though in each case it is literally just one person. A person engaging and watching each sport for an identical period of time.

It really isn't that hard to understand.

I don't really have anything against the NRL, I watch it, I enjoy it, while it is not my favourite sport or one I grew up with, I can sit down and both enjoy a broadcast and see sporting merit in both the field of play and the wider administration of the game.

It is just simply incorrect in any common sense understanding of how engaging with sports actually work. People who watch sports typically watch a portion of an entire match broadcast, a portion of games over the weekend, and watch games in a portion of all weekends over summer. That person is still just one person that is engaging with the sport.

We know that there's about 12 million people in Australia who engage with the AFL in the country who on average watch about 12 full-length equivalent games each, which across a 2 hour, 40 Min hour broadcast is about 32 hours a season.

We know there's about 10 million people in Australia who engage in NRL, who on average watch about 15 full-length equivalent games a season, which in a 2 hour broadcast is 30 hours a season.

AFL is actually a slightly more popular sport on terms of engagement outside of it being a TV product, and that's probably for not other reason than Perth timezone reasons diminishing the transition of general AFL interest into actual TV viewership (I can imagine a Perth footy fan checking the score on their phone as they're having work drinks in the office at 5.45pm before they can get home and actually watch the game).

Though "full game equivalents" is such an clunky way of thinking about it. Across both codes an average person would have engaged with double the amount of games on average but watched an average of half the match's broadcast, still netting out to the same 32/30 hours.

Aggregating averages in the way that Abdo and V'Landys is is effectively doing the mathematical equivalent of grabbing a group of 10 people, putting them in 5 groups of 2, and claiming that that's more total people than the AFL, who have 12 people distributed in 4 groups of 3, because 5 is a bigger number than 4.

 

[Macca180]

‘The No. 1 sport in Australia’: PVL reveals record revenue for rugby league​

Is he deluded or is he a genius troll?

 

[Giant YoYo]

‘The No. 1 sport in Australia’: PVL reveals record revenue for rugby league​

Would love to revisit these figures if the AFL removes overlap of games with more Thursday night games. Not that they will for the entire season duration but would be interesting to see.

“In my mind, we are the No. 1 sport in Australia, but we won’t stop, we’re still growing.”

I've noticed he says this a lot. With enough repetition you know that it's for the masses in those markets to believe it.

A good chunk of the strategy seems to be to be absolutely saturate the airwaves with league speak with how big and great it is. Seems to be doing something for them, I'll give 'em that.

 

[Demon in Hell]

With so much money he won't need Albo's $600m (or should I say our $600m) to start up a new club in PNG.

He can pay for it himself.

 

[Bjo187]

I'm starting to wonder if the NRL instead of just propagandising is just fundamentally stupid to not realise the mathematics behind different broadcast lengths.

If a person flicked on the TV from 7pm to 10pm on a Friday, despite their viewing being identical, would count as 1.5 people for the NRL and 1.0 people for the AFL in aggregated averages. Even though in each case it is literally just one person. A person engaging and watching each sport for an identical period of time.

It really isn't that hard to understand.

I don't really have anything against the NRL, I watch it, I enjoy it, while it is not my favourite sport or one I grew up with, I can sit down and both enjoy a broadcast and see sporting merit in both the field of play and the wider administration of the game.

It is just simply incorrect in any common sense understanding of how engaging with sports actually work. People who watch sports typically watch a portion of an entire match broadcast, a portion of games over the weekend, and watch games in a portion of all weekends over summer. That person is still just one person that is engaging with the sport.

We know that there's about 12 million people in Australia who engage with the AFL in the country who on average watch about 12 full-length equivalent games each, which across a 2 hour, 40 Min hour broadcast is about 32 hours a season.

We know there's about 10 million people in Australia who engage in NRL, who on average watch about 15 full-length equivalent games a season, which in a 2 hour broadcast is 30 hours a season.

AFL is actually a slightly more popular sport on terms of engagement outside of it being a TV product, and that's probably for not other reason than Perth timezone reasons diminishing the transition of general AFL interest into actual TV viewership (I can imagine a Perth footy fan checking the score on their phone as they're having work drinks in the office at 5.45pm before they can get home and actually watch the game).

Though "full game equivalents" is such an clunky way of thinking about it. Across both codes an average person would have engaged with double the amount of games on average but watched an average of half the match's broadcast, still netting out to the same 32/30 hours.

Aggregating averages in the way that Abdo and V'Landys is is effectively doing the mathematical equivalent of grabbing a group of 10 people, putting them in 5 groups of 2, and claiming that that's more total people than the AFL, who have 12 people distributed in 4 groups of 3, because 5 is a bigger number than 4.

No it's intentional lying imo. The reason being, they would well know because the broadcasters would tell them what metrics they look at and why the afl always gets paid more.

The one thing is though, you set yourself up for criticism when your tv rights money comes out at about 25 percent less than the afl's, because that's the true reflection of individual viewers in each sport. They are making themselves look incompetent for not getting a deal that matches their claim of 'Australia's number 1 tv sport'.

You've wound up your nuffie fans and media to think they are the number 1 tv sport, so why aren't we getting the most money? This happened a few years ago when the afl got a much bigger deal, v'landy's was coming up with all types of excuses like he was dudded by fox, they helped tv survive during that time by taking less, they have things up their sleeve for next time etc.

They must simply think the b.s propaganda of portraying they are more popular than they actually are, is more valuable than the heat they'll cop for a few weeks.

 

[Angus Young]

I know I´m not sprooking official data and nothing but observation.

But you just have to look a the amount of packed pubs, sold out pubs with reservations, line ups early in the morning, football clubs, outdoor spaces with big screens, large gatherings at houses, bbqs full of people watching the AFL Grand Final. Now I´m not sure how this is even recorded for ratings.

But my point is if you think this happens to the same extent for NRL games and finals around the country you are kidding yourself.

Just that alone tells me which game is more popular. Don´t even have to get into crowds and memberships etc

 

[Angus Young]

Is he deluded or is he a genius troll?

He has been great for the NRL. He gets people talking. Again figures will tell you the positive impact he has had on Rugby League.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

He has been great for the NRL. He gets people talking. Again figures will tell you the positive impact he has had on Rugby League.

I mean sure but the AFL has had similar percentage growth in revenue as the NRL without the need to have a similarly loud CEO.

I'm not really sure that the fact that he's loud, and the fact that NRL is growing, is related to each other. NRL was growing at a roughly similar rate before he arrived on the scene.

He pulled the trigger on a second Brisbane team, I suppose, which is something that should have been obvious to everyone involved but had to work through the ownership of Broncos. That's probably fair enough.

 

[RedV3x]

No it's intentional lying imo.

I would suggest that it's in connection with the PNG's bid.
Look, we cannot deny Australia's most-watched football (albeit aggregated couch potatoes) $ 600 million.of taxpayers money.
Look again, if NRL is Australia's most-watched football (albeit aggregated couch potatoes) then the NRL doesn't need $ 600 million.of taxpayers money..

 

[Foreign Legion]

I would suggest that it's in connection with the PNG's bid.
Look, we cannot deny Australia's most-watched football (albeit aggregated couch potatoes) $ 600 million.of taxpayers money.
Look again, if NRL is Australia's most-watched football (albeit aggregated couch potatoes) then the NRL doesn't need $ 600 million.of taxpayers money..

Dont forget half of that money is going to existing clubs. Why should taxpayers fund them? Rugby in all forms is slowly dying - Union first then League.

The thing nobody mentions is that League is all Pacific Islanders now - sort of cuts down the playing lists a bit at junior level.