LOL - Apparently the AFL wants to kill off the NRL

[oldman emubitter]

You can't think too well. There's four or five West Australians playing in the NRL.

No response ringleader?
'Least you're smart enough to pull your head in when you're on a flogging to nothing.
lol

 

[Pie eyed]

So why did the AFL sign a Rugby League player for $1million who has only played a few games mucking around at school?

And if you don't believe me listen to this 3:50 of the way in.

It's called advertising dopey.

The same reason all Rug shops are "going out of business" or "closing down"

You supposedly sit up and listen.

The AFL are taking over Queensland and they needed an advertising gimmick to get the NRL fans to look up from their picture magazine.

 

[Ronin]

And surveys have shown 80% of SCG crowds have grown up in Sydney.

Where is that Survey, that is a load of bollocks.

This is the type fabrication that you always base your arguments upon.

It would be lucky to be 10% of the crowd based on the people that I know, IN MY CITY, that follow the game.

Show us the survey champ...........

 

[Ronin]

It's called advertising dopey.

The same reason all Rug shops are "going out of business" or "closing down"

You supposedly sit up and listen.

The AFL are taking over Queensland and they needed an advertising gimmick to get the NRL fans to look up from their picture magazine.

Gimmick?

So you are saying that the game alone cannot get them to take a look?

 

[Pie eyed]

Gimmick?

So you are saying that the game alone cannot get them to take a look?

No I'm saying a bloke in a flash suit took an large chunk of cash to come up with an advertising slant which the AFL have paid for.

Taken in context signing "player X" , that player simply having to be any NRL player with a good profile from the Qld area, for a couple of million has gotten the AFL 10+ millions worth of "free" advertising for the GC17.
If, and in fact it is very likely, he never ever plays a game of AFL the investment was a major winner.

 

[Hoops]

Gimmick?

So you are saying that the game alone cannot get them to take a look?

Yes a Gimmick, like say cheerleaders, "the greatest game of all" as a slogan, or priority over Grandfinal tickets for wearing a wig. Things like that

 

[Pie eyed]

From LU.

Firstly the reds were under the bed.
If your going to put this dribble up as evidence of a conspiracy at least get the tag lines right.

The OP is the most rambling load of crap I have ever read in a forum other than one run by white supremacists or conspiracy theorists. I suppose you support the theory that Nazi atrocities did in fact not happen because of this little offering?

The NRL's problems are of it's own making as are the AFL's.
NRL issues are blown out of proportion by the Qld and NSW media because the game is primarily a QLD/NSW concern.

AFL issues get enormous coverage in Victoria, if that where the club is based and/ or whichever state the club or player involved plays for.

The AFL is expanding and that is a fact.
hey have the money and infrastructure to do this over a long period of time.

The NRL has the resources to flourish in it's current form but without some unforeseen windfall will be taking a large risk to follow the AFL's lead at this time.

NRL supporters who feel there is some conspiracy at AFL headquarters to "kill NRL" are sadly deluded because the only thing which will kill NRL is the supporters.

If you keep going they'll keep playing.

If you can't support your own code then don't blame others for your laziness.

The only saving grace of this thread is the number who can see it for the paranoid ravings it is.

What's next...white hoods and crosses????

 

[GREEN HAWKEYE]

righto..

Union has the 'fattest' players..ie: look at the front rowers and compare between league and union
Union have a scrum..league has a quick sham of a scrum..union spend minutes resetting them..bumsniffer
And seriously watch a game of union and league and I doubt you could say league is slower

Wrong again Tosser!
1. Rugby league players are FAT! Just as FAT as the Union ****! Fatter even.
2. They have scrums in Rugby League hence "BUMSNIFFER"
3. I am not that bored with life that I would ever watch another game of that SLOW RUGBY LEAGUE!!!!

 

[Harry Yorkie]

Gimmick?

So you are saying that the game alone cannot get them to take a look?

Yes, the game alone will not get a died in the wool RL supporter to look at it, in the same way I would never look at a RL game without a gimmick.

 

[gostk86]

Wrong again Tosser!
1. Rugby league players are FAT! Just as FAT as the Union ****! Fatter even.
2. They have scrums in Rugby League hence "BUMSNIFFER"
3. I am not that bored with life that I would ever watch another game of that SLOW RUGBY LEAGUE!!!!

fair enough..obvioulsy i disagree with you entirely but you are free to express your opinion..

all the best

 

[oldman emubitter]

fair enough..obvioulsy i disagree with you entirely but you are free to express your opinion..

all the best

your mate ringleader lost the testicular fortitude to take on my argument, maybe you're up for it gostk86.
name me the RL players in your league hailing fom an AFL state.
cheers

 

[GREEN HAWKEYE]

your mate ringleader lost the testicular fortitude to take on my argument, maybe you're up for it gostk86.
name me the RL players in your league hailing fom an AFL state.
cheers

Excuse me Mr Oldman emubitter (Teacher), can I answer that?

The answer is "Sweet F.A."

 

[gostk86]

your mate ringleader lost the testicular fortitude to take on my argument, maybe you're up for it gostk86.
name me the RL players in your league hailing fom an AFL state.
cheers

true there isnt many

daniel holdsworth
matt peterson - now in super league
brent crisp - reserve grade at bulldogs - these 3 from Perth

off the top of my head

players like, peter wallace and timana tahu were born in melb but juniored in nsw
I wont count NT as a neutral state for both afl and rl..

Gareth Widdop is a young kid for Storm who juniored through the VRL, born in england but still was spoted through VRL

I think we will see more within the next 5 or so years

But yeh for 101 years RL has gotten 95% players from NSW,QLD,ACT..last 10 years its more going to NT and then NZ, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji

 

[Aucklander]

Rugby Union prop, Matt Dunning.

Rugby league prop, Steve Price.

Of course both players have different roles in the game, but you have to make allowances for people who have no idea about it.

 

[GREEN HAWKEYE]

Rugby Union prop, Matt Dunning.

Rugby league prop, Steve Price.

Of course both players have different roles in the game, but you have to make allowances for people who have no idea about it.

Look very FAT and SLOW!!

 

[AstroboyUK]

NRL is on the up for all you one eyed AFL flogs.

It is only the second time in the code’s history that the regular season average has surpassed 16,000.

Congratulations: NRL has now matched the attendance level of the VFL in 1922. I can imagine the champaign is flowing.

In the midst of your jubliation you should point out that your attendances have SKYROCKETED by a MASSSIVE 500 people per game to reach this EVEREST. 500!!! WHOA!!!!!!!!! THe bandwagon is ROLLING!!!

Keep this up another 80 years and you may have to stop playing at local community grounds with grass hills!!

The thing about the NRL is that historically it was quite happy rolling along with sub 10,000 crowds for 50-60 years (even as late as the 1980s average attendances were down to 7,000 or so). In all that time no one in Sydney really knew that the VFL had 20,000 crowds and 100,000 Grand Finals, and regular 70,000 club attendances. Autralian Rules was so unkown, that it was kind of assumed to be some small provincial thing run by enthusiasts. This is no joke: there was no idea how big AR was in Victoria.

What changed was when the VFL put the Swans in Sydney and a drip feed of information came though. The NSWRL (and the NSW public) realised the VFLs attendance records and relocation of the Swans kind of implied the 'Victorian' league was claiming to bebigger than NSW's football league - an absurd thought to them, but it did make them self-concious of attendances and to show subtle aggression to VFLs (ie Victorian) 'presumptiousness' at daring challenge their complacent world view that Sydney was the centre of Australia, and by default RL was the country's major winter sport. Their response was - from late 1980's up to the Super League war - was to try tpo pump up Rugby League as the 'national football code', and the very Sydney orientated media, and (rightly) loyal NSW public also took that line. No matter that VFL and even SANFL and WAFL continued to out draw them - the constant media line simply assumed everyone in Australia followed RL and knew who their players were. Australia = Sydney = NSW = whatever is big in Sydney must be the biggest thing in the country. RL supporters complain about media bias now - they certainly have very short memories: in the early 90's the boot was definately on the other foot.

Still, the RL community were perplexed at the passion of AR followers and AR culture (what? Women at games?) - it didnt map to their experience - and so started what appeared to be a process of very hollow imitation to show the RL supporters were 'just as passionate' and the game just as intensively followed as AR. Cue Tina Turner, cue SOO going hollywood blockbuster, cue attendance fixing. Most of NSW bought it until the Super League fiasco - Coupled with the Swans rise from the ashes - and the nation as a whole starting to have a broader view of the country's sporting culture. People now knew more about that 'Victorian' sport: and given other states participation in the AFL - national news programmes had to start carrying more AFL news and could no longer shove ARL/NRL down the nation's throats. A perfect storm for RL.

People now saw through the facade of claiming 'huge crowds' for NRL and rejected its default position as the No.1 sport, and the media turned: scandals, crowd figure fudging, players leaving for Union, players defacating in hallways slowly became the staple: and no new Tina Turner song was about to turn it around. The illusion of NRL being a major sport was for all intents and purposes shattered. It plays at suburban grounds with grass hills, its Sydney attendances are still only about 14,000 - and regualrly sub 10,000 even at all Sydney derbies. Its players dont get paid enough to keep Union and european leagues from poaching them. The TV rights are half the next sport's. The international game is a joke.

The last two remnants of their 'big league' status- their emporers new clothes if you like - left to the NRL is TV ratings and the financial footprint underwritten by News Ltd. - and these 2 things hide how really, the small-time NRL has reverted (after a bubble period) back to its natural equilibrium level- back to the kind of levels of the 1970s'-80's. 16,000 average attendances may be a record, but compared to population growth its gone backwards. Since the mid-1990's RL has grown crowds by roughly 2,000 per game. 2,000 per game in 15 years! The AFL, already starting from a high base has added something like 8-9000 per game. NRL TV rights have grown a bit, AFL TV rights have grown a LOT. the AFL is about to have a game every week in every major state, 2 teams in every major state and regular games in all states. the NRL is thinking about maybe putting a second team in Brisbane, and maybe one in Gosford or New Guineia or somewhere.. maybe.

The AFL is not trying to kill NRL. It does not need to. As I hope this post illustrates (as a generalisation) the writing has been on the wall for along time.

 

[ARES]

Congratulations: NRL has now matched the attendance level of the VFL in 1922. I can imagine the champaign is flowing.

In the midst of your jubliation you should point out that your attendances have SKYROCKETED by a MASSSIVE 500 people per game to reach this EVEREST. 500!!! WHOA!!!!!!!!! THe bandwagon is ROLLING!!!

Keep this up another 80 years and you may have to stop playing at local community grounds with grass hills!!

The thing about the NRL is that historically it was quite happy rolling along with sub 10,000 crowds for 50-60 years (even as late as the 1980s average attendances were down to 7,000 or so). In all that time no one in Sydney really knew that the VFL had 20,000 crowds and 100,000 Grand Finals, and regular 70,000 club attendances. Autralian Rules was so unkown, that it was kind of assumed to be some small provincial thing run by enthusiasts. This is no joke: there was no idea how big AR was in Victoria.

What changed was when the VFL put the Swans in Sydney and a drip feed of information came though. The NSWRL (and the NSW public) realised the VFLs attendance records and relocation of the Swans kind of implied the 'Victorian' league was claiming to bebigger than NSW's football league - an absurd thought to them, but it did make them self-concious of attendances and to show subtle aggression to VFLs (ie Victorian) 'presumptiousness' at daring challenge their complacent world view that Sydney was the centre of Australia, and by default RL was the country's major winter sport. Their response was - from late 1980's up to the Super League war - was to try tpo pump up Rugby League as the 'national football code', and the very Sydney orientated media, and (rightly) loyal NSW public also took that line. No matter that VFL and even SANFL and WAFL continued to out draw them - the constant media line simply assumed everyone in Australia followed RL and knew who their players were. Australia = Sydney = NSW = whatever is big in Sydney must be the biggest thing in the country. RL supporters complain about media bias now - they certainly have very short memories: in the early 90's the boot was definately on the other foot.

Still, the RL community were perplexed at the passion of AR followers and AR culture (what? Women at games?) - it didnt map to their experience - and so started what appeared to be a process of very hollow imitation to show the RL supporters were 'just as passionate' and the game just as intensively followed as AR. Cue Tina Turner, cue SOO going hollywood blockbuster, cue attendance fixing. Most of NSW bought it until the Super League fiasco - Coupled with the Swans rise from the ashes - and the nation as a whole starting to have a broader view of the country's sporting culture. People now knew more about that 'Victorian' sport: and given other states participation in the AFL - national news programmes had to start carrying more AFL news and could no longer shove ARL/NRL down the nation's throats. A perfect storm for RL.

People now saw through the facade of claiming 'huge crowds' for NRL and rejected its default position as the No.1 sport, and the media turned: scandals, crowd figure fudging, players leaving for Union, players defacating in hallways slowly became the staple: and no new Tina Turner song was about to turn it around. The illusion of NRL being a major sport was for all intents and purposes shattered. It plays at suburban grounds with grass hills, its Sydney attendances are still only about 14,000 - and regualrly sub 10,000 even at all Sydney derbies. Its players dont get paid enough to keep Union and european leagues from poaching them. The TV rights are half the next sport's. The international game is a joke.

The last two remnants of their 'big league' status- their emporers new clothes if you like - left to the NRL is TV ratings and the financial footprint underwritten by News Ltd. - and these 2 things hide how really, the small-time NRL has reverted (after a bubble period) back to its natural equilibrium level- back to the kind of levels of the 1970s'-80's. 16,000 average attendances may be a record, but compared to population growth its gone backwards. Since the mid-1990's RL has grown crowds by roughly 2,000 per game. 2,000 per game in 15 years! The AFL, already starting from a high base has added something like 8-9000 per game. NRL TV rights have grown a bit, AFL TV rights have grown a LOT. the AFL is about to have a game every week in every major state, 2 teams in every major state and regular games in all states. the NRL is thinking about maybe putting a second team in Brisbane, and maybe one in Gosford or New Guineia or somewhere.. maybe.

The AFL is not trying to kill NRL. It does not need to. As I hope this post illustrates (as a generalisation) the writing has been on the wall for along time.

Bada Bing, Bada Boom !!

Say no more...

 

[gostk86]

The last two remnants of their 'big league' status- their emporers new clothes if you like - left to the NRL is TV ratings and the financial footprint underwritten by News Ltd. - and these 2 things hide how really, the small-time NRL has reverted (after a bubble period) back to its natural equilibrium level- back to the kind of levels of the 1970s'-80's. 16,000 average attendances may be a record, but compared to population growth its gone backwards. Since the mid-1990's RL has grown crowds by roughly 2,000 per game. 2,000 per game in 15 years! The AFL, already starting from a high base has added something like 8-9000 per game. NRL TV rights have grown a bit, AFL TV rights have grown a LOT. the AFL is about to have a game every week in every major state, 2 teams in every major state and regular games in all states. the NRL is thinking about maybe putting a second team in Brisbane, and maybe one in Gosford or New Guineia or somewhere.. maybe.

The AFL is not trying to kill NRL. It does not need to. As I hope this post illustrates (as a generalisation) the writing has been on the wall for along time.

Difference between AFL and NRL

AFL is run independently...the NRL is run by the media

that might be hard to swallow, but its no coincidence that the game hasnt grown because of the involvment of the media owning the game..

 

[GO DONS]

This are the facts!!!

For over one hundred years in this country, one certainty on the sporting landscape is that the battle of the football codes will be ongoing. Two sports, Rugby Union and Soccer like to spruik their worth to Australia, usually by announcing their importance based on the number of countries that play them. Fair point. Although, upon closer examination of some key statistics, there are only two football codes that can claim to be the biggest and most important in Australia - Rugby League and Australian Rules Football. Whilst the Socceroos enjoy large TV ratings and media exposure during important World Cup play-offs and other friendlies against big nations, and the Wallabies, have enjoyed similar exposure in the past, particularly during 2003, this is not an accurate reflection of those sports cultural importance The club game, which is the bread and butter of sport, is always the more accurate guide to a sports local popularity. Even in the money driven world of English Soccer, the club game is what drives Soccer as England's biggest sport. It is, after all, a tribal affair. If Soccer ceased to exist in every country in the world bar England, I hazard a guess, we would still see the English supporting their club sides as if nothing had happened.

So, it becomes apparent, that only two sports in Australia have the cultural power to command free-to-air TV exposure for club football - Australian Football, and Rugby League. An examination of the A-League and Super-14's ratings on Pay-TV indicates a wide gap between those games and those of the AFL and NRL. Many Super 14's games fail to reach 100,000 on Pay-TV, with some games being only one third of many AFL and NRL games. The A-League, is a similar story.

So, which is the biggest in Australia - the AFL or the NRL? With the AFL averaging 36,225 in 2009, compared to the NRL's 16,065, the AFL is, has been, and forseeably will be the biggest crowd drawer. Those whose loyalties lie in the land of uprights would argue that Aussie Rules gets the crowds but the NRL gets the people where they count - in their loungerooms, watching their TV sets. And it's with much frustration, that those whose sympathies lie with the NRL bemoan the fact that the AFL's TV deal is worth about 50 million more per year than the NRL. It's not fair, they argue. We should be getting just as much, if not more than the AFL, they say.

So, how do the figures stack up in 2009? Using the official Oztam readings, the average weekly audience for the AFL in 2009 was 2,956,000 per week, compared to the NRL's 1,548,000.

Over the entire season, the AFL was watched by a total of 65,023,000 and the NRL by 40,272,000. But what many fail to take into account is the three hour running time of an AFL telecast compared to the two hour running time of it's NRL rival. When this is taken into account, the AFL is viewed 2.4 times as often as the NRL on free-to-air according to Oztam figures. 195,069,000 cumulative hours were viewed for the AFL compared to 80,546,000 for the NRL. With advertisers able to slot in commercials every time a goal is kicked, the commercial value would also appear to be far greater than the NRL, which has far fewer opportunities to slot in ads of their own. It should also be noted, that the NRL's flexible schedule where they choose games several weeks out for its various timeslots, gives it what should be a ratings advantage. Friday night football in the NRL is selected as the highest rating match and is shown live, from 7:30 to 9:30, with Sydney and Brisbane usually getting different matches featuring local teams to maximise ratings. The AFL meanwhile, on Friday nights has a one hour delayed telecast in Melbourne, 90 minutes in Adelaide, and 3 hours delayed in Perth of one match set in stone from the previous October. Looking at these circumstances, and comparing the heartlands of the two codes, one would think that in Sydney, the NRL would rate higher than Melbourne for the AFL. Interestingly, the AFL averages 451,000 in Melbourne on Friday nights and the NRL averages 386,000 in Sydney, with the AFL figures going through to 11:30pm. The NRL figure only goes to 9:30, at which time a delayed (and lower rating) telecast of another NRL match begins.

It would appear that the AFL is more passionately supported in its heartland. Or maybe this is a reflection of the indifference of Sydenysiders since the Brisbane NRL ratings (which regularly feature the Broncos on Friday nights) are strong and impressive.

The above figures, of course, only take into account the capital cities, with Oztam ratings - being the currency by which television programs are bought and sold - only measuring the capitals. Most of the Rugby League persuassion would argue that the NRL has a far greater representation in the regional areas than the AFL. This is undoubtably true, with the decentralized states of NSW and Queensland encompassing large regional areas of Rugby League loving folk. But is this regional area, which, in Television terms makes up approximately 30% of the market, enough to claw back the 25 million viewer deficit (and a deficit in viewing time of 115 million hours?) Not by a long way.

One area the NRL has always held a traditional edge is the viewership on pay television network, Foxtel. With the NRL having five games to the AFL's four, and the AFL having a flexible arrangement whereby Foxtel games for local teams get shown on free-to-air in all cities bar Melbourne, the take up for pay-tv in New South Wales and Queensland is far greater than any other state. Consequently, NRL programs in 2009 have accounted for 60 of the top 100 programs on pay-tv, with their average rating per game being higher than the average AFL figure. However, when one takes into account the "reach" of the programs, a different story emerges. The reach measures the cumulative audience that watches a program (including when it was replayed at various times during the week) for any length of time. The reach of the average AFL home and away game on Foxtel was 562,000 to the NRL's 546,000.

The conclusion we can draw from all this, is that the AFL's television deal, which amounts to 780 million dollars over five years appears well justified in comparison to the NRL. Rugby League does, of course have its separate State of Origin series, which draws enourmous ratings and no doubt helps the code bridge the gap with Australian Rules Football who doesn't have an equivalent. Even taking the ratings for these games and adding them to the NRL's club fixtures, the figures still come up significantly below that of the AFL. Australian Rules Football, clearly commands its position at the top of the sporting landscape of Australia, with the NRL considerably, but not enormously behind. It is certainly food for thought when those from the land of uprights claim their favourite code of football deserves the same financial reward as the AFL. It's noticeably obvious that it doesn't.

Source www.talkingfooty.com/tv_ratings_2009.php

 

[tonk]

nice work GD (I can't say GO DONS...............oh s**t)

 

[Pie eyed]

Do your figures take into account WAFL, SANFL, VFL and any other televised games?

I am not sure how it goes in WA these days but we used to get at least 2 WAFL games on a weekend.

 

[ARES]

This are the facts!!!

For over one hundred years in this country, one certainty on the sporting landscape is that the battle of the football codes will be ongoing. Two sports, Rugby Union and Soccer like to spruik their worth to Australia, usually by announcing their importance based on the number of countries that play them. Fair point. Although, upon closer examination of some key statistics, there are only two football codes that can claim to be the biggest and most important in Australia - Rugby League and Australian Rules Football. Whilst the Socceroos enjoy large TV ratings and media exposure during important World Cup play-offs and other friendlies against big nations, and the Wallabies, have enjoyed similar exposure in the past, particularly during 2003, this is not an accurate reflection of those sports cultural importance The club game, which is the bread and butter of sport, is always the more accurate guide to a sports local popularity. Even in the money driven world of English Soccer, the club game is what drives Soccer as England's biggest sport. It is, after all, a tribal affair. If Soccer ceased to exist in every country in the world bar England, I hazard a guess, we would still see the English supporting their club sides as if nothing had happened.

So, it becomes apparent, that only two sports in Australia have the cultural power to command free-to-air TV exposure for club football - Australian Football, and Rugby League. An examination of the A-League and Super-14's ratings on Pay-TV indicates a wide gap between those games and those of the AFL and NRL. Many Super 14's games fail to reach 100,000 on Pay-TV, with some games being only one third of many AFL and NRL games. The A-League, is a similar story.

So, which is the biggest in Australia - the AFL or the NRL? With the AFL averaging 36,225 in 2009, compared to the NRL's 16,065, the AFL is, has been, and forseeably will be the biggest crowd drawer. Those whose loyalties lie in the land of uprights would argue that Aussie Rules gets the crowds but the NRL gets the people where they count - in their loungerooms, watching their TV sets. And it's with much frustration, that those whose sympathies lie with the NRL bemoan the fact that the AFL's TV deal is worth about 50 million more per year than the NRL. It's not fair, they argue. We should be getting just as much, if not more than the AFL, they say.

So, how do the figures stack up in 2009? Using the official Oztam readings, the average weekly audience for the AFL in 2009 was 2,956,000 per week, compared to the NRL's 1,548,000.

Over the entire season, the AFL was watched by a total of 65,023,000 and the NRL by 40,272,000. But what many fail to take into account is the three hour running time of an AFL telecast compared to the two hour running time of it's NRL rival. When this is taken into account, the AFL is viewed 2.4 times as often as the NRL on free-to-air according to Oztam figures. 195,069,000 cumulative hours were viewed for the AFL compared to 80,546,000 for the NRL. With advertisers able to slot in commercials every time a goal is kicked, the commercial value would also appear to be far greater than the NRL, which has far fewer opportunities to slot in ads of their own. It should also be noted, that the NRL's flexible schedule where they choose games several weeks out for its various timeslots, gives it what should be a ratings advantage. Friday night football in the NRL is selected as the highest rating match and is shown live, from 7:30 to 9:30, with Sydney and Brisbane usually getting different matches featuring local teams to maximise ratings. The AFL meanwhile, on Friday nights has a one hour delayed telecast in Melbourne, 90 minutes in Adelaide, and 3 hours delayed in Perth of one match set in stone from the previous October. Looking at these circumstances, and comparing the heartlands of the two codes, one would think that in Sydney, the NRL would rate higher than Melbourne for the AFL. Interestingly, the AFL averages 451,000 in Melbourne on Friday nights and the NRL averages 386,000 in Sydney, with the AFL figures going through to 11:30pm. The NRL figure only goes to 9:30, at which time a delayed (and lower rating) telecast of another NRL match begins.

It would appear that the AFL is more passionately supported in its heartland. Or maybe this is a reflection of the indifference of Sydenysiders since the Brisbane NRL ratings (which regularly feature the Broncos on Friday nights) are strong and impressive.

The above figures, of course, only take into account the capital cities, with Oztam ratings - being the currency by which television programs are bought and sold - only measuring the capitals. Most of the Rugby League persuassion would argue that the NRL has a far greater representation in the regional areas than the AFL. This is undoubtably true, with the decentralized states of NSW and Queensland encompassing large regional areas of Rugby League loving folk. But is this regional area, which, in Television terms makes up approximately 30% of the market, enough to claw back the 25 million viewer deficit (and a deficit in viewing time of 115 million hours?) Not by a long way.

One area the NRL has always held a traditional edge is the viewership on pay television network, Foxtel. With the NRL having five games to the AFL's four, and the AFL having a flexible arrangement whereby Foxtel games for local teams get shown on free-to-air in all cities bar Melbourne, the take up for pay-tv in New South Wales and Queensland is far greater than any other state. Consequently, NRL programs in 2009 have accounted for 60 of the top 100 programs on pay-tv, with their average rating per game being higher than the average AFL figure. However, when one takes into account the "reach" of the programs, a different story emerges. The reach measures the cumulative audience that watches a program (including when it was replayed at various times during the week) for any length of time. The reach of the average AFL home and away game on Foxtel was 562,000 to the NRL's 546,000.

The conclusion we can draw from all this, is that the AFL's television deal, which amounts to 780 million dollars over five years appears well justified in comparison to the NRL. Rugby League does, of course have its separate State of Origin series, which draws enourmous ratings and no doubt helps the code bridge the gap with Australian Rules Football who doesn't have an equivalent. Even taking the ratings for these games and adding them to the NRL's club fixtures, the figures still come up significantly below that of the AFL. Australian Rules Football, clearly commands its position at the top of the sporting landscape of Australia, with the NRL considerably, but not enormously behind. It is certainly food for thought when those from the land of uprights claim their favourite code of football deserves the same financial reward as the AFL. It's noticeably obvious that it doesn't.

Source www.talkingfooty.com/tv_ratings_2009.php

Game, set & Match !

Rafa Benitez would love this post...

FACTS !!

Great post, that should just about put to bed those League girls on the other site

Let them try and fudge their way out of this one

 

[GO DONS]

thank u people's, the thing is i've lived in Queensland briefly love league watch it every week but its astonishing how u cant be proud of your sport think its the best in YOUR opinion but still admit its not the biggest when AFL is alot bigger up there then NRL is here even fatty vautins son plays AUSKICK i beleive and when AFL dominates all sporting landsapes down south rick, poor western eastern etc

Plus AFL combined memberships are around 550,000 compared to just over 100,000 and the biggest league club the broncos revenue is 18m compared to the roos, saints in the 20m range and collingwood 62m

 

[Ronin]

This are the facts!!!

For over one hundred years in this country, one certainty on the sporting landscape is that the battle of the football codes will be ongoing. Two sports, Rugby Union and Soccer like to spruik their worth to Australia, usually by announcing their importance based on the number of countries that play them. Fair point. Although, upon closer examination of some key statistics, there are only two football codes that can claim to be the biggest and most important in Australia - Rugby League and Australian Rules Football. Whilst the Socceroos enjoy large TV ratings and media exposure during important World Cup play-offs and other friendlies against big nations, and the Wallabies, have enjoyed similar exposure in the past, particularly during 2003, this is not an accurate reflection of those sports cultural importance The club game, which is the bread and butter of sport, is always the more accurate guide to a sports local popularity. Even in the money driven world of English Soccer, the club game is what drives Soccer as England's biggest sport. It is, after all, a tribal affair. If Soccer ceased to exist in every country in the world bar England, I hazard a guess, we would still see the English supporting their club sides as if nothing had happened.

So, it becomes apparent, that only two sports in Australia have the cultural power to command free-to-air TV exposure for club football - Australian Football, and Rugby League. An examination of the A-League and Super-14's ratings on Pay-TV indicates a wide gap between those games and those of the AFL and NRL. Many Super 14's games fail to reach 100,000 on Pay-TV, with some games being only one third of many AFL and NRL games. The A-League, is a similar story.

So, which is the biggest in Australia - the AFL or the NRL? With the AFL averaging 36,225 in 2009, compared to the NRL's 16,065, the AFL is, has been, and forseeably will be the biggest crowd drawer. Those whose loyalties lie in the land of uprights would argue that Aussie Rules gets the crowds but the NRL gets the people where they count - in their loungerooms, watching their TV sets. And it's with much frustration, that those whose sympathies lie with the NRL bemoan the fact that the AFL's TV deal is worth about 50 million more per year than the NRL. It's not fair, they argue. We should be getting just as much, if not more than the AFL, they say.

So, how do the figures stack up in 2009? Using the official Oztam readings, the average weekly audience for the AFL in 2009 was 2,956,000 per week, compared to the NRL's 1,548,000.

Over the entire season, the AFL was watched by a total of 65,023,000 and the NRL by 40,272,000. But what many fail to take into account is the three hour running time of an AFL telecast compared to the two hour running time of it's NRL rival. When this is taken into account, the AFL is viewed 2.4 times as often as the NRL on free-to-air according to Oztam figures. 195,069,000 cumulative hours were viewed for the AFL compared to 80,546,000 for the NRL. With advertisers able to slot in commercials every time a goal is kicked, the commercial value would also appear to be far greater than the NRL, which has far fewer opportunities to slot in ads of their own. It should also be noted, that the NRL's flexible schedule where they choose games several weeks out for its various timeslots, gives it what should be a ratings advantage. Friday night football in the NRL is selected as the highest rating match and is shown live, from 7:30 to 9:30, with Sydney and Brisbane usually getting different matches featuring local teams to maximise ratings. The AFL meanwhile, on Friday nights has a one hour delayed telecast in Melbourne, 90 minutes in Adelaide, and 3 hours delayed in Perth of one match set in stone from the previous October. Looking at these circumstances, and comparing the heartlands of the two codes, one would think that in Sydney, the NRL would rate higher than Melbourne for the AFL. Interestingly, the AFL averages 451,000 in Melbourne on Friday nights and the NRL averages 386,000 in Sydney, with the AFL figures going through to 11:30pm. The NRL figure only goes to 9:30, at which time a delayed (and lower rating) telecast of another NRL match begins.

It would appear that the AFL is more passionately supported in its heartland. Or maybe this is a reflection of the indifference of Sydenysiders since the Brisbane NRL ratings (which regularly feature the Broncos on Friday nights) are strong and impressive.

The above figures, of course, only take into account the capital cities, with Oztam ratings - being the currency by which television programs are bought and sold - only measuring the capitals. Most of the Rugby League persuassion would argue that the NRL has a far greater representation in the regional areas than the AFL. This is undoubtably true, with the decentralized states of NSW and Queensland encompassing large regional areas of Rugby League loving folk. But is this regional area, which, in Television terms makes up approximately 30% of the market, enough to claw back the 25 million viewer deficit (and a deficit in viewing time of 115 million hours?) Not by a long way.

One area the NRL has always held a traditional edge is the viewership on pay television network, Foxtel. With the NRL having five games to the AFL's four, and the AFL having a flexible arrangement whereby Foxtel games for local teams get shown on free-to-air in all cities bar Melbourne, the take up for pay-tv in New South Wales and Queensland is far greater than any other state. Consequently, NRL programs in 2009 have accounted for 60 of the top 100 programs on pay-tv, with their average rating per game being higher than the average AFL figure. However, when one takes into account the "reach" of the programs, a different story emerges. The reach measures the cumulative audience that watches a program (including when it was replayed at various times during the week) for any length of time. The reach of the average AFL home and away game on Foxtel was 562,000 to the NRL's 546,000.

The conclusion we can draw from all this, is that the AFL's television deal, which amounts to 780 million dollars over five years appears well justified in comparison to the NRL. Rugby League does, of course have its separate State of Origin series, which draws enourmous ratings and no doubt helps the code bridge the gap with Australian Rules Football who doesn't have an equivalent. Even taking the ratings for these games and adding them to the NRL's club fixtures, the figures still come up significantly below that of the AFL. Australian Rules Football, clearly commands its position at the top of the sporting landscape of Australia, with the NRL considerably, but not enormously behind. It is certainly food for thought when those from the land of uprights claim their favourite code of football deserves the same financial reward as the AFL. It's noticeably obvious that it doesn't.

Source www.talkingfooty.com/tv_ratings_2009.php

What a waste of a post.

You all agreed a few posts ago that AFL needs Gimmicks to get people to watch the game.

You can talk about 100 Billion Trillion Hours, yet in Sydney you would be lucky to get 20,000 watching an AFL semi final this weekend.

That is the reality no matter how you spin it.

 

[.Shotties.]

What a waste of a post.

You all agreed a few posts ago that AFL needs Gimmicks to get people to watch the game.

You can talk about 100 Billion Trillion Hours, yet in Sydney you would be lucky to get 20,000 watching an AFL semi final this weekend.

That is the reality no matter how you spin it.

Stunning riposte.