Rugby League is ‘dying’ claims leading sports promoter Eddie Hearn

[thegimble]

Mike

That is the problem in a nutshell. NFL financially is the best sports model in pure numbers. It's organisation, promotion and sustainability is unparalleled. Not even the Champions League comes close. Owners buy into the system and almost everything is done centrally. So the sport is bigger than 1 team. And yes the game has a salary cap.

Unless owners of shitty run teams swallow some pride accepts the game is all but broke then inside a decade RL here will be finished and SKY will drop them. Game will simply be semi pro or worse
.

[Ipinwigan]

I have been saying it all last season, the RL and IMG are not fit for purpose, they couldn't run the proverbial p**s up in a brewery.
I have also said that the wealthy owners need to take the game out of the control of the RL and IMG, to prevent it from dying.
They must be good business men, appart from investing in a sport with their hearts, rather than their heads, so surely they could work out how to market the game, as it should be, to get a much better TV deal and promote the star players, like Bevan, to a much wider audience.
I really do fear for the sport, more than any other time in the past, we seem to be limping along to a slow death.

[moto748]

I know nothing of the NFL, but if they have a working business model, they must be one of the very few in sport these days. Hardly any football clubs show a profit these days, even (especially?) the biggest clubs. Teams are falling by the wayside in rugby union, now their 'professionalism' bubble has burst. The NRL is fortunate to be isolated, and protected by its hefty TV rights income.

[Mike]

Mike

That is the problem in a nutshell. NFL financially is the best sports model in pure numbers. It's organisation, promotion and sustainability is unparalleled. Not even the Champions League comes close. Owners buy into the system and almost everything is done centrally. So the sport is bigger than 1 team. And yes the game has a salary cap.

Unless owners of shitty run teams swallow some pride accepts the game is all but broke then inside a decade RL here will be finished and SKY will drop them. Game will simply be semi pro or worse
.

The problem is that *we* would directly subsidize the "lesser" teams in the NFL system. We provide finance from our merchandise income (which BTW we are still losing money across the board so this is theoretical) that goes into the pot and is re-allocated out. And (even worse?) we would be providing playing talent because we're a net producer of players and the system is setup around the worst teams getting first pick of the talent. So there is a lot of push back from the top teams fans especially in this scenario.

[thegimble]

The issue re kit would be a big one. But going into a contract from 1 source would theoretically increase the deal value. As shirt deals in football world wide works on bigger the shirt purchase better deal you get. Basically Man U make more from 1 shirt than Latics do.

Players

Teams in the NFL do not develop anyone so the system of draft would not be done. Incredible that college football develops ready BRL players at no cost.

We could not evaluate them. Or are you suggesting we stop developing players and start a college system that the NFL use. Would lower the costs. But we know that is not going to happen.

[Mike]

For player talent, there wouldn't be a college system that's clear. However, under central funding each teams academy graduating players could be entered into a draft. The academies being essentially centrally run this would make some sense, however the clubs running the academies would have to have some incentive, like taking first pick(s) from their own group etc.

However, you don't need this player pooling to move to the centralised financial model IMO. If all clubs were funded equally, then they should all have the resources to develop their own players in a competitive manner, and the playing side should level out by that mechanism.

[fozzie58]

Until the muppets who run the sport allow the clubs,who can afford to do so,spend as they will the sport will wither on the vine but still keeps the sport “even and balanced” to allow so many clubs to win that grand final….

Do you really think if we went out and signed all the best players in the world and other teams fell further behind us and one or two others, that would really help the sport in this country?

The problem for me, is how badly the sport is promoted. We had something decent going when the Super League started. Albeit a little bit tinpot but the fanfare was there. Games seemed exciting for the neutral. I was in school in the late 90s and early 00s in an area where no one really watched rugby league. Many of my friends who were only really into football used to watch the games on a Friday night. They were exciting. The whole package from Sky Sports built the game up. Eddie and Stevo, like them or loathe them, hyped the game up so much. Compare it to current day and we have pretty drab commentators, the build up is non existent for most games. The most they have is a quick clip just pre game that's also played on the big screen at the ground which feels a little bit forced.

We also have no household names in the sport over here anymore. No real characters, or at least no characters that are allowed to be themselves.

Then you have the international game. No one cares about England anymore. I remember Wembley being packed out in the 90s. Now you see the struggle to fill 20k stadiums. Hopefully that changes with the ashes

The truth is as it stands the sort is being strangled by the high ups it’s not a question of being able to buy the players the sport won’t allow it and it is like it or not withering away,as for household names well with the right marketing surely French,Field,Lewis,Williams off the top of my head should be household names but they’re not because thy ain’t encouraged to go seek the right marketing men to bring them to the national eye.

[morley pie eater]

A different point of view from me - no surprise!
It's more in the form of asking questions and making observations, as nobody really has all the answers.

Hearn's problem is that darts, boxing and snooker are individual sports, so his methods don't apply. Similarly references to the NFL structures: they were already one of the major sports in Australia, and don't have the dominance of soccer that we have. Union is struggling here too, and only keeps going due to income from the international game I've I've understood correctly.

I think we made a mistake, albeit well-intentioned, with the salary cap. The idea was to stop clubs going bust and even up standards. I suggest we should focus on clubs only spending what they can afford, but let those with rich owners spend as much as they like.

If 1, 2 or 3 teams dominate through this system, then let them. I offer in evidence Celtic and Rangers. There are teams in the Scottish Premiership who are as poor and well supported as Salford or Huddersfield. What would happen to Scottish football if they adopted a salary cap?

If Mike Danson and others were allowed to spend, we might see some stars. Many many people know Offiah, Edwards and the rest from when we dominated the league and won 8 cup finals in a row. We also got recognition and coverage at SPOTY and the lines of the Middlesex 7s. And if we did it again, Sky would be bidding more to cover the game - it was us under Uncle Mo who attracted them to RL in the first place.

If Wigan got to this level again, other millionaire owners may be tempted to throw their hat, and their money, into the ring. What incentive do they have under the current system?

[thegimble]

A different point of view from me - no surprise!
It's more in the form of asking questions and making observations, as nobody really has all the answers.

Hearn's problem is that darts, boxing and snooker are individual sports, so his methods don't apply. Similarly references to the NFL structures: they were already one of the major sports in Australia, and don't have the dominance of soccer that we have. Union is struggling here too, and only keeps going due to income from the international game I've I've understood correctly.

I think we made a mistake, albeit well-intentioned, with the salary cap. The idea was to stop clubs going bust and even up standards. I suggest we should focus on clubs only spending what they can afford, but let those with rich owners spend as much as they like.

If 1, 2 or 3 teams dominate through this system, then let them. I offer in evidence Celtic and Rangers. There are teams in the Scottish Premiership who are as poor and well supported as Salford or Huddersfield. What would happen to Scottish football if they adopted a salary cap?

If Mike Danson and others were allowed to spend, we might see some stars. Many many people know Offiah, Edwards and the rest from when we dominated the league and won 8 cup finals in a row. We also got recognition and coverage at SPOTY and the lines of the Middlesex 7s. And if we did it again, Sky would be bidding more to cover the game - it was us under Uncle Mo who attracted them to RL in the first place.

If Wigan got to this level again, other millionaire owners may be tempted to throw their hat, and their money, into the ring. What incentive do they have under the current system?

Disagree on 1 point. Salary cap did not even up the standards it even downed them. Otherwise great post

[moto748]

The tragic thing is, from where I'm sitting, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the product! We've been served up great entertainment over the last few years, as well as pots in the trophy cabinet.