r/rugbyunion

TLDR - emphasisng importance of USA market, match fee increase across the board

https://www.youtube.com/live/FYyFqn3JUtc?si=yeWaTzXgtQLzdCen being streamed on youtube if anyone wants to watch.

Also, 4.5 thousand viewers for a U20 game against Chile's U20 team is very good.

Article in french

Hey guys! Anywhere likely to show it given the late kick off and the fact that like 3 pubs in the city show rugby union of any sort? Happy to travel - surely somewhere in St Kilda will stick it on???

New Zealand’s undersized stadia, comparatively punitive hosting fees and lack of local and national government support are obstacles to be overcome before an agreement can be reached with Australia about playing regular Anzac Day Bledisloe tests.

In principle, New Zealand Rugby has agreed that it wants the All Blacks to... play a regular Anzac fixture against the Wallabies and extend the Bledisloe Cup into a three-test series.

But any deal to play an Anzac Day test will be struck as a 50:50 revenue share between the two countries, and this is where the proposal needs a solution as New Zealand can’t offer anywhere remotely close to the financial returns playing in Australia can.

Rugby Australia has state governments throwing money at them to bring the All Blacks, and the Herald understands that there is some certainty that incentive payments could be secured to play Anzac tests across the Tasman for at least the next three years.

The size of these incentives is not known, but it has been reported that the Western Australian Government paid A$5 million ($6m) to secure a Bledisloe test last year, while the Victorian Government is thought to have stumped up A$45m ($54m) to bring three NFL games to Melbourne over the next three years.

All up, it is estimated that between gate revenue and government payments, NZR’s share could be between $6m-$7m per game by playing Anzac tests in Perth, Brisbane and Sydney over the next three years.

The total could be yet higher as NZR carved out the right to play five additional games and sell broadcast rights to them as part of its current media rights deal with Sky.

There is a major snag to this, however, which is NZR, for obvious reasons, wants reciprocity so as not to be locked into an agreement where the Wallabies have two home Bledisloe fixtures to the All Blacks’ one.

But it can’t mount a viable commercial case to do so.

“We don’t think that there is the same appeal for hosting an Anzac Bledisloe test in New Zealand,” NZR chief executive Steve Lancaster said.

“We don’t know that the appetite or demand will be there or that commercially it will work as well.

“As we consider it – and we are considering it – but one of the things we won’t do is play an Anzac Bledisloe in Australia every year.

“That just tilts the playing field because if they have to win two out of three, and two are in Australia every year, that doesn’t make sense.

“How do we work around that? If we don’t see potential to play those games in New Zealand but we do in Australia, do we do it every other year? Do we do it every year but take one of them to another market?

“Playing in other markets is an important part of our revenue profile and conversations are live on this right now and the reciprocity question is central.”

Lancaster’s concern about the lack of public appetite for an Anzac Bledisloe may appear misplaced given that last year, every ticket to the All Blacks’ six home tests was sold.

When the question was put to chief executive Nick Sautner on whether Eden Park could sell out an Anzac Day Bledisloe Cup test, he said yes.

“A Bledisloe Cup test on Anzac weekend would bring together one of rugby’s great rivalries, creating a significant transtasman moment, and we are confident Eden Park could sell out a test in April 2028.”

But NZR says that it is having to work harder and smarter than it ever has to sell-out stadiums and there is evidence that ticket sales become particularly challenging when playing the same opponent twice in New Zealand.

In 2024 the All Blacks played Argentina in consecutive weekends – in Wellington and Auckland – and combined, about 11,000 tickets went unsold.

In 2021, the All Blacks played the Wallabies in consecutive weekends at Eden Park and the second fixture had barely 25,000 people there.

An Anzac test in New Zealand may well sell out, but there is a valid concern about how that would impact sales for the second Bledisloe later in the year because the rugby market in New Zealand is already at saturation point with the volume of Super Rugby, NPC and international games that are currently played.

The Government’s recent announcement about public service job losses will make it yet harder still to sell out games in Wellington.

There could be a compounding issue of the series being wrapped up after two games, taking the edge off the third fixture.

More significantly, there is a significant cultural difference between the two nations in that Australia has a long history and tradition of playing and attending high-profile sports fixtures on Anzac Day.

New Zealand doesn’t, and the April period from Easter through to Anzac Day is typically one where people travel (internally) and NZR would be taking a risk that it could change ingrained behaviours and habits.

There is also the issue of stadium size and likely financial returns.

Eden Park, as the largest and most lucrative home venue for the All Blacks with a capacity of around 50,000, is thought to net NZR an estimated $4m-$5m when it sells out.

Hnry Stadium in Wellington has a capacity of 34,000, the new stadium in Christchurch is 30,000 and Forsyth Barr in Dunedin is 28,000 – and while it’s not known what monetary returns these venues deliver for the All Blacks, the range is likely between circa $3.5m (Christchurch and Wellington), and circa $2.5m (Dunedin).

By comparison, Optus Stadium in Perth has 60,000 seats, Accor Stadium in Sydney has an 83,000 capacity and the MCG in Melbourne can accommodate 100,000 people.

The Australians don’t just have bigger stadiums, they typically have attractive financial arrangements to play in them because many have been built entirely or mostly with state government money and are operated by some kind of taxpayer entity.

This is where Australia’s economic horsepower can be seen: they have well capitalised state governments investing heavily in sports/event infrastructure and then they double down by spending big to fill stadiums.

There is always scepticism about the overall economic value generated by big events, but it is believed that Adelaide and Brisbane had their highest hotel occupancy rates in history during last year’s British and Irish Lions tour.

Again, by comparison, New Zealand’s Government has not historically invested to the same extent in stadiums, and it is only in the last six months that a dedicated $70m fund has been put aside to help attract major events, but an Anzac Bledisloe in New Zealand is unlikely to secure any government incentive to happen.

It is also believed that because the volume of big acts and events going through New Zealand is so limited and hard to predict, that most stadiums charge what the Herald has been told are comparatively punitive hosting fees.

NZR is likely to be paying not only a significant hosting fee to play at any stadium in New Zealand, but also sharing a percentage of revenue on ticket and food and beverage sales.

One of the solutions that the Herald believes is under consideration, is for an Anzac Day test to be agreed for the remainder of this broadcast cycle (ends late 2030) – all of which will be played in Australia.

The financial returns are too great to turn down, and playing Anzac tests in Australia would ensure that the tone was appropriate and that the two national bodies are not seen to be commercialising the horror of World War I – something that can’t be guaranteed if, as per Lancaster’s suggestion, NZR hosted a fixture overseas.

The trade-off will be that every other year, NZR will be able to host the two home Rugby Championship tests that double as the Bledisloe series and one of these could be played offshore to generate more money to share with the Wallabies.

This may not be where the final decision lands but sources on both sides of the Tasman say that the determination is apparent within both national unions to get a deal done and this proposal is the one that presents the best commercial and performance solutions.

“A big focus for me is relationships with our key partners,” says Lancaster.

“We have some significant commercial partners who are critical to us.

“We have got a partner in the Rugby Players Association, a partner in Sky and partners in other national unions. Rugby Australia, as the other major union in the Southern Hemisphere is a critical partner.

“We want them to be successful – not when it comes to winning the Bledisloe Cup – but everything other than that. We want rugby to be prominent in Australia, to be commercially viable, to be a well-supported and well participated sport.

“We understand in our discussions with RA that they see the Bledisloe as a significant event, which they can market every year or every other year, at a time when it is relatively clear in terms of other codes, they can build on that.

“That’s good for them and it is good for us and it is good for Super Rugby because we can build it as a package of rugby at that time of year.”