Who gets the money?

There's a multiplicity of pies being baked in pro rugby ovens.

Club/side league games
Additional faux cup games
European cup competitions
Playoffs
International games

I have no idea how these revenues are distributed on a pre-agreed basis.

In fact the only pie that I know how is sliced is the English 'EPS' payments and that is equally amongst Jeff clubs irrespective of ingredients in the recipe.

Well I know this is not about the SH, but for the Super rugby we bring in 60% of the revenue, but only get a third of the pie. All this because our SARU are a bunch of sissie who can't stand their ground.

Biltong, isn’t that based on the fact that SA is aligned with Europe time wise rather than sheer weight of SA viewers? If it were down to potential viewers in each country, NZ would get bugger all yet you could argue we provide the bulk of the ‘star’ players.

I could be wrong of course but that is what I figured anyway....

I should have said that this post was originally primarily about attendance figures. But I have to concede that TV revenue has to be validly included.

In Scottish football with Rangers going into administration, I'm sure that they are asking parallel questions.

chewed_mintie wrote:Biltong, isn’t that based on the fact that SA is aligned with Europe time wise rather than sheer weight of SA viewers? If it were down to potential viewers in each country, NZ would get bugger all yet you could argue we provide the bulk of the ‘star’ players.

I could be wrong of course but that is what I figured anyway....

mintie from what I read a while ago our televison revenue from super sport is rather big. It was alwys spilt according to revenue earned per country, then ARU and NZRU complained they want a third each. So although we bring in the dosh, we don't keep it.

When you look at the derby games that has now doubled, there is all the more reason why it should not be split third each way.

biltongbek wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:Biltong, isn’t that based on the fact that SA is aligned with Europe time wise rather than sheer weight of SA viewers? If it were down to potential viewers in each country, NZ would get bugger all yet you could argue we provide the bulk of the ‘star’ players.

I could be wrong of course but that is what I figured anyway....

mintie from what I read a while ago our televison revenue from super sport is rather big. It was alwys spilt according to revenue earned per country, then ARU and NZRU complained they want a third each. So although we bring in the dosh, we don't keep it.

When you look at the derby games that has now doubled, there is all the more reason why it should not be split third each way.

Apparently biltong at least you have an idea about how the revenue is split. Be it fair or unfair - you have an idea just like I do about EPS payments.

But all the rest is a mystery.

From what I remeber a large slice of the Eruo cups money goes to Unions rather than clubs. This is why the Welsh were always so keen on keeping the mickey mouse cup, where they get to keep pretty much everything.

But if it's an equal competition - three sides playing for a title - then isn't saying the side/nation with the biggest viewing figures should get most of (or a viewing figure percentage of) the profits shifting the 'equality' of the competition?

More money in theory means more resources, means better prepared sides, means a better (in theory) chance of winning...as the years tick by.

It's similar to the arguments the Aviva Premiership boss was using not too long ago about Heineken Cup qualification. He was saying the English give more money and in truth give more of an audience too to the HC, and therefore they feel slighted that their chances of winning the thing seem to be diminished.

If your audience is your argument for why you should be winning, that kinda knocks all ideas of fairness out the window.

SecretFly wrote:But if it's an equal competition - three sides playing for a title - then isn't saying the side/nation with the biggest viewing figures should get most of (or a viewing figure percentage of) the profits shifting the 'equality' of the competition?

More money in theory means more resources, means better prepared sides, means a better (in theory) chance of winning...as the years tick by.

It's similar to the arguments the Aviva Premiership boss was using not too long ago about Heineken Cup qualification. He was saying the English give more money and in truth give more of an audience too to the HC, and therefore they feel slighted that their chances of winning the thing seem to be diminished.

If your audience is your argument for why you should be winning, that kinda knocks all ideas of fairness out the window.

My uneducated guess is that the broadcasters scoop the relative pots in TV audience figures and that Unions have to stay with their pre-contracted payments.

But how the rights are distributed is anyone's guess.

As far as im aware for the 6 nations the rights are negotiated with each broadcaster centrally and distributed equally. If that wasnt the case then I struggle to see how teh SRU would continue to exist.
If England were to negotiate their own rights they would take a huge chunk of the British pot.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:As far as im aware for the 6 nations the rights are negotiated with each broadcaster centrally and distributed equally. If that wasnt the case then I struggle to see how teh SRU would continue to exist.
If England were to negotiate their own rights they would take a huge chunk of the British pot.

I'm not sure that anyone wants England to go back to Sky as it would would collapse once again the viewing figures.

Currently English games attract an audience of ~4-5m on the Beeb. As I recall, BSkyB pulled in about a tenth of that when they had the rights.

biltongbek wrote:Well I know this is not about the SH, but for the Super rugby we bring in 60% of the revenue, but only get a third of the pie. All this because our SARU are a bunch of sissie who can't stand their ground.

What percentage of revenue comes from showing the matches in Europe?

The Aussies and New Zealanders might argue that the South African public is paying to see their star players too and without them there is not much of a competition.

Profitius, I have no idea, but I doubt whether Europe is buying all the matches from supersport, we have no rights on NZ and OZ's transmitted matches only those of SA.

Please don't mention pies. I miss them terribly.

I missed pies so much when I was overseas. First thing on arriving back was always a pie.

I'm disappointed in this thread not actually being about food.

Looseheaded wrote:I'm disappointed in this thread not actually being about food.

OP title duly edited LH.

Good on you Portnoy. Thanks for that. The steak and mushroom cravings are subsiding as I type.

But in these times of crisis maybe you shouldn´t mention money either with Welsh clubs selling AB jerseys and Otago rugby about to go under.

Well I was the driver, so I always take 15%. The rest of you can debate your shares between you with what's left.