WRU. £30m. Macron. 7 years

Yes, a £30m deal with Macron over 7 years.

In 2015, the WRU signed a 9 year deal with Under Armour for £33m but both parties agreed to end that contract early.

7 years is madness. Awful decision. Good for my wallet, as I did like buying Under Armour stuff. Seems a huge step down to go from such a globally recognised brand, to one like that.

Increased fee plus now the rights to sell 6 years' worth of naming rights for the Autumn Series, so that increase becomes even greater.

I get the money aspect of course, but I do think they’ll lose a lot of merchandise sales etc.

If anyone is in any doubt about rugby's potential growth as an international sport and how the reliance on CVC to suddenly turn rugby in to a massive game might be a fantasy, you should look no further than which companies are making the international team shirts.

England have gone from Nike to Canterbury to Umbro. Nike now only sponsor Argentina. Adidas only do the All Blacks. South Africa have Asics (Basics?) after Nike and Canterbury. Australia are with Asics after Canterbury. France have gone from Nike to Adidas to Le Coq Sportif. Italy went from Kappa to Kappa to Adidas to Macron. Japan, a huge market at the moment, are with Canterbury. Wales have gone from Reebok to Under Armour to Macron. Scotland are with Macron.

There is a trend here and it's that the biggest brands don't value rugby. Under Armour cut the Wales deal short even before the pandemic.

Rugby didn't grow in the wake of 2015 as many companies clearly assumed it would, whether that was TV broadcasting, sponsorship of World Cups, or kit deals. This is why women's sport is being pushed instead: immediate and significant growth in a market that is already 'there' but can be convinced to consume 'more' with little to no investment in infrastructure or brand recognition.

At least the new Scotland kit looks good, Macron have that going for them, but most people I speak to who have experience with their club wearing Macron kit say their gear is crap and falls apart after a few washes. Not good for the fans. Wales should have tried to hold on to Under Armour even if they didn't make the nicest shirts.

rugby racing and beer wrote:If anyone is in any doubt about rugby's potential growth as an international sport and how the reliance on CVC to suddenly turn rugby in to a massive game might be a fantasy, you should look no further than which companies are making the international team shirts.

England have gone from Nike to Canterbury to Umbro. Nike now only sponsor Argentina. Adidas only do the All Blacks. South Africa have Asics (Basics?) after Nike and Canterbury. Australia are with Asics after Canterbury. France have gone from Nike to Adidas to Le Coq Sportif. Italy went from Kappa to Kappa to Adidas to Macron. Japan, a huge market at the moment, are with Canterbury. Wales have gone from Reebok to Under Armour to Macron. Scotland are with Macron.

There is a trend here and it's that the biggest brands don't value rugby. Under Armour cut the Wales deal short even before the pandemic.

Rugby didn't grow in the wake of 2015 as many companies clearly assumed it would, whether that was TV broadcasting, sponsorship of World Cups, or kit deals. This is why women's sport is being pushed instead: immediate and significant growth in a market that is already 'there' but can be convinced to consume 'more' with little to no investment in infrastructure or brand recognition.

At least the new Scotland kit looks good, Macron have that going for them, but most people I speak to who have experience with their club wearing Macron kit say their gear is crap and falls apart after a few washes. Not good for the fans. Wales should have tried to hold on to Under Armour even if they didn't make the nicest shirts.

Scotland were with Canterbury until a few years ago. I haven't noticed much of a drop in quality, they're just a different style and sizing. For example if you're a Medium usually you'll be a Large with Macron.

RRB
Or you could view it that different brands are associatied with different sports...and new brands are trying to muscle in on the action by offering good shirts at better financial packages.

It has no reflection on the growing appeal of rugby.

I never really liked the Canterbury England shirts, always found them a bit too tight around the shoulders and loose around the midriff.

rugby racing and beer wrote:If anyone is in any doubt about rugby's potential growth as an international sport and how the reliance on CVC to suddenly turn rugby in to a massive game might be a fantasy, you should look no further than which companies are making the international team shirts.

England have gone from Nike to Canterbury to Umbro. Nike now only sponsor Argentina. Adidas only do the All Blacks. South Africa have Asics (Basics?) after Nike and Canterbury. Australia are with Asics after Canterbury. France have gone from Nike to Adidas to Le Coq Sportif. Italy went from Kappa to Kappa to Adidas to Macron. Japan, a huge market at the moment, are with Canterbury. Wales have gone from Reebok to Under Armour to Macron. Scotland are with Macron.

There is a trend here and it's that the biggest brands don't value rugby. Under Armour cut the Wales deal short even before the pandemic.

Rugby didn't grow in the wake of 2015 as many companies clearly assumed it would, whether that was TV broadcasting, sponsorship of World Cups, or kit deals. This is why women's sport is being pushed instead: immediate and significant growth in a market that is already 'there' but can be convinced to consume 'more' with little to no investment in infrastructure or brand recognition.

At least the new Scotland kit looks good, Macron have that going for them, but most people I speak to who have experience with their club wearing Macron kit say their gear is crap and falls apart after a few washes. Not good for the fans. Wales should have tried to hold on to Under Armour even if they didn't make the nicest shirts.

How does a sports manufacture make money from team sponsorship? By selling its product on the back of it.

Rugby has a far greater ABC1 captive base than does soccer, for example, hence the kind of sponsorship deals cut by rugby. Soccer has a more global and younger audience, hence where the manufacturers can recoup their investment.

It's different strokes for different folks. It's not being attractive for vanity purposes.

GeordieFalcon wrote:RRB
Or you could view it that different brands are associatied with different sports...and new brands are trying to muscle in on the action by offering good shirts at better financial packages.

It has no reflection on the growing appeal of rugby.

Spot on.

GeordieFalcon wrote:RRB
Or you could view it that different brands are associatied with different sports...and new brands are trying to muscle in on the action by offering good shirts at better financial packages.

It has no reflection on the growing appeal of rugby.

This is true but only to a point. Canterbury are obviously a rugby brand but other than that there's no reason for the big brands not to dominate rugby unless they don't see it as financially viable, which they don't. Whether they are outbid by these smaller brands or they simply withdraw is not clear but the trend is clear: Nike and Adidas are fleeing rugby and we're not even getting second rate replacements. Nike still has a presence with Argentina but that's as much to keep the Brazil v Argentina Adidas v Nike battle alive and have some kind of presence in south America where possible.

No doubt it's a bit of both, Macron obviously want to be synonymous with rugby, as do Asics/Basics. But it's also a case that Nike/Adidas are retreating and consolidating on safe bets, while not seeing the growth potential in rugby that perhaps was assumed 10-20 years ago. I think it definitely reflects something even if it's not totally clear what, other than brands are leaving and the money from sponsorship is stagnating. As mentioned Under Armour pulled out of their deal early before the recent recession.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:If anyone is in any doubt about rugby's potential growth as an international sport and how the reliance on CVC to suddenly turn rugby in to a massive game might be a fantasy, you should look no further than which companies are making the international team shirts.

England have gone from Nike to Canterbury to Umbro. Nike now only sponsor Argentina. Adidas only do the All Blacks. South Africa have Asics (Basics?) after Nike and Canterbury. Australia are with Asics after Canterbury. France have gone from Nike to Adidas to Le Coq Sportif. Italy went from Kappa to Kappa to Adidas to Macron. Japan, a huge market at the moment, are with Canterbury. Wales have gone from Reebok to Under Armour to Macron. Scotland are with Macron.

There is a trend here and it's that the biggest brands don't value rugby. Under Armour cut the Wales deal short even before the pandemic.

Rugby didn't grow in the wake of 2015 as many companies clearly assumed it would, whether that was TV broadcasting, sponsorship of World Cups, or kit deals. This is why women's sport is being pushed instead: immediate and significant growth in a market that is already 'there' but can be convinced to consume 'more' with little to no investment in infrastructure or brand recognition.

At least the new Scotland kit looks good, Macron have that going for them, but most people I speak to who have experience with their club wearing Macron kit say their gear is crap and falls apart after a few washes. Not good for the fans. Wales should have tried to hold on to Under Armour even if they didn't make the nicest shirts.

How does a sports manufacture make money from team sponsorship? By selling its product on the back of it.

Rugby has a far greater ABC1 captive base than does soccer, for example, hence the kind of sponsorship deals cut by rugby. Soccer has a more global and younger audience, hence where the manufacturers can recoup their investment.

It's different strokes for different folks. It's not being attractive for vanity purposes.

No it doesn't, this is nonsense. 'Far greater'? Are you aware of the actual differences in scale you're talking about? Maybe as a percentage but 'far greater'. You need to stop guessing, Phil, and talk specifics if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Part of the anticipated growth of the game was the hope that rugby would break 'new territories' and new demographics. It's why we had a tournament in Japan. It hasn't happened as was anticipated, particularly over the last 5 years since the 2015 RWC which was really meant to be a showpiece of everything good about rugby but didn't help when England, the hosts, went out in the group stage and killed much of the traditional buzz that would occur at a world cup - as seen by Japan beating Scotland and Ireland and facing SA this year.

Your comment about age is nonsensical. Older, wealthier people have more money than younger, poorer people. The idea that class and income is somehow the key ingredient here is silly. If rugby had shown the kind of relative growth potential that football/soccer did across the US in the last 15 years then Nike and Adidas would be at the forefront of sponsorship. It's that simple. Rugby hasn't grown as hoped/expected and the reliance on third rate sports brands for big international teams is a bad sign. If even England have to end up with Umbro it shows something has gone wrong.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

No it doesn't, this is nonsense. 'Far greater'? Are you aware of the actual differences in scale you're talking about? Maybe as a percentage but 'far greater'. You need to stop guessing, Phil, and talk specifics if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Part of the anticipated growth of the game was the hope that rugby would break 'new territories' and new demographics. It's why we had a tournament in Japan. It hasn't happened as was anticipated, particularly over the last 5 years since the 2015 RWC which was really meant to be a showpiece of everything good about rugby but didn't help when England, the hosts, went out in the group stage and killed much of the traditional buzz that would occur at a world cup - as seen by Japan beating Scotland and Ireland and facing SA this year.

Your comment about age is nonsensical. Older, wealthier people have more money than younger, poorer people. The idea that class and income is somehow the key ingredient here is silly. If rugby had shown the kind of relative growth potential that football/soccer did across the US in the last 15 years then Nike and Adidas would be at the forefront of sponsorship. It's that simple. Rugby hasn't grown as hoped/expected and the reliance on third rate sports brands for big international teams is a bad sign. If even England have to end up with Umbro it shows something has gone wrong.

Sorry, I thought that it was obvious that the "far greater" comment was relative.

I think that you may wish to take a quick view at the growth of the game in Japan, too.

You also don't seem to understand that ABC1 is more targeted for high end value deals, rather than buying trainers. The market place is different and is acknowledged as different.

All you've done is repeated your previous post, despite it being full of errors, whilst ignoring the key fact of ABC1.

p.s. you write "if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about". You don't, clearly.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:RRB
Or you could view it that different brands are associatied with different sports...and new brands are trying to muscle in on the action by offering good shirts at better financial packages.

It has no reflection on the growing appeal of rugby.

This is true but only to a point. Canterbury are obviously a rugby brand but other than that there's no reason for the big brands not to dominate rugby unless they don't see it as financially viable, which they don't. Whether they are outbid by these smaller brands or they simply withdraw is not clear but the trend is clear: Nike and Adidas are fleeing rugby and we're not even getting second rate replacements. Nike still has a presence with Argentina but that's as much to keep the Brazil v Argentina Adidas v Nike battle alive and have some kind of presence in south America where possible.

No doubt it's a bit of both, Macron obviously want to be synonymous with rugby, as do Asics/Basics. But it's also a case that Nike/Adidas are retreating and consolidating on safe bets, while not seeing the growth potential in rugby that perhaps was assumed 10-20 years ago. I think it definitely reflects something even if it's not totally clear what, other than brands are leaving and the money from sponsorship is stagnating. As mentioned Under Armour pulled out of their deal early before the recent recession.

They don't see it as 'financially viable' (a meaningless term in itself. What you meant was 'suitable for its requested return on investment, but there we go) because of ABC1.

Macron see a return on investment, more than likely because of how these deals work. The WRU will get its £33m but, in return, has to agree to buy a certain value of stock from Macron.

Always worth remembering, of course, Nike's long term deal with Toulouse, deal with Saracens, Adidas involved in Leinster and Munster.... so the deals are there at club level. The volume simply isn't there for rugby at international level.

That's why financial companies are far more involved in rugby sponsorship deals.

Read this: https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/sports-marketing-right-sport-determine-sport-suitable-advertise-brand-around/176563
Read this: https://www.silverbulletmarketing.co.uk/news/view/217-the-recent-rugby-world-cup-was-fantastic-but-did-the-sponsors-actually-get-any-return-on-their-investment
Read this: https://www.ft.com/content/696a6108-5bed-11e1-bbc4-00144feabdc0

Rugby ranks 15th amongst 18-34 year olds: https://harris-interactive.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2019/10/Sports-Participation-Viewing-and-Fandom-in-the-UK-A-Harris-Interactive-Report.pdf

Which age group is the largest purchasers of sports wear? https://www.statista.com/statistics/231413/people-who-bought-sports-equipment-in-the-last-12-months-usa/

"if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about"

I'm certain you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You're not even saying anything of substance. None of that challenges what I've said. You claimed that rugby has 'far greater' wealthier demographics than football. Wrong. Obviously wrong. Google searching cannot cover your hide. Can you not just go back to twitter if all you want to do is have meaningless petty arguments. Thanks.

rugby racing and beer wrote:I'm certain you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You're not even saying anything of substance. None of that challenges what I've said. You claimed that rugby has 'far greater' wealthier demographics than football. Wrong. Obviously wrong. Google searching cannot cover your hide. Can you not just go back to twitter if all you want to do is have meaningless petty arguments. Thanks.

I've given you the reasons why major sports manufacturers get a greater return on investment in other sports. You claimed it was because of popularity and aligned it to the "growth of rugby" and some whatever you clearly have against CVC.

I've just proven to you that there's a fair bit more to it than that, how rugby appeals to a different market place for advertisers and I've provided the data to prove my statements. I'll repeat: provided the data to prove my statements.

You writing off the data as "not saying anything of substance" is a bizarre reply. Perhaps you didn't read the data. Perhaps you didn't understand it because, after all, you've never even engaged on the ABC1 issue. You claimed that I didn't know what I was on about, so I provided the data to prove that I do.

What have you done in response to the actual data? Labelled the facts as "meaningless" and "not anything of substance". You have an approach to conversation akin to Donald Trump where details and fact are irrelevant to you banging on about your wrong opinion. To underline this, see the drivel you wrote about NFL franchises going broke. You even ignored my (unnecessary) explanation regarding the 'wealthier demographic' and then ignored the facts that proved my point.

Look, mate, you put two and two together to get on a rant about money. You got called out on it, you got the facts that disproved you. Take it on the chin.

Coming from someone who apparently thinks CVC will bring about the salvation of Welsh rugby and want to put the Welsh regions in with the English Premiership I don't think you're in the best place to say someone has an agenda when it comes to CVC.

You're the exact kind of fantasist I'm talking about who thinks the sunlit uplands are always just around the corner with rugby.

They're not. Everyone in the business of rugby was making noises about 2015 being a boom for the sport that would see it expand across the western world, while 2019 would see its growth in to the east. It hasn't happened. England getting knocked out in the groups didn't help but in reality it's because there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what rugby is, and far too much lazy business management looking for quick turnarounds. Hence why the focus in now on women's sport - low risk, high reward, quick growth, looks good in a boardroom meeting and on a spreadsheet.

You appear to want to have a completely different discussion. It sounds like you've had this argument beforehand and so have links to hand, probably on twitter. Either that or you're just using google searches from 20 odd years ago to hit your buzzwords. But it's not actually relevant to the topic. Nothing you're saying is countering what I've said. It's like you have a template of 'arguments' you prepare and lift up and then drop in to place whatever seems to fit best. But it doesn't make sense to anyone with half a brain. You've 'proven' nothing - seriously, what do you think you've 'proven'? Help me out here.

Tbh Phil, you need to perhaps learn that not everyone comes on to the internet to take some emotions out and have the pettiest of petty arguments. Discussions are great, you should try it some time. You've not said anything that's even remotely interesting or illuminating - as if anyone needs 'proving' that rugby's fan base is more middle class and older than footballs? Yeah, well done - but I'm still waiting for that 'far greater' nonsense to be back up. You'll do this to other posters, focus on one detail over and over to get your kicks, so what did you actually mean by that? The reality is there are 'far more' middle and upper class fans of football in London than there are of rugby in the whole of Europe, perhaps the world.

Rugby is not in a good place. Nike and Adidas have been replaced be Le Coq Sportif, Umbro, and Asics. Under Armour by Macron. It's not good. The TV deals have been slashed even before covid. If you want to go and have a different discussion then I'd suggest you start a thread about it - you managed to interpret the merging of the English league as 'rant about Welsh funding' so I wouldn't hold out much hope on that one.

I can't imagine how sad someone must be to spend their (work?) days googling links to 'prove' with 'data' for the sake of wanting to 'win' online arguments. Get a grip, Phil. Not everything has to be an argument. This isn't a contentious point.

Nike > Umbro
Adidas > Le Coq Sportif
Under Armour > Macron

rugby racing and beer wrote:Coming from someone who apparently thinks CVC will bring about the salvation of Welsh rugby and want to put the Welsh regions in with the English Premiership I don't think you're in the best place to say someone has an agenda when it comes to CVC.

Why? Having my own agenda doesn't prevent me from spotting yours. You've hardly kept it a secret.

rugby racing and beer wrote:Nothing you're saying is countering what I've said.

Other than providing the data of why rugby isn't so attractive as other sports to the manufacturers you mentioned. Other than that, no.

rugby racing and beer wrote:You've 'proven' nothing - seriously, what do you think you've 'proven'? Help me out here.

Does it really need explaining? I've shown you where ABC1 lies in terms of rugby and why other sports are better attractions to the age group that buy the products of the shirt manufacturers.

I've literally proven to you why you're using the wrong stick to beat rugby with but you seem incapable of following the most basic of reasoning and explanations.

There's undoubtedly a growth in the popularity of the game of rugby. It's undoubtedly been undersold commercially since professionalism. You're confusing those facts with some false ceiling you've created for the popularity of the sport.

rugby racing and beer wrote:
Tbh Phil, you need to perhaps learn that not everyone comes on to the internet to take some emotions out and have the pettiest of petty arguments. Discussions are great, you should try it some time. You've not said anything that's even remotely interesting or illuminating - as if anyone needs 'proving' that rugby's fan base is more middle class and older than footballs? Yeah, well done - but I'm still waiting for that 'far greater' nonsense to be back up. You'll do this to other posters, focus on one detail over and over to get your kicks, so what did you actually mean by that? The reality is there are 'far more' middle and upper class fans of football in London than there are of rugby in the whole of Europe, perhaps the world.

I've already explained the "far greater" shorthand. I've done, you've not accepted it. So, do you see what happens? I write something, you don't accept it and then you try to lecture me on how to have a discussion? Well, to have a discussion requires both parties to follow the argument, to read the detail and to interact with the words written. You've refused to do that with me this week, preferring to write Trumpian absolutist nonsense and lies in order to hide whatever you're failing to hide.

If you don't think that rugby's appeal to ABC1 is why mass market sports manufacturers have moved from rugby, why did you interject into a thread moaning about why mass market sports manufacturers have moved away from rugby?

The "reality" as you call it is shown in the data I've presented - data you refuse to interact with.

rugby racing and beer wrote:
Rugby is not in a good place. Nike and Adidas have been replaced be Le Coq Sportif, Umbro, and Asics. Under Armour by Macron. It's not good. The TV deals have been slashed even before covid.

None of that is true. You're judging the "place" of rugby by your own personal rating of a sports brand.

That is an utterly ludicrous thing to do in a thread that has shown the WRU to have signed a contract significantly more lucrative than the last one and in a month where Amazon Prime has spent a fortune on a cobbled together "Nations Cup" competition.

Again, the actual data disproves your prejudicial and baseless opinion.

rugby racing and beer wrote:
I can't imagine how sad someone must be to spend their (work?) days googling links to 'prove' with 'data' for the sake of wanting to 'win' online arguments. Get a grip, Phil. Not everything has to be an argument. This isn't a contentious point.

It clearly is a contentious point with you because you've written something that has no basis in truth.

When your nonsense gets called out, you write that kind of sad nonsense.

Being educated by those better informed is not "an argument". It's not about "winning online arguments". It's about flourishing and growing your own knowledge. You've refused to do that and your refusal has led to you ignoring the data.

Your mind is as closed as it is empty.

rugby racing and beer wrote:
Under Armour > Macron

£33m over 9 years including the naming rights to the Autumn series is not greater than £31m over 7 years without the naming rights to the Autumn series.

This is just basic maths.

Do you understand inflation, Phil?

I just want you to explain to me why Nike and/or Adidas wouldn't seek to put money in to rugby as a sport due to the demographic of rugby fans, Phil?

rugby racing and beer wrote:Do you understand inflation, Phil?

I do. But I also understand the value of a product may go down.

For your point of "inflation" to have any value, you'd have to show me the market rate of inflation for international shirt manufacturing deals in rugby and then show if a) the dataset is big enough to form an inflationary trend and then b) how this deal lines up against that inflation.

Just writing "inflation" means nothing without data and context.

rugby racing and beer wrote:I just want you to explain to me why Nike and/or Adidas wouldn't seek to put money in to rugby as a sport due to the demographic of rugby fans, Phil?

I have done, above, with links, data and facts. I even showed you the demographic of who buys most sporting goods and which demographic is most attracted to rugby.

With respect to Under Armour cutting their ties, not sure too much should be read into that as they are doing it across the board. As a company they are struggling a little having overpaid for a number of team associations (noting that UCLA are suing them for terminating 15 year $280m deal). They are currently restructuring - cutting 600 jobs and ending some shop leases.

I do think though that there is a valid point about just how attractive Rugby is to sponsors (plus TV companies etc).

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:Do you understand inflation, Phil?

I do. But I also understand the value of a product may go down.

Ah, excellent. There we go. I'm glad we've finally got to the very obvious and simple point that in no way needed your petty disagreeing with.

Rugby and Wales's value has gone down.

Good stuff.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:I just want you to explain to me why Nike and/or Adidas wouldn't seek to put money in to rugby as a sport due to the demographic of rugby fans, Phil?

I have done, above, with links, data and facts. I even showed you the demographic of who buys most sporting goods and which demographic is most attracted to rugby.

No you've just spammed a lot of links with buzzwords to, presumably, an argument you had a few weeks/months/years (delete as appropriate) ago on twitter.

I want you to explain why Nike sponsors Golf so rampantly if wealthy older people aren't the target demographic of big sports brands?

I want you to explain why adidas has Siya Kolisi doing the voiceover for their most recent black athlete-centric advert yet is pulling away from sponsoring national teams?

Your 'data' ( ) doesn't actually say anything of substance. Why not try to interpret it to make your...errr...'point'?

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:Do you understand inflation, Phil?

I do. But I also understand the value of a product may go down.

Ah, excellent. There we go. I'm glad we've finally got to the very obvious and simple point that in no way needed your petty disagreeing with.

Rugby and Wales's value has gone down.

Good stuff.

So it's simple maths that you can't do, too.

It's the same(ish) money over a shorter period with also the opportunity to now sell the naming rights to Autumn International series.

So how have you arrived at the conclusion "value has gone down"? Please do explain.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

I want you to explain why Nike sponsors Golf so rampantly if wealthy older people aren't the target demographic of big sports brands?

I want you to explain why adidas has Siya Kolisi doing the voiceover for their most recent black athlete-centric advert yet is pulling away from sponsoring national teams?

Your 'data' ( ) doesn't actually say anything of substance. Why not try to interpret it to make your...errr...'point'?

You vomit at data?

Nike sponsors golf because golf is packed full of ABC1 customers who then buy golf gear. It's market specific. If you'd read the links (you know, data and evidence) that I'd given you as substance for my opinion, you wouldn't have had to ask the question.

I don't know why you're obsessed with Twitter, either. I don't know why you're clearly so angry and upset. Nor do I know which NFL franchise has gone 'broke' as you're yet to tell me, but maybe I should stop pulling your leg on that one as that point has been made.

LondonTiger wrote:With respect to Under Armour cutting their ties, not sure too much should be read into that as they are doing it across the board. As a company they are struggling a little having overpaid for a number of team associations (noting that UCLA are suing them for terminating 15 year $280m deal). They are currently restructuring - cutting 600 jobs and ending some shop leases.

I do think though that there is a valid point about just how attractive Rugby is to sponsors (plus TV companies etc).

Rugby is hugely attractive to sponsors, but not so attractive to the volume brands of sports manufacturers, for the reasons shown above.

PhilBB wrote: Please do explain.

As you like to say (i.e. 50% of your posts on this website): I've already explained, Phil.

Anything further would be repetition.

I'm not sure anyone can match the time and energy you invest in petty, fifth rate arguments. It's bad even for an undergraduate to simply cite google searches that seem to match their buzzwords. Perhaps you didn't learn that lesson but either way it would be pointless trying to debate you on the terms you insist upon.

Anyway, hopefully the shirts are nice. The fans are unlikely to buy as much Macron gear as they did for Under Armour because of their respective statuses as brands, so at the very least hopefully Macron make some nice, traditional shirts. No more red shorts or Arsenal kits or weird shirts with black and white all over them. The new Scotland kit is nice. Something like that would be good.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote: Please do explain.

As you like to say (i.e. 50% of your posts on this website): I've already explained, Phil.

Anything further would be repetition.

I'm not sure anyone can match the time and energy you invest in petty, fifth rate arguments. It's bad even for an undergraduate to simply cite google searches that seem to match their buzzwords. Perhaps you didn't learn that lesson but either way it would be pointless trying to debate you on the terms you insist upon.

Anyway, hopefully the shirts are nice. The fans are unlikely to buy as much Macron gear as they did for Under Armour because of their respective statuses as brands, so at the very least hopefully Macron make some nice, traditional shirts. No more red shorts or Arsenal kits or weird shirts with black and white all over them. The new Scotland kit is nice. Something like that would be good.

Right, so that's just a basic lie to claim that you've explained how the value of Welsh rugby has gone down. You've offered no explanation. You made a statement (a statement that defied mathematical basics, of course) without any explanation.

And, true to form, instead of engaging in the topic, you just chose to right some attempted personal jibes. Anybody would think that's your tactic when you get called out.

I'll try one last time:

How is something that pays more money over less time for less things an indication that "value has gone down"?

If I had to rank those kits I'd say it would go:

1. 2017
2. 2015
3. 2008
4. 2011
5. 2013
6. 2010

The most recent world cup kit would probably go in around 4th or 5th place. I wasn't a fan of the different coloured quarters, it seemed almost like sticking two fingers up to Wales with their last shirt. The 2013 and 2010 shirts were very poor.

Hopefully Macron produce something traditional but without the Scotland style collar. It seems like we'll probably end up with clone kits of each other: Scotland in blue, Wales in red. That's far from ideal if that happens.

So, as noted, your view is a personal and subjective like on the design and you've no substance to support your claim that "value has gone down".

Oh I'm sorry Phil, I'd already explained that to you. If you don't understand then you need to ask a parent or guardian. It's above my pay grade to know how to dumb it down further.

What are your hopes for the new Wales kit, Phil?

rugby racing and beer wrote:Oh I'm sorry Phil, I'd already explained that to you. If you don't understand then you need to ask a parent or guardian. It's above my pay grade to know how to dumb it down further.

What are your hopes for the new Wales kit, Phil?

So that's another lie.

Nowhere have you explained "Rugby and Wales's value has gone down."

Nowhere.

If you had have explained it, you could link to the explanation. But you haven't explained it at all.

Why lie? Another Powellian tactic.

So, where's the explanation to justify "Rugby and Wales's value has gone down."?

So, as expected, not explanation, no justification, just more outright lies.

I quite liked the black trim and black shorts Wales used to have. It seems to anger the Kiwis when other teams have black reverse kits so there's that.

You have to hope that the upcoming internationals don’t get cancelled otherwise it’ll just be Waldorf and Statler here arguing about shirts until Christmas.

Cyril wrote:You have to hope that the upcoming internationals don’t get cancelled otherwise it’ll just be Waldorf and Statler here arguing about shirts until Christmas.

To be fair, at least one of them isn’t a banned user/multiple account holder returning.

Cyril wrote:You have to hope that the upcoming internationals don’t get cancelled otherwise it’ll just be Waldorf and Statler here arguing about shirts until Christmas.

I thought we were calling them Dumb and Dumber?

<triggered>

rugby racing and beer wrote:If anyone is in any doubt about rugby's potential growth as an international sport and how the reliance on CVC to suddenly turn rugby in to a massive game might be a fantasy, you should look no further than which companies are making the international team shirts.

England have gone from Nike to Canterbury to Umbro. Nike now only sponsor Argentina. Adidas only do the All Blacks. South Africa have Asics (Basics?) after Nike and Canterbury. Australia are with Asics after Canterbury. France have gone from Nike to Adidas to Le Coq Sportif. Italy went from Kappa to Kappa to Adidas to Macron. Japan, a huge market at the moment, are with Canterbury. Wales have gone from Reebok to Under Armour to Macron. Scotland are with Macron.

There is a trend here and it's that the biggest brands don't value rugby. Under Armour cut the Wales deal short even before the pandemic.

Rugby didn't grow in the wake of 2015 as many companies clearly assumed it would, whether that was TV broadcasting, sponsorship of World Cups, or kit deals. This is why women's sport is being pushed instead: immediate and significant growth in a market that is already 'there' but can be convinced to consume 'more' with little to no investment in infrastructure or brand recognition.

At least the new Scotland kit looks good, Macron have that going for them, but most people I speak to who have experience with their club wearing Macron kit say their gear is crap and falls apart after a few washes. Not good for the fans. Wales should have tried to hold on to Under Armour even if they didn't make the nicest shirts.

I would put it differently. Rugby fans are a bit less idiotic than wendyball fans. Less of us want to buy overpriced merchandise.