AFL vs NRL - the TV war

[Beaussie]

For those interested in the football codes and TV ratings debates, Daniel Green has put together a thought provoking article below that clearly demonstrates just how big the gap is between the AFL and NRL.

Opinion - AFL vs NRL - the TV war
By Daniel Green
15 September 2009



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.

http://www.talkingfooty.com/tv_ratings_2009.php

[elbusto]

Well lookey here. Here is an article by young Daniel which almost word for word repeats the same arguments posted by 'Mikeo' on the Fight Club on League Unlimited.

And just like 'Mikeo' Daniel refuses to include the Regional ratings which, of course, favour the NRL. Now Mikeo simply refuses to accept the Regional OZTAM data, which OZTAM does use and Mikeo does so on spurious and provably inaccurate grounds. No doubt 'Daniel' will as well.

As such, this article is useless as it is selective in its use of data.

By the way, the NRL had 60 of the top rating 100 programs on PAY TV this year. Only Mikeo or 'Daniel' would bother to use the 'reach' figure. Nobody else does.

As such this article (and I doubt it deserves such a description in reality) is unprofessional and unconvincing.

[Beaussie]

And just like 'Mikeo' Daniel refuses to include the Regional ratings which, of course, favour the NRL. Now Mikeo simply refuses to accept the Regional OZTAM data, which OZTAM does use and Mikeo does so on spurious and provably inaccurate grounds. No doubt 'Daniel' will as well.

I take it you overlooked this part of his article elbusto:

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.

[gostk86]

I can see the author has taken his time with it, but its a very bias article..

Taking into account Rl shows 3 games on FTA each week, where AFL does show upto 7 games on FTA to maximise exposure (news ltd fox helping out a rival..sure news ltd gives RL a leg up (roll eyes) )
You would think AFL should at least double RL..

AFL should get more money in the tv rights without a doubt, AFL does penetrate every capitol city.

My point has and always will be RL deserves much more..

Simply down AFL $150 mil a year compared to NRL $80 mil is crazy.

RL should get at least $120 mil - if only because its the highest ratings sport in 2 of the 3 biggest cities, it rates also (which people seem to dismiss) In regional areas.

Crowds is a entirly different topic, Sydney culture is crap it always has and most likely always will be..

Mind you I;m sure AFL will come up with excuses when the AFL driven WS18 struggles for crowds..

The thing for me..with the whole code battle is how can the AFL justify the West Sydney team.
I dont care about the Gold Coast team, and in fact AFL should have had one 10 years ago, when AFL has huge up there.

But why would broadcaster pay the 1 bil the afl gloated about for a team which in practical will get 50k on fta tv ratings.

I hear alot of afl people/fans complain about news ltd..which is ironic where afl is the same with the Ws18 team.

Yes I would love to see crowds turn up..but to compare the sports is silly, when majority of crowds are from Melb..

Broncos/Lions are similar to Crows/Eagles

1 team towns - AFL obviously big in Perth/Adel so 2 team...no doubt Bris could support a 2nd bris team(again different subject)

I dont know of a city apart from London with EPL, that has many football teams which get huge crowds..

By the logic of people..if all these melbourne teams get huge crowds, why does Melb Victory play at MCG and average at least 80k?
The Victory this year havent even cracked 20k - Culture of sporting fans..

YES I'll admit, AFL fans are better at attending games..I wont say they are more passionate because ive met many people who are diehard Eels, Dragons, Broncos, Storm fans etc.

But the culture of AFL, especially in Melb, is different to most CITIES in the world.

AFL misjudged support in Sydney, bandwagon support for the Swans..

In 2 years the Swans have lost 50 000 viewers from tv.

That includes them making the top 8 and winning a final, to a team that has a very good home record.

Now I know people will jump and compare to the Storm..AFL been up in Sydney since 1906 (remeber Carlton tried to get Dally M?)
Where RL was basically a nothing sport in Melb until early 90's.
Media ignored the sport..(yes only sydney media is bias)

But at the end of the day, I wont change the writers mind nor anybodies most likely, we will continue this battle for as long as the codes are in competition.

[Jack]

By the way, the NRL had 60 of the top rating 100 programs on PAY TV this year.

This is because AFL games compete against each other during a time period whereas there is no competition between NRL games in the usual 2/3/2/1 Friday night/Saturday/Sunday/Monday split between Free To Air and Pay TV. The AFL split of 1/2/2/3 Friday night/Sat arvo/Sat night/Sunday means there are always clashes. So for example you would to add the free to air audience and Pay audience on saturday night to get a comparable figure. The top NRL game on Pay gets under 300 K whereas a Saturday night AFL game on FTA gets about 700 K without up to another 200K watching the Pay TV game.

BTW the reason NRL TV rights are lower is because the game is run by a news organisation and you have to add in the money News are giving to prop up the Storm and other clubs (Raiders/Sharks/Cowboys) in the past. I dont understand why NRL supporters dont complain when the Storm can field 9 SOO reps and 4 NZ internationals (salary cap auditor) and then in 2009 get 3 away games on neutral venues - 2 in the Central Coast and 1 in Perth almost guaranteeing them a finals spot as News (the owner) tries to sell the team. Perhaps thats why they cant sell because buyers realise they will never get the dream run when News are not in control.

[Jack]

Now I know people will jump and compare to the Storm..AFL been up in Sydney since 1906 (remeber Carlton tried to get Dally M?)

AFL (or Aussie rules then) has been in Sydney before 1906. The international flavour of Rugby Union saw it die out (Mother England and all that). If Carlton tried to take Dally M 1906 they were trying to poach him from Rugby Union as League didnt start in Sydney till 1908. NRL poached him from Rugby Union later in the decade which made me laugh when Hunt jumped ship. When I grew up in Sydney in the 70s it was NRL first and daylight second now they are much closer together.

[enarelle]

Daniel promotes a view that the heads of the tv networks would be proud of built around the 5 capital city theory of measurement for determining the value of TV rights. Indeed I believe in the past even the NRL has "fallen for this view but not this time. You see the reality is that approx 60% of the population lives in NSW,QLD and the ACT. When Daniel mentions,but does not quantify into the ratings comparison, the 30% of viewers who live in regional NSW/QLD and the ACT he is actually talking about 30% of the total population and half the TV audience for the NRL. You just about need to double the NRL 5 city score to get a true picture. He also mentions Origin but does not factor in value and completely ignores Tests and the under 20s comp were ratings are higher than Super 14 games.

You see you can get an extra hour out of the AFL game but it is the same viewer. What advertisers want is access to the greater market ie raw numbers of people. Why do you think the AFL is putting more sides into NSW/QLD?

The NRL now has a better idea on how to negotiate and not fall for the 5 city argument. They are selling the NRL comp,Tests and Origin as discreet packages. Indeed they may eventually sell the under 20s as a seperate package in the future.

The reality is that the value as they stand now are very artificial.AFL owes a lot to Kerry Packer who conned channels 7 & 10 into paying an inflated price for the TV rights just before his death. At the same time he marginally increased the NRL rights he had received for a song in return for financing the ARL during the super league war. We all know FOX does not pay true value due to ownership issues.

All these things are about to change and the NRL will be the big winner.

[elbusto]

Daniel promotes a view that the heads of the tv networks would be proud of built around the 5 capital city theory of measurement for determining the value of TV rights. Indeed I believe in the past even the NRL has "fallen for this view but not this time. You see the reality is that approx 60% of the population lives in NSW,QLD and the ACT. When Daniel mentions,but does not quantify into the ratings comparison, the 30% of viewers who live in regional NSW/QLD and the ACT he is actually talking about 30% of the total population and half the TV audience for the NRL. You just about need to double the NRL 5 city score to get a true picture. He also mentions Origin but does not factor in value and completely ignores Tests and the under 20s comp were ratings are higher than Super 14 games.

You see you can get an extra hour out of the AFL game but it is the same viewer. What advertisers want is access to the greater market ie raw numbers of people. Why do you think the AFL is putting more sides into NSW/QLD?

The NRL now has a better idea on how to negotiate and not fall for the 5 city argument. They are selling the NRL comp,Tests and Origin as discreet packages. Indeed they may eventually sell the under 20s as a seperate package in the future.

The reality is that the value as they stand now are very artificial.AFL owes a lot to Kerry Packer who conned channels 7 & 10 into paying an inflated price for the TV rights just before his death. At the same time he marginally increased the NRL rights he had received for a song in return for financing the ARL during the super league war. We all know FOX does not pay true value due to ownership issues.

All these things are about to change and the NRL will be the big winner.

Daniel does not do these things you mention in your excellent response because it hurts his argument which is based on fallacious grounds. Daniel is a well known troll on League Unlimited who has made nearly 500 postings solely abut ratings always trying to make League ratings look as bad as possible. He is treated with disdain there and deserves no better here.

Daniel is totally biased towards the AFL and he proves each time he posts anything on League Unlimited (under the name Mikeo) or anywhere else for that matter.

[ALBEY]

Mate cleary you are an idiot.

TV Ratings can be manipulated.....Foxxtel ratings are harder to manipulate because obviously the can measure which channel is on though the connection....

NRL being 60 out of the top 100 things watched cleary shows how much the NRL shits all over your poofter game in the ratings.....

As for the reach.......that is just some more rubbish talk by you to try to talk up your shitty game....

HOW MANY AFL GAMES IN THE TOP 100 on FOXTEL????

Probably none....

Why don't you just go shove Israel Foau up yo ass u wanker!

[TLPG]

Wishful thinking without back up, Albey. Using TV ratings to see who's winning a war is a furphy. NRL is a TV game. AFL is not. Look at the attendance figures and see who's winning the real battle. Further to that, NRL ratings are limited to two states - in particular New South Wales. How well does it rate in the rest of the country? On Foxtel? The reality is that you don't know what you are talking about.

If you want to call AFL "shitty" that's fine for you. I call your game "thugby" and with good reason.

[ALBEY]

WHILE officials squabble and threaten to divide rugby league, the fans have delivered an early Christmas present: TV ratings have eclipsed the AFL nationally for the first time. In 2009, rugby league had an aggregate audience of 128.5 million compared with the AFL's 124.3 million.

Admittedly, it's not an apples-with-apples comparison: rugby league figures include state-of-origin and representatives games (12,024,381 viewers).

They also include the under-20s Toyota Cup competition (3,450,252), which the AFL does not have, although the AFL figures include the NAB Cup (7,642,000), an official pre-season competition that the NRL does not run.

In terms of a straight comparison between the aggregate TV audience of the eight games each week in each code on both free-to-air and pay TV, the AFL wins with 116,612,478 to the NRL's 112,980,474, an impressive result considering the AFL season is two weeks shorter.

But the AFL has four games on free-to-air TV (99,087,689) compared with the NRL's three (83,149,231), an important factor considering 99 per cent of Australian homes have free-to-air sets, while only 33 per cent of homes subscribe to pay TV where five NRL games are shown to the AFL's three.

Rugby league, therefore, wins the pay-TV comparison, with 32.7 million viewers to the AFL's 17.5 million, despite being paid less by Foxtel.

Significantly, the NRL's ratings are on the rise, while the AFL's are falling. A comparison of national ratings for the respective premierships of the two codes between 2008 and 2009 shows NRL improving by 6.2 per cent and AFL falling by 4.3 per cent.

This reflects the ''any given Sunday'' expectation in the NRL, in which a bottom-ranked team can defeat a top club, meaning all games are competitive, compared with the AFL, in which Richmond, Melbourne and even Fremantle are occasional easybeats.

The mini trend also questions the AFL's expansion into the Gold Coast and western Sydney.

[ALBEY]

Wishful thinking without back up, Albey. Using TV ratings to see who's winning a war is a furphy. NRL is a TV game. AFL is not. Look at the attendance figures and see who's winning the real battle.

HAHAHAH you just proved your an idiot!!!!!!

If NRL is a TV game, how can you see who is winning the real battle through attendance figures??????

I have been to Melbourne in winter, a shitty place to be outdoors.

You can have your shitty weather and shitty game, i'll sit back in my comfy lounge and watch my nrl.....along with the millions of others....

LMFAO

[kbesw3]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned Tasmania, when talking about regional centres. But Tasmania is NOT recorded in the free to air ratings. It has a population of around 500 000 and it is as strongly AFL as Victoria, SA and WA- so I would suggest this would offset a large number of the regional viewers in QLD and NSW.

[enarelle]

Including Tasmania would offset the ACT. There are over 5m people living in regional NSW/QLD. After the capital cities 9 of the next ten largest cities are in these regional areas

[ALBEY]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned Tasmania, when talking about regional centres. But Tasmania is NOT recorded in the free to air ratings. It has a population of around 500 000 and it is as strongly AFL as Victoria, SA and WA- so I would suggest this would offset a large number of the regional viewers in QLD and NSW.

when i found out my Grandfather was born in Devonport I Cried....

No body cares about Tasmania......or Tasmanians for that matter.

The only thing I give Grandad credit for is leaving!

Go South Sydney!