Super Rugby Women's Competition
-
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@booboo said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@booboo as long as she's not a prize winning author.
Edit: and to be clear, the original comment was more tongue and cheek, but hey, it does seem a bit out of touch, she needs to get that debate on here, not twitter.
Umm .. ahh .. err ...
What's up? Is it tongue versing cheek? I can never remember, I saw it on TB ages ago.
Well I'm bias ...
-
@booboo said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
I made the mistake of reading a sumo tweet and that was in replies. Gobsmacking ignorance and misandry.
Perhaps Nicola is ignorant to the history of the game. Perhaps she can explain where this bag of money will come from.
No doubt the next claim will be for pay parity. 🙄
Careful of hating on Nicola ... she might be reading this and about to cone and whoop yo ass ...
I understand she lurks on TSF.
If she does it’ll be just like the time that 1991 AB jumped on the fern to defend himself from internet tough guys.
Anyone got some popcorn ?
-
@bones said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@stargazer say what? "How many guys" etc etc. What do "guys" have to do with it? Not taking into account that the answer is fucking thousands would and thousands have.
It's a point of comparison. When trying to argue a position it gives you something to base your argument on.
No one disagrees that at a high level of the game male players should get payed. The question is why it is different for female players.
There are some potentially valid arguments around monetary inputs/outputs so focus on those instead of making accusations of man bashing.
-
I guess that makes the US cash injection from Silver Lake a done deal?
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
I guess that makes the US cash injection from Silver Lake a done deal?
Or there is some chicken counting going on.
-
Not going to dox the user above, but holy shit I'm looking forward to her reply.
As for the topic, happy for women to paid for playing rugby. But considering it took men until 1995 to get paid after playing the best part of a century, making it a men vs woman argument is a bit inaccurate.
As everything is a product these days, perhaps it's best to seperate out the two products and pay the women out of the purse for TV rights for womens rugby and bums in seats? If it's popular then it will fund itself.
-
@kirwan or you could look at it this way.
The NZRU are in the business of selling products. At the moment they are at the limit of getting material to make those products. Also their customer demographic has stayed the same for years.
Now wouldn’t it make business sense to grow by making new products? Sure you may have to invest in some R&D but the product quality will improve at the same time.
Only at that point do you see whether the new product has a sustainable market.
Or you could stick with your maxed out production line and wonder why income and markets aren’t growing.
That argument about waiting as long as the men’s game did is plain stupid. -
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
Not going to dox the user above, but holy shit I'm looking forward to her reply.
This.
It'll be interesting to watch how increasing professionalism changes the women's game. The last NPC game I saw live of the Volcanix in a good way reminded me of the final years of men's amateur rugby and the first couple of years of Super 12 - i.e. you could almost instantly tell the position a player played by their height, size, or speed.
-
@crucial said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@kirwan or you could look at it this way.
The NZRU are in the business of selling products. At the moment they are at the limit of getting material to make those products. Also their customer demographic has stayed the same for years.
Now wouldn’t it make business sense to grow by making new products? Sure you may have to invest in some R&D but the product quality will improve at the same time.
Only at that point do you see whether the new product has a sustainable market.
Or you could stick with your maxed out production line and wonder why income and markets aren’t growing.
That argument about waiting as long as the men’s game did is plain stupid.I mentioned the 1995 men thing because for decades men did play for free.
On the back of the worst year in professional finances, expanding your costs for an unproven product is what's stupid. If it's well supported, particularly on TV, then it's a safer bet.
I suspect the viewing figures will be pretty poor however.
I'd start by paying the woman sevens team, as that's an Olympic requirement anyway. And build from there.
-
@kirwan the Black Fern Sevens do have paid contracted players as do the Black Ferns. As per your pay for play model they get paid fairly small amounts.
What the suggestion is is that if you pay players to train and play you will get the skill improvements that you are after. Amateurs will continue to play like amateurs.
I can’t see how you expect players to play like highly trained pros when they are trying to earn a living elsewhere and only then consider to pay them when they reach that level.
For the ongoing health of the sport having a strong women’s game is a key aspect. -
@crucial said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@kirwan the Black Fern Sevens do have paid contracted players as do the Black Ferns. As per your pay for play model they get paid fairly small amounts.
What the suggestion is is that if you pay players to train and play you will get the skill improvements that you are after. Amateurs will continue to play like amateurs.
I can’t see how you expect players to play like highly trained pros when they are trying to earn a living elsewhere and only then consider to pay them when they reach that level.
For the ongoing health of the sport having a strong women’s game is a key aspect.Where does the money come from?
-
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@crucial said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@kirwan the Black Fern Sevens do have paid contracted players as do the Black Ferns. As per your pay for play model they get paid fairly small amounts.
What the suggestion is is that if you pay players to train and play you will get the skill improvements that you are after. Amateurs will continue to play like amateurs.
I can’t see how you expect players to play like highly trained pros when they are trying to earn a living elsewhere and only then consider to pay them when they reach that level.
For the ongoing health of the sport having a strong women’s game is a key aspect.Where does the money come from?
There a number of good studies on the huge potential of growing the commercial side of women’s sports. I don’t see investing into future revenue as a bad thing.
-
@crucial said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
I can’t see how you expect players to play like highly trained pros when they are trying to earn a living elsewhere and only then consider to pay them when they reach that level.
even if they do play like that, you need people to want to pay to watch them play for it to become a viable product.
Right or wrong, I think right now, the market for those who would pay to watch just the Black Ferns is limited so how do you justify NZR paying them for a product that would lose money on, in an already trying financial situation?
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@crucial said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
I can’t see how you expect players to play like highly trained pros when they are trying to earn a living elsewhere and only then consider to pay them when they reach that level.
even if they do play like that, you need people to want to pay to watch them play for it to become a viable product.
Right or wrong, I think right now, the market for those who would pay to watch just the Black Ferns is limited so how do you justify NZR paying them for a product that would lose money on, in an already trying financial situation?
Exactly.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
@crucial said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
I can’t see how you expect players to play like highly trained pros when they are trying to earn a living elsewhere and only then consider to pay them when they reach that level.
even if they do play like that, you need people to want to pay to watch them play for it to become a viable product.
Right or wrong, I think right now, the market for those who would pay to watch just the Black Ferns is limited so how do you justify NZR paying them for a product that would lose money on, in an already trying financial situation?
You pay for a right to receive a package of rugby. If the NZRU can get more money (or these days keep the same money) for having more goods on the shelf then surely that is the cost/benefit equation. Same goes for the U20s Super Comp that is proposed btw.
For the broadcaster that isn't just down to eyes on the screen. They will have research on whether more women's sports get's/keeps them subscribers.
Your thinking on this is way too tunnelled IMO.NZR have obviously done the numbers and know their commercial situation and asks from customers. They think the time is now right to get on-board and quite obviously their broadcasting partners do as well.
I don't get why you seem to want less rugby on screen. -
I'm happy for this to receive some seed money to get it off the ground, but within a few years (say, by 2025) there should also be a benchmark level of viewership/TV rights money which is required to keep it going.
I don't see this as a big earner, but if it can pay for itself, awesome, and if it can generate profit, even better.
I don't think it will generate profit, or even cover costs, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
If it does spur growth in grass roots participation, that might also justify the cost.
-
-
@siam said in Super Rugby Women's Competition:
I'd be interested in how they'll avoid the pitfalls of the WNBA. I don't know anything about that, but on paper it probably looked potentially good for the game. I guess the amateur participation ingredient is a major point of difference.
Closer to home would be the School Rugby they put on TV, or going back way further Friday Night Club footy. What was the viewing numbers on those? Did they cover their costs?
I doubt it, and I doubt the same for the womans rugby.
If you go by other types of TV, the first season is usually the best ratings, how did the womans Super Rugby launch rate?
-
@kirwan haha me too! I only put two and two together after I'd already posted it. But hey, look at the great debate!
I tend to agree with one of the first replies to Sumo's tweet - it shouldn't really matter if it's run at a loss (unless it's ridiculous of course).
