French to Introduce Salary Cap.

toomevara

The FFR are going to enforce a salary cap of 7.1 millon quid starting in the 2010/11 season. Still way more than the 4 million salary cap in the GP, but it's a start. There's alot of concern about the quality of rugby in the French Championnat this year and the lack of development of indigenous French talent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8420139.stm

TitoPuente

Who's getting paid more than 7.1 million at the moment? Is any one individual earning even 2 million?

WeeBushy

Its an overall salary cap for the whole club, not an individual cap.

It's a good idea imo, i don't want rugby going down the same road as soccer.

TitoPuente

WeeBushy wrote: »

Its an overall salary cap for the whole club, not an individual cap.

It's a good idea imo, i don't want rugby going down the same road as soccer.

That seems a bit low for the entire club. I think professional players should be able to earn decent money over their short careers; particularly when you consider what they put their bodies through these days. I agree with you though - nobody wants rugby going the same way at footy.

PhatPiggins

As importantly is the ruling that next year 40% of the clubs players will have to have come through the academy, 50% the year after and 60% the year after that.

toomevara

PhatPiggins wrote: »

As importantly is the ruling that next year 40% of the clubs players will have to have come through the academy, 50% the year after and 60% the year after that.

Spot on.

WeeBushy

TitoPuente wrote: »

That seems a bit low for the entire club. I think professional players should be able to earn decent money over their short careers; particularly when you consider what they put their bodies through these days. I agree with you though - nobody wants rugby going the same way at footy.

7.1 million is fairly high imo. It over 50% more than the English cap and they seem to get by. They'll still be able to earn handsome wages.

WeeBushy

PhatPiggins wrote: »

As importantly is the ruling that next year 40% of the clubs players will have to have come through the academy, 50% the year after and 60% the year after that.

That's a great ruling. I wonder if England would ever introduce something similar?

PhatPiggins

WeeBushy wrote: »

That's a great ruling. I wonder if England would ever introduce something similar?

If you think of the underage playing pool the french have and the success of their national team its worryingly poor.

I think the salary cap in England has started to increase the flow of domestic players. Clubs like Sale are staring to use more and more UK players simply because they cant afford the Chabals and McAllistars anymore. You'll get the odd exception like Sarries who are targeting a particular audience but in general there seems to be more Englishmen in the sarting lineups. The fact that 90% of them are gym rats and its hard to tell the backs from the backrow forwards is a whole different problem.

Sangre

Whats wrong with trying to emulate one of the most successful, most watched and prolific games (football) in the world?

Iron Hide

Sangre wrote: »

Whats wrong with trying to emulate one of the most successful, most watched and prolific games (football) in the world?

Emulate?? Rugby kicks black silicon f**k out of soccer

Sangre

Judging by the state of Welsh and Scottish attendances I think rugby could learn a few things from football.

Blured

Sangre wrote: »

Judging by the state of Welsh and Scottish attendances I think rugby could learn a few things from football.

And the state of Irish football attendances show what exactly?

Sangre

Blured wrote: »

And the state of Irish football attendances show what exactly?

Why would I talk about Irish football? I never mentioned Ireland. Irish rugby is currently in a growth period. I'm obviously talking about UK football vs UK rugby attedance.

Blured

Sangre wrote: »

Why would I talk about Irish football? I never mentioned Ireland. Irish rugby is currently in a growth period. I'm obviously talking about UK football vs UK rugby attedance.

Not sure what point you are making. The thread is about the French league introducing a salary cap of 7.1M Euro. This is approx. 50% larger than the current cap in the Guinness Premiership in England. AFAIK, there is no such cap in place for Ireland,Wales and Scotland who centrally contract their players.

The point about Football vs Rugby was about controlling costs and not having unsubstainable wages ruin the sport. Your opinion is that Football has done this well as judged by great attendances for English football. I disagree. Attendance may be good (not sure if it is except for the top teams) but the risk football teams are taking to compete will catch up on them in the coming years.

Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal are heavily in debut, Chelsea and Man City exist as playthings for Billionaires. The main costs these teams have are ridicilious wages paid to players. If Rugby can put in place controls so that those types of crazy wages/teams chasing the glory with massive spending then power to the sport.

Put it this way, if the Premiership could go back to 1992 and put a cap on wage spending as a proportion of income do you think we would have 3 of the 4 top teams in England burdoned with insane debt? Not likely.

Risteard

Sangre wrote: »

Why would I talk about Irish football? I never mentioned Ireland. Irish rugby is currently in a growth period. I'm obviously talking about UK football vs UK rugby attedance.

But surely if you're talking about UK Rugby and Soccer attendances, then it's right to compare Irish Soccer and Rugby attendances.

Rugby will never be as popular as Soccer. I think we all know that. The reason is that Soccer is quite a simple game when compared to rugby, added to the fact it's a whole lot easier to get a game going than rugby.

I don't want to see Rugby going the way of Soccer as it would just see money dominate the sport like it does in Soccer. I mean, in Rugby, you rarely hear of a player being bought out of his contract, when he signs one he sticks to it, (no Paul Warwick jokes please.) Whereas in Soccer, a contract means nothing, only the amount the club can charge to sell you.

Plus added to the fact that internationals in Soccer are few and far between and the one's that aren't qualifiers are meaningless, I don't want to see Rugby go to the way of soccer.

[/Off-Topic]

Anyway, I think this is a brilliant move by the French and it could mean trouble for us in the future. If French teams are forced to focus on bringing through the indigenous talent that undoubtedly exists there, then I think they'll begin to dominate soon enough due to the sheer size of their playing population in comparison to us.

The salary cap also prevents them from inflating their squads so that they can buy a load of players and still have it as 40% of their squad.

anonymous_joe

PhatPiggins wrote: »

As importantly is the ruling that next year 40% of the clubs players will have to have come through the academy, 50% the year after and 60% the year after that.

That sounds bloody difficult.

WeeBushy wrote: »

7.1 million is fairly high imo. It over 50% more than the English cap and they seem to get by. They'll still be able to earn handsome wages.

Hmmm.

Leinster make, using fairly skewed logic here about (9)(16,000)(20) a season, which is about 2.8 million I think. Throw in HC and IRFU funding and you'd almost certainly still be well under 7.1. So I can't see it changing much.

Sangre wrote: »

Whats wrong with trying to emulate one of the most successful, most watched and prolific games (football) in the world?

+1

Red Storm wrote: »

Emulate?? Rugby kicks black silicon f**k out of soccer

That's why so many more of us follow rugby than football.

Blured wrote: »

Not sure what point you are making. The thread is about the French league introducing a salary cap of 7.1M Euro. This is approx. 50% larger than the current cap in the Guinness Premiership in England. AFAIK, there is no such cap in place for Ireland,Wales and Scotland who centrally contract their players.

The point about Football vs Rugby was about controlling costs and not having unsubstainable wages ruin the sport. Your opinion is that Football has done this well as judged by great attendances for English football. I disagree. Attendance may be good (not sure if it is except for the top teams) but the risk football teams are taking to compete will catch up on them in the coming years.

Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal are heavily in debut, Chelsea and Man City exist as playthings for Billionaires. The main costs these teams have are ridicilious wages paid to players. If Rugby can put in place controls so that those types of crazy wages/teams chasing the glory with massive spending then power to the sport.

Put it this way, if the Premiership could go back to 1992 and put a cap on wage spending as a proportion of income do you think we would have 3 of the 4 top teams in England burdoned with insane debt? Not likely.

There's no such thing as a silly wage in football. In any professional sport, because it's not a profit maximising industry, the players, as well as ancillary staff necessary for playing (i.e. coaches, scouts, physios) should take all the income that doesn't go on transfer fees.

Blured

anonymous_joe wrote:

IThere's no such thing as a silly wage in football.In any professional sport, because it's not a profit maximising industry, the players, as well as ancillary staff necessary for playing (i.e. coaches, scouts, physios) should take all the income that doesn't go on transfer fees.

I agree, professional sport isnt a profit maximising industry and I also agree that the majority of the money generated by the team should be passed to the staff.

However, what is happening currently in some football teams is that expenditure is far exceeding income. Gambles are being taken on gaining entry to large revenue generating competitions (Champions League) and if those gambles fail, teams could go to the wall.

Most major sports have a salary cap of some sort in place (e.g. American Football, Baseball, Basketball) and it hasnt hindered the development of the game. This is what I think should happen in Rugby and I am glad to see steps being taken in France and England to make this a reality.

And just on this

anonymous_joe wrote:

There's no such thing as a silly wage in football.

I think Cristiano Ronaldos wage makes my point for me
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/article-23706942-the-80m-ronaldo-question-has-football-now-lost-touch-with-reality.do

PhatPiggins

Stade's wage bill is €21,000,000 :eek: . With the rest of last years playoff teams +Toulon and Racing all having budgets around €17,000,000.

I'll be interested to see how exactly they go from those figures to 7 mill plus change. There's going to be alot of unemployed Saffers and Polynesians next season me thinks.

toomevara

Clermont's pack alone is reputed to cost 8 million....

Sangre

Rugby clubs should have very strict capital and cash flow requirements and standards. They should also have minimum requirements for national squad eligible players as well as a minimum number of academy players. After that they should be able to pay their players as they wish.

A rugby players career is finite and he should be able to maximise his income until he retires. The best should be remunerated for their talents and hard work.

twinytwo

anonymous_joe wrote: »

That sounds bloody difficult.

Hmmm.

Leinster make, using fairly skewed logic here about (9)(16,000)(20) a season, which is about 2.8 million I think. Throw in HC and IRFU funding and you'd almost certainly still be well under 7.1. So I can't see it changing much.

+1

That's why so many more of us follow rugby than football.


There's no such thing as a silly wage in football. In any professional sport, because it's not a profit maximising industry, the players, as well as ancillary staff necessary for playing (i.e. coaches, scouts, physios) should take all the income that doesn't go on transfer fees.

Man city wanted to pay kaka 250 million....but when you look at the french throwing out a million quid for carter. The man is a god and all but was it worth it in the end?.. even if he hadnt have been injured

Sangre

Man City wanted to pay 250 million to buy out his contract. They weren't his wages.

PhatPiggins

twinytwo wrote: »

Man city wanted to pay kaka 250 million....but when you look at the french throwing out a million quid for carter. The man is a god and all but was it worth it in the end?.. even if he hadnt have been injured

By all accounts they'd recouped the money in jersey and ticket sales, sponsorship as well as guest speaking/banquets before he even kicked a ball.

corny

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Stade's wage bill is €21,000,000 :eek: . With the rest of last years playoff teams +Toulon and Racing all having budgets around €17,000,000.

I'll be interested to see how exactly they go from those figures to 7 mill plus change. There's going to be alot of unemployed Saffers and Polynesians next season me thinks.

Fairly rapid transition required then so. I wonder what effects we might see on the pitch next season. With lots of inexperience running through their sides i'd guess the clubs might not be as competitive for a while.

buck65

I have been following French rugby this year and the standard is certainly no better than the Magners League.
Signs on last week when Toulouse lost to Cardiff, Perpignan to Munster, Brive were well beaten by London Irish at home, Stade lost to Ulster. These results will probably be reversed next week but French club rugby is not up to much.

justsomebloke

Sangre wrote: »

Judging by the state of Welsh and Scottish attendances I think rugby could learn a few things from football.

truthfully I don't agree with this. Rugby has only been a professional sport since 1995 which in the grand scheme of things isn't that long. Yes scottish rugby is in a state of decline but truthfully you could probably say the same for scottish football as well. As for Welsh rugby I think their decline is more to do with the regional clubs been taken and replaced with the teams they have now that no one has an attachment to and will do until they liek irish teams win the Heineken cup.

Rugby isn't a global sport like football nor does it have nearly as much financial clout as football so if one way to secure it's future is to introduce a salary cap thus helping to bring financial l stability to clubs then truthfully it probably isn't a bad thing, as it will help stop situations happening like what happen with Cork in the football league here.

bamboozle

twinytwo wrote: »

Man city wanted to pay kaka 250 million....but when you look at the french throwing out a million quid for carter. The man is a god and all but was it worth it in the end?.. even if he hadnt have been injured

thought Carter's contract at Perp was 750k

anonymous_joe

Blured wrote: »

I agree, professional sport isnt a profit maximising industry and I also agree that the majority of the money generated by the team should be passed to the staff.

However, what is happening currently in some football teams is that expenditure is far exceeding income. Gambles are being taken on gaining entry to large revenue generating competitions (Champions League) and if those gambles fail, teams could go to the wall.

Most major sports have a salary cap of some sort in place (e.g. American Football, Baseball, Basketball) and it hasnt hindered the development of the game. This is what I think should happen in Rugby and I am glad to see steps being taken in France and England to make this a reality.

Yeah, but the salary cap for NFL is about $100 million. That's not much different to what a top football team would probably spend in a year. And not all teams spend it.

If more money is being made than is being spent - where's it going to go?

And just on this


I think Cristiano Ronaldos wage makes my point for me
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/article-23706942-the-80m-ronaldo-question-has-football-now-lost-touch-with-reality.do

He's the best player in the world, with the possible exception of Messi. If you can afford to pay it, it makes sense.

Football's the most popular sport in the world. More people play football than any other sport. What's shocking is how little the best in the world is paid.

twinytwo wrote: »

Man city wanted to pay kaka 250 million....but when you look at the french throwing out a million quid for carter. The man is a god and all but was it worth it in the end?.. even if he hadnt have been injured

The best footballer is the best out of millions, even billions. The best rugby player is the best out of thousands. The figures add up.

justsomebloke

anonymous_joe wrote: »

He's the best player in the world If you can afford to pay it, it makes sense.

yes but isn't Madrid in a weird position where the city has a tendency to bail out the club every so often as it doesn't generate nearly as much as it makes. Also City and Chelsea being bank rolled by billionaires are the only other 2 clubs who could in any way pay that sort of money and I would wonder how financially secure they would be if the owners decided not to put any more money into them and let the club revenue try and pay all the expenses

Hazys

Sangre wrote: »

Whats wrong with trying to emulate one of the most successful, most watched and prolific games (football) in the world?

I presume you are talking about American Football not Soccer, otherwise that statement makes no sense at all.

1. There is actually a salary cap in the NFL which makes it competitive, unlike the Premiership which doesnt have salary cap and has had the same 4 teams in the top 4 for the last 10/15 years or so. With 3 weeks left in the NFL season 18 teams (out of 32) have a realistic chance of making the playoffs.

2. Most successful, 7 NFL teams are valued over $1billion while the premiership only has 1. All NFL teams made a profit last year, how many premiership teams make a profit?

3. Most watched, the viewership and TV contracts of the NFL against the premiership or any other soccer league is upto 5 times as many/much.


Give me American Football or Rugger over Soccer anyday. In terms of excitement, competitivness, sucessful business model the NFL destroys any professional soccer league.

Professional Rugby kicks soccer's ass in terms of local talent devlopment, proper financing, living within your means and in most leagues its fairly competitive.


If you think the English Premiership is a good way to run a sport as a business or as a viewership for fans, i think you gotta stop letting the SkySports advertising group having a laugh off you.

anonymous_joe

Joe the Santa wrote: »

yes but isn't Madrid in a weird position where the city has a tendency to bail out the club every so often as it doesn't generate nearly as much as it makes. Also City and Chelsea being bank rolled by billionaires are the only other 2 clubs who could in any way pay that sort of money and I would wonder how financially secure they would be if the owners decided not to put any more money into them and let the club revenue try and pay all the expenses

True, but if you've got the money, as they do, it makes sense to spend it.

Hazys wrote: »

I presume you are talking about American Football not Soccer, otherwise that statement makes no sense at all.

1. There is actually a salary cap in the NFL which makes it competitive, unlike the Premiership which doesnt have salary cap and has had the same 4 teams in the top 4 for the last 10/15 years or so. With 3 weeks left in the NFL season 18 teams (out of 32) have a realistic chance of making the playoffs.

And yet, the sport without salary caps is more popular and there's absolutely no desire in England or anywhere for a league where some teams can't dominate.

2. Most successful, 7 NFL teams are valued over $1billion while the premiership only has 1. All NFL teams made a profit last year, how many premiership teams make a profit?

If they had to make a profit they would. They don't, so they don't.

3. Most watched, the viewership and TV contracts of the NFL against the premiership or any other soccer league is upto 5 times as many/much.

The USA is over five times bigger than the UK...

Give me American Football or Rugger over Soccer anyday. In terms of excitement, competitivness, sucessful business model the NFL destroys any professional soccer league.

Indeed, that's why American Football's the world's most popular spo... Oops. :pac:

Professional Rugby kicks soccer's ass in terms of local talent devlopment, proper financing, living within your means and in most leagues its fairly competitive.

Huh? How's rugby better or worse at developing local talent?

If you think the English Premiership is a good way to run a sport as a business or as a viewership for fans, i think you gotta stop letting the SkySports advertising group having a laugh off you.

And go for what? The ESPN run NFL?

Jog on mate, come on, football's far and away the world's most popular sport. Well ahead of American Football and rugby. In both codes.

Hazys

anonymous_joe wrote: »

True, but if you've got the money, as they do, it makes sense to spend it.

And yet, the sport without salary caps is more popular and there's absolutely no desire in England or anywhere for a league where some teams can't dominate.

Really? the Premiership is more popular than the NFL...i doubt it.

If they had to make a profit they would. They don't, so they don't.

Lol "if they had to make a profit they would", what a ridiculous statement. I didnt realise it was Manchester Utd NGO on the stock market not Manchester Utd PLC.

The USA is over five times bigger than the UK...

But they also have to compete against the NBA, NHL, MLB, MLS. Which helps negate a lot of advantages of having such a huge population.

Indeed, that's why American Football's the world's most popular spo... Oops. :pac:

The NFL is more popular than the Premiership, more people watch the Superbowl than the Champions League Final.

Huh? How's rugby better or worse at developing local talent?

Really what % of players playing in the English Premiership are English? As opposed to how Irish people play for Irish teams (same for club rugby in England, France, Wales, Scotland, NZ, SA, etc)?

And go for what? The ESPN run NFL?

The ESPN run NFL? What? ESPN only show 16 games a year, while CBS, FOX, NBC all show games also. Sky Sports has a monopoly mostly for the last 20 years, only they could hype up a 0-0 draw between Everton & Portsmouth 3 weeks into the season as the biggest game of the year.

Jog on mate, come on, football's far and away the world's most popular sport. Well ahead of American Football and rugby. In both codes.

"Jog on mate" No, none of that advertising has worked on you.


You said Rugby was trying to emulate soccer to get to its level, that is the last thing rugby will do, soccer is a very badly run, corupt, years behind on technology, boring, troubles with violence, diving & cheating, etc.

Rugby is progress very well at the moment, producing a great spectator sport, developing in new countries, getting into the Olympics by following their own model to develop the sport. Soccer is at a turning point, corruption, loss of integrity, handballs and it may not even have stadiums to play the world cup in next year. Soccer is slowly losing its fan base as it follows its model.

Chucky the tree

lol, yes because there never any cheating in rugby. :pac:

Chucky the tree

Hazys wrote: »

I presume you are talking about American Football not Soccer, otherwise that statement makes no sense at all.

1. There is actually a salary cap in the NFL which makes it competitive, unlike the Premiership which doesnt have salary cap and has had the same 4 teams in the top 4 for the last 10/15 years or so. With 3 weeks left in the NFL season 18 teams (out of 32) have a realistic chance of making the playoffs.

2. Most successful, 7 NFL teams are valued over $1billion while the premiership only has 1. All NFL teams made a profit last year, how many premiership teams make a profit?

3. Most watched, the viewership and TV contracts of the NFL against the premiership or any other soccer league is upto 5 times as many/much.


Give me American Football or Rugger over Soccer anyday. In terms of excitement, competitivness, sucessful business model the NFL destroys any professional soccer league.

Professional Rugby kicks soccer's ass in terms of local talent devlopment, proper financing, living within your means and in most leagues its fairly competitive.


If you think the English Premiership is a good way to run a sport as a business or as a viewership for fans, i think you gotta stop letting the SkySports advertising group having a laugh off you.

Your comparing a sport in a country with a population 300+million to england which has 60million or so. This basically means that pretty much all your points all massively flawed. No wonder the NFL has a higher viewing when it is aired to 250million more people. Money made from contracts in the nfl is so big because they have so many add breaks it gives them a much bigger opportunity to generate money. The structure is completely different with all teams dividing up revenue from merchandise sales as well. The Jags can only half fill there stadium, Raiders have only sold out 1 game this year. Rams and Bills want to leave the areas they are based in as well.

As for professional rugby kicking soccer ass in terms of local development, proper financing, living within your means and competitiveness? lol tbh. Especially competitiveness, in the last 20 years only 6 different teams have won the GP. Leciester have won it 6 times in the last 10 years. 4 teams have won the ML in the last 8 years or so. Plenty of GP teams are seriously struggling financially as well, the salary cap was brought in to try and make it more competitive and stop teams going under. Soccer isn't perfect but you are deluded in your views on how great rugby is if you actually believe most of what you typed.

anonymous_joe

Hazys wrote: »

Lol "if they had to make a profit they would", what a ridiculous statement. I didnt realise it was Manchester Utd NGO on the stock market not Manchester Utd PLC.

And? A football team is not a company designed to make profits, it's desgined to win football tournaments. Very few remain publically listed, because it's not compatible with how a sporting team operates.

But they also have to compete against the NBA, NHL, MLB, MLS. Which helps negate a lot of advantages of having such a huge population.

And? The UK has a lot of sports too.

The NFL is more popular than the Premiership, more people watch the Superbowl than the Champions League Final.

And...? That's one game.

Really what % of players playing in the English Premiership are English? As opposed to how Irish people play for Irish teams (same for club rugby in England, France, Wales, Scotland, NZ, SA, etc)?

As far as I know it's been 25% and 50%. So the same as the rugby teams in England. Or France.

The ESPN run NFL? What? ESPN only show 16 games a year, while CBS, FOX, NBC all show games also. Sky Sports has a monopoly mostly for the last 20 years, only they could hype up a 0-0 draw between Everton & Portsmouth 3 weeks into the season as the biggest game of the year.

A game between Pompey and Everton at full strength'd be a decent watch. Saha, Cahill, Arteta, et al are all worth watching, while the likes of Aruna Dindane are bloody exciting players to watch.

"Jog on mate" No, none of that advertising has worked on you.

Football's the biggest sport in the world. C'est la vie.

You said Rugby was trying to emulate soccer to get to its level, that is the last thing rugby will do, soccer is a very badly run, corupt, years behind on technology, boring, troubles with violence, diving & cheating, etc.

Hmmm? Rugby's full of cheating, violence, etc.

Rugby is progress very well at the moment, producing a great spectator sport, developing in new countries, getting into the Olympics by following their own model to develop the sport. Soccer is at a turning point, corruption, loss of integrity, handballs and it may not even have stadiums to play the world cup in next year. Soccer is slowly losing its fan base as it follows its model.

What new countries?

And as for the WC, South African corruption is hardly a reflection on a sport.

And losing its fan base? Ya what?

Chucky the tree wrote: »

lol, yes because there never any cheating in rugby. :pac:

Never. Not once.

Hazys

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Your comparing a sport in a country with a population 300+million to england which has 60million or so. This basically means that pretty much all your points all massively flawed. No wonder the NFL has a higher viewing when it is aired to 250million more people. What if you compare the NFL in North America to the Champions League? 300 million in both continents, more people watch the Super Bowl over the CL Final. Money made from contracts in the nfl is so big because they have so many add breaks it gives them a much bigger opportunity to generate money. The structure is completely different with all teams dividing up revenue from merchandise sales as well. Thats why I'm saying its well run and well organised league, profit sharing is there to keep the game competitive unlike the Premiership, it maybe unfair to the owners but it is for the good of the game. The Jags can only half fill there stadium, Raiders have only sold out 1 game this year. Rams and Bills want to leave the areas they are based in as well. 5 Teams struggle but the other 27 are doing just fine. How many premiership teams are making a profit?

As for professional rugby kicking soccer ass in terms of local development, proper financing, living within your means and competitiveness? lol tbh. Especially competitiveness, in the last 20 years only 6 different teams have won the GP. Leciester have won it 6 times in the last 10 years. TBH I dont know enough about english club rugby to comment 4 teams have won the ML in the last 8 years or so. Plenty of GP teams are seriously struggling financially as well, the salary cap was brought in to try and make it more competitive and stop teams going under. Soccer isn't perfect but you are deluded in your views on how great rugby is if you actually believe most of what you typed. But i do know that the ML is doing well and not many teams are struggling and its slowly gaining popularity here in Ireland at the expense of the English Premiership fans here

The only point I'm debating before we go into "my sport is better than your sport" is that AnonymousJoe said rugby should copy the English Premiership model to make it a more sucessful, exciting and profitable sport, which i disagree with.

twinytwo

lads... soccer and american football forum thata way

---

>

Hazys

anonymous_joe wrote: »

And? A football team is not a company designed to make profits, it's desgined to win football tournaments. Very few remain publically listed, because it's not compatible with how a sporting team operates.

Tell that to Leeds fans. Its hardly a good model to follow really is it?

And? The UK has a lot of sports too.

And...? That's one game.

The point i making here is that in a continent of the same size and of resonably similar economies the NFL out sells or out views the Champions League.

As far as I know it's been 25% and 50%. So the same as the rugby teams in England. Or France.

What is it in the ML? 80%?

A game between Pompey and Everton at full strength'd be a decent watch. Saha, Cahill, Arteta, et al are all worth watching, while the likes of Aruna Dindane are bloody exciting players to watch.

Football's the biggest sport in the world. C'est la vie.

I'm not debating that and its not the argument.

Hmmm? Rugby's full of cheating, violence, etc.

By violence i meant fans fighting and rioting

What new countries?

Italy in the six nations. The US Rugby 7's has become bigger and bigger each year in the US, small sport? yes but growing? yes. Its now in the Olympics.

And as for the WC, South African corruption is hardly a reflection on a sport.

I wasnt talking about South Africa. In terms of integrity, the sport is very badly officiated and refuses to try and implement technology to help out as opposed to the NFL or rugby. Didnt they change the rules mid way qualifying for the WC to help France, Germany, Portugal out? So they could make more advertising dollars?

And losing its fan base? Ya what?

The Premiership is losing viewership and attendences are down. Has rugby not grown here in Ireland? Surely thats eating somewhat into the no. of Premiership fans here.

Never. Not once.

I rather have the once of London Irish incident last year over seeing grown men diving several times a game, week in, week out. Is cheating rife in Rugby? I dont think so. Is cheating/diving rife in Soccer? Yes

You are saying that rugby should follow the soccer model to sucess while I'm saying it should continue doing what its doing. Introducing a salary cap is a good idea, which is way better than everybody making a loss like soccer.

irishbucsfan

The reason the superbowl is more watched more than the Champions League Final is because the American Football is a one country sport with 32 teams in the entire NFL. UEFA has 53 member states with 77 (no... doesn't make sense to me either) entrants into the Champions League alone. At the end of the Champions League only two (or sometimes one) countries are represented and so its far less likely that they'll recieve a large viewership.

For example, I watch the NFL, and I watch the Superbowl every year because there are only 32 teams in the NFL and I would know the majority of the players anyway, considering all the teams would play against my Bucs every couple of years at least. In contrast to that you get the Champions League final, where only 2 (tops) of the 53 member states are represented. If the final is all Spanish or Spanish-Italian, you're going to lose a chunk of the British viewership. The other year when Chelsea played United in the final I'd imagine the viewership across Spain, Italy and Germany suffered.

Not only this, but the Champions League competes with international competitions, and all the huge domestic competitions. American Football fans have just the one competition to watch, so of course they're going to watch the Superbowl.

To me, comparing the Superbowl to any other competition is ridiculous. How about the World Cup Final, think you'll find it destroys the Superbowl. Or the Ryder Cup? That's one of the most watched sporting events in the world (Or was at a stage according to a drunken pub man I was talking to :pac: )

anonymous_joe

Hazys wrote: »

You are saying that rugby should follow the soccer model to sucess while I'm saying it should continue doing what its doing. Introducing a salary cap is a good idea, which is way better than everybody making a loss like soccer.

Someone else said that actually.

I merely pointed out that 'soccer' is the most successful sport ever.