AFL overtaking NRL in QLD

[threenewpadlocks]

Despite what Fujak says, there is no evidence to suggest that participation will eventually turn participants into consumers in the way that NRL and AFL fans engage with those sports in their respective dominant markets. Soccer has been number one for participation for decades and, World Cups aside, its ratings are 10% of AFL/NRL and crowds are not growing. The Matildas are an anomoly/execption of course.

I remember the AFL have stated recently that their own research indicates a several-fold (seven or something) likelihood of a grassroots participant engaging with the AFL team. I can't find the link for the life of me, but it makes sense, if we're comparing something like 0.5% to 3% between a non-grassroots and grassroots engagement.

I don't think Basketball and Soccer are really good comparisons. They both have suburban and local club and community institutions that have significant strength independent of top-down management that just doesn't exist in AFL and NRL. The AFL and NRL have a much stronger relationship and greater control on grassroots. Just as one example among many, there's basically open warfare in Queensland between Brisbane Roar, Football Queensland and local clubs: as such the relationship between consumers and participants in soccer in Queensland is clearly operating in such a vastly different environment to the AFL.

 

[Aussie in exile]

The Lions have had multiple sellouts which artificially bring down their average.
A good reason to build a new proper Olympic stadium.
It would great for Brisbane and great for Australia.

If they have multiple sellouts they must have some pretty poor crowd numbers the other times with a crowd average of barely over 29,000.

 

[Bjo187]

Despite what Fujak says, there is no evidence to suggest that participation will eventually turn participants into consumers in the way that NRL and AFL fans engage with those sports in their respective dominant markets. Soccer has been number one for participation for decades and, World Cups aside, its ratings are 10% of AFL/NRL and crowds are not growing. The Matildas are an anomoly/execption of course.

No evidence? it was researched and found to be that. Soccer is extremely popular, but the fans in Australia are spread out across about 50 different clubs around the world, being from the A league, English premier league, Italian league, Spanish league, French, German, Brazilian, you name it. The only time in Australia all those fans come under the one banner is when the Socceroos or Matildas are playing and those tv ratings and audiences (in games that matter) speak for themselves.

 

[Bjo187]

On another note and on topic, I was listening to an interview with former Essendon player Dean Solomon today and he's living in northern nsw near the qld border, they asked him how footy was going up there and he basically reflected dave10 thoughts.

Starts 8.20 min

 

[RedV3x]

Despite what Fujak says,

Why what did he say "

there is no evidence to suggest that participation will eventually turn participants into consumers in the way that NRL and AFL fans engage with those sports in their respective dominant markets..

Yes, There are reasons why participation doesn't directly correlate to professionalism.

 

[Prince Imperial]

If they have multiple sellouts they must have some pretty poor crowd numbers the other times with a crowd average of barely over 29,000.

You're including a 9k "home" attendance at Norwood Oval during Gather Round in that figure. Their Gabba average was 30,864.

After 11 matches, the Lions were 13th on the ladder which had an adverse impact. The Broncos were 5th at the equivalent stage.

It is indisputable that the Broncos have a bigger fanbase in Queensland than the Lions but the latter will never be able to match them crowd wise when they have 15k less seats available to sell.

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[The Educator]

You're taking an afl asset deal that was signed off on in about 1998 to acquire marvel stadium. As per above, do they just sit on that asset and not increase them, like the nrl have done in the past few years, acknowledging it's of a previous base of nothing.

The point is, for what purpose would they be buying more assets? There are massive diminishing returns to accumulating assets when it is at the expense in investing in the game's development

But it should be bigger coz it's starting off a bigger base.

I said it is bigger than ever

Between 2019 and 2023 the AFL's revenue grew from 793.9 million in 2019 to 1.064 billion in 2023 - an increase of 34%

Over the same period, the NRL's grew from 552.9 million to 689.4 million - an increase of about 25%

The AFL's revenue actually increased by almost double in absolute turns (270 million to 137 million)

bigger and growing by more

Put it this way, the extra 200 mill the afl are getting for the next 3 year's in tv rights won't match the over 1 billion in funding from their mate albo and the w.a government. To repeat myself, not only is the tax payer funding the new clubs, but they're also funding expansion of the game on the codes behalf, that's an extrodinary deal. one never seen before in sport.

So the nrl get two massive assets in two new clubs which they barely have to chip in for, but it also adds value to their next tv rights deal, for basically free to them.

The AFL TV money is straight in the pocket

The NRL is getting a fraction of that money directly and it is yet to be seen whether whatever it does get (including any extra TV rights) exceeds the costs to it and its clubs

 

[The Educator]

I remember the AFL have stated recently that their own research indicates a several-fold (seven or something) likelihood of a grassroots participant engaging with the AFL team. I can't find the link for the life of me, but it makes sense, if we're comparing something like 0.5% to 3% between a non-grassroots and grassroots engagement.

I don't think Basketball and Soccer are really good comparisons. They both have suburban and local club and community institutions that have significant strength independent of top-down management that just doesn't exist in AFL and NRL. The AFL and NRL have a much stronger relationship and greater control on grassroots. Just as one example among many, there's basically open warfare in Queensland between Brisbane Roar, Football Queensland and local clubs: as such the relationship between consumers and participants in soccer in Queensland is clearly operating in such a vastly different environment to the AFL.

Well said.

The "what about soccer" just reveals binary thinking.

The seven fold figure obviously doesn't identify the causal direction (i.e obviously people who already follow the AFL are more likely to be want to play in the first place) but clearly there is some relationship.

A significant difference is that the AFL is played in the capital cities of those states that the AFL is driving participation.....playing off for a premiership this year in fact.

To the extent that soccer participation translates into interest, that interest is at least as likely to focus on europe as the local league. But also its "easy and safe to play" compared to other football codes means it attracts non-sporting families and families that follow the AFL or NRL but just don't want their kids to play it.

 

[Prince Imperial]

There's probably some amount of overlap in actual participants in that League/Touch/Tag total though it's not apparent how much.

The AusPlay latest tables display data about the numbers of adult volunteers in non playing roles (i.e coaches, officials, administrators, team managers) in Queensland which also is of interest:

Soccer 72,467
RL 41,657
AF 38,257
Basketball 35,322
Cricket 24,101
Netball 23,733
RU 17,723

 

[Macca180]

The Lions will never out draw the Broncos until we get a modern stadium like Optus in Perth with at least 50/60k seats.

We are behind the times when it comes to AFL facilities.

Time to grow up.

 

[RedV3x]

also its "easy and safe to play" compared to other football codes means it attracts non-sporting families and families that follow the AFL or NRL but just don't want their kids to play it.

I don't know any Australian adult that follows soccer but I know of plenty of kids that play soccer.
Those kids aren't probably going to grow up following soccer.

To the extent that soccer participation translates into interest, that interest is at least as likely to focus on europe as the local league.

And yes, the parents that do follow soccer seem to jump the local league as irrelevant.
Thus on the question of participation, maybe we should be looking at the number of rusted-on parents.

 

[The_Wookie]

There's probably some amount of overlap in actual participants in that League/Touch/Tag total though it's not apparent how much.

The AusPlay latest tables display data about the numbers of adult volunteers in non playing roles (i.e coaches, officials, administrators, team managers) in Queensland which also is of interest:

Soccer 72,467
RL 41,657
AF 38,257
Basketball 35,322
Cricket 24,101
Netball 23,733
RU 17,723

Theres a few other graphs Ill do tomorrow as well.

 

[The Educator]

There's probably some amount of overlap in actual participants in that League/Touch/Tag total though it's not apparent how much.

The AusPlay latest tables display data about the numbers of adult volunteers in non playing roles (i.e coaches, officials, administrators, team managers) in Queensland which also is of interest:

Soccer 72,467
RL 41,657
AF 38,257
Basketball 35,322
Cricket 24,101
Netball 23,733
RU 17,723

Volunteers are almost a better indicator of community participation than player numbers.

Soccer has substantial participation in futsal and other evening semi organised social park competitions which are more akin to touch football. On the other hand, organised soccer anecdotally has less pure volunteerism (eg junior coaches getting paid)

The three full contact football codes all have ratios of 1.7-1.8 to 1 of volunteers to players. Soccer's is double that (i.e 3.6 to 1)

 

[Aussie in exile]

You're including a 9k "home" attendance at Norwood Oval during Gather Round in that figure. Their Gabba average was 30,864.

After 11 matches, the Lions were 13th on the ladder which had an adverse impact. The Broncos were 5th at the equivalent stage.

It is indisputable that the Broncos have a bigger fanbase in Queensland than the Lions but the latter will never be able to match them crowd wise when they have 15k less seats available to sell.

The capacity for football at the Gabba is 37,000, so well short of getting anywhere near that with an average of 30,864.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Basketball is on the rise all over Australia, which will show when you publish the rest of them figures .

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The capacity for football at the Gabba is 37,000, so well short of getting anywhere near that with an average of 30,864.

And the capacity of Docklands is 55,000 and sell out games there get 42,000

If it's a sellout they can't sell more tickets to get more people going.

8/11 Gabba AFL games this year were sellouts, that's a fact.

 

[Aussie in exile]

And the capacity of Docklands is 55,000 and sell out games there get 42,000

If it's a sellout they can't sell more tickets to get more people going.

8/11 Gabba AFL games this year were sellouts, that's a fact.

How can it be a sell out when you get 42,000 in a capacity stadium of 55,000?
The Lions call a sell out on anything over 30,000.
I can see you are not accountant, and neither is anyone who thinks that's a sell out

Eight Gabba Sell Outs As Lions Fans On Track To Set 20 Year Record

The Lions have put the ‘sold out’ sign up at the Gabba for the eighth time this season

www.lions.com.au

 

[dave10]

On another note and on topic, I was listening to an interview with former Essendon player Dean Solomon today and he's living in northern nsw near the qld border, they asked him how footy was going up there and he basically reflected dave10 thoughts.

Starts 8.20 min

Yep. I’m not making anything up. It’s a lived experience I’m trying to objectively convey..

 

[Bjo187]

You're including a 9k "home" attendance at Norwood Oval during Gather Round in that figure. Their Gabba average was 30,864.


After 11 matches, the Lions were 13th on the ladder which had an adverse impact. The Broncos were 5th at the equivalent stage.

It is indisputable that the Broncos have a bigger fanbase in Queensland than the Lions but the latter will never be able to match them crowd wise when they have 15k less seats available to sell.

You'll realise Aussie in exile likes to play dumb and throw out questions to try scuttle any positive talk about the AFL. It's why he's well known as a troll in here. Now he's pretending he doesn't know why a gabba sellout isn't at the full stated stadium capacity. It's all a game.

I don't get why tag, oztag and touch football are all separate, aren't they all the non contact versions of rugby league?

The point is, for what purpose would they be buying more assets? There are massive diminishing returns to accumulating assets when it is at the expense in investing in the game's development

Because you increase the revenue base which allows you to up the grassroots 10 percent spend in the future.

I said it is bigger than ever

Between 2019 and 2023 the AFL's revenue grew from 793.9 million in 2019 to 1.064 billion in 2023 - an increase of 34%

Over the same period, the NRL's grew from 552.9 million to 689.4 million - an increase of about 25%

The AFL's revenue actually increased by almost double in absolute turns (270 million to 137 million)

bigger and growing by more

You are counting in that the AFL's payments across a few years of $250 mill. A government grant for the marvel stadium upgrades. The figure is therefore in the 900s for this year, not over 1 billion yet.

The AFL TV money is straight in the pocket

The NRL is getting a fraction of that money directly and it is yet to be seen whether whatever it does get (including any extra TV rights) exceeds the costs to it and its clubs

It will exceed the cost of the clubs significantly. Each team I believe gets a grant from head office of 17 mill (it's what I heard on radio the other day). If you take into account the dolphins entry garnered an extra $20 mill annually from Murdoch a few years ago, a new team years later would likely generate an extra 25 mill in tv money (especially post albo's streaming loophole to help out his mate Peter).

Remembering it costs a lot less to run an nrl club than an afl one, the whole thing is funded in png, albo made sure of it. I don't see what the NRL are actually paying for. Plus you have the extra $60 mill as a tax payer funded licence fee on top of that, to all the other clubs for doing nothing.

The nrl, it's clubs, as well as their extra tv and streaming money will be well ahead of costs of the new teams, coz it's 90 percent covered. Even the grassroots being paid for by government adds more fans long term, as per the participation to fans model we discussed earlier. It's actually unbelievable how much of a leg up one sport can get by government, a windfall with barely any outlay.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

How can it be a sell out when you get 42,000 in a capacity stadium of 55,000?

Eight Gabba Sell Outs As Lions Fans On Track To Set 20 Year Record

The Lions have put the ‘sold out’ sign up at the Gabba for the eighth time this season

www.lions.com.au

Because each seat in the stadium is sold to a person willing to purchase it, they have a right to sit in that seat, and you cannot sell any more tickets because there would not be a physical location for that person to sit in if they were were to purchase additional tickets.

The fact that only 42,000 people eventually physically get themselves to the game does not change the fact that 55,000 people were willing to pay money to access the game, irrespective of whether they then subsequently physically went or not.

It really isn't that hard to understand, but you're somehow acting like it is.