nwgull
Well-known member
But for a winter sport, Rugby, of one code or the other, is the Aussie national sport. It's only really in Victoria, where Aussie rules is number 1, that it's not played, isn't it?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Sam Burgess - what a mess
- Thread starter Tooting Gull
- Start date
Nope, if any football code is the national sport, it is the AFL. Even in Brisbane and Sydney, where it's not really part of the communities or sporting culture, the local AFL clubs draw well over 30,000 (although the expanded western Sydney franchise is largely ignored). Conversely, Melbourne Storm of the NRL have been hugely successful and still draw flies.
By the way, Aussie Rules is as big in South Australia as it is in Victoria - to the extent that there was a lot of ill feeling when the VFL explanded to become the AFL, and they more or less wiped the SAFL records from the history books/hall of fames etc.
I think the same applies in Tasmania and Western Australia too, but I'm not 100% on that.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat.../15/australia-football-interactive-statistics
Last edited:
I posted that when it first appeared. It's an object lesson in how to get sport right and what it means to a nation when it does. It's a woeful reminder of how behind we are over here - not just in rugby - but in football too
nwgull
Well-known member
Interesting. I was told that Rugby League was the winter sport by an Aussie; however he was a rugby fan from NSW so probably had a different perception/bias.
Buffalo Seagull
Active member
AFL is by far the more dominant code. Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory are all AFL heartlands. Simster is right too about his observations in regards to AFL in Sydney and Brisbane (where there are four teams) compared to NRL in Melbourne.
In regards to the popularity of Rugby Union compared to the other codes...when it comes to the total number of participants, soccer is actually number one, followed by Australian Rules football, rugby league, with union a very distant fourth.
No it isn't - arguably it gets the nod over league on a national scale, but only just. You're in Geelong, so you're getting a warped view on things too.
More people watch AFL games live than NRL, but population wise and television viewing, popularity is very evenly split. In fact, NRL grand finals often attract a handful more viewers than AFL grand finals.
This is interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barassi_Line
The problem for both codes is that people either side of that line are so entrenched in their own code, the other code can't make any sort of in roads. This is why soccer in Australia has such a massive opportunity, especially with the 4 yearly shot in the arm that the World Cup brings. It doesn't bring that baggage to the table - so sports fans on either side of the line will get involved.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
I think that the overseas players thing is a bit of a red herring - in that the two most successful teams in this tournament (NZ and Aus) had completely different viewpoints on it. What I would say, though, is that they had clear and definitive viewpoints. The RFU f'ed up on this issue by saying "we won't normally pick overseas player, but we might if we need to", which fudged the issue horribly, and it became a bone of contention when it shouldn't have.
Back onto Burgess - yes I think he was horribly mismanaged by England, and should never have been selected for this WC at centre. However I still think it's rather pathetic that he's run back to League after 12 months with his tail between his legs. He's only 26, he could have spent a couple of years learning how to be an effective blindside flanker and then had two years in the England squad (if he was up to it) building up to the next World Cup. For someone that is supposed to be a great leader and decision-maker I think his behaviour has been pretty poor.
Back onto Burgess - yes I think he was horribly mismanaged by England, and should never have been selected for this WC at centre. However I still think it's rather pathetic that he's run back to League after 12 months with his tail between his legs. He's only 26, he could have spent a couple of years learning how to be an effective blindside flanker and then had two years in the England squad (if he was up to it) building up to the next World Cup. For someone that is supposed to be a great leader and decision-maker I think his behaviour has been pretty poor.
Buffalo Seagull
Active member
I might be living in Geelong now, but I also lived in New South Wales for several years.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Rules football has three times the participation rate compared to Rugby League. It also brings in three times as much revenue. I'd argue that makes it dominant.
Just out of interest why was this rule brought in?
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
Wages are higher in France (they have a much higher - might even be no - salary cap), and the ban on foreign-based players was bought in in an attempt to dissuade England players from moving there at the first wave of a massive cheque.
Again, that is factually incorrect according to the article I provided earlier:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat.../15/australia-football-interactive-statistics
Participation rates among males:
Aussie rules 222,000
League 95,200
Union 95,600
So nowhere near three times the participation rate then, and not far off an equal split between Aussie rules and the rugby codes together. And I would be amazed if AFL brings in three times the revenue of League, when you consider how important television is to sport and NRL actually has slightly higher viewing figures than AFL. Do you have a link?
To the south west of the line, AFL is dominant. To the north east, it isn't. Overall, I'd agree with you that AFL is the bigger code, purely because rugby is split into two codes. But it doesn't change the fact that in truth, nobody really gives a shiny shite about AFL in 2 of the 3 biggest Australian population centres and nobody really gives a monkeys about the NRL (or Super rugby) outside two states.
It's a deal with the Premiership clubs: England want access to their players at all times and the clubs have said "Fine. We'll let you have that if you promise not to pick players who hope off to France and their non-capped salaries." The RFU thought that sounded a good deal so that's what we've got.
If the RFU removes that restriction and picks who it wants, I expect that clubs will suddenly discover that their players have a few unexplained injuries at the same time as England get-togethers.
Buffalo Seagull
Active member
Link for participation rates - http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4156.0.55.001Feature+Article1May 2009 (from the ABS, rather than a newspaper)
Link for revenue - http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/afl-leaves-other-codes-in-the-dust-20130326-2grkp.html
Madness really.
What other sport would you ban players playing at a high level in a different country.
Rugby has a bit of history of clubs not releasing players for internationals though. It's against IRB rules but it still happens - some clubs have contracts where players are specifically prohibited from playing internationals. No other sport that I know of has situations like that.
The IRB wants to clamp down on the practice and ensure players are free to play for their countries but I'm not holding my breath about it. If a French club refused to release a player, not sure what sanctions the RFU could apply ... and that's the problem
The first link gives credence to your view, it must be said, although the fact is that rugby is separated out into two codes. AFL certainly has the highest participation rate, although if you take the two rugby codes together, it's really not that dominant.
But your second link is completely out of date and irrelevant - it is two and half years old. In this article from August in the same paper, you can see Channel Seven recently spent $900 million on a SIX-year deal with the AFL whereas rival Channel Nine's spent $925 million on a FIVE-year deal with the NRL. Given the importance of television revenue to the bottom line, there is no way the AFL brings in three times more revenue than the NRL.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/why-seven-prefers-afl-to-nrl-20150819-gj2lkc.html
nwgull
Well-known member
It's probably worth noting that the All Blacks operate a similar selection policy regarding players not playing in NZ.
The Maharajah of Sydney
Well-known member
There's been some discussion here recently in the media as to why the disparity between live attendances and TV viewing figures exists and the considered opinion
is that Rugby League being played on a rectangular field as opposed to a large oval lends itself to be a sport that televises better and also the style of the 2 different games.
In AFL you want to see the playable options which aren't always apparent when viewing through a screen.
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
Mind you - it is as easy getting from Paris to Pennyhill Park than from Newcastle.