It ultimately boils down to the audiences that the sports sell themselves to.

It's no secret that RL has a 'family sport' image, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, it does mean that you have to offer your sport in a way that is accessible to those audiences - and both the availability and pricing of tickets is a major factor in that. Look at any RL event and it's not sold as a 'pinnacle of sporting excellence'. It is sold as a family day out. That puts it in competition with a lot of family events and attractions - which are all price sensitive.

RU is very different - certainly at international level. Large sections of Twickenham are sold to debenture holders and, unless you're part of a membership or affiliation scheme, it is very hard to get tickets. That scarcity influences pricing.

It also helps that, certainly in my lifetime, the England RU team has been very successful at both the Six Nations and World Cup. At the same time, all of the major nations have had players who are extremely marketable and eloquent infront of a camera (the latter is an area where RL seriously struggles). That draws people to the sport and creates a clamour for those scarce tickets. Of course, that does have its drawbacks as well. Football is going through a phase where expensive tickets are discouraging young supporters and, whilst I don't know for definite, I bet you don't see many youngsters at Twickenham during the Six Nations. That's a challenge that targeting a more mature audience creates.

RL can achieve this if it wants to, but it will take a lot of time because, primarily, it is talking to the "wrong audience". We're not dealing with a largely affluent audience that has, and is willing to spend, £75 on a ticket because it is difficult to get one. We're talking to an audience that was/is constantly searching for discount codes for world cup tickets, even though those tickets were only £10 to begin with.

Think that covers it quite well.

Ive been to watch Wales abroad and at Twickenham (and seen loads of kids there btw) with mates countless times and paid stupid amounts for the privilege, same as my colleagues who follow Cardiff City, and we are all non-affluent, yet we find the money.

Two good games this weekend on free to air TV at prime time slots thats how we start! Union built up its tv audiance over 30 to 40 years before uping its game & selling its coverage to pay to view & it still ensures a good amount of its internationals are free to air. We have a lot of catching up to do.

I think Rugby League sells itself short across the board, and not just on money.

Union built itself on a solid domestic game followed by regular, consistent competitive internationals.

That's the way to prosperity as a sport. Which is why international development is so important.
Unfortunately RL has treated internationals like its spotty, ginger, annoying, 6 fingered, 3rd cousin. So we never know when England RL will be playing, where, against whom or in what competition.
The biggest step forward the sport has taken since moving to limited tackles was when we got the World Cup on a set 4 year cycle. Now we at least know when there'll be a World Cup. What we need now is to know about the other 3 years in the cycle.

RL has the solid domestic league but doesn't have the international competition. We desperately need more than Australia and NZ to play against competitively. But whilst we only have them to play against we need to bloody know when and where we're playing next and make sure at least 1 England game is at a decent stadium in London. That's where the money lives.

Don't forget the "dark forces" at play in both the media and the schools,yes the schools,contribute to this.

If you don't think there's a southern, London-centric bias to the media then you must live in a cave. Because it's bleedin obvious.

So it's down to the media and the schools that RL fans don't want to spend more than 20quid to attend games?

Other way around.

I do not think you can compare the Welsh RU support to the English. Not the many I've met.

I tried to sell the RL World Cup at work to the many RU fans. A couple went (and enjoyed) the games but the common comment was "It's a competition to find the team to lose to Australia". Obviously we know different. But...

We're not under selling ourslves, we're the Aldi taking on the Tesco/Asda/Morrison's. And hopefully we'll be as successful.

I do think RL undersells itself.

That's because we're insecure as a sport always pandering, in fact, begging to certain sections of the market - to accept us, to "try us out". As such as we're always acting like a free trial, an introductory discount offer to untapped demographics.

It's not only internationals. But cheap season tickets. We have a domestic product we're ashamed of. Take the notion of expansion, which whilst good, also infers we're insecure about the geographical roots of the sport.

We need to grow some balls. Be confident and proud of our product and charge what it's worth, and at the same try to accept that some people don't like RL and never will. At least in this scenario, RL may come across as a product that's self-assured and confident, which maybe, just maybe seem subliminally more enticing to new folk.

Agree with all of that.

I agree to a point in that we keep slagging ourselves off and nothing seems to make an RL fan happy.

But I think the issue of expansion is a genuine one. Unfortunately pro RL is terribly located in the country. We only have pro RL in 2 major cities and no presence north or south of the M62. Add in that RL clubs are generally not in areas of wealth and often in relatively small places then we have a big issue in trying to attract people and money to the sport.

Unfortunately for RL, the decision makers in this country live and grew up down south. They have no experience of being in an area where watching RL is even a possibility never mind an enticing option. These people are then running the media that largely ignores us and the companies that choose to invest in other sports.

We desperately need "other" areas involved in top RL. To hopefully appeal to a slightly richer market and to widen the base of people exposed and aware of RL.

If we don't do that then all I can see is stagnation as we continue to appeal to the same, relatively poor market that has a myriad of other potential leisure pursuits shoved down their throats by the advertisers, marketers and southern based, southern biased media.

The game does sell itself short. I can think of no other sport that would charge £10 for entry to a major event at a major venue. For a sport that considers itself a major spectator sport, or at least did until a few teats ago, it's odd.

I am not sure there is a Southern bias in the media. MUFC get more than their fair share of exposure in the "southern" press even though they are a northern team and have not been especially competitive at the top level of late.

The media can't ignore football because it's so immensely popular. Of course they're going to report on one of, if not the, biggest sports club in the world.

The point about bias is to do with other sports and of course non-sports issues. Every major media outlet in this country is based in London. Their management and editorial staff are almost entirely southern bred, often from public schools and Oxbridge. Hence, lower attended sporting events getting more publicity/column inches than a higher attended RL game.
Its not an active bias, in that they look at 2 events/stories and think "well that ones up North so we'll run the other one" it's that they report what they themselves find more important in their lives. So RL (& other northern issues) go un/under-reported because those issues aren't relevant to the Southern media.

The best and most obvious example of this was the floods in Hull a few years back. Went unreported by all the national media for days.

It's not quite as simple as a North/South issue, as I said it's really a problem with the fact that the media is based in one place and recruits very similar people, especially at editorial and managerial level, who generally have a certain type of life experience. So other areas like the South West miss out too.

Unfortunately we can't change this type of bias, especially as national media is only ever looking to be more concentrated around the south and the wealthy, so we have to change the national footprint of our sport.
I'm not advocating dropping clubs into new areas, we don't have the money to make that work, but I would advocate financial and professional support for clubs in what I would call creeping expansion areas. The likes of Sheffield, Newcastle and Salford for instance.

None of your paranoid drivel has anything to do with why RL fans don't want to pay much for their tickets which is what this thread is ultimately about. And if its own fans don't care enough about RL to spend alot to pack out huge stadiums, why should the media care? Being such an expert on the media i'm sure, as always, you'll know the answer.

What an aggressive post. Not had your morning coffee yet?

Fortunately I have him on my block list so I don't have to read his stupid posts anymore. He's incapable of debating a point like a normal human being.

I agree with most of what you say, but what's the solution?

Take 10% or 20% of the sky cash back away from the clubs and spend it promoting the game across the country.....this will give you a few million to spend and the media will be after this coin...leverage more exposure through it.

ALAS....... The result of this strategy? A dozen or so RL club chairmen whining and moaning and the RFL backing down.

This is the problem with RL! The clubs run the sport as a professional entity and no amount of conspiracy theories as to why RL isn't front page news will change that. Other sports have a strong governing body that lays down the law, places it's internationals at the top/pinnacle of their sports and ensures that development/exposure/media coverage is all choreographed centrally.

The 888 system and binning of licencing was as a direct result of some club chairmen believing that the extra million pounds their club would get for SL will turn their clubs into Leeds. It's short sighted and short termism at it's best.

I'd also start to play hardball with the TV companies. The BBC must be made to show the SL show at a reasonable time nationally of lose it and SKY need to reinvigorate the coverage they give the game. We've fallen behind darts on SKY now.....it's time for a change.

Agree the strategy is difficult to come up with, mainly because there's little money to go around anyway.

But I'd start by having the RFL retain more of the TV money than they currently do and use it to run a proper marketing department that does more than just send out emails to current RL fans about events, especially the internationals.

Unfortunately RL is caught between a rock and a hard place. We only have limited money so need plenty of domestic games to bring money in for the sport and the clubs. But RL is such a physically demanding sport we're pretty much on the limit for how many games we can ask our top players to play.

So I'd start by at the start of each season, a 40-man preliminary England squad be named. These 40 players then can't play more than 25 SL games (excluding the playoffs & Cup final).
Then we'd have an annual France vs England 3-match series played in France. Plus a 3-match Yorkshire v Lancashire series mid-season.
Plus whatever internationals we'd have at the end of season.

This depends largely upon having a set international calendar (& the Fr v Eng & Yorks v Lancs series marketed well in advance each year) so everyone knows when and where they're happening. I'd prefer an international calendar something along the lines of:
Year 1 - Test Series (2 of England, Australia & New Zealand, the 3rd playing a mini tour against France, Wales or PNG, Fiji etc)
Year 2 - 4/5 Nations (The big 3 plus 1 or 2 others)
Year 3 - Test Series
Year 4 - World Cup

But it has to be set, so we all know what's happening.

That's the stuff on the pitch, off it, something like you suggested of TV money being spent to promote the game. I don't think we can do it across the country unfortunately, we'd need to target it and use it in conjunction with the clubs in certain areas. For instance in Newcastle, the RFL would spend money to help get people to watch Newcastle. This will no doubt infuriate heartland clubs but it's just tough I'm afraid, we need new areas of the country. Also spend money to help ensure Newcastle is run relatively well and obviously to take advantage of events like the Magic Weekend.
Unless we help these "new" areas then they'll either likely fold or stagnate in the lower leagues.

I'd also hold back some of the TV money to ensure the RFL itself is run professionally, and as you rightly point out, to ensure that it runs the sport not the clubs. The clubs are entitled to have a say and an influence on things but not the entire running of the sport, which is what it appears at the moment and so we've now effectively got a governing body that doesn't lead the sport, it reacts to the whims of the clubs short term concerns.

I agree to a point on the TV, especially Sky. It's been very poor of them lately with little to no pushing of RL at all. The Beeb is another matter, as I reckon if we pushed them on the SL show they'd threaten to pull it entirely. Though I find the SL show rather dreary and boring at the best of times. As if it's all rather rushed through and not particularly thought out. But we can give Sky a good go at, especially with the rise of BT Sport.

These are a mix of thoughts off the top of my head and some I've thought about for a while, so it's not a clear, defined strategy in its entirety! But I'd agree entirely we need a strong RFL to centralise and choreograph the direction of the sport, because it's all over the place at the moment.

I spent the best part of two years watching RL whilst sat alongside guys from all the major tabloids and broadsheets. Trust me. There's a southern bias.

International RL is miles behind RU and has a lot of catching up to do, however I have seen some positive signs over the last 3/4 years. We are now in a place where England, NZ and Australia could play one another and you'd expect a close game. Whereas 10-15 years ago you'd expect an Aussie win.

Playing at the Olympic stadium is a good move, and I think the strong ticket sales so far show its been a good choice. The next step would be to take a 2nd Test game to to a 'big' ground such as the Etihad, St James' Park etc instead of the mid sized KC/DW/John Smiths.

The other thing RL badly needs is the likes of France, Samoa, Fiji to step up and give the big 3 a game, which Samoa did last year in the 4 Nations and it was a better tournament as a result. We need to get to a place where say England could go to France and you'd at least consider an upset, not the game be a training session like it is now.

I'm sure i'll get over the disappointment