A Word on the News Limited Debate From A Contributor

I have today received the following from a regular contributor to this blog (by way of e-mail comments) and he asked me to publish this on the site in connection with the latest round of spats in public between the New Zealand Rugby Football Union, and corporate giant News Limited. This contribution raises some good points and is worthy of a read, particularly in connection with this week's poll.

I hear that that SKY TV has decided NOT to broadcast the first 6 rounds of the S14 on TV so that they can carry out urgent maintenance and re-equip their studios and engineering departments to ensure the best coverage of the world cup ever, and to ensure that any possible technical disruption to coverage of the World cup rugby is minimised. Subscription charges are to remain the same. Is this fair to fans who have signed up for the service on the understanding that they could view all S14 games live - surely SKY should offer some kind of compensation?

The story isn't true of course but this is pretty much the scenario that News Ltd faces - yes resting the ABs should give them a better chance at the all important prize but surely they are within their rights to ask for compensation - no Abs (and we are talking a fair few players) participating for such a long stretch of the competition is a significant ask and the ABs and the NZRFU is a business worth millions of dollars - surely other businesses of similar size would be expected to fulfil their side of a contract even if the reason for doing so is noble?

I can't see this story going anywhere and I am sure something will be worked out pretty quickly, the NZRFU and News Ltd are constantly playing games of bluff in order the strengthen their all important bargaining position when contract renewal time comes about. How many times have we heard that News Ltd is thinking of dropping its support of rugby or that the NZ TV audience can't justify the funding etc?

The fact is both News Ltd and the NZRFU have both done very well out of the current arrangement - remember the fuss about the expanded Tri-nations series or the move from S12 to S14? Was News Ltd bullying the rugby unions into more games than they wanted to play and diluting the interest of fans by over exposing the 2 most popular competitions in this part of the world?

A quick check of the TV ratings figures and the NZRFU bank balances seems to suggest both parties did very well out of the new arrangements. Now the news comes of a possible further expansion of the Tri-Nations series - and no doubt the inevitable cries of outrage against News Ltd. Yawn.

As I have said there are some fair points in this contribution. However, one point I would take issue with is the analogy to Sky TV cancelling broadcasting the first six rounds of the Super 14 and the consequent effect on subscribers. Unless I misunderstand the position of the NZRFU, I don't think they are saying that there will be no Super 14 for the first seven rounds, but that the Super 14 squads in New Zealand will field teams that do not feature All Blacks. I readily agree that this means under strength teams would be fielded, with a consequent effect on the quality of the product, however there would still be a competition to be broadcast and money to be made. It may even be a more lively competition as the African and Australian sides might stand a chance of winning the competition next year. Come to think of it, probbly not as the All Blacks would be available for the allimportant finals...

In reference to the point about the constant posturing of the respective parties, and the negligible effect more and more televised rugby has had on the enthusiasm of the rugby watching public to soak up more and more product, does this have any lessons for a Super 14 competition sans ABs? Would people watch the Super 14 sans ABs? Presumably this is all that News Limited should care about. Experience seems to show that they would given that there is so much more rugby to watch now, and it is claimed that more people are watching it. How many customers will cancel pay tv subscriptions because the All Blacks aren't playing some games?

But there is one question that we do need to consider. Can we honestly say that this extended Tri-Nations has been more exciting than the older format? I doubt it. This year the result was known before the Africans got to play at home, there was really only one horse in the race, and the level of football being played during the test in Sydney was woeful. The only reason to watch that game was the chance of an upset win to South Africa. The lesson seems to be that if you broadcast it, they will watch.

Let us not forget how the Austrlaians and the Africans fit into this. So far there has not been any anouncement about their plans for national players during the Super 14. I have seen references to resting key players during the Super 14, such as Larkham, however no firm commitments have been made to my knowledge. Presumably News Limited will also be seeking the same sort of 'compensation' from these two unions in the event that they do not field their national players in the RWC year.

As identified in the above contribution, the key here is cash. There is simply too much money at stake for some resolution not to be reached between News Limited and the NZRFU. Add to that the fact that many fans have benefited from the move to professionalism, and the new competitions that have arisen as a result of News Limited and the promotional agreements that they have reached with the unions participating in the Super 14. I think that the rugby watching public in southern hemisphere rugby union nations has a lot to thank News Limited for. It would be wise to resolve this 'dispute' with a view to sorting out some sort of format or arrangement that will suit the parties in future RWC years. I agree that the story will not go too far and a compromise will sort the dispute out because the two parties do so well out of it financially.