Friday, 22 February 2013

Super League, not so super?

In the UK we are blessed with great sport all around us, great sport typically leads to brand interest - a few examples:

Premier League - Barclays, Nike, Lucozade, EA Sports.
Premiership Rugby - Aviva, Guinness, QBE, Land Rover, J.P. Morgan, Gatorade.
Cricket - Friends Life T20, Yorkshire Bank Pro40, LVE County Championship

You get the picture, in fact, even the relatively small sport of Netball has gained FIAT as the title sponsor.

However Rugby Leagues premier competition, the Super League, is yet to find a title sponsor.... Why? Well lets take a look at the product first. From today onwards Sky Sports have 34 live games scheduled for the Super League and according to viewing figures last season we can expect around 250,000 viewers per fixture, that's 8.5million.

There is also a highlights/discussion program called 'Boots n All' which had viewing figures of 79,000 per week in 2012, with around 20 showings throughout the season - 1.5million. Furthermore attendances last season were just shy of 1.75million (up 11.2% on the previous season).

It would seem to me that viewing figures alone should present a valuable proposition for many brands, which in the past has rung true with long standing sponsor Engage. The insurance company sponsored Super League from 2005-2011, since which the RFL have struggled with the title sponsorship.

I think it's reasonable to say that the Super League is a good product, though this doesn't really help explain the difficulty that the league seem to be having in attracting a sponsor. I have a few inside sources who maintain that the league is holding out for a 'big name', and that title offers from secondary sponsors have been turned down.

Tonight is the World Club Challenge between Leeds Rhinos and Melbourne Storm, which has seen last minute sponsorship from Probiz. I am aware that Heinz, the sponsor of 2012 Club Challenge, decided against doing so again due to an increased valuation from the league.

The league commercial director James Mercer, in my opinion is running a risky strategy holding back the title sponsorship. I understand that the league want achieve a reasonable fee, though could this be perceived as greed?     

In tough financial times for all including sports clubs, we don't have to stray far to see Bradford Bull and Salford Reds. I believe a league should be doing everything it can to support its clubs, and turning down offers for sponsorship seems like madness. Furthermore I am aware that the league prohibit clubs from advertising on the centre of the pitch - a space with significant commercial value. Why should this be the case if the space is not in use? Surely this would help attract sponsors? Heineken, RBS and Aviva all utilise this space - as did the previous Super League sponsor Engage.

With the Big Weekend coming up this summer and the World Cup starting at the end of October, I would suggest that the RFL move quickly before a further two sponsorship properties are lost to a seemingly stubborn and greedy attitude.

JL
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous23 February 2013 at 11:22

    As shown by last years innovative (albeit flawed) deal with Stobart showed, maybe the commercial director is risking too much. Super League needs to be promoting its star players (Tomkins,Sinfield,etc) better to create awareness. Title sponsor is vital, but not at detriment of other avenues.

    @edwardstom2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James Lilley23 February 2013 at 18:04

      Hi Edward, thanks for your comment. The Stobart deal was destined to fail, with no cash involvement - it seemed almost desperate. I would be interested to see the terms that Betfair had put forward, which was the alternative at the time.

      Couldn't agree more with promotion of players, I have noticed Tomkins in particular has been in more interviews - I think I recall one on TalkSport recently.

      Vital is the correct word! Agree somewhat that it can't be to the detriment, but it has to be a priority compared to other avenues - which at the moment it doesn't seem to be.

      Thanks for your comment, keep reading!
      JL

      Delete
  2. Anonymous26 February 2013 at 08:04

    Hi James,

    It seems bizarre to me that a non paid sport such as Rugby Union can advertise as in the 6 nations but not so much in a paid sport of Rugby League, are we all missing something here or even targeting the wrong people for advertising??

    Richard Lilley

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)