Why doesn't the AFL finally put the NRL back into its place?!

[Football Tragic]

It's not just pokies, it's food, hotels, entertainment, bistros, hosting events, real estate holdings, etc They are self-sufficient commercial entities. Most AFL clubs are reliant on their football gate, member takings, and the AFL hand outs. Few exceptions in AFL like collingwood and weagles.

That's actually not true either. The AFL Clubs are very profitable also with their business models. They just don't remy on Pokie revenue to the same degree as the NRL Clubs do

 

[PhatBoy]

The AFL clubs aren't reliant on that money (regardless of that some clubs whine that they are). It is a luxury the league can afford. That is why the AFL pumped so much money into grassroots programs such as AusKick which the NRl hasn't been able to do. It's why the AFL Venues are infinitely better than the NRL grounds and facilities. The money and investment difference is not comparable. To run an AFL Club is higher because it can be not because it has to be.

The general interest in the sports isn't just based on tv ratings - its based off attendance, membership, participation, sponsorship, functions, merchandise and then tv ratings, exposure and rights. Its one of the NRLs major flaws - they put too many of their eggs in one basket.

The AFLs TV Rights are much bigger and more valuable because of all that you mentioned, so why is the ratings the only measure the NRL use to argue that their product is better than the AFL?

I think you are in denial about the AFLs growth in Queensland. The AFL had little to no presense in the state when it first moved up there. Today, it has grown expendentually. Its participation numbers are larger than South Australia's (are die hard AFL state) and they sell out their stadium weekly. Ratings are growing too from the state and we now have a huge influx of players drafted from the state that would have been NRL players in the past. How many NRL players come from Victoria, Tasmania, SA or WA? The number is tiny compared to the amount coming into the AFL from NSW and Queensland.

It's not Victorians who think this way. Unlike NRL that is a two state competition, the AFL live up to their name - they are Australia wide. The AFL are dominant in Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory and Victoria plus have a large footprint in NSW and massive one in Queensland. Its not a Victorian game - far from it, and its growing faster than the NRL by almost every matrix.

The NRL doesn’t pump enough money into grassroots. I’m the first to agree with that. But it certainly could if it decided to. It’s a disgrace how it treats some of its country areas in particular

 

[PrancingPony]

This whole code wars is stupid, real sports fans don't care, we watch both AFL and NRL.

I swear some of you hate sport, imagine wanting a league to go under.

 

[Football Tragic]

What do you mean the tv ratings are rarely higher for NRL, they are generally higher and well higher on pay TV.

If you take the 2025 finals series for both AFL and NRL, all NRL finals games rated higher than their equivalent AFL final. Regardless of the day or timeslot. Which puts your argument to bed that the NRL are prioritising tv friendly time slots and are still not rating higher, completely untrue.

Yes we'll have to see what the next NRL media deal is like, based purely on ratings the NRL far exceeded the AFL in ratings in 2025 so it should be at least as high. But when you factor in the length of AFL games etc it might bring it down a bit. But the expectation in NRL circles now is that the media deal should be around on par with that of the recent AFL deal.

They changed the rating system as soon as the AFL began to easily ourate them to an average viewership. That rating system is not what sponsors use to gauge value of a show. Its how many different people watch a show over the course of the length of the product. nce again, its why the NRL product is not as valuable as the AFL.

 

[hampton]

The AFL clubs aren't reliant on that money (regardless of that some clubs whine that they are). It is a luxury the league can afford. That is why the AFL pumped so much money into grassroots programs such as AusKick which the NRl hasn't been able to do. It's why the AFL Venues are infinitely better than the NRL grounds and facilities. The money and investment difference is not comparable. To run an AFL Club is higher because it can be not because it has to be.

The general interest in the sports isn't just based on tv ratings - its based off attendance, membership, participation, sponsorship, functions, merchandise and then tv ratings, exposure and rights. Its one of the NRLs major flaws - they put too many of their eggs in one basket.

The AFLs TV Rights are much bigger and more valuable because of all that you mentioned, so why is the ratings the only measure the NRL use to argue that their product is better than the AFL?

I think you are in denial about the AFLs growth in Queensland. The AFL had little to no presense in the state when it first moved up there. Today, it has grown expendentually. Its participation numbers are larger than South Australia's (are die hard AFL state) and they sell out their stadium weekly. Ratings are growing too from the state and we now have a huge influx of players drafted from the state that would have been NRL players in the past. How many NRL players come from Victoria, Tasmania, SA or WA? The number is tiny compared to the amount coming into the AFL from NSW and Queensland.

It's not Victorians who think this way. Unlike NRL that is a two state competition, the AFL live up to their name - they are Australia wide. The AFL are dominant in Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory and Victoria plus have a large footprint in NSW and massive one in Queensland. Its not a Victorian game - far from it, and its growing faster than the NRL by almost every matrix.

I think your user name is bang on correct, this the most rose coloured glasses take I’ve seen. The fact is both games are going well nationally. But if you want to kid yourself about a lot of the above then it’s on you.

 

[Gibbke]

If you badmouth either sport to the point of denigration and hatred, it means you don't even understand your own game...think about it...

 

[hampton]

They changed the rating system as soon as the AFL began to easily ourate them to an average viewership. That rating system is not what sponsors use to gauge value of a show. Its how many different people watch a show over the course of the length of the product. nce again, its why the NRL product is not as valuable as the AFL.

Again this conspiracy theory of ‘they changed the ratings system’ is laughable. Not going to bother even attempting to argue that, since average viewers has been a staple of measuring tv program engagement.

 

[PrancingPony]

Again this conspiracy theory of ‘they changed the ratings system’ is laughable. Not going to bother even attempting to argue that, since average viewers has been a staple of measuring tv program engagement.

People who engage in the code wars in the first place aren't usually the types to use critical thinking, so are you surprised they're busting out conspiracy theories?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I feel like there's two different arguments here. Revenue vs general interest. AFL not only has a slightly higher general interest but is able to generate far more revenue from the interest it does have. Golf is followed by fewer Americans than NASCAR but we all know which of the two is the richer sport.

IMO it's only a half measure when you compare e.g. Prelims and GF against each other. Both sports had almost identical numbers of people watching which is part of very similar TV rights deals.

NRL can barely fill their stadium with $20 tickets for their prelim and grand final while AFL is making literally tens and maybe hundreds of millions more by selling hundreds of thousands of tickets at an average price of well over $100 for the prelims, plus other additional revenue to gain access (e.g. AFL membership etc).

 

[hampton]

Significant over exaggerations above.

Under estimating nrl and overestimating afl. Where you say they had ‘similar’ tv viewerships actually nrl had more like 30% more viewers on average. Whether that’s similar or not is up to you. And nrl having $20 tickets to the finals and the afl $100 is again not true.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

And for the TV viewership numbers it's simply a matter of different broadcast lengths being the denominator for the fraction that is average viewership (remember grade 4 maths?)

Minute for minute when both sports are being broadcast simultaneously AFL always gets more viewers.

E.g. Sunday broadcast AFL begins at 3.20 to lead into the 6pm news for C7, NRL beings at 4.00 to lead into the 6pm news for C9

Between the hours of 4pm-6pm say AFL average is 700,000, NRL is 650,000. At a given point in time, throughout the entire time that NRL broadcasts a game, more people watch AFL.

But if AFL average is 400,000 for specifically between 3.20 and 4pm - obviously as Sunday habits are that people tune into a game later in the afternoon as they've finished doing what they do on a Sunday - that pushes the overall "average" down to 625,000. But it's not lower viewership, it's an additional 16 million minutes of AFL that people are watching there's no NRL on, yet the averages (and subsequent NRL propaganda of spouting the averages) would have you think that NRL is "more watched".

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Significant over exaggerations above.

Under estimating nrl and overestimating afl. Where you say they had ‘similar’ tv viewerships actually nrl had more like 30% more viewers on average. Whether that’s similar or not is up to you. And nrl having $20 tickets to the finals and the afl $100 is again not true.

300,000 people attended the prelims and GF this year champion.

At $100 per head for ticket buying etc, that's $30 million. That is indeed tens of millions. People pay hundreds of dollars a year in AFL Silver membership just so they have access to pay another $75 to buy a Prelim ticket in the AFL reserve when their team makes it. Not unusual.

 

[hampton]

That ‘math’ is not an industry standard for gauging a show popularity. That’s average viewers. It’s based on assumptions that afl viewers typically don’t watch a full game (already questionable and murky when afl is followed by such a passionate lot). If nrl games were longer they’d also have a higher reach too, which was evidenced when a couple games went into extra time which extended their broadcast time and subsequent reach.

Fact is no matter what mental math and excuses come up with (ie afl watchers are doing sunday chores and tune in later), average viewers is the standard for measuring how many people watched a program. Full stop.

 

[hampton]

300,000 people attended the prelims and GF this year champion.

At $100 per head for ticket buying etc, that's $30 million. That is indeed tens of millions. People pay hundreds of dollars a year in AFL Silver membership just so they have access to pay another $75 to buy a Prelim ticket in the AFL reserve when their team makes it. Not unusual.

Ok and? You said nrl tickets were $20 and failed to sell. Incorrect and denigrating nrl needlessly.

Nrl has state of origin on top of their prelims and finals which had tickets selling for over $100 and 220,000+ sold across 3 cities. So what?

What about the millions and millions more viewers that tuned into nrl broadcasts this year over afl ones?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Ok and? You said nrl tickets were $20 and failed to sell. Incorrect and denigrating nrl needlessly.

What about the millions and millions more viewers that tuned into nrl broadcasts this year over afl ones?

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/fans-up-in-arms-as-nrl-hands-out-free-tickets-to-sydney-preliminary-final/news-story/64a1e7013c0a5e2383fa576947c0a5c7

Couple of years old but literally handing out free tickets to the Prelim.

I literally addressed the falsehood that "millions more viewers turned into nrl broadcasts this year" above, if you cared to read.

 

[Gavin Excell]

At the end of the day money talks
And the reality is the AfL media deal dwarfs the NRLs

Its the more valuable commodity

 

[hampton]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/fans-up-in-arms-as-nrl-hands-out-free-tickets-to-sydney-preliminary-final/news-story/64a1e7013c0a5e2383fa576947c0a5c7

Couple of years old but literally handing out free tickets to the Prelim.

I literally addressed the falsehood that "millions more viewers turned into nrl broadcasts this year" above, if you cared to read.

No it’s true that millions more watched nrl broadcasts than afl ones, as reported by media sources. just that you have your own ‘maths’ to try to disprove that.

Not sure what that article proves. I can also dig up similar finds about the mass giveaway of tickets in northern states of afl tickets.

By the way those 300,000 afl prelim and gf tickets were all in one city and one venue. For a national game, supposedly, afl is very centralised to Melbourne and the MCG being the major cash cow for the sport. Not sure there’s another major sport in the world that plays the majority of its games and especially big games in one venue. Though it’s certainly good income for Melbourne and the MCG

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No it’s true that millions more watched nrl broadcasts than afl ones, as reported by media sources. just that you have your own ‘maths’ to try to disprove that.

Not really "my" maths, it's grade 4 maths. The media sources are just parroting NRL talking points without thinking about it critically.
More people watch an AFL game for longer - you can take the reach of a broadcast, the average of a broadcast, and the broadcast length of a broadcast, and work out the accumulated minutes watched for each sport. AFL always comes out ahead, and that's why their TV rights are worth more. If more people were truly watching NRL broadcasts it would make little sense for the TV rights to be worth less. Because the people purchasing the rights are capable of doing the same maths that I am and they realise the AFL is more watched.

Not sure what that article proves. I can also dig up similar finds about the mass giveaway of tickets in northern states of afl tickets.

I'm not making the point about Northern clubs in home and away fixtures, I'm making the point about the fact as a matter of comparison with identical finals structure the AFL is blowing the NRL away in terms of ticketing and gameday revenue for the Preliminary finals to the tune of tens of millions per year, the title of this thread. 200,000 tickets at $100+ a pop across two games vs. a portion of the tickets being given away for literally free.

By the way those 300,000 afl prelim and gf tickets were all in one city and one venue. For a national game, supposedly, afl is very centralised to Melbourne and the MCG being the major cash cow for the sport. Not sure there’s another major sport in the world that plays the majority of its games and especially big games in one venue one city.

I can't believe you're trying to argue the point that the AFL is not national in a thread specifically dedicated to its comparison to the NRL. I'm sure far more of AFL prelims in the last decade or two have been outside Melbourne than NRL prelims have been outside Sydney.

 

[Purple Suit]

No it’s true that millions more watched nrl broadcasts than afl ones, as reported by media sources. just that you have your own ‘maths’ to try to disprove that.

Not sure what that article proves. I can also dig up similar finds about the mass giveaway of tickets in northern states of afl tickets.

By the way those 300,000 afl prelim and gf tickets were all in one city and one venue. For a national game, supposedly, afl is very centralised to Melbourne and the MCG being the major cash cow for the sport. Not sure there’s another major sport in the world that plays the majority of its games and especially big games in one venue. Though it’s certainly good income for Melbourne and the MCG

The numbers are down on the TV audience for AFL as there are so many fans at the games watching them live. Double that of NRL.

 

[hampton]

Not really "my" maths, it's grade 4 maths. The media sources are just parroting NRL talking points without thinking about it critically.
More people watch an AFL game for longer - you can take the reach of a broadcast, the average of a broadcast, and the broadcast length of a broadcast, and work out the accumulated minutes watched for each sport. AFL always comes out ahead, and that's why their TV rights are worth more. If more people were truly watching NRL broadcasts it would make little sense for the TV rights to be worth less. Because the people purchasing the rights are capable of doing the same maths that I am and they realise the AFL is more watched.

You mean like industry Oztam offical source of tv ratings are parroting NRL talking points?

Except reach is at least 60 seconds watched, so that 'math' might work out that someone was watching a minute of an AFL game. And you'd be ok with counting that as a view?

I'm not making the point about Northern clubs in home and away fixtures, I'm making the point about the fact as a matter of comparison with identical finals structure the AFL is blowing the NRL away in terms of ticketing and gameday revenue for the Preliminary finals to the tune of tens of millions per year, the title of this thread. 200,000 tickets at $100+ a pop across two games vs. a portion of the tickets being given away for literally free.

Yes I never said that the AFL don't have a bigger ticket revenue than NRL. But if you're trying to hang your hat on that as the most important metric to show that the AFL is vastly ahead of the NRL, you're wrong.

I can't believe you're trying to argue the point that the AFL is not national in a thread specifically dedicated to its comparison to the NRL. I'm sure far more of AFL prelims in the last decade or two have been outside Melbourne than NRL prelims have been outside Sydney.

This thread is exactly the warped Victorian view that believes the AFL is vastly ahead of the NRL nationally and needs to 'squash' NRL, for whatever reason, to retain it's dominance. It reeks of insecurity, and is driven from ignorant views.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Except reach is at least 60 seconds watched, so that 'math' might work out that someone was watching a minute of an AFL game. And you'd be ok with counting that as a view?

Instead of grunting "errrr reach bad" actually think about what I'm saying for a second here.

You can take reach, average and broadcast length to get a picture of broadcast habits.

Average and broadcast length is pretty straightforward to determine accumulated broadcast hours, you just multiply the two together.

Reach is useful to understand just how much of a broadcast a person watches. And in the AFL, a "reached" person (a person that watches 60 seconds) always watches more greater broadcast than the AFL - a reached person, on averages, watches about 1 hour of an AFL broadcast and about 50 minutes of an NRL broadcast.

Yes I never said that the AFL don't have a bigger ticket revenue than NRL. But if you're trying to hang your hat on that as the most important metric to show that the AFL is vastly ahead of the NRL, you're wrong.

You don't think tens of millions of dollars is relevant here? It's a fair ol chunk of the overall revenue of the AFL.

This thread is exactly the warped Victorian view that believes the AFL is vastly ahead of the NRL nationally

But it is. This should be without debate. Various metrics you can use to assess general interest of the two sports indicate that the AFL is approximately one quarter to one third bigger than the NRL.

AFL stretches lead over NRL in TV viewership despite NRL’s rise - Roy Morgan Research

www.roymorgan.com

When polled, 9.1 million Australians state that they watch AFL on TV vs 7.3 million for NRL.

It is a representative sample of Australia at large and the wording of the question was identical for both sports. For the sake of fairness and because you think I'm biased, I would be counted in both samples, because I also watch NRL because I enjoy watching it and don't hate it (even though you think that I do).

On Google Trends (searches, and things like clicks on news articles on Google News on Android phones etc) AFL has an index of 35 and NRL 26:
https://trends.google.com/trends/ex...+5-y&geo=AU&hl=en&q=/m/0ckh09,/m/01lwy5&sni=3

I can repeat myself on and on but you get the idea.

It reeks of insecurity and arrogance, and is driven from ignorant views.

Insecurity is going on an AFL forum to argue a non-reality.

 

[LeBronco]

AFL growth is stagnating in NSW north of the Barassi Line because the AFL are too focused on Queensland and have been ever since the 2020 season. It doesn't help that cost of living is around 15% higher in Sydney compared to the other states yet Swans/Giants have to abide by the same salary cap/soft cap as everyone else. It's also unfair seeing the Suns having exclusive access to gold mines of talent in their academies while we've had to deal with the AFL taking the Riverina zone away from us.

 

[Drunkcat]

Cricket number one for me, then AFL, then NRL.

 

[hampton]

Instead of grunting "errrr reach bad" actually think about what I'm saying for a second here.

Reach isn’t wrong. It’s just not the standard used by the industry to gauge a shows popularity. Reach is a metric that is used to lure advertisers looking for a big number for their brand campaign. So it’s useful for broadcasters to use that metric to gain advertising dollars, but not useful in comparing popularity of programs.

This has been said time and time again by many people but some zealots can’t wrap their head around that.

You can take reach, average and broadcast length to get a picture of broadcast habits.


Average and broadcast length is pretty straightforward to determine accumulated broadcast hours, you just multiply the two together.

Reach is useful to understand just how much of a broadcast a person watches. And in the AFL, a "reached" person (a person that watches 60 seconds) always watches more greater broadcast than the AFL - a reached person, on averages, watches about 1 hour of an AFL broadcast and about 50 minutes of an NRL broadcast.

This is embarrassing for you that you even wrote this. Where did you get that figure that an afl ‘reached person always watches an hour’ where did you pull that from? You’ve just made that up to suit your ‘math’

If your ‘math’ is so great then I look forward to next years OzTAM results using it for their reporting. Until then, I’ll stick with average viewers.

You don't think tens of millions of dollars is relevant here? It's a fair ol chunk of the overall revenue of the AFL.

It’s a good bit of revenue yes. It’s not the only relevant metric.

But it is. This should be without debate. Various metrics you can use to assess general interest of the two sports indicate that the AFL is approximately one quarter to one third bigger than the NRL.

According to who, you? Tv viewers it shows nrl is about one quarter to one third bigger than the AFL. Social media engagements shows nrl is one quarter to to one third bigger.

Fact is afl is bigger and better at some things and nrl is bigger and better at others. And the sum of the difference means the sports are pretty on par, I don’t see any evidence that the afl is far and away ahead of the nrl in total sum.

How many people attended and watched the latest afl international series? How many professional afl clubs are there outside of Australia? See, if you pick and choose metrics like this, you can tell whatever kind of story you like.

AFL stretches lead over NRL in TV viewership despite NRL’s rise - Roy Morgan Research

www.roymorgan.com

When polled, 9.1 million Australians state that they watch AFL on TV vs 7.3 million for NRL.

It is a representative sample of Australia at large and the wording of the question was identical for both sports. For the sake of fairness and because you think I'm biased, I would be counted in both samples, because I also watch NRL because I enjoy watching it and don't hate it (even though you think that I do).

On Google Trends (searches, and things like clicks on news articles on Google News on Android phones etc) AFL has an index of 35 and NRL 26:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore/TIMESERIES/1762841400?hl=en-US&tz=-660&date=today+5-y&geo=AU&hl=en&q=/m/0ckh09,/m/01lwy5&sni=3

I can repeat myself on and on but you get the idea.

That question in the survey is asking if you follow afl, not what is your preferred sport. There are more afl teams in capital cities. I bet many people in Sydney might say they follow the Swans. Doesn’t mean they know anything the sport or watch it regularly at all.

I’m sure the same applies to Storm in Melbourne.

If nrl had a Perth and Adelaide team these results would look different.

Hardly tells you anything meaningful and if you’re using surveys like these you’re clutching at straws.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Maybe spend some time actually responding to the content of my post than actually parroting back NRL talking points that are rebuttals to different points I didn't even make.

Reach isn’t wrong. It’s just not the standard used by the industry to gauge a shows popularity. Reach is a metric that is used to lure advertisers looking for a big number for their brand campaign. So it’s useful for broadcasters to use that metric to gain advertising dollars, but not useful in comparing popularity of programs.

This has been said time and time again by many people but some zealots can’t wrap their head around that.

Sure, whatever, didn't really disagree with this.

In the context of sports broadcasts which are used to try and grow the game generally rather than just an entertainment product as a means to sell ads during the broadcast, it's not entirely irrelevant. Married at First Sight or The Block only have a means and an economy to exist because of the ads you can intersperse during its broadcast. AFL and NRL have strategic purposes with regard to viewership outside that, therefore reach has some value.

This is embarrassing for you that you even wrote this. Where did you get that figure that an afl ‘reached person always watches an hour’ where did you pull that from? You’ve just made that up to suit your ‘math’

If your ‘math’ is so great then I look forward to next years OzTAM results using it for their reporting. Until then, I’ll stick with average viewers.

Taken directly from the oztam viewing.

2025 AFL TV Ratings - SportsIndustryAU

Ratings are sourced from VOZ, Seven Network, Foxtel or Mediaspy with occasional input from Media Reports. Please note Foxtel and Kayo data is not available

footyindustry.com

2025 NRL TV Ratings - SportsIndustryAU

Ratings are sourced from VOZ, Nine Network, Foxtel or Mediaspy with occasional input from Media Reports. Please note Foxtel and Kayo data is not available

footyindustry.com

Average is about one third of reach therefore across a 3 hour broadcast an average reached person is watching about an hour. Across a 2 hour broadcast, an average NRL reached person to watch an hour would have to have average be at least half of reach, which does not happen for any game - it's about 40% compared to the AFL's about 33%.

It’s a good bit of revenue yes. It’s not the only relevant metric.

Never claimed it was the "only" relevant metric but an important one when finals ticketing revenue contributes several percentage points to the AFL's overall revenue - its not insignificant

According to who, you?

According to the two examples I gave - a poll of a representative sample of Australians, and Google Trends data (something that is entirely valid). If you had actually had bothered to take the time to read what I had posted.

That question in the survey is asking if you follow afl, not what is your preferred sport. There are more afl teams in capital cities. I bet many people in Sydney might say they follow the Swans. Doesn’t mean they know anything the sport or watch it regularly at all.

No, you're assuming that this is a different Roy Morgan poll that they also do asking which team they support. I'm not linking to that one (even though you are assuming that I am).

If you had bothered to click the link before asking me, it's a simple question of asking a representative sample of all Australians - across all cities in a representative proportion to their actual population - do you occasionally or regularly watch AFL/NRL on TV. 7.3 million NRL said "yes", 9.1 million Australians said "yes". I would say that's pretty solid evidence that the AFL is bigger, and that this is reflected in the actual OzTam data when you compare the two minute for minute and through accumulated minutes watched.

If nrl had a Perth and Adelaide team these results would look different.

But they don't. Because there's not NRL fans in those cities, which contributes to the fewer amount nationwide. That's the whole point. There also isn't an AFL team in Newcastle. The results would look different if there was an AFL team in Newcastle, too.

Hardly tells you anything meaningful and if you’re using surveys like these you’re clutching at straws.

Not really, it's a reputable sampler asking a large sample (over 64,000 Australians, which is more than enough to infer from the entire population of 27 million if you know your sampling maths), a fair question that is equally worded for the NRL and AFL. It's also something that lines up almost perfectly with the difference in size of the competition - TV viewership rights, minute-for-minute TV viewers (once you untangle the averages for different broadcast lengths, such as comparing the specific hours of between 4pm and 6pm).

You can't accept the fact that the AFL is more popular even as a TV product - again, 9.1 vs. 7.3 - that you can dismiss it as "clutching at straws" and uncritically parrot back NRL junk maths propaganda to a literal online AFL fan forum.