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

[hampton]

We could sit here arguing for days on the topic. The reality is that both nrl and afl, as competitions, are quite on par in Australia. Both have about 50% of the population each as its heartland. Though I’d say nrl has a bigger share of that, but I’ll call it even because i agree afl has made more inroads into nrl areas than the other way around.

Both comps are fairly small fry in world standings. When it comes to major sports.

League has a bigger global reach and appeal into pacific and Europe, while afl has very passionate local fanbases that attend in great numbers.

The metrics around revenue, tv etc are fairly on par when you zoom out really. One is higher than the other and vice verse depending on what you’re looking at.

To try to sit here and argue that the afl is so vastly bigger and better, like a dick measuring contest of two people with small dicks, try to take a step back and see the forest for the trees. Just enjoy both sports or one of them or something else.

 

[Gavin Excell]

We could sit here arguing for days on the topic. The reality is that both nrl and afl, as competitions, are quite on par in Australia. Both have about 50% of the population each as its heartland. Though I’d say nrl has a bigger share of that, but I’ll call it even because i agree afl has made more inroads into nrl areas than the other way around.

Both comps are fairly small fry in world standings. When it comes to major sports.

League has a bigger global reach and appeal into pacific and Europe, while afl has very passionate local fanbases that attend in great numbers.

The metrics around revenue, tv etc are fairly on par when you zoom out really. One is higher than the other and vice verse depending on what you’re looking at.

To try to sit here and argue that the afl is so vastly bigger and better, like a dick measuring contest of two people with small dicks, try to take a step back and see the forest for the trees. Just enjoy both sports or one of them or something else.

If they have a similar footing why is the last AFL media rights worth $4b v NRL $2b?

 

[hampton]

If they have a similar footing why is the last AFL media rights worth $4b v NRL $2b?

Actually it’s about 640m per year for afl and 400m per year for nrl. So not double. And over the next few months we’ll see this change.

afl rose tinted glasses in action.

 

[Football Tragic]

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.

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.

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%.


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 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.


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.


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.

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.

You are embarrassing him here, threenewpadlocks!

I've hated how the media have embraced the NRL Propaganda and actually shifted to measure the ratings now with a system that favours their shorter formatted games. It's not a true reflection of the viewership or value of the product. I saw a comparison of the two sports broadcasts and the amount of breaks threaded through both - the AFL naturally have many more opportunities for advertisers to insert their advertisements. This instantly makes broadcasting an AFL game significantly more profitable for a free to air network in comparison to an NRL game. Even for Binge or Foxtel, it allows more advertising opportunities. This doesn't even take into account replays or secondary channels.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

We could sit here arguing for days on the topic. The reality is that both nrl and afl, as competitions, are quite on par in Australia. Both have about 50% of the population each as its heartland. Though I’d say nrl has a bigger share of that, but I’ll call it even because i agree afl has made more inroads into nrl areas than the other way around.

Both comps are fairly small fry in world standings. When it comes to major sports.

League has a bigger global reach and appeal into pacific and Europe, while afl has very passionate local fanbases that attend in great numbers.

The metrics around revenue, tv etc are fairly on par when you zoom out really. One is higher than the other and vice verse depending on what you’re looking at.

"I've been beaten down and lost, so we'll call it a draw and I'll move the goalposts again".

International League also isn't the AFL vs. NRL, the title of this post, not Australian Football vs Rugby League.

"The metrics around revenue, TV etc. are fairly on par", no I don't think they are.

The AFL industry's revenue (ie club + league revenue) is about $1.8 billion per year
The NRL industry's revenue - not counting league club revenue that is not people spending money on the code - is about $1.1 or $1.2 billion

ie AFL is a lot closer to being double the size than it is to be identical the size.

FWIW if we take the NRL as being 7.5 million fans and the AFL as being 9 million fans the average AFL fan contributes $200 to the AFL's revenue generation and the average NRL fan contributes $160 to the NRL's revenue generation.

To try to sit here and argue that the afl is so vastly bigger and better, like a dick measuring contest of two people with small dicks, try to take a step back and see the forest for the trees. Just enjoy both sports or one of them or something else.

Dude, it's an AFL forum for AFL fans. If it is a dick measuring contest it's only because you, being immensly pro-NRL biased, are the ones who started comparing your (smaller) dick in the first place.

The entire correct premise of this thread being created and its title comes from the correct starting point of the AFL being bigger, so it has the strategic consideration of maybe "blowing" the NRL away from the starting point of already being bigger, and yet you're the one that's refusing to acknowledge reality.

 

[hampton]

Lol. When we talk tv ratings we’re talking about how many people viewed the program. Not trying to interpret what would be better for advertisers.

Do you care more about fan engagement or what would be attractive for advertisers? You’re a bit confused because you’re trying to mix the two things. That’s because reach is more an advertising metric, hence why it’s not used to gauge overall popularity for a show.

Obviously afl is a great ad product with an ad for every miss or goal scored. You can watch an nrl game and you can forget it’s even got ads at all.

Sorry for the afl tin foil hat brigade but industry is all aligned that the nrl has more viewers than the afl, both home and away, finals and GF. And then when you add origin and internationals on top it’s vastly ahead. And then add sky NZ viewers. Soon you can add PNG when digicel ratings will also be counted. And then add pay tv where nrl is also well ahead. Certainly paints a good picture of which is the most watched sport and it’s not afl - not even close.

If you apply your special algorithm that looks at broadcast length and reach and reach length of time and the amount of ad breaks and the position of the moon and the nrl propagandist considerations and the Sunday chores completed by afl watchers that prevent them watching a full game etc maybe that is a better way to measure that but who knows I’m a dummy and so are all the media industry too it seems.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Actually it’s about 640m per year for afl and 400m per year for nrl. So not double. And over the next few months we’ll see this change.

afl rose tinted glasses in action.

That's per year is a significant difference and has been that way across multiple years now. The AFL media rights are unarguably higher.
But yes the NRL rights are up for renewal so let's see how that pans out.

 

[hampton]

That's per year is a significant difference and has been that way across multiple years now. The AFL media rights are unarguably higher.
But yes the NRL rights are up for renewal so let's see how that pans out.

I agree the difference is too large and flatters the afl but good on them for getting such a good deal. The nrl needs to step up now.

 

[hampton]

International League also isn't the AFL vs. NRL, the title of this post, not Australian Football vs Rugby League.

AFL hasn’t expanded beyond the Barrasi line let alone internationally without significant propping up of junior programs and clubs in northern states by the Melbourne cash cow. These are not natural expansions fueled by demand but instead fuelled by the significant revenues generated by a handful of Melbourne clubs by an organisation desperate to be seen as a national game.

Why is that?

"The metrics around revenue, TV etc. are fairly on par", no I don't think they are.

The AFL industry's revenue (ie club + league revenue) is about $1.8 billion per year
The NRL industry's revenue - not counting league club revenue that is not people spending money on the code - is about $1.1 or $1.2 billion

ie AFL is a lot closer to being double the size than it is to be identical the size.

I was actually being kind to the AFL. In truth, the nrl gets closer to double the viewers of the afl when you factor in representative competition and global viewers.

You guys love your asterix and special math. So you want to discount league revenue and other revenues or tv viewer sources whenever it doesn’t suit your argument.

FWIW if we take the NRL as being 7.5 million fans and the AFL as being 9 million fans the average AFL fan contributes $200 to the AFL's revenue generation and the average NRL fan contributes $160 to the NRL's revenue generation.



Dude, it's an AFL forum for AFL fans. If it is a dick measuring contest it's only because you, being immensly pro-NRL biased, are the ones who started comparing your (smaller) dick in the first place.

The entire correct premise of this thread being created and its title comes from the correct starting point of the AFL being bigger, so it has the strategic consideration of maybe "blowing" the NRL away from the starting point of already being bigger, and yet you're the one that's refusing to acknowledge reality.

The only ones refuting to acknowledge reality are the ones here that can’t accept tv viewerships as reported by the industry.

 

[Football Tragic]

Lol. When we talk tv ratings we’re talking about how many people viewed the program. Not trying to interpret what would be better for advertisers.

Isn't that why the NRL value the ratings so much - because they are desperate to get a profitable TV Rights? TV Ratings was never created for the purpose of guage popularity, its a means for advertisers to measure potential reach and exposure that their product could gain from placing their advertisement on during a certain program.

Once more, that is why a broadcasted AFL game in infinitely more valuable than an NRL game as well as being more universally viewed.

 

[mikey127]

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

This. They only have about 9 staff members in Victoria.

I'm involved with Rugby League down here and the people at NRL Victoria do a great job nut are severely under resourced.

 

[mikey127]

I do find the attitudes in the 3 majority Australian cities very different.

Melbourne: most people take a passing interest in Storm and wish them well. Also very common at Storm games together people in AFL gear do8ng the double.

Sydney: it feels like the vast majority of Swans fans aren't interested in League and the vast majority of League fans aren't interested in the Seabs/Giants

Brisbane: with pretty much 1 team in each code they seem to get behind the Brisbane team and there is anassive crossover between Lions and Broncos of people who follow both and quure a lot that are members of both. I know they nie have the Dolphins but they are tony compared to the Broncos.

 

[Foreign Legion]

I would like to add my perspective to this discussion - I have lived in Victoria for about 50 years in total - currently live on the Sunshine Coast.

I have watched a lot of Junior AFL games here and the standard is very good including the Girls.

One thing to notice increasingly about League - more and more players are from a Polynesian/Melanesian background. I have also seen reports that Junior League comps are introducing 'weight for age' ie: if you are 80KG you don't play under 14's. Next time you watch an NRL game take note of the players. In AFL comps here at the Junior level a LOT of the kids are very athletic tall running types. I suspect a lot of kids are now looking to AFL as they will never be a 'quick over 100M and weigh 100+KG athlete'. Of course the Parents may see this obvious trend too - no need to say any more.

Look at the number of QLD players in the Draft now - it is increasing every year. Doesn't mean League is about to die but junior participation will be something to keep an eye on.

And yes, League is simpler to broadcast and the Women's League looks better because of limited teams but also limited skill set required - something that AFLW is getting better at but still some gaps.

It looks as if Gold Coast will be an even better side this year as against the Titans who are very poor. Doesn't hurt. I have said it before, if the AFL REALLY want to grow the code the next side should be on the Sunshine Coast not Darwin. Darwin and the NT in general is in VERY low population growth. Darwin grew by about 9% from 2014-2024 to 139K. Sunshine Coast for the same period grew 28% to 418K.

Having said that I would not introduce a new team after Tassie until at least 2030. By that time V'landys will have teams in Guam and Palau. J/K but their player base in going to be diluted a lot with Perth and PNG.

Late edit - R360 may also weaken League - already players obviously going to go there but not announced. Also when people read Limited News articles or Papers it is worth keeping in mind which NRL club they own - hence the 'urgency' to upgrade Suncorp Stadium. At the same time Brisbane is hosting the Olympics in 2032 - what a waste of money.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Additionally, we should be pressuring the Federal and NSW Governments in their bias in funding for the NRL. The fact that the Federal Government paid millions to build a NRL in another country is utterly ridiculous.

That decision was 100% a geopolitical one.

How a shared love of NRL gave Australia an edge over China in PNG

The "soft power" aspect to this sports diplomacy initiative has never been a secret. But in the game of regional politics, Australia went in for the hard tackle.

www.abc.net.au

December 12, 2024

...In a country that is about as diverse as they come, rugby league is omnipresent.

It was introduced around the 1940s by Australian soldiers — during a period of colonial rule — and went on to become the beloved national sport of an independent Papua New Guinea...

...The idea of a PNG NRL and NRLW team is not a new one.

Australia's closest neighbour has had its sights set on joining the comp for decades, but previous attempts failed to gain traction.

Then, in 2022, PNG decided it was time for another crack. The timing was perfect.

The country launched its bid right before an Australian federal election that saw Anthony Albanese become prime minister, with a promise to rebuild relationships across the Pacific.

Labor had spent much of its election campaign criticising the previous Australian government for dropping the ball when Solomon Islands struck a wide-ranging security pact with China.

Anthony Albanese, an unabashed Rabbitohs supporter, almost immediately began throwing his weight behind PNG's NRL aspirations, eventually negotiating the deal that has been landed on Thursday.

The "soft power" aspect to this sports diplomacy initiative has never been a secret. But in the game of regional politics, Australia went in for the hard tackle.

Linked to the NRL deal is a separate security pact that will see China blocked from gaining a significant military or policing presence in PNG — something the Australian government has been concerned about.

If it does, Australia could withdraw its funding and sink the PNG side...

To my mind it is a bit of political bastadry. To exploit another nation's love of a sporting code for geostrategic ends is quite frankly a bit shit on the part of Albo's Australian Government.

But that's just me. I'm sure many would think it brilliant. It is what it is, I guess.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

AFL hasn’t expanded beyond the Barrasi line let alone internationally without significant propping up of junior programs and clubs in northern states by the Melbourne cash cow. These are not natural expansions fueled by demand but instead fuelled by the significant revenues generated by a handful of Melbourne clubs by an organisation desperate to be seen as a national game.

Why is that?

Why is this even being presented as a negative? AFL has the money and has a non-profit remit to grow the game. The clubs and fans want the game to be developed, both in the Northern states and in heartland states. You're making my arguments for me lol. Yes it is bigger and more national because it can be because it had the money to be?? How is that a bad thing for the AFL?

I was actually being kind to the AFL. In truth, the nrl gets closer to double the viewers of the afl when you factor in representative competition and global viewers.

The truth and the truth. It doesn't (see accumulated minutes watched).

NRL doesn't have a responsibility to the sport outside of Australia and NZ. International viewership only matters insofar as it gets NRL more viewers.

You guys love your asterix and special math.

The special math of... calculating total viewer hours?

So you want to discount league revenue and other revenues or tv viewer sources whenever it doesn’t suit your argument.

Huh? I'm quite literally counting revenue generated by the leagues, which is gathered either to the league itself (ie TV rights, finals ticketing) or to clubs (ie home and away season ticketing). Someone feeding money in a pokies machine isn't either.

All clubs publish financial results, and both leagues publicise how much central money they distribute to clubs. It is not incorrect to say that the leagues generates about 1.8 billion for AFL and about 1.2 billion for NRL per year.

The only ones refuting to acknowledge reality are the ones here that can’t accept tv viewerships as reported by the industry.

Because AFL broadcast lengths are longer, more people watch more minutes of AFL. You're dividing by different denominators for different broadcast lengths. By your very logic, the AFL could award 1 premiership point per quarter won, claim that each team plays 92 games for the year, and claim that the AFL is watched over 3 times as much as the NRL, because we are measuring with a much shorter 45 minute broadcast length average per "game". Because the NRL is claiming more viewers by adding together higher averages per game on the basis of shorter broadcast lengths.

Your refusal to acknowledge this fact makes your comment parroting of "hurr durr more NRL viewers" incorrect for anyone who is capable of dividing by denominators and critical thinking skills we expect out of Grade 4 students.

 

[hampton]

Why is this even being presented as a negative? AFL has the money and has a non-profit remit to grow the game. The clubs and fans want the game to be developed, both in the Northern states and in heartland states. You're making my arguments for me lol. Yes it is bigger and more national because it can be because it had the money to be?? How is that a bad thing for the AFL?

Rugby League had its worst period in history between 1996 - 2016 and has since stabilised and is back on the up in recent years. Also in the same time period Union grew, peaked and dropped of significantly. AFL had a golden opportunity in nsw and qld and made some good inroads in that time. They spent hundreds of millions on this. It’s of no coincidence that the swans went from 9,000 average crowds to 30,000 average crowds overnight with the implosion of the ARL and super league war. And when Union went under the afl were kissed on the dick again as Waratah and Reds rah rah supporters would rather follow afl than league.

However even with all that spending and massive amounts of afl staff in nsw and qld and spending big money on infrastructure and bribing schools to create Auskick programs, that window of opportunity for the afl has closed and there’s barely been a dent made in NSW since those early years of the growth of the swans in the early 2000s. There is more success in QLD, but then again there’s also a large Victorian diaspora based there with tens of thousands of victorians driving a lot of growth of afl in qld.

Still to this day 40 years after the establishment of the swans and lions these clubs are still receiving special treatment from the afl to prop them up, ensure they are always appearing in finals, etc basically rigging the AFL competition to ensure these clubs and others like gws and suns make finals.

Sure there’s been some success through brute force you gotta commend the AFL for trying. They came to the northern states to ‘take over’ as the aim, they have not succeeded. Whereas the nrl has never had intention to ‘take over’ other states like Victoria.

Theres a good reason that Storm coexists nicely in Melbourne because there has never been that bravado that the storm are there to poach fans from the afl.

It’s always been an afl thing, specifically a Melbourne afl thing, to ‘take over’ or to squash the nrl for some reason - even to this day with this thread title being evidence of that. Something for you afl zealots to consider, why does the afl need to ‘blow away’ the nrl? Why do you have that need to have to wipe out a sport to see your sport succeed?

Not sure why Melbourne afl people have this small dick syndrome of desperately trying to take over another sport instead of just enjoying their sport in a landscape of other sport, and the frustration that they didn’t do it and now rugby league has re-established its presence and is on the up is really grating to them.

It’ll only be more grating when the nrl receive a bigger media deal, have a global round, introduce team 20 before the afl do, establish NRL Europe etc and the afl admin brings in wildcard round and struggles to bring in Tasmania.

Oh well.

 

[hampton]

Because AFL broadcast lengths are longer, more people watch more minutes of AFL. You're dividing by different denominators for different broadcast lengths. By your very logic, the AFL could award 1 premiership point per quarter won, claim that each team plays 92 games for the year, and claim that the AFL is watched over 3 times as much as the NRL, because we are measuring with a much shorter 45 minute broadcast length average per "game". Because the NRL is claiming more viewers by adding together higher averages per game on the basis of shorter broadcast lengths.

Your refusal to acknowledge this fact makes your comment parroting of "hurr durr more NRL viewers" incorrect for anyone who is capable of dividing by denominators and critical thinking skills we expect out of Grade 4 students.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe there’s higher reach because it’s an hour longer broadcast? What about the reverse, the nrl introduce quarters and more stoppages in play to drag out the run time which will increase reach because more people will land on the game? Just an absolutely silly argument you’re making here.

I have no refusal of anything. I’m simply going off what third party ratings organisations are saying in terms of what is more watched. Which is the nrl. I know that frustrates the hell out of you though.

Now you want to consider total minutes watched. Basically anything that doesn’t show the nrl as the most watched. But it’s too bad that the industry has settled on average viewers a long long time ago.

 

[Maurice Mitchell]

Won’t be “blowing them away “ with Dillon in charge.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

League has a bigger global reach and appeal into pacific and Europe, while afl has very passionate local fanbases that attend in great numbers.

This point, while not a clincher in this discussion, absolutely needs emphasis.

My understanding is that AFL has a per-game crowd average amongst the very top handful of domestic sports comps in the world.

Most sporting comps round the world would kill for the AFL’s turnstiles numbers. It’s a phenomenon.

 

[Cmarsh]

Did you ever stop to think that maybe there’s higher reach because it’s an hour longer broadcast? What about the reverse, the nrl introduce quarters and more stoppages in play to drag out the run time which will increase reach because more people will land on the game? Just an absolutely silly argument you’re making here.

I have no refusal of anything. I’m simply going off what third party ratings organisations are saying in terms of what is more watched. Which is the nrl. I know that frustrates the hell out of you though.

Now you want to consider total minutes watched. Basically anything that doesn’t show the nrl as the most watched. But it’s too bad that the industry has settled on average viewers a long long time ago.

What are they going to do? Introduce 20 minute quaters to cover the 80 minutes just to fit in more ads?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The entire correct premise of this thread being created and its title comes from the correct starting point of the AFL being bigger, so it has the strategic consideration of maybe "blowing" the NRL away from the starting point of already being bigger, and yet you're the one that's refusing to acknowledge reality.

Even if you’re totally correct on the relative strength of the two codes (and I’m not entirely convinced you are, but for the sake of argument) - there is no conceivable way the AFL is going to “blow away” (whatever that means precisely) the NRL anytime soon.

AFL may well be bigger. NRL may well use biased TV metrics.

But NRL is still a huge, lucrative comp. It just isn’t going to die.

I’m no huge fan of the code although I can enjoy it on its own merits, but growing up in Sydney I’ve grown up with the passion that people have for it and the game’s history, and if the OP thinks that’s going to be “blown away” by anything, they need to spend some time in NSW or QLD till they know what they’re talking about.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

By that time V'landys will have teams in Guam and Palau.

For real?

I mean, I think you’re being arch, but V’landys is such a tedious zealot I can believe anything.

 

[mikey127]

Even if you’re totally correct on the relative strength of the two codes (and I’m not entirely convinced you are, but for the sake of argument) - there is no conceivable way the AFL is going to “blow away” (whatever that means precisely) the NRL anytime soon.

AFL may well be bigger. NRL may well use biased TV metrics.

But NRL is still a huge, lucrative comp. It just isn’t going to die.

I’m no huge fan of the code although I can enjoy it on its own merits, but growing up in Sydney I’ve grown up with the passion that people have for it and the game’s history, and if the OP thinks that’s going to be “blown away” by anything, they need to spend some time in NSW or QLD till they know what they’re talking about.

I do find the passion from the average man in the street in both cities is different.

Almost the first question in Melbourne is "who's your footy team' haven't found that yo be the case in Sydney.

Have found regional NSW is more passionate about rugby league than Sydney

 

[Foreign Legion]

For real?

I mean, I think you’re being arch, but V’landys is such a tedious zealot I can believe anything.

LOL, no I don't think there will be teams there. I just am a bit amused at how fast he is pushing for new teams. Lets face it PNG is not a very attractive place to live unfortunately. The only way they will get players there is through a tax dodge. How many travelling fans will attend games each week? Why would you go to PNG to chase money when it looks like R360 (if it happens) will be offering double?

I will be interested to see how the Warriors and Perth go with away games - 4 hours time difference I think and must be at least a 7 hour flight. Hard to fit that into a 'normal' season. Different for one off Vegas round etc.

 

[mikey127]

LOL, no I don't think there will be teams there. I just am a bit amused at how fast he is pushing for new teams. Lets face it PNG is not a very attractive place to live unfortunately. The only way they will get players there is through a tax dodge. How many travelling fans will attend games each week? Why would you go to PNG to chase money when it looks like R360 (if it happens) will be offering double?

I will be interested to see how the Warriors and Perth go with away games - 4 hours time difference I think and must be at least a 7 hour flight. Hard to fit that into a 'normal' season. Different for one off Vegas round etc.

Cam do things like play round 1, before a bye for the away team or Magic round.

Also a lot of Warriors home ganes at 6PM Friday Aus time games so you can give Perth a 9 day break after