Does the Vegas experiment need to stop?

[upthetigers]

The NRL's Vegas experiment aims to grow the sport in the US and faces challenges like low local interest and inconsistent US viewership, but it is part of a long-term strategy to build a US presence. The experiment is considered a gamble by some due to the cost and uncertainty of success in the US market, but NRL officials remain committed to it as a way to monetize the American market and increase overall viewership.

Arguments for stopping the experiment

• Low US engagement: The experiment has not yet translated into significant US fan interest or consistent viewership, leading to questions about its long-term viability.
• High cost: The experiment is expensive and has been criticized as a gimmick by some who believe the money could be better spent on domestic rugby league.
• Lack of support: While Aussie fans have supported the event, it hasn't yet "cut through" to the US market, making the experiment a potentially short-lived novelty.

Arguments for continuing the experiment

• Long-term goal: The NRL is playing the long game with a five-year plan to build a presence in the US, and the experiment is a crucial part of that strategy.
• Market growth: The experiment is intended to crack the lucrative American market and has already secured a five-year deal with the Nevada government.
• Monetization: V'landys believes the experiment will eventually pay off and lead to significant international broadcast and wagering revenue.
• Increased viewership: The experiment has generated some positive results, including high Australian viewership and some US viewership, and could grow the sport globally in the long run.

Approximately 33% of the spectators were American at the NRL Las Vegas games, with roughly 15,000 out of a total crowd of over 45,000 being local American fans.

I personally think the money would be better spent domestically and in the Polynesian regions. For the teams playing in Vegas, it's also a disruption they don't need.

 

[innsaneink]

If its a 5 year plan they may as well continue....next year will be 4th year?

 

[Tiger_Yoshi]

The NRL's Vegas experiment aims to grow the sport in the US and faces challenges like low local interest and inconsistent US viewership, but it is part of a long-term strategy to build a US presence. The experiment is considered a gamble by some due to the cost and uncertainty of success in the US market, but NRL officials remain committed to it as a way to monetize the American market and increase overall viewership.

Arguments for stopping the experiment

• Low US engagement: The experiment has not yet translated into significant US fan interest or consistent viewership, leading to questions about its long-term viability.
• High cost: The experiment is expensive and has been criticized as a gimmick by some who believe the money could be better spent on domestic rugby league.
• Lack of support: While Aussie fans have supported the event, it hasn't yet "cut through" to the US market, making the experiment a potentially short-lived novelty.

Arguments for continuing the experiment

• Long-term goal: The NRL is playing the long game with a five-year plan to build a presence in the US, and the experiment is a crucial part of that strategy.
• Market growth: The experiment is intended to crack the lucrative American market and has already secured a five-year deal with the Nevada government.
• Monetization: V'landys believes the experiment will eventually pay off and lead to significant international broadcast and wagering revenue.
• Increased viewership: The experiment has generated some positive results, including high Australian viewership and some US viewership, and could grow the sport globally in the long run.

Approximately 33% of the spectators were American at the NRL Las Vegas games, with roughly 15,000 out of a total crowd of over 45,000 being local American fans.

I personally think the money would be better spent domestically and in the Polynesian regions. For the teams playing in Vegas, it's also a disruption they don't need.

The Egos of PVL and Abdo won’t admit the truth….it hasn’t worked into engaging the US market…it will fizzle out in the next 2-3 years

 

[gregjm87]

The NRL's Vegas experiment aims to grow the sport in the US and faces challenges like low local interest and inconsistent US viewership, but it is part of a long-term strategy to build a US presence. The experiment is considered a gamble by some due to the cost and uncertainty of success in the US market, but NRL officials remain committed to it as a way to monetize the American market and increase overall viewership.

Arguments for stopping the experiment

• Low US engagement: The experiment has not yet translated into significant US fan interest or consistent viewership, leading to questions about its long-term viability.
• High cost: The experiment is expensive and has been criticized as a gimmick by some who believe the money could be better spent on domestic rugby league.
• Lack of support: While Aussie fans have supported the event, it hasn't yet "cut through" to the US market, making the experiment a potentially short-lived novelty.

Arguments for continuing the experiment

• Long-term goal: The NRL is playing the long game with a five-year plan to build a presence in the US, and the experiment is a crucial part of that strategy.
• Market growth: The experiment is intended to crack the lucrative American market and has already secured a five-year deal with the Nevada government.
• Monetization: V'landys believes the experiment will eventually pay off and lead to significant international broadcast and wagering revenue.
• Increased viewership: The experiment has generated some positive results, including high Australian viewership and some US viewership, and could grow the sport globally in the long run.

Approximately 33% of the spectators were American at the NRL Las Vegas games, with roughly 15,000 out of a total crowd of over 45,000 being local American fans.

I personally think the money would be better spent domestically and in the Polynesian regions. For the teams playing in Vegas, it's also a disruption they don't need.

I think you are misjudging the cost. Yes, it is a gamble given there is considerable outlay for the NRL but did they not report after the fact this year that they had broke even? If so the cost is essentially nothing, with the potential to create an additional income stream through American sports gambling. Honestly Im doubtful it will provide enough of a revenue to continue beyond the 5 years as I think interest from Australians will decline but if they are breaking even in the mean time, whats the issue?

 

[Demps]

Looks like most of the turn out is from Aus and England.

I'm not fussed either way, if it stays or goes.

 

[upthetigers]

I think you are misjudging the cost. Yes, it is a gamble given there is considerable outlay for the NRL but did they not report after the fact this year that they had broke even? If so the cost is essentially nothing, with the potential to create an additional income stream through American sports gambling. Honestly Im doubtful it will provide enough of a revenue to continue beyond the 5 years as I think interest from Australians will decline but if they are breaking even in the mean time, whats the issue?

Getting 15k local spectators in a country of more then 300M is pathetic. No one in the US cares about league mate. There is too much competition in the sports world over there.

 

[Merlot]

The whole exercise of the U.S experiment was to tap into the gambling market .
Nrl have refused to publicly give any figures concerning Vegas experiment ,thats a huge red flag.
Monies would have been better spent on Oz n Pacific nations grass roots

 

[gregjm87]

Getting 15k local fans in a country of more then 300M is pathetic. No one in the US cares about league mate. There is too much competition in the sports world over there.

I agree no-one there cares about league. I genuinely don't expect any long term success from this venture. But assuming each year, like this year, the NRL break even then it is not an "expensive gimmick" coating money that could have been spent elsewhere. Say it cost the NRL $5M a year but the return was $5M a year thus breaking even, well they still have that $5M to spend domestically.

I don't know much about Polynesian countries GDP. And I'm sure there would be a fan base if the game was taken there but is there actually any money there to turn popularity into commercial success? I think it would be more likely to fail than America.

 

[Le Tiger]

If anything NRL will keep expanding on the concept and play more games internationally.

AU and UK travellers making up most of the audience isn't a bad thing when considering NRL want to sell individual games to other destinations. It's a big tourist injection for a city hosting the games.

Rumoured Global Round for 2026 seems likely under the current NRL

 

[upthetigers]

If anything NRL will keep expanding on the concept and play more games internationally.

AU and UK travellers making up most of the audience isn't a bad thing when considering NRL want to sell individual games to other destinations. It's a big tourist injection for a city hosting the games.

Rumoured Global Round for 2026 seems likely under the current NRL

Las Vegas is experiencing a decline in tourism, you make a valid point.

 

[Merlot]

Tourism talk falls flat very quick imo . An Australian taking their partner to Sudi Arabia at a guesstimate of 12 grand wont last .Apart from shmoozing the gambling $,its good to shmooze corporate/sponsorship $.
Which still brings me back to fortifying the local and regional market first to give/get the big end of town interested
V'Landy's needs to recalibrate his world domination dreams