@ said:
We need to look at what the AFL have done , they have made their competition a truly national comp , moved two sides that have become success stories
Do you really believe that? I'm going to put forward a bit of an argument here, because this is one of my personal research interests.
AFL is not a truly national comp IMO - that is their own propaganda narrative. They have just one regularly successful NE team (Swans) and 3 financially propped-up teams. All the new sides get large salary cap concessions for many years after inception and AFL props up operations with large investments. AFL have zero impact in non-Australian regional markets like PNG, Pacific, NZ.
In terms of relocating side, both teams that moved were insolvent. It would be like saying NRL moved the Steelers and Balmain - there was no choice. Fitzroy had to merge with Brisbane Bears or fold. South Melbourne tried not to move, even so far as for the board to be overtaken by the anti-move contingent, however the board didn't have veto rights; the players went on strike and the board was forced to accept a VFL loan to stay afloat, which sealed the move to Sydney.
Since Gold Coast were introduced, the ladder finishes:
Brisbane - 3rd last, spoon, 2nd last, 2nd last, 4th last, 12th, 13th, 4th last (no finals)
Gold Coast - 2nd last, 2nd last, 4th last, 3rd last, 12th, 14th, 2nd last, 2nd last (no finals)
Giants - 7th, 4th, 4th, 11th, 3rd last, spoon, spoon (3 finals)
There has not been any AFL side ex-Victoria that has been anywhere near as successful as the Melbourne Storm. In the past 10 seasons, of the 20 Grand Final spots available, only 6 have been filled by non-Victorian sides: Sydney (1 win, 2 RU), Fremantle (1 RU), West Coast (1 RU), Crows (1 RU). And the last 3 are AFL strongholds already.
Swans made the finals twice in their first 14 seasons, collecting 3 wooden spoons. And this was from a relocated club, not a brand new one. Since then, yes they make the finals most seasons and have won it twice. In a city of 5 million people. Melbourne Storm have only **ever** missed the finals 3 times in 21 seasons, one being 2010 when they were docked points for salary cap. They have 3 official premierships and 2 stripped.
AFL has retained 10 Victorian sides, 9 based in Melbourne - equivalent to Rugby League, but with a smaller population (by about half a million estimated).
AFL has 4 other non-Victorian sides, which were introduced into locations that already had high native AFL support.
So in those terms, I don't personally believe AFL has done anything ground-breaking, dramatic or dynamic. They opened up the VFL initially into 4 regions - WA and SA which already had strong local AFL comps, Sydney and Brisbane.
In terms of profit, the new clubs almost all run at a loss. Not to say that NRL clubs are profitable, but that AFL clubs are similarly under-performing businesses:
Brisbane - have not made an operating profit since 2007.
Swans - make operating profits in the vicinity of 50-800K per season - and that is including a membership base of almost 60K people, with average crowds of 33.3K.
Gold Coast - have spent $100M in 7 seasons of funding from the AFL, not including the $10M that the AFL tipped into their stadium. Have not made a profit and lost $3M in 2016.
Giants - lost $522K in 2017\. AFL has made a similar investment of $100M in setting up the club, which also received $72M in public funding to upgrade their Blacktown and then Showground home grounds after AFL lobbying.
So what have the AFL really done? Opened a few new clubs in AFL heartlands - it would be like claiming responsibility for the success of the Broncos. They've also poured several hundred million into new clubs in NSW and QLD, 1 of which eventually worked, 1 of which is doing ok, 2 of which (QLD) are struggling. If NRL was to similarly tip several hundred million into a few regional expeditions, we might similarly see middle-level success in 10-20 years.
In basic terms, what the AFL have over league is that their memberships, gate receipts and advertising revenue are all superior to NRL. NRL has been pushing the member concept for about 10 years, about 4 decades behind the AFL. AFL jagged their first big TV revenue deal the cycle before NRL, so got their hands on the biggest monies several years earlier.
AFL have been smart enough to invest this money heavily in grassroots, and this is where I believe the NRL is furthest behind - we haven't made much in-road into junior footy in potential growth markets like Victoria or WA. Touch football is in rude health and now under the umbrella of the NRL, but actually turning young kids into strong junior footballers is still a struggle outside of NSW, QLD and ACT.
NRL also has a physical challenge to contend with, because AFL is generally seen by parents as being less contact and therefore less dangerous that NRL. Whether or not this has a long-term impact remains to be seen, because both AFL and NRL participation rates are dwarfed by primarily non-contact sports like competitive basketball, soccer, cricket, golf and tennis. In fact in 2016 the Top 5 participation sports in Australia are primarily non-contact (soccer, golf, tennis, bball, cricket: http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7182-decline-in-competitive-sports-participation-australia-december-2016-201703200905), and mostly not sports we are world powerhouses in, so participation does not necessarily mean elite-level excellence. Top junior participation sports are still ones like swimming, soccer, cycling, athletics, dancing, netball etc. AFL in 2014 polled 11th and league 13th (http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6123-australian-sports-participation-rates-among-children-and-adults-december-2014-201503182151)
