Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Analysis: How European clubs are managing wage inflation, increased revenue and squad growth

(Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

As the face of European club and international rugby changes amid significant investment from private equity firm CVC Capital Partners, the finances and structure of rugby in the northern hemisphere have never been more intriguing.

ADVERTISEMENT

With the Gallagher Premiership beginning this weekend and the Guinness PRO14 moving into its fourth round later this mongth, Esportif Intelligence have released their annual ‘European Rugby by Numbers’ review focusing on the financial strength and squad management of the clubs in both competitions.

RugbyPass have delved into the report and found some of the highlights that make for very interesting reading as the 2019/20 European club season gets fully underway.

In terms of average attendance, the Premiership’s 14,000 average outstripped the PRO14’s 9,200 last season, although those figures were much closer when comparing the top four sides in each competition with the PRO14’s 12,900 much closer to the Premiership’s 13,5000. The report notes that this is due to the three Irish provinces being in the top four of the PRO14, while attendances at the four Welsh regions diminished in 2018/19.

More of a divide was noted in the estimated primary broadcast deals of the two competitions, where the Premiership’s annual £40million deal with BT Sport significantly outstripped that the PRO14’s yearly £20m-25m – excluding South African contribution – deal with Premier Sports.

(Continue reading below…)

Video Spacer

Both leagues remain considerably behind the Top 14, however, with the French league’s deal worth £65m last season and set to rise to £88m for the current season albeit that is shared with the Pro D2. These figures do not include secondary broadcast deals the competitions have in place, such as the Premiership’s deal in China.

The differences in attendance figures and broadcast deals are reflected in the value of players in the competition, with the Premiership averaging a figure of £150,500 per player and the PRO14 at a mark of £126,500 per player. As a result, there has been a knock-on effect on the financial positions of those clubs.

ADVERTISEMENT

Overall revenues in the Premiership were up by five per cent in 2018 to a total of £205m, although they still recorded operating losses of £36m across the league. By comparison, Top 14 revenue sat at around £300m and there were combined operating losses of £27m. Due to the array of different ownership and funding models in the PRO14, the report stated it was more difficult to compare their figures.

The report also looked at the coaching and management of the sides in the Premiership and the PRO14, with the former averaging 5.5 senior coaches per club while the latter averaged 4.6 senior coaches. Again, where that disparity changes somewhat is when taking into account just the top four clubs where the Premiership’s average of 5.5 remains steady, but the PRO14’s mark goes up to 5.3 senior coaches per club.

On to the playing squads and Esportif Intelligence found that PRO14 squads remained largely the same size between 2017/18 and 2018/19 while Premiership squads had increased on average from 41 senior players to 43 and from 13 academy players to 16. The number of players used in the season was also up, from 47 to 49. Leinster recorded the most players used across the two leagues with 57, followed by Munster with 54 and Bristol Bears with 53.

On average, Premiership clubs had three more academy players than the PRO14 teams last season, had an additional player signing senior terms from their academy and recruited 11 new players, rather than seven in the PRO14. The PRO14 sides did average a higher retention of players, though, with 32 compared to the Premiership’s 29.

ADVERTISEMENT

Domestic player figures were high in the PRO14 with around 70 per cent of players on senior contracts being eligible for the nation they were playing in, a figure that jumped to 74 per cent in the top four side of the competition. In the Premiership, the number fell to 57 per cent.

Average Premiership spend on senior playing squad rose from £6.1m to £6.4m last season, while a mark of £5m in the PRO14 stayed steady from 2017/18 to 2018/19. In both competitions, the starting XV accounted for roughly 60 per cent of that total senior squad spend. The rise of £300k in squad spend in the Premiership represents a significant slowing in wage inflation following the jump from £5.2m (2016/17) to £6.1m (2017/18) when the Premiership increased its salary cap.

One factor consistent across both competitions is that the clubs within the top four more heavily rewarded their domestic players financially. In terms of starting XV spend, the Premiership clubs average 49 per cent on domestic players and 51 per cent on foreign players.

That jumps to a 57 per cent  and 43 cent split in favour of domestic players at the clubs in the top four. In the PRO14, an average of 69 per cent to domestic players and 31 per cebnt to foreign players becomes 75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively at the top four teams.

These numbers provide an insight into the financial and squad management processes behind the clubs in the top tier of home nations rugby. With the impact of CVC’s investment in both competitions yet to be fully felt, these figures could provide an important baseline moving forward.

WATCH: A new Japanese club competition is being planned post-World Cup with Test stars set to be targeted

Video Spacer
ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 2 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search