Is it Aussie Rules or Rugby League? I don't really know to much about how popular the AFL and NRL are in Australia itself, but which one would you say is the number 1 league/sport in the country? I also read somewhere that 9/16 AFL teams are IN Melbourne and 9/15 NRL teams are in Sydney And which one looks to have the brightest future as well? FNS
AFL is more popular in most of Australia NRL is most popular in Sydney and some of Queensland AFL is a more national game with teams all over australia Average Crowds(about)- AFL - 35,000 NRL - 15,000 So AFL is alot more popular
dude you got banned from Big Footy for being a dick on the wrestling board... and besides although i despise league and love AFL the comparisons should be done in sydney for league compared to melbourne for AFL. Yes probably AFL will still draw a higher crowd but that is due to the size of the stadiums. Overall to answer the original question AFL nation-wide has more popularity because NRL is not respected in Perth and Adelaide
It has nothing to do with the size of the stadiums, dont tell me you cant fit for than 15,000 in to any of the stadiums. And that AFL is sort of popular in Sydney while Rugby League isnt very popular Melbourne
AFL gets bigger crowds because AFL is crap to watch on television, while the NRL is utterly perfect for television. This is reflected in State of Origin usually being the most watched television program in the year in Australia, despite it not even being live to half the country. AFL is more popular, but it's not a gimme. NRL + Super 12 is probably as popular as the AFL.
Hows is AFL crap to watch on TV? All that the TV ratings prove is that the League supporters are too lazy to get off there arses and go to watch their team.
It's not possible to have a 360 degree panoramic view of the cricket ground/football oval on TV without losing details. There is a lot of off-camera important stuff that goes on in an AFL match. The playing surface for AFL is the largest compared to either League or Union.
Exactly, and in rugby, very little goes on off the ball that is worth it, while you get a much better view of the ruck.
With at least 15 cameras any off the ball incidents can easily be noticed. Nothing is missed these days
One camera can't capture the entire field, unless you want the players to look like ants. This is very easy to achieve in Rugby League.
you said that the AFL cameras cant pick the action up and if there is an event off screen they will immediately change camera towards it. im saw off the ball incidents occur in rugby
Thanks for the replies. It looks like both are more or less national (AFL slightly bigger) sports with their own regional hardcore areas. What prospect are there though of one of these two leagues becoming the outright sport of Australia? Does Union feature much then in the press or on TV when competing against the AFL and NRL in the winter? I believe A-League has taken the step by operating in the summer months to avoid the competition
Definately Aussie rules. Face it dude there are only 3 states that play Rugby League and the AFL has got most of the country and plus they travel all over the country whilst the NRL only travels to either Brisbane, Melbourne or sydney.
Except those three states are half the country's population. Football is king in South Australia. Brilliant. Problem is that Sydney proper has more people than the entire state, and that's not even going into the outlying areas.
The most popular state for football is probably WA the selection of the hosts of the International Rules series is a good backup to this statement. The fact that subiaco oval can only hold 40-45 000 fans is the only reason for the small amount of attendance. If Perth had a 50-60 000 stadium it would sell out all the big games easily.
Well despite what is said here -James Packer boss of CH 9 the Rugby League promoters in OZ says "AFL is the premier sport in Australia" and he still wants to be involved with the sport on TV. That just about settles it. http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,17051636-23211,00.html
Why doesn't the AFL just award rights to all three networks? That would seem to maximize the value of the contract.
Of course he would say that. When he's sucking up to the AFL so they award him the rights, he's hardly going to compare it unfavourably with any sport. I hardly think that's a definitive answer.
Here is another angle. James Packer now says CH 9 cannot handle the AFL on its own on "Free to Air" -The sport is too big. In this article read what the ABC chief said after he rejected CH9 offer to share AFL on FTA with the Nine network. He said AFL "is massive etc etc" http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/10/27/1130400307529.html What did the NRL Rights for 5 years go for -About 300/400 million??? The AFL is looking at 650 million for 5 years.Will probably get 600 million.
So we could be looking at 4 years without Eddie? I'm sure the string of "Cometti-isms" would return to 7 in a heartbeat.
Just as much as I'd be looking at four years without Tiffany Cherry, if Foxtel's not a part of the consortium. If I were a betting man, I'd say that Nine and Foxtel get the rights. Just a hunch, because it looks like they're about to put up the major dollars for it right now, and we all know what money does...
Latest on the TV rights battle -- via Caroline Wilson's article in Monday's editions of The Age: Broadcast rights still up in the air Also of note, from Caro's article... A casual meeting with Andrew Demetriou? Hey, I'm starting to become familiar with those! But seriously, I think the AFL's CEO knows who he'd prefer to have broadcasting the league's games, to the tune of 600 million reasons to back it up.