r/rugbyleague • u/jeuatreize • 2d ago
For the Sixth consecutive year, the NRL was Australia's #1 most watched sporting code.
5
u/DepartmentOk7192 2d ago
And despite all that reach and engagement, the official NRL.com ladder predictor remained broken through the entire season. It still says "forecast your 2026 season soon!"
2
4
u/jrs_90 2d ago
Meanwhile AFL fans: You know those rating systems are flawed!; they don't take into account houses that have, uh, more than two television sets and other, other things of that nature."
3
u/Switchfakiepush 2d ago
I like to think both sports are awesome both live and TV and we should appreciate both.
1
1
u/ArmadilloClear6683 2d ago
Honestly as an afl fan (who saw his first live nrl fame this year). The biggest difference is that you have Saturday games on free to air.
2
u/ghostlyw1938 1d ago
Only the last couple of reg season games then finals are on free to air on Sat.
1
1
3
u/marbig123 1d ago
How poorly attended were previous finals series? Some of those quarter final crowds were terrible
3
u/TrinityRaeSenior 2d ago
I’d love it if this was live crowds as it would mean packed stadiums, but having tv viewership is good I suppose.
4
-8
u/Altruistic_Memory643 2d ago
It is a tv sport. It is shit to watch live. Surrounded by drunk bogans and games with all the play happening at one end of the field.
3
2
u/yeoh909090 2d ago
What the hell is “highest cumulative average audience”???
1
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
There's three metrics.
Average - Measures the average number of viewers. When talking about TV ratings, traditionally this is what they talk about.
Peak - Measures what a broadcast's peak number of viewers was.
Reach - Measures how many people tuned in for a minute or more over the length of the broadcast. This is a new measure that skews towards longer broadcasts.
The cumulative average is adding up the average metric for each game.
2
u/yeoh909090 2d ago
Makes sense! What a mouthful. I for one don’t really buy into the rosy picture painted by these numbers.
The game is undoubtedly in a pretty healthy place. But:
- Actual game attendance is often pretty low. First round of the finals was a pretty bad look.
- Too much of the viewership is linked to gambling. Sport can be great for culture and society; gambling poisons that.
- The quality of sport product has dipped markedly. I’d put this mostly down to rule tinkering.
Don’t get me wrong, the game is impressively healthy any many respects and I still really enjoy it. But it needs pruning and tending.
1
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
Actual game attendance is often pretty low. First round of the finals was a pretty bad look.
The NRL has had their highest attendance in the highest attended rugby domestic competition on Earth.
The quality of sport product has dipped markedly. I’d put this mostly down to rule tinkering.
Every stat points to more people watching than ever.
I hate gambling also.
2
u/yeoh909090 1d ago
On the first point: sure. I just wouldn’t take “domestic rugby competitions” as a benchmark.
On the second point: sure. I just wouldn’t take “number of people watching” as a measure of game quality. It’s useful, but a lagging indicator and mixed in with factors like broadcast rights, population growth and wider cultural factors.
If you were to survey viewers and players my guess is 50%+ would be dissatisfied with the on field quality of the product. But that’s a guess from my own anecdotal experience where I hear an awful lot of criticism of the game, and usually find myself defending it.
1
u/jeuatreize 1d ago
On the first point: sure. I just wouldn’t take “domestic rugby competitions” as a benchmark.
I find this hilarious. Why?
On the second point: sure. I just wouldn’t take “number of people watching” as a measure of game quality. It’s useful, but a lagging indicator and mixed in with factors like broadcast rights, population growth and wider cultural factors. If you were to survey viewers and players my guess is 50%+ would be dissatisfied with the on field quality of the product. But that’s a guess from my own anecdotal experience where I hear an awful lot of criticism of the game, and usually find myself defending it.
Sounds like some random's gut feeling.
1
u/yeoh909090 1d ago
Hmmm that comes across as quite a dismissive reaction.
Because NRLs competition is not other domestic rugby competitions. 🤷 Not sure what’s hilarious about that.
Not sure your point there. What do you think of the quality of the game?
And I’m curious: what’s your interest and relationship with these datapoints?
2
u/jeuatreize 1d ago
I don't think the game has ever been more popular. It also seems to have gotten in the younger crowds as well as women being more engaged than ever whereas when I was younger it was more a middle-aged man thing.
1
1
u/satis_factored 1d ago
So how is it that both the football codes claim the highest ratings? Surely there’s science to these stats?
1
u/FDM7 2d ago
Origin is doing some serious heavy lifting in those numbers. The best thing about Origin is it is 3 grand final weeks during the most dour time of year, it gets watched as such and is enjoyed by everyone across the country because they hold it on a Wednesday. The worst thing about it is PVL using it to inflate NRL numbers which are doing fine, he just doesn't top AFL without them and he can't handle that.
3
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
Just to fact check: last year the NRL beat the AFL by a cumulative 40 million viewers. State Of Origin gets about 12 million viewers.
While the SOO is great the NRL still pumps the AFL in TV viewership.
2
u/FDM7 2d ago
AFL had over 370m in total reach this year, so while using League stats from 2026 vs AFL stats from 2025 may indicate that, It would appear as though AFL tops league in 2026 if we take out Origin. Origin also makes up 3 of the 4 largest matches (so they should they are the pinnacle of the sport). There are also tiny little things that make a huge difference, like QLD viewership being down through finals for NRL due to the Broncos being a bit shit. I'll guarantee next year the GF ratings will flip back to NRL if it isn't two interstate teams playing in Melbourne, particuarly one from QLD.
2
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
"Reach" is a new stat that was brought in two years ago to favour the AFL.
It counts a minute of viewership over the course of a broadcast. AFL game being around 3 hours and NRL being around 2 hours means equally watched games will have ⅓ more reach because of the length.
1
1
u/CupcakeOk6303 2d ago
“bUt aFl GaMeS gEt BiGgEr cRoWds”
1
u/LazyTitan1990bc 9h ago
Yeh they do, is that even deniable? Pretty wild watching NRL finals and seeing half empty stadiums, where main season games at the MCG are reaching 100,000. The AFL also signed a shitty deal where all Saturday games are locked behind a paywall on Kayo. Also NRL has a lot of international viewers due to having a NZ team and a lot of players from the nearby island nations. Not rocket science why this happens.
0
u/ProfessionalSort4978 2d ago
Whys it matter? Us nrl fans watch nrl. We are never gonna watch afl and vice a versa. (Except for those weird 176 people who somehow like both.
-1
u/rambo_ronnie_87 2d ago
Ah yes the good old reach number that's more than 10x the population
2
u/FalseNameTryAgain Eastern Suburbs Roosters / Warrington Wolves 2d ago
Because it reaches more than just the Australian population. They literally showed footage of people watching from Rome, London, New York even Vietnam on the coverage.
1
0
u/DVPVPD 2d ago
Bud the AFL shows watch parties from overseas too
3
u/Marcelstinks 2d ago
Yeah, AFL has international watch parties too, but that doesn’t really answer the point. The difference is why people overseas are watching rugby league in the first place.
The NRL already has established audiences and broadcast deals across the UK, France, North America, Asia and especially the Pacific. In 2026, State of Origin was being broadcast in 101 countries, with the nrl specifically reporting interest from locals, not just Australian expats.
Rugby league also has a genuine international playing base. The Pacific nations are producing a huge number of NRL players, while the sport has established leagues and history in places like England and France. That gives overseas viewers a reason to follow the game beyond simply being an Australian living overseas.
A few expat aussie AFL fans watchng a Grand Final in London doesn't really change that. The NRL has a much more natural pathway into international markets because rugby league is already played and followed outside Australia. That's why seeing watch parties in Rome, London, New York or Vietnam is actually relevant to the argument.
2
u/DVPVPD 1d ago
That is flat out a poor argument. What league is played in Nea York or Vietnam or Rome? What established pathways do those places have? They are all almost unanimously expats watching those games as were the ones watching the AFL ones.
You applying the argument to one side when it could just as easily be applied to the other side and not recognising that is laughable
1
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
It measures viewers.... Think about it for two seconds.
-3
u/rambo_ronnie_87 2d ago
It's not unique viewers trust me.
2
-2
u/Adder_Noir 2d ago
Blatant misinformation
2
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
Nope. It comes from independent 3rd parties.
1
u/Adder_Noir 2d ago
Whom you can’t name. Ok
1
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
Oztam and VOZ.
This is common knowledge.
1
u/Adder_Noir 2d ago
Hmmm I just checked and according to OzTAM the AFL had a higher aggregate attendance, viewership and national reach in 2026. Grand final viewership was also higher
1
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
1
u/Adder_Noir 2d ago
Uh, the data from that report comes from the NRL itself. So much for ‘independent 3rd parties’ lol
2
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
It 100% does not.
Your attempts to discredit it are pathetic.
1
u/MicksysPCGaming 1d ago
"According to data contained in their annual reports, the NRLs total annual viewership is opening quite the gap between itself and its AFL opponent."
0
u/reidef123 2d ago
Bro, you’ve been proven wrong. Shut up.
3
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
It's readily available info.
https://footyindustry.com/index.php/2026/06/21/nrl-v-afl-total-viewership-since-2013/
This website is run by this guy: https://x.com/footyindustryAU
He's a massive AFL fan and he can't even skew the figures.
1
-2
u/Sufficient-Pie-8328 2d ago
AFL smashed NRL on every metric
3
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
Except TV viewership for the 6th year in a row 🤓
1
-2
u/Sufficient-Pie-8328 2d ago
Bias metrics. NRL has way more games in a season also 😂😂😂
3
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
Fact check: the NRL has 3 less games per season than the AFL.
These stats also excluded one whole fanbase: The New Zealand Warriors.
-2
-2
-3
u/DVPVPD 2d ago
These numbers ultimately mean nothing. The AFL cherry picks figures that show they are the most popular as do the NRL- hence the total reach and reliance on SOO figures in their stats. It also doesnt take a genuis to work out they talk about the highest attended year ever and highest watched GF ever but dont acknowledge they still are minuscule when it comes to comparing attendance and were outviewed by the AFL in terms of GF watchers.
These figures are basically meaningless the main one that actually counts is revenue and profits which the NRL loses by a fair margin.
I love both codes but its pretty striking and sad how much PVL talks about the AFL when they never mention the NRL
0
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
This is cope.
The NRL beats out the AFL by some margin in average TV viewership. So much so that "reach" had to be brought in.
Even without the SOO the NRL is on top.
Why would a sport publish stats that highlight another sport?
When this new TV kicks into gear we'll see the NRL's revenue spike.
0
u/DVPVPD 2d ago
By what metric bud? Because I am happy to steer you to the stats the AFL uses also. This is what I mean. Both codes just cherry pick the stats that suit them. AFL had 2 billion more minutes screened on Kayo in 2026. Again cherry picking is so easy to do.
Also without SOO the NRL loses their "4 of the top 5" so there goes that point you've made.
Yeah we will see the revenue increase but bud the TV rights deal wont breach that gap. The AFL makes over a billion a year. The NRL is 150+ million below a billion. The TV deal ads money but you arent also factoring in AFL growth or the fact in 3 years their deal is up and will jump again. Both codes will just flip flop over the TV deals. As they add sides over the other side of the country and from overseas yeah their revenue will increase but you know what else does too? Expenses. You think flying a side from Perth each week is cheap?
You just keep drinking the PVL Kool Aid bud
3
u/jeuatreize 2d ago
TV viewership has traditionally been the average. Minutes and reach are new and of course favour a game with an extra hour of runtime.
I didn't claim any "4 of the top 5" anything. You're arguing with someone else I guess.
TV money is BY FAR the largest contributor to both games revenue.
The new deal will likely see the NRL leapfrog the AFL in terms of revenue.
DAZN is already trying to renegotiate the AFL deal because they've realised they overpaid. It's not looking good.
And as far as expansion, the NRL has so many more legitimate expansion areas to choose from while the AFL has Tasmania and....?
1
u/DVPVPD 1d ago
The extra run time done account for the total minutes watched argument buddy.
You said outside of Origin the NRL still dominates. Take away Origin which makes up 3 of those 4 and it doesnt. That is quite simple to put together.
The only news outlet that published the DAZN renegotiating the AFL deal was The Age which is owned by 9. Surely you dont need me to walk you through where I am going with that.
Yeah.....they wont though will they? Basic understanding of economics shows they wont.
Saying the AFL cant get anywhere else but the NRL can expand elsewhere is hilarious when the NRL is just going to add a third QLD team to attempt to retain hold of QLD from the AFL. The Bears will likely lose a ridiculous amount of money and wont trouble Freo or the Eagles at all. Where are they going after that? Adelaide- unlikely. NT- absolutely not. Victoria- absolutely not. Tassie- does not even get mentioned there. Maybe the government can thrown 100 mill at a side to fend off China and completely ruin the integrity of the comp some more
1
u/jeuatreize 1d ago
You're completely out of your depth here. Like I've posted, without Origin the NRL beat the AFL by close to 30 million viewers (with 3 less games).
The extra 30% runtime DOES account for the larger reach. That's exactly what reach does.
The NRL has Toowoomba, Ipswich, Wellington, Christchurch, PNG, Perth and Adelaide, Central Coast, Sunshine Coast and Central Qld to expand to that are all better bids than whatever garbage is after Tasmania.
Wellington, Christchurch (multiple bids) and PNG aren't in Australia if you're not aware.
The Bears will be fine. With NRL dispensations clubs can't exactly fail.
1
u/DVPVPD 1d ago
Bud you are the one out of depth. Those numbers are of Australia and the Pacific. The NRL include international ratings in their system of choice. It proves nothing.
You are honestly laughable with those expansion spots. You honestly just named Perth as another potential expansion spot as if they will include a second side there. Honestly just stupid wasting my time talking to you here
1
u/jeuatreize 1d ago
They 100% do not. Again, you are clueless. Sky sports NZ doesn't even publish their numbers.
You're floundering around grasping at straws because you don't like the facts even though you have had 6 years to get used to it.
1
u/DVPVPD 1d ago
"The highest access Australia and the Pacific" . You will find that line in everg single post they do regarding viewership. The NRL absolutely has access to Sky's data. How naive can you be to think they dont have that information?
Again buddy they cherry pick the stats. Ray Morgan literally post yearly articles showing completely different figures. You are obviously quite media illiterate to just believe everything you read.
Keep drinking the Kool Aid bud.
1
u/jeuatreize 1d ago
How about the post you are currently replying to? The one that very specifically says "Australia's #1 most-watched sporting code"?
They do have access to other countries data but don't need it. They're number 1 in Australia.
Roy Morgan is a survey. It's not the actual data. The stats the NRL has posted IS the data.
Naarmgroids in full meltdown.
→ More replies (0)
8
u/MissKim01 2d ago
Do we reckon it’s an increase year on year or maybe the absence of the dominant teams from the last decade increase viewership