Ive pulled a lot of data over the years from annual reports, goverment data collection, survey data and other sources and the one thing that drives me crazy is the inconsistency that makes it virtually impossible to accurately compare data going back through the decades.
Take tv ratings – as discussed in an earlier post – not only has considerable data become inaccessible, but the data we get now has a newer focus that completely seeks to alter our earlier understanding of the ratings process – this has resulted in a top 30 daily report that focuses on reach, instead of the previous industry standard, average. The process of making the ratings standard has come with an almost annual warning: dont compare this data to previous years. Well, isnt that nice.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
This is without looking deeper into the differences in broadcast time and other factors that make using average data an interesting exercise for some codes, and really making the comparison between some codes a serious apples and oranges comparison.
We can look at membership data, and while a public standard has never been available at the NRL and other codes, the AFL has changed the definition of what it considers to be a member several times since 2011 when it started counting reduced access memberships. In 2016, the AFL began saying it was anyone with any kind of access membership, a genuine phone number and a minimum $50 spend. By 2021, even that was gone, and now its just anyone that signs up with genuine contact information. Again, it makes valid comparisons impossible, because while the AFL DOES release something of a breakdown most years for the whole league, theres precious little in the club data.
We can look at financial data, but the lack of a standard for reporting revenue and expense makes for wildly different variations over time, with line inclusions changing or vanishing altogether. For this I give you the ARLC, which from 2013 to 2018 gave a fairly comprehensive data outlay for its finances, but in 2019 changed its revenue reporting by combining almost everything into two all encompassing line items – licensing (which includes media rights, so we cant know that any more with any accuracy) and operations. Even the hotel operations have moved from operations to sundries in the space of 3 years.
While the AFL itself is fairly consistent with its reporting of financial data, there are some wild variations across the clubs that makes that data somewhat difficult to compare with any accuracy. Some clubs include the gate or other things with membership data (making membership revenue difficult to determine for more than half the league). The WA clubs have all sorts of gameday revenue that the other clubs dont, and clubs like North breakdown their AFL revenue into segments that most other clubs dont bother with. And thats without going into the difference between club report AFL revenue, and the leagues reported AFL distributions.
Perhaps the worst offender, is participation data. What constitutes a participant has changed from the 90s when it was basically club, school and maybe masters, to in the AFLs case, haphazardly reporting data when it chooses, but including two different types of Auskick. In both the AFL and Cricket Australias case, they have adjusted participant counts, and in the NRLs case they moved further afield to include Touch, while Football apparently counts anyone who has ever seen or touched a round ball every year – but lately seems to also prefer Ausplay data at times.
Where the AFL and Cricket were reporting participants in the mid 1m to 1.8m range, this dropped for some reason the AFL never bothered to explain, but Cricket reported issues with double counting.
Even Government survey data has changed – from 2001 to 2011 we could rely on the ERASS surveys to provide a fairly consistent survey approach. From 2012 on we moved on to the Ausplay survey – which at least twice now has told us not to compare it with previous data.
The likely only exception to this might be crowd reporting data. We have to take it on faith that the Governing Bodies and the Stadium Operators are reporting the correct numbers. In 2014, there were multiple reports that the NRL was adjusting crowds to include staff and players, and the AFL was reporting issues with the SANFL for the same at Adelaide Oval. Speculation has been around for years that the attendance figures for GWS are simply tickets sold/handed out due to very poor revenues from gate and membership compared to their record membership numbers.
Actually, Roy Morgans surveys have asked the same questions when it comes to membership and tv viewing for over 20 years, which at least makes them consistent in their survey reporting, even if many people dont take them seriously.
So much of the reporting when it comes to sports financial and other data, especially where its compared requires some small leaps of faith and minor adjustments in reality, if not outright witchcraft. It’d be nice to have a standard for reporting financial and membership data for example. Itd be great if the AFL could demand a consistent reporting style for the small number of people outside the league who care. A man can dream.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
About the Author
