Le Figaro. Two days before the resumption of the Top 14, the economic situation is alarming…
Philippe Spanghero:
The concern is very great because our economic model is in danger.
The situation shows that it is more fragile than that of other sports.
Ticketing and public relations issues are much higher in budgets.
The 5,000 spectator gauge - a little less, in fact, since this gauge includes teams, journalists, security, etc. - will put clubs in difficulty very quickly, after one or two home matches.
What is aberrant is that, not only will they not make money with this gauge, but they can lose it given the costs of organization, more important than the revenues.
So the clubs will quickly file for bankruptcy?
Without state help, I don't see how some clubs will be able to get by.
In Toulouse, for example, compared to a sold-out match at Ernest-Wallon of 19,000 spectators, that means a dry ticket loss of around 500,000 euros per match.
By adding refreshments and others, you must add at least 50,000 euros.
So a loss of around 600,000 euros.
Without forgetting that, to keep in cash, the clubs have contracted PGE (
loans guaranteed by the State
).
That we will have to start repaying next March-April.
Or 1 million euros per year.
This will reduce the structural deficits a little more.
It is insoluble.
Isn't it being catastrophic to repeat that the Top 14 clubs will quickly go out of business?
No it's real.
Clubs will be in default before the end of the calendar year.
“
The players train every day.
Partial unemployment measures therefore no longer apply
”
The League estimates the losses at more than 30 million euros until the end of October. It is asking the state for equivalent aid, ie exemption from social charges and certain taxes. Can she be heard?
I understand the League's position.
Afterwards, the difficulty for the government is the case law that such a decision would create.
The - private - economy of rugby, we are the ones who created it.
No one is forcing us to have this imbalance between structural revenue and chronic deficits, of around 1.5 million euros per year per club.
If the State agreed to a strong gesture for rugby, how could it justify not doing so for other sports?
Not to mention other sectors such as culture or events.
It is a difficult equation for the government.
But football, with its very high TV rights, is less affected by this gauge.
It is true.
But it is a philosophical debate.
They are certainly less fragile but are penalized in the same way on the loss of revenue.
So why help rugby more than football?
It's very complicated to do it case by case ...
"READ ALSO: Lacroix (Toulouse):" With partial gauges, rugby is in danger of death "
The State has just announced a plan of 2 billion euros in favor of culture…
This is also true.
But the real question is how these aids manifest themselves.
Mainly thanks to the extension of partial unemployment.
This is the case for the theater, shows, concerts, where people do not work.
The problem with rugby is that the players train every day.
They went back to work.
Partial unemployment measures therefore no longer apply.
Sport in general does not seem, as often, a priority for the State.
It's a real subject in France, yes.
Sport is however a very strong social barometer.
There is currently an ambient sinistrosis and finding emotion in the stadiums is important for people.
They want to meet again, to vibrate together, to live the party.
Sport must not falter because it is the first player to breathe new life into it, enthusiasm.
"
A percentage gauge, that wouldn't have been silly
"
Isn't the 5,000 spectator gauge too drastic?
The government's big mistake is Puy-du-Fou.
In what can be compared to an outdoor stadium, they are allowed to be almost full.
With spectators coming from all over France, and the dangers of circulation of the virus that this implies.
It creates incomprehension because it has not been justified.
The government must be careful not to stir up a feeling of injustice.
A percentage gauge wouldn't have been silly.
Barrier gestures are a meter apart and masks.
If you have a 40,000-seat stadium, you can accommodate 15,000 spectators while respecting barrier gestures and meeting all health constraints.
Why do clubs not have the right?
This is the real question.
With this gauge, you have 5,000 spectators in a stadium of 7,000 seats as in a stadium of 40,000.
It is not logical.
And it is frustrating.
Why is it not allowed?
There hasn't been a response yet.
You said that the economic model is no longer viable. What should we do then?
Rugby has to make great efforts to reinvent itself.
We are locked into a complex economic model.
One of the adjustment variables is TV rights.
But they are frozen for a long time.
It then relies on the ticket office and private partners.
Here too, there is a limit.
All that remains is player transfers to bring out a new source of income.
But reinventing oneself would first require an overhaul of our economic model, with a rationalization of costs.
And in priority of the wage masses.
"
If all the presidents agree to return to a more reasonable payroll, we will have solved a good part of our problems
"
A sharp decrease in player salaries?
The players need to understand that they are in an economy that no longer has the means for its ambitions.
There also needs to be a consensus among the leaders.
If there are still two or three presidents ready to lose several million euros to make big salary increases, it will not hold.
But if all the presidents agree to return to a more reasonable wage bill, we will have solved a good part of our problems, yes.
Is it naive to believe in a decrease in wages?
It is not a question of naivety.
Everyone is affected by this crisis.
From captains of industry at the head of clubs to players.
So, for the first time, we can align all interests.
Because it goes beyond the framework of rugby.
Now is the time to ask the right questions ... It would be of no consequence.
If we come back to an average salary of 15,000 euros per month for example, there will always be people in the stadiums, always sponsors.
And the clubs would save 2 to 3 million euros in payroll per season, would be less on the razor's edge.
The announced decrease in the Salary cap is not in these proportions…
It is still going in the right direction.
It is certainly more philosophical than anything else given the extent of the economic damage.
It will not be enough to compensate them.
But we are starting to look back.
And it's always very hard to go back.
I repeat, we are in an economy of spectacle and, if everyone agrees to lower wages, we will not degrade the product.
That will not prevent us from remaining efficient.
Above all, French and English rugby, at the origin of this bubble, would not be dumped by being more rational on wages.
The other world rugby economies would always be weaker than ours.
An All Blacks star, at 30,000 euros per month instead of 60,000, I think she will always come.
"READ ALSO: Nans Ducuing (UBB) at Le Figaro:" You have to expect everything with the Covid "
Are the partners, the sponsors defecting?
For the moment, and this is a particularity of rugby with the role played by clubs in their territories, there is a very encouraging understanding and support from private partners.
This benevolence shows the attachment of the local economy to the clubs.
There is almost no loss of sponsorship.
Less than 10%.
Most have given up the remainder of last season.
But they won't be able to do it twice in a row ...
Like Airbus, which has not withdrawn from the Stade Toulousain…
If Airbus were to abandon the Stade Toulousain, it would be constrained and forced.
The history between the two goes beyond the simple sponsorship relationship.
This illustrates the willingness of partners to make efforts to continue supporting the clubs.
And on the public side? Subscriptions, for example, have not loosened.
The supporters want to show, too, that they are in support.
They understand the difficult situation.
If the clubs reassure them about the refund policies, the supporters want to stay.
But they will not be able to give up two seasons in a row to a refund.
"
We must give grain to grind to the broadcaster of rugby, Canal +, if we do not want to drop out compared to other sports
"
Despite everything, the Top 14 must resume because it is necessary to replay so as not to disappear from the media.
Recent news does not play in favor of rugby.
Not all of these dramas encourage parents to enroll their children.
There is a significant loss of licensees nationwide.
If, on top of that, when other sports pick up, you stay on the sidelines, that will reinforce all these issues.
We must therefore give grain to grind to the broadcaster of rugby, Canal +, if we do not want to drop out compared to other sports.
There, everything resumes little by little.
The NBA, the Champions League, the Tour de France, soon Roland-Garros ... If, in the middle of this sporting media scene, rugby does not resume in its turn ...
But we feel that there is a real desire for rugby after six months of famine.
The support of partners, the expectation of supporters, make rugby leaders want to fight.
Because they don't feel abandoned.
I am surprised to see to what extent clubs which have suffered greatly from the crisis make a point of honor not to let go of their club.
It is really to be welcomed.
Many have made cuts elsewhere so as not to touch rugby.
It is a guarantee of optimism.
Read also
Sanctuarization, lost match, double posters: all you need to know about the health protocol of professional rugby
