Why Super League should keep loop fixtures... for now

This week saw media reports that the widely unpopular 'loop fixtures' are set to remain as part of the Super League calendar for the 2024 season. Like many, I agree that they are not an ideal situation. However, on balance, I think they should remain for now. Before you shoot that view down, I ask that you at least read my justification. Then, fire away!

For those unfamiliar, in Super League, each side plays each other home and away. In a 12 team league, that equals 22 fixtures in total (11 at home and 11 away). Plus, each side plays two additional home and two additional away fixtures, meaning that each side faces some opponents three times per year. Finally, each side plays a fixture at a neutral venue, at the Magic Weekend. Therefore, each side will face five opponents on three occasions in a regular season and six opponents on two occasions. Clear? Good!

Why many think this is bad relates to the fixture list looking a bit stale. With it being possible for two sides to meet in the Challenge Cup and the play offs, we could see the same fixture five times in one season. This is seen as overkill and even the most special of matches can begin to feel a little routine.

A second reason why this is not ideal is fairness. The 'loop' fixtures could see a particular side handed a far kinder or far harsher hand than a rival. In a league system which presently sees a side relegated for finishing in last place, that makes a difference. Take this year for example. Wakefield played fourth placed Leigh at Magic Weekend and lost. Castleford played eighth placed Leeds at the same event and won. At the time of writing this piece, one win separates the teams.

The luck of the loop fixture draw could see a side miss out on a play off place. It could be the difference between finishing top or second and missing out on lucrative prize money. This year, it may even see a side relegated. 

All in all, it makes the league lopsided, arguably unfair and less interesting. Not great, is it? So, why did I start this piece by saying we should keep this manifestly flawed system? The simple reason is that the offered alternative is worse.

Let's look at the backdrop. In recent years, the value of Super League's TV deal has dropped by 42.5%. For the second consecutive 'deal', the amount paid by Sky Sports will reduce. The sport faces a hike in insurance premiums due to ongoing litigation plus the risk of an eye-watering bill of legal fees and compensation. The clubs are coming off the back of a pandemic which saw games played before empty stadiums and capacity restrictions for almost two seasons. The clubs are also burdened by the cost pressures that all businesses face at the moment.

The main sources of income for the majority of clubs are central funding and matchday income. The former has taken a huge hit. Now, clubs have been asked whether they wish to forego two home matches per season. That is 15% of home matches. I know it's not as precise as this but let's assume each match brought in the same revenue. Clubs are being asked to forego up to 15% of matchday income.

There is no sensible business that would voluntarily given up 15% of its primary or secondary source of income, especially when facing other cost pressures and reductions in funding. And it is not selfish to refuse to do that. It is sensible.

Many want an alternative to loop fixtures. You may have already seen suggestions that we expand the Challenge Cup to replace loop fixtures. Two problems. The first is that if you use a traditional draw, that doesn't guarantee a home fixture. And, as Challenge Cup games are not on season tickets, crowds for these games are traditionally far lower. 

Aha! I hear you ask, why not have a group structure which guarantees replacement home matches and you could then sell them on season tickets? The answer is that the lost income still is not replaced. 

If a Super League club drew a Championship club at home, the crowd would still be lower than against another top flight club. If a Super League club drew another Super League club at home, then whilst you get rid of the unfairness aspect, you are still playing the same teams repeatedly, one of the bugbears of the loop fixture system.

Other have suggested a Super League Cup. Similar has been tried in Premiership Rugby Union. Let's take a look at crowds for that competition and compare to the domestic league.

For the Premiership Cup, the average attendance in 2021 - 2022 was 9,531. For the regular league season, the average attendance was 12,841. Why do we think similar would not happen in Rugby League? What likely would happen is you would get lower crowds and the same repeat fixtures. The worst of all worlds.

Another proposal is that we expand Super League to 14 teams. In a perfect world, this would work well. But in the 2022 Super League, we have one side who has won four matches and another who has won five. If we expand the league, do we truly have the player pool to have a strong competition? And if the purpose of the new IMG era is to raise standards, then expanding to 14 teams does the opposite and lowers the bar for entry into Super League.

I do not particularly like loop fixtures. But we cannot let perfect be the enemy of good. Can you keep a secret? This isn't particularly popular in Rugby League circles but I'll say it. I don't like the champions being decided by a Grand Final.

Do you know what the difference between finishing first and finishing sixth in Super League is? One match. If sixth place wins in week one of the play offs, they face first place in a knockout semi final. A whole year of toil to reach first place and if sixth place wins one play off match, that advantage effectively disappears. 

I don't like that a team can dominate all year and be usurped by a team that has had an average season. I don't like that we could theoretically see a Grand Final between two sides who finished with 50% win / loss record.

Ideally, I wouldn't have a Grand Final. But to get rid would be an example of letting perfect be the enemy of good. The Grand Final draws publicity, draws one of the biggest crowds of the season and attracts attention in a way that a regular season match would not. To get rid of the Grand Final, we would lose a lot. Is it particularly fair? Probably not. It's important to see the bigger picture though.

A first past the post system works well in a sport like football. That's because if the title race is done early, there is a meaningful prize of European football for teams down to 7th place. In Rugby League, without that meaningful secondary prize, we would have the majority of teams having little to play for. The old Premiership trophy, whilst good to watch, always had the feeling of a post-season knockabout. So to get rid of the Grand Final would have negative, adverse consequences.

The same logic applies to loop fixtures. I know they aren't fair. I know they are repetitive. But if we got rid and replaced them with nothing, then what? Sky would show less matches. The value of the TV deal would drop further. The precarious financial position of clubs would get worse (let's not hear that we would get more fans in across earlier matches because that's just fanciful). 

Even if we replaced it with a revamped Challenge Cup or new competition, the same problems of fixtures repeated too often remains. 

We should strive to get a better and more balanced fixture list. But I would rather take our time and get this right, as opposed to rushing and force our clubs who are already walking a financial tightrope to wobble even more.