What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

It's on: TV rights to sports in chaos as News signals an NRL offload

Green Machine

First Grade
Messages
5,844
The problem is the Southern States. You'll never get C7 to agree to decent FTA coverage on any days that Aussie Rules is being shown on C7. Unfortunately, C7's coverage days are Fridays/Sundays. Precisely when we want them showing RL down here.
Channel 7 is actively campaigning to be able to show different sport on their digital multi channels, starting with the Australian Open:

http://www.freetv.com.au/media/News-Media_Release/2009-0009_MED_Free_TV_Calls_For_More_Sport_On_Free-To-View_Digital_Channels.pdf
 

babyg

Juniors
Messages
1,512
And really, we should let them go first, but make sure all the Broadcasters are aware of what is on the table.

Goign second with the economy still recovering could produce a nice goldmine for us, as the AFL gets in too quick while questions about how the economy may be recovering continue.

Or don't lock ourselves into a long contract again. Keep it shorter, get the coverage right, then position ourselves to be at the front of the negociation calender.

Need decent coverage down south and west, a fta game on Saturday nights and possibly Monday.

The News pullout statement a worry. Sounds like they won't to dump all responsibility but remain in control of screwing us on the tv deals.
 

Lockyer4President!

First Grade
Messages
7,975
Channel 7 is actively campaigning to be able to show different sport on their digital multi channels, starting with the Australian Open:

http://www.freetv.com.au/media/News-Media_Release/2009-0009_MED_Free_TV_Calls_For_More_Sport_On_Free-To-View_Digital_Channels.pdf

I've said this about a million times but the key is lobbying the government to soften the anti-siphoning legislation to allow live sport to air on digital multichannels. That way Seven could air Friday night AFL live on 7, and the NRL live at the same time on say, channel 72. Everybody wins.


Gallop doesn't seem to be a fan of that.

From the OP:
''We want the list abandoned but if it is retained, we want guarantees the free-to-air channels can't hoard games by showing them on their digital channels,'' Mr Gallop said.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
what Gallop says makes sense

if free TV are allowed to put current sports that are on the anti-siphoning list on to their multi channels then they can bid less and show all games as currently Fox pay a bit for the 5 games they telecast
 

1 Eyed TEZZA

Coach
Messages
12,420
I see it to ElD, I for one dont like the idea of League being broadcast on GO! and not Nine. It will essentially take Fox Sports away from being the 4 legit bidder.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
this is what the codes want http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20456065-2722,00.html

Football codes tackle TV laws

* Font Size: Decrease Increase
* Print Page: Print

Chip Le Grand | September 22, 2006
Article from: The Australian

THREE major football codes - AFL, rugby league and soccer - have united on changes to broadcast laws, demanding the Howard Government allow the sports to sell games directly to pay-TV.
The chiefs of each of the codes joined forces to argue that they should decide who televises their sports, insisting a "use it or lose it" clause be added to anti-siphoning regulations.

Anti-siphoning laws mean free-to-air television networks must be given the first right to certain sporting events.

But AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said the codes should make those decisions about each of their sports.

The trio denied their support for changes was an attempt to shift more football away from free-to-air to pay-TV.

They insisted the changes were required to give all sporting organisations more control over broadcast rights.

"We all agree that the bodies that control the codes should have control over our television rights and the ability to deal directly with pay television when it comes to deciding what, where and when our games will be broadcast," Mr Demetriou said.

The issue is timely for the AFL, which has been frustrated by the inability of pay-TV operator Foxtel and free-to-air networks Seven and Ten to agree on its broadcast rights deal.

Free TV Australia, the national lobby group for free-to-air broadcasters, accused the codes of a "grab for more money".

"This is a gang tackle on Australian television viewers by some major sporting organisations," Free TV CEO Julie Flynn said. "They say they want to have key games on free-to-air television but also to be able to deal directly with pay. International experience shows you can't have it both ways."

Communications Minister Helen Coonan this week flagged the inclusion of a "use it or lose it" clause in the federal Government's amended broadcasting legislation to prevent free-to-air networks hoarding events on the anti-siphoning list.

While the reform is supported in principle by Labor, Opposition spokesman Stephen Conroy called for details of the scheme.

Football Federation Australia chief executive John O'Neill said Australia had benefited from its anti-siphoning regime but he questioned its relevance in today's sports and broadcast market.

Soccer in Australia has sold the rights to national and international matches to Foxtel after it attracted insufficient interest from free-to-air broadcasters, including the ABC and SBS. Mr O'Neill said if Socceroos matches had been on the anti-siphoning list when the deal was struck, the code would have been unable to fund its domestic A-League and junior programs.

"The constraints of anti-siphoning and the competitive disadvantage that anti-siphoning brings with it can really be a body blow to a sport such as football," he said.

NRL chief executive David Gallop said his code did not intend to maximise its revenue through pay-TV at the cost of reducing its exposure on free-to-air.

"We don't see this leading to a drastic change," Mr Gallop said. "But we want to get ourselves in the position where we are making the choices."
 

1 Eyed TEZZA

Coach
Messages
12,420
So its more like Fox Sports being able to bid directly in competition with the FTA networks. I like it, but the fear of there being less then 3 (im expecting 4 with the next TV rights deal) games on FTA per week is realistic for me and many others without Foxtel.

If I had faith in our leadership I wouldnt mind, but this is the NRl after all.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
here's a better article

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24450569-7582,00.html

Sports codes united against Conroy stand

Nick Tabakoff | October 06, 2008
Article from: The Australian

MANY of Australia's major sporting codes will side with the pay-TV industry against possible moves by the federal Government to remove restrictions on premium sports being shown first on digital free-to-air multi-channels.

The move follows comments by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy in Media last month suggesting the Government will try to use next year's review of so-called "anti-siphoning" laws -- which dictate where listed first-run sports must be screened -- to allow more sports to be shown on free-to-air TV.

But sports bosses believe that could lessen competition for sporting rights between free-to-air and pay TV: therefore undermining the price paid by broadcasters.

National Rugby League boss David Gallop told Media he was "greatly concerned" by Mr Conroy's comments, a view shared by Australian Rugby Union CEO John O'Neill.

Mr Conroy is keen to see more take-up of digital set-top boxes -- which enable viewers to watch the free-to-air networks' main channels and multi-channels -- ahead of the switch-off of the analog TV signal in 2013.

Mr Conroy said last month sport was crucial for digital take-up: pointing the finger at the former Howard government for legislating against sport on new digital channels.

"That conflicted with their desire for digital uptake," he said. "This Government has a policy going in a different direction, which is why the review of anti-siphoning is so important."

Mr Gallop believes all the major sporting codes will lobby Mr Conroy ahead of next year's review of the anti-siphoning laws.

"We're greatly concerned because this could further reduce the abilities of a sport like ours to deal with its rights in the manner that it wishes to," he said.

"It's my understanding that all the major sports are intending to lobby the Government jointly to emphasise our solidarity on this issue."

The anti-siphoning laws restrict which sporting events pay-TV can buy, and also ban certain first-run sports from being screened on the free-to-air multi-channels.

Mr Gallop believes any extension of the application of these rules to include protection of the free-to-air multi-channels could have huge ramifications for major sports, and the amount of money they can extract for rights. "This proposed amendment acts against the sport's ability to extract value for its rights in an unencumbered market," he said. "I would go as far as to say sports like rugby league need to be able to maximise their rights, and having the potential buyers of the rights on an even playing field is critical to that."

The NRL is paid up to $100 million a year in total free-to-air and pay-TV rights to screen its sports under its current contract.

Mr Gallop would not comment on this figure, but said: "We'll always be looking for a mix of free-to-air and pay-TV (distribution), and therefore the anti-siphoning legislation is unnecessary."

Mr O'Neill was similarly concerned. "If there's artificiality around how the market operates, inevitably there will be a diminution in price," he said.

"We understand the purpose behind the anti-siphoning list, but the risk is that for the owners of sports rights, the heavy hand of Government involvement may cause a very significant reduction of price, and certainly of competitive tension."

Mr O'Neill said the Government should be aware of financial realities for sports before they show any favouritism to the new free-to-air standard definition digital channels, scheduled to launch from next year.

"I don't know that the free-to-air networks -- with their multi-channelling ability -- will be able to pay a similar amount as, say, Fox Sports is willing to pay," he said.

Top-level Australian rugby is shown on a mix of free-to-air and pay-TV channels, with Wallabies test matches simulcast on Seven and Fox Sports, and Super 14 rugby shown only on pay-TV.

Fox Sports is 50 per cent-owned by News Limited, publisher of Media.

The Australian Football League is also believed to be concerned about the issue, but AFL boss Andrew Demetriou could not be reached for comment.

A total of $780 million was paid over five years for the 2007-11 rights to the AFL, with Channels Seven and Ten controlling the free-to-air rights and Foxtel the pay-TV rights.

Foxtel -- which is 25 per cent-owned by News -- is understood to contribute more than $50 million a year for its portion of the rights.
 

bobmar28

Bench
Messages
4,304
And really, we should let them go first, but make sure all the Broadcasters are aware of what is on the table.

Goign second with the economy still recovering could produce a nice goldmine for us, as the AFL gets in too quick while questions about how the economy may be recovering continue.

Especially if the government allows sports on digital channels.
 
Last edited:

bobmar28

Bench
Messages
4,304
They wouldnt anyway. There is no way they would choose to show Aussie Rules ahead of RL in the Northern States.


The problem is the Southern States. You'll never get C7 to agree to decent FTA coverage on any days that Aussie Rules is being shown on C7. Unfortunately, C7's coverage days are Fridays/Sundays. Precisely when we want them showing RL down here.


The ideal solution is for C7 to be in the mix, but to end up staying with C9. C7's involvement should allow for the NRL to #a - Negotiate a larger price & #b - Force C9 into contractual gaurentees about levels of coverage in the Southern states.


How the NRL deals with C9 is very simple. Make a clear statement that they will not be gaining a contract unless they agree to these gaurenteed coverage levels, ala what the AFL did last time around with the Northern States - hence why AFL is on Main Event on Friday nights. Remember, the AFL held out on agreeing to the C7/C10 bid until C7 had organised acceptable Friday night coverage in the northern states.


RL is simply to important to C9 in the northern states for them to foresake the contract simply to stop foxtel showing something live in the southern states, that they would otherwise have show after midnight.

If the government agrees to changes to the anti-siphoning rules C9 could show league in the southern states on GO!, even if it was on delay, giving Fox the live broadcast.
 
Last edited:

bobmar28

Bench
Messages
4,304
what Gallop says makes sense

if free TV are allowed to put current sports that are on the anti-siphoning list on to their multi channels then they can bid less and show all games as currently Fox pay a bit for the 5 games they telecast

I don't see how they could bid less. If they want it they have to pay, surely. All three networks and Fox will want some.
 

fred92

Juniors
Messages
155
masters is a dope but this is very interesting news if true

they should engage seven and they should also engage ten/one hd
Masters a dope?????? If you believe this, keep it to yourself. Masters is one of the smartest Journalists in the country.
 

Green Machine

First Grade
Messages
5,844
Gallop doesn't seem to be a fan of that.

From the OP:

What Gallop is saying (which what all the other sporting administrators are saying), is that there should not be an anti-siphoning list, so they can sell to ever they choose. The ability to show sport on another channel is a different issue. Channel 7 want to show 2 tennis games at once on different channels at the Australian Open. The Anti-siphoning list was never enforced by the last government and they allowed sports to pick and choose if they wanted to be on the list. If it was, why wasn’t Super 14, A League Soccer, Socceroo Internationals and overseas Australian Cricket tests added to the list?
Commercial TV Station (especially stations like Channel 9) have used the legislation that they show sport on the list, on their main channel first as a way of delaying Rugby League games into the Southern states until after midnight. They have also been able to break for their News and their dogsh*t A Current Affair program and return to the cricket until 7.00pm with the use of the legislation. It has suited them because instead of showing the cricket on one channel and the news on the other, they have not been forced to split their audience and reduce the advertising revenue. They have been able to conveniently use the legislation to justify their actions. Putting NRL into the Southern States on GO TV at 7.30pm on a Friday night would not hurt Rugby League. TV networks would never break from their schedule of having NRL or AFL in their main channel, into the prime markets on a Friday night.
 
Messages
2,016
From the 7.30 report the other day. I thought it was an interesting comparison of the codes.

Football codes do battle for fan base

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 07/10/2009
Reporter: Greg Hoy


KERRY O’BRIEN, PRESENTER: Reports that former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard has been approached to head a revamped national rugby league competition is the latest skirmish in the off-field tussle between the nation's four major football codes vying for the hearts, minds and wallets of Australian sports fans.

While the AFL, rugby league and rugby union premierships have been decided, soccer's final showdown is yet to come.

But who's winning the biggest premiership of them all, the strategic and business competition amongst the codes themselves.

Business editor Greg Hoy reports.

GREG HOY, BUSINSS EDITOR: Four little balls, one big competition. Well beyond the tribal passions, triumphant teams hoisting trophies aloft at season's end lies the bigger business and marketing battle for bums on seats. The bottom line, if you like, of football's future in Australia.

MATT FINNIS, AFL PLAYERS ASSN: Australia will be amongst the most competitive environments for professional football and sport in the world.

BRENDAN SCHWAB, PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLERS ASSN: The competition for the fan and the competition for the elite player.

GREG HOY: Each code contends of course that it's the greatest.

MATT FINNIS: I've been brought up on AFL football. I guess the game has just really thrived on a real tribal following.

TONY DEMPSEY, RUGBY UNION PLAYERS ASSN: I think rugby is truly international with 116 countries that play the game. With that comes a certain culture, a certain ethos about the game.

BRENDAN SCHWAB: The great advantage that football has is that it's obviously the world game. It's a game which also appeals greatly to families, particularly young children.

DAVID GARNSEY, RUGBY LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSN: Rugby league always has that gladiatorial aspect to it. It's a very brutal game put in bald terms.

It's often one man often, one out against another man running at each other at enormous speeds and with enormous impact. And it's that sort of toughness which has always appealed to crowds and certainly appealed to me.

ROBERT MACDONALD, SPORTS LAW, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY: If you're looking at annual revenue, the AFL is earning something like $300 million a year, that's the central body itself.

Rugby league, it's difficult to find that information unless you dig around in annual reports. And it's sort of hidden because of the relationship with News Limited, I believe.

The Australian Rugby Union is less than $100 million a year. And Football Federation Australia is also less than $100 million a year.

GREG HOY: Ahead on points, according to Sweeney Sports research, 50 per cent of Australians are interested in Australian Rules. But the home grown game enjoys by far the highest attendance by devoted fans.

ROBERT MACDONALD: Australian football is the financially strongest by a long shot. There's over six, sometimes seven million people a year go to the Australian Football League.

That's over twice the number of people that attend the National Rugby League competition and four or five times more than would attend, say, the super rugby competition or the A-League soccer.

GREG HOY: Its broadcast rights are worth $780 million over five years. The AFL is now asking $1 billion for its next multimedia rights deal in 2012 and remains the darling of advertisers.

HAROLD MITCHELL, MEDIA STRATEGIST: Advertisers, Greg, are only interested in audience. And so whoever gets the biggest audience over a long period of time that suits an advertiser is the most important one of all. The clear winner in Australia over the whole of the year is the AFL.

GREG HOY: Next on the inter-code premiership ladder: rugby league. Sustaining the interest of 36 per cent of Australians, the NRL is half-owned, managed and heavily promoted by News Limited.

The $600 million broadcast deal expires in 2012, and the code wants more.

DAVID GARNSEY: Rugby league is an extraordinarily popular television spectacle. I think we've just seen some figures where 60 of the 100 most-watched subscription television programs are rugby league games.

GREG HOY: Further down the ladder, rugby union, recovering from financial difficulties in recent years, though according to Sweeney Sports, 32 per cent of Australians remain interested.

Its Tri Nations Super 14 competition may soon expand into Melbourne, with hope of a major increase in the US $323 million broadcast rights, which expire in two years.

HAROLD MITCHELL: Rugby Union has got a way to go but it is incredibly important at the very big events. So every time we see the Bledisloe Cup it goes through roof.

GREG HOY: Then comes soccer, the sleeping giant with the highest participation rate of the codes. The soaring popularity of the Socceroos, though its financial strength is inhibited by a seven-year broadcasting deal yielding just $120 million with five years to run.

HAROLD MITCHELL: It hasn't allowed them to be out on free-to-air. Free-to-air makes a very big difference because it gets the big, big audiences and that's what builds it over time.

GREG HOY: There are, however, unknowns that might help level the playing field and change the rankings. The first is a current review of the Government's anti-siphoning legislation, dictating what must be shown on free-to-air TV.

Secondly, each of the codes faces its own daunting challenges. Even the AFL.

MATT FINNIS: Sydney is still a big nut to crack for AFL and certainly for the eastern seaboard up into Queensland as well.

GREG HOY: But rugby league has its own challenges. The poaching of its stars by wealthier codes. Advertisers meantime have concerns about persistent scandals involving prominent players.

HAROLD MITCHELL: This is a very careful views audience these days. And they don't like the thought of yahoos in any of the sports.

GREG HOY: While league players themselves want to a change of management, given that News Limited is part owner manager of the League, and part owner of Foxtel, one of the main bidders for broadcasting right.

DAVID GARNSEY: There's certainly been a call for an independent commission much like the AFL's model, you might think, to be set up, removed from any self-interest which might otherwise hinder the game.

People in positions of power are reluctant to give those positions up.

GREG HOY: Rugby union, meanwhile, understands it must lift its game in order to survive or prosper.

TONY DEMPSEY: I don't disagree that rugby has hit a flat spot. We are at a crossroad; we are at a little bit of a tipping point.

And we need to address several fundamental things and if we can address those and they are - some free-to-air coverage for super rugby, some changes in the laws to make the game more enjoyable for spectators and to give more meaning to the test match schedule.

If those three things can be achieved I think rugby's positioning itself to grow.

GREG HOY: While many see soccer's ascension as inevitable at the expense of other codes, soccer must compete with its own European competitions to win supporters for A-League clubs.

BRENDAN SCHWAB: Our objective is to make football number one or number two in every market, with a genuine national footprint.

GREG HOY: The increasingly national competition is set to intensify, forcing all codes to stay on the ball.

MATT FINNIS: The worst thing we could do is assume that AFL will hold the position at the top of the heap. I think we need to work hard, then I believe the AFL is well placed to cement its position as the number one sport in the country.
 

1 Eyed TEZZA

Coach
Messages
12,420
I watched that too and thought it was a good analysis of the current situation with the big 4 codes.

Advertisers, Greg, are only interested in audience. And so whoever gets the biggest audience over a long period of time that suits an advertiser is the most important one of all.

That is a very important fact. I know that the AFL use their 3 hours over our 2 hours, on tv, as a big pull for advertisers, but is a 3 hour show with an audience of say 400,000 worth more to advertisers then a 2 hour show with an audience of 500,000?
 

Green Machine

First Grade
Messages
5,844
Harold Mitchell has been known to pump the tyres up of the AFL in the past. I saw his name attached to one of those Melbourne Super 14 consortiums. Some nice quotes below:

HAROLD MITCHELL: Rugby Union has got a way to go but it is incredibly important at the very big events. So every time we see the Bledisloe Cup it goes through roof.

Must be a single story dwelling with 6 foot ceilings

HAROLD MITCHELL, MEDIA STRATEGIST: Advertisers, Greg, are only interested in audience. And so whoever gets the biggest audience over a long period of time that suits an advertiser is the most important one of all. The clear winner in Australia over the whole of the year is the AFL.

Sure

GREG HOY: Ahead on points, according to Sweeney Sports research, 50 per cent of Australians are interested in Australian Rules. But the home grown game enjoys by far the highest attendance by devoted fans.

Sweeney Report, please.....
 

Latest posts

Top