Next TV deal discussion 2028 -

[storm1999]

Barely washes its face apparently means it struggles to make any money … what rubbish .. it’s the best sports broadcast deal going around and they have been the beneficiaries for 10 years

Who do you think generates more money from ad slots? Nine's NRL or Seven's AFL?

 

[storm1999]

Brand the Super League games as NRL Europe when airing in Australia

How many additional viewers do you honestly think will wake up at 5am on a Sunday morning to watch Hull v Wigan just because of the NRL branding?

 

[comeinpeace]

Who do you think generates more money from ad slots? Nine's NRL or Seven's AFL?

If you go back 15 years, before we had regionals data and people would debate NRL vs AFL, people would point out that regionals for NRL meant more people would watch it! And they were right! NRL has more teams, and more interest, in Australia, among the approximately 30% of Australia that lives in non-major media markets. NRL has NQ, Newcastle, Canberra. AFL does not have a single regional team, until Tasmania comes in soon.

It's good that NRL has a lot of fans in regional areas. But that doesn't make it a richer sport. The TV ad slot on free to air is worth less in a regional broadcast than a city one, even if an identical amount of people are watching the ad. City people are richer than regional ones, and more potential advertisers are competing for metro TV advertising slots. There might be a Toyota dealership in your country town, but it's the only one. There's no incentive for Renault, Volvo or Skoda - or indeed Nissan or Kia to advertise in a broadcast that goes to a NQ Cowboys fan that is living in Gladstone or Rockhampton.

There are different sports in America, for instance, that are clearly richer but less popular than the others simply due to the demographics that watches it. Nobody on this forum would think that NASCAR is a richer sport than the American market for Golf or Tennis. Funnily enough though, NASCAR is more popular in raw numbers than either. More people watch an average NASCAR broadcast on Fox than watch some of the majors on golf in the US. It's just that Rolex are buying an ad slot on America TV on Golf, and Applebees are the ones that are buying the (much cheaper) ad slot on NASCAR on Fox.

So yes, it shouldn't be controversial to say that the AFL gets a more money for its ad slot than the NRL, and that factors into the overall value of the media rights. The demographics of the audiences are difference. If it's not controversial and we can all agree it's true for the ad slots for NASCAR and Golf, people should not disagree on the different (smaller difference but still distinct) difference in demographics of the audience for AFL and NRL?

 

[Wb1234]

I don't disagree what you're trying to say but your interpretation is a bit weird.

If we're talking about about overheads (aka expenses), we have to consider all revenue in general, and consider that some revenue goes to a club directly, not via NRL/AFL head office revenue (for example, buying a beanie from the club website as part of overall merchandising revenue and expenses for both sports.

AFL makes far more revenue outside of its non-media rights package. More sponsorships, more memberships, more corporate, more ticketing, more merchandising for the clubs. Less fees from gambling, though, granted. That's outside media rights too.

The AFL doesn't just 'prop up' GWS/Suns via revenue raised in media rights. It does so from the overall package. AFL has been able to decrease their variable funding to the Brisbane Lions in recent years, as they have bigger attendances upon winning premierships. That's a bigger pool of money the AFL has to be able to prop up the deadweights of GWS/Suns.

And in any case, I don't see how you can interpret the NRL's decisions to spend on non-core spending outside of its competition - like super league and internationals - as "accelerating growth" - as being any different to the AFL's logic as to why it has a deadweight in GWS/Suns in the first place. To be clear, I'm not saying the these clubs are not deadweights, I agree with you on that. It's just that the same logic applies as to why the AFL brought them in - "accelerating growth, come new media deal more money". Those two teams lose money, but they brought indirect benefits to the AFL with a greater, consistent presence among all 5 major markets + Canberra via GWS to an extent (AFL was only playing 1 game a year in Canberra before GWS, not 3). Who knows how less money Toyota would pay for national sponsorships for example, now that the AFL can trick Toyota in telling them that their competition is "truly national", and their logo is plastered in every city every week? The NRL can't go to its national sponsors and claim that it's a "national brand" in the same sense that there are not games in Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth every week. It's stupid, I agree, but having worked in this industry before, the companies that might pay the millions of dollars for these types of sponsorships care about this BS stuff.

Thank you

what we needed was more league fans who have intimate afl knowledge

 

[Mother Nature's Son]

Thank you

what we needed was more league fans who have intimate afl knowledge

Likes bees to the honeypot.

 

[nswarrior]

Thank you

what we needed was more league fans who have intimate afl knowledge

More AFL knowledge and use 1000 words when 3 would do

 

[storm1999]

The TV ad slot on free to air is worth less in a regional broadcast than a city one. City people are richer than regional ones, and more potential advertisers are competing for metro TV advertising slots.

Correct. The length and structure of an AFL game also offers far more opportunities for ad slots (quarter time breaks, 30sec break after each goal, 3 hour game length). A primetime AFL game on FTA typically generates up to 50% more ad revenue than a corresponding NRL game, even if the total metro audience is on par or slightly higher.

 

[comeinpeace]

Thank you

what we needed was more league fans who have intimate afl knowledge

You've attacked me before mate. I'm a person who works in the industry of sports media/sports gambling, and I moved from my upbringing of growing up with AFL to the fact that I moved to Sydney and Brisbane for work and have had to do a lot of work on NRL (and other sports that I didn't grow up with - I do work for the World Surfing League and Surfing Australia even though I've never surfed in my life and know far less about it than the NRL).

I might have grown up with the AFL, and know it better, but I'm an NRL fan mate. I went to Broncos games when I lived in Sydney. I cheered for them and enjoyed it. Not everything is a code wars in a battle mate, even if the natural comparison of NRL and AFL is interesting as they compete for the title of the competition of the bigger sports media product, which I agree NRL seems like will overtake the AFL at some point in the next media rights deal.

 

[nswarrior]

Correct. The length and structure of an AFL game also offers far more opportunities for ad slots (quarter time breaks, 30sec break after each goal, 3 hour game length). A primetime AFL game on FTA typically generates up to 50% more ad revenue than a corresponding NRL game, even if the total metro audience is on par or slightly higher.

Rubbish as always - most TV money comes from subscriptions. NRL has had a lot more PTV audience but have never been paid for it.

Length of games, breaks for adverts drove 20% of revenue, the willingness of someone to pay and subscribe is what drives 80% of revenue.
NRL at $800m would be a fair reflection of where the sport is currently at

 

[Mother Nature's Son]

The length and structure of an AFL game

Well, we won`t talk about the length,,, bloody hell they go on forever, but "structure" now that`s one word that should never be used in the same sentence as fumbleball. lol.

 

[Mother Nature's Son]

You've attacked me before mate. I'm a person who works in the industry of sports media/sports gambling, and I moved from my upbringing of growing up with AFL to the fact that I moved to Sydney and Brisbane for work and have had to do a lot of work on NRL (and other sports that I didn't grow up with - I do work for the World Surfing League and Surfing Australia even though I've never surfed in my life and know far less about it than the NRL).

I might have grown up with the AFL, and know it better, but I'm an NRL fan mate. I went to Broncos games when I lived in Sydney. I cheered for them and enjoyed it. Not everything is a code wars in a battle mate, even if the natural comparison of NRL and AFL is interesting as they compete for the title of the competition of the bigger sports media product, which I agree NRL seems like will overtake the AFL at some point in the next media rights deal.

The lady doth protest too much me thinks.

 

[Wb1234]

More AFL knowledge and use 1000 words when 3 would do

It’s good to see more of them here shows we are winning

 

[comeinpeace]

Rubbish as always - most TV money comes from subscriptions. NRL has had a lot more PTV audience but have never been paid for it.

Length of games, breaks for adverts drove 20% of revenue, the willingness of someone to pay and subscribe is what drives 80% of revenue.
NRL at $800m would be a fair reflection of where the sport is currently at

The AFL get about 35-40% of its current media rights deal via Channel 7. It might be a minority, not most, but it still is a significant portion.

A lot of posting on this thread tries to understand how it's a bit strange Channel 9 don't seem to pay all that much money for what it broadcasts for the games that it does, given most of what they pay goes towards Origin and internationals. I would have thought that the answer is pretty simple - there's not a large number of advertisers scrambling to pay lots of money for the advertising slot found within an NRL game on a WIN Television broadcast in regional australia, despite the fact that a viewer makes up the overall TV ratings number for the NRL.

Well, we won`t talk about the length,,, bloody hell they go on forever, but "structure" now that`s one word that should never be used in the same sentence as fumbleball. lol.

Keep in mind that the structure goes both ways. The AFL cannot structure a weekend where they do not overlap any games. While they offer more total hours of football, the value of doing so is not linear. They broadcast around 25 hours a week, with more ads, than the NRL's 20. But 10 of those 25 hours for the AFL might be simultaneous. People watch one game at a time. For example the NRL can easily broadcast 4, non-overlapping hours on a friday night. The AFL can't. It either has to broadcast merely one game of 3 hours on a Friday, or, like this past week, broadcast two games, splitting the audience. That's then one fewer game it then has to offer broadcasters on Saturday/Sunday.

 

[storm1999]

the willingness of someone to pay and subscribe is what drives 80% of revenue.

If I pay for a Kayo subscription I'm paying for both AFL and NRL regardless if I watch both, one or them or neither.

 

[comeinpeace]

The lady doth protest too much me thinks.

Is there a leagueunlimited rule that I'm only allowed to post unless I tell you my favourite childhood moments from following the game, which I won't be able to pass, so therefore my account is banned?

 

[Wb1234]

If I pay for a Kayo subscription I'm paying for both AFL and NRL regardless if I watch both, one or them or neither.

Guys any guesses which one he’s watching ?

if kayo loses the nrl you will be paying a lot more for the afl rights as we have most of the subscribers

so your smaller subscriber base will be left to pay for that massive overs Fox is paying

 

[Mother Nature's Son]

The AFL get about 35-40% of its current media rights deal via Channel 7. It might be a minority, not most, but it still is a significant portion.

A lot of posting on this thread tries to understand how it's a bit strange Channel 9 don't seem to pay all that much money for what it broadcasts for the games that it does, given most of what they pay goes towards Origin and internationals. I would have thought that the answer is pretty simple - there's not a large number of advertisers scrambling to pay lots of money for the advertising slot found within an NRL game on a WIN Television broadcast in regional australia, despite the fact that a viewer makes up the overall TV ratings number for the NRL.


Keep in mind that the structure goes both ways. The AFL cannot structure a weekend where they do not overlap any games. While they offer more total hours of football, the value of doing so is not linear. They broadcast around 25 hours a week, with more ads, than the NRL's 20. But 10 of those 25 hours for the AFL might be simultaneous. People watch one game at a time. For example the NRL can easily broadcast 4, non-overlapping hours on a friday night. The AFL can't. It either has to broadcast merely one game of 3 hours on a Friday, or, like this past week, broadcast two games, splitting the audience. That's then one fewer game it then has to offer broadcasters on Saturday/Sunday.

Look mate, leave this stuff to @stratocaster, he does it so much better than your demented rantings.

 

[Mother Nature's Son]

which I won't be able to pass,

Yes, we know you`re a fumblefan and have never learnt to pass, I think they call it fisting in your `past-time".

 

[storm1999]

Yes, we know you`re a fumblefan and have never learnt to pass, I think they call it fisting in your `past-time".

It's called a "handball". Educate yourself at your local Auskick clinic.

 

[comeinpeace]

Guys any guesses which one he’s watching ?

if kayo loses the nrl you will be paying a lot more for the afl rights as we have most of the subscribers

so your smaller subscriber base will be left to pay for that massive overs Fox is paying

Given I work in the industry, I can't "prove" it via public numbers, but this is incorrect.

Both sports contribute a similar amount to driving subscribers to Kayo. Eerily similar to the point that there's no point making a distinction between the two. I know, I work with the data in my professional career. Which is why then-Fox (now DAZN) pay both sports a similar amount.

Anyway, the way that sport markets work is never that distinct. People have elected to purchase Kayo because they are, you would be surprised to hear that there are people in this world (myself included), both NRL and AFL fans. That person would cancel their subscription if either the NRL or AFL was not on Kayo. How can it be that one sport is therefore contributing more than the other? If both sports are needed to get that subscription, neither has "most". Both count toward getting the subscription, there is a venn diagram at play.

The same thing is true for other things Kayo broadcast - Cricket and F1 being the main others. Soccer they've strategically avoided in its journey since losing the EPL and A-League rights. To a smaller extent things like Darts and the World Surfing League I've mentioned have also tipped a majority NRL fan over the edge to get a Kayo subscription, I know, because I've marketed to that demographic of an NRL/World Surfing League fan before, as small as a market that is.