Should the AFL run its own PAY TV channel?

[CyberKev]

On last night's WLF Brownlow special, the suggestion arose for the AFL to run its own pay TV channel (an alternative version of Fox Footy, if you like).

Personally, I think this is something that the AFL should seriously consider, as it would have the money to do so, and it would put the League in charge of its own destiny (to some extent) when it comes to growing the code in remote and hostile regions.

This arrangement has worked well for the NFL in North America, and while the AFL would be operating on a smaller scale, it would also be operating on a smaller cost.

I think they need to be proactive and strike while the iron's hot. This would be the perfect time for them to set up a channel, given that they almost certainly will at some point in the future anyway.

 

[Twizzle]

it would involve a huge cost and they would need a provider like Fox or ESPN, or heaven forbid Channel 9

it would probably be not named after the provider, but still, they would need existing infra structure to get it to air

huge job, couldn't see it happening

 

[lockyno1]

Comes down to ratings and $$$$. In the end the NFL is watched by 100million people! How many people realistically would watch the proposed AFL channel. As I said before as long as we see the games, I am happy anyway.

 

[CyberKev]

Comes down to ratings and $$$$. In the end the NFL is watched by 100million people! How many people realistically would watch the proposed AFL channel. As I said before as long as we see the games, I am happy anyway.

Fox Footy was Foxtel's 4th highest rating channel and I could see plenty of scope for improvement with the programming schedule that would have helped with increasing viewers further.

The NFL comparison is more of a scope thing, as obviously it is a bigger deal, but it also costs considerably more to operate (and to snare the rights for it).

I don't believe that a football dedicated channel would cost the AFL a huge amount of money. They could certainly fund it inside of the profits from the latest TV rights deal (and by profit, I'm talking about the extra funding allotment they received from the new rights deal over what they received from the last deal, allowing for inflation).

It coulod be done, and almost certainly will be done at some point in the future. Why not bite the bullet now?

 

[lockyno1]

Fox Footy was losing 20 million a year! I can see the reason for cutting the channel honestly! If the AFL were SMART they would have done this a few years ago and made a deal with Fox Sports to show WLF, FLT, and a few other "essential" programs as well. Now becuase of all the losses, the AFL has no bargaining power. Fox has made a business decision and unless the AFL was going to give 25 million back in profits, which is just ridiculous, there was only going to be one outcome!

 

[CyberKev]

Fox Footy was losing 20 million a year! I can see the reason for cutting the channel honestly! If the AFL were SMART they would have done this a few years ago and made a deal with Fox Sports to show WLF, FLT, and a few other "essential" programs as well. Now becuase of all the losses, the AFL has no bargaining power. Fox has made a business decision and unless the AFL was going to give 25 million back in profits, which is just ridiculous, there was only going to be one outcome!

FoxFooty was poorly ran and should never have been losing that amount of money.

With a smarter approach, better management and a revised programming schedule I have little doubt that the AFL couldn't get that figure down considerably.

It wouldn't even matter if the AFL was running at a loss of a few million a year, as it would be a small price to pay for ensuring widespread focus and advertising for its product.

 

[lockyno1]

Look kev proposing a AFL channel is fine IN THEORY! The reality is different. The live games rate, the live shows rate (WLF, FLT, ect). But the fact of the matter is that the 10 repeats of every game just don't rate. It is that simple! That is where the money will be lost and I am struggling to see how that would change in any shape or form. Most people don't want to watch the replays anyway if they have seen the game! Even the NRL which rates considerably more does not have a single station on Fox Footy. It is due to that point. There are only so many live shows and games in a week. All the other time will be taken up by shows that don't rate! That kills the station and will keep the losses to the AFL coming in! If you suggest a approch that is REASONABLE then by all means mention it, but I cannot see a single model that could possibly be profitable in either the short or long term!

 

[meltiger]

Fox Footy was losing 20 million a year!

The Channel itself may have been losing money but looking at the bigger picture ... How many subscriptions did Foxtel as a whole earn by showing footy games...

 

[CyberKev]

The Channel itself may have been losing money but looking at the bigger picture ... How many subscriptions did Foxtel as a whole earn by showing footy games...

Looking at the bigger picture is indeed important, Craig.

I'd also like to know how much of the losses were caused by running the channel across the offseason. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if you only ran it from the week leading up to round 1 through to GF day, you'd cut the losses down.

Then you can have the AFL using its business clout to revise and broaden advertising on the site.

You could also cheaply televise replays of all VFL and TAC (possibly even SANFL & WAFL) games during the week, which would bring more of the grassroots code dynamic to Foxtel.

Get some gurus to reshape and revitalise the programming schedule to diversify the range of football related shows.

As I said, it wouldn't even matter if the AFL lost a millior or two a year, as they could write this off on advertising and promoting the sport.

I still believe that with smarter management, they could at least break even.

 

[lockyno1]

The Channel itself may have been losing money but looking at the bigger picture ... How many subscriptions did Foxtel as a whole earn by showing footy games...

Not enough, becuase if there were enough subscriptions as a direct result of Fox Footy then the channels would still be around. The AFL mad a smart business decision. I for sure am only going to miss the Gospel as that is the only Fox Footy show I really watch. The others I can do without. The games are being televised anyway. It won't change what I watch anyway.

 

[meltiger]

Not enough, becuase if there were enough subscriptions as a direct result of Fox Footy then the channels would still be around.

Except for the fact they don't have the coverage anymore ...


Remember, last time around Foxtel purchased all rights and then on-sold 5 games a week to FTA

 

[CyberKev]

I for sure am only going to miss the Gospel as that is the only Fox Footy show I really watch. The others I can do without. The games are being televised anyway. It won't change what I watch anyway.

And I thought the Gospel was rubbish.

The lessons of the story are to:

a) not conflate your own viewing preferences and habits with those of the broader Foxtel community; and

b) not limit your thinking to the programming schedule that is currently in place.