Inaction speaks louder than words in AFL's non-response to ACCC Roy Masters
December 15, 2010
There has been a muted response by sports administrators on what they think about recent share acquisitions in Channel Ten. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission called for submissions on the issue, but when its deadline passed on Friday it had heard barely a peep from the sports bodies.
On November 26 the commission wrote to Cricket Australia, the AFL, NRL and other sports asking for comment on the purchase of shares in Ten by James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch, particularly as it relates to the lessening of competition for sports broadcasting rights.
Advertisement: Story continues below Packer owns 25 per cent of Foxtel and 50 per cent of Fox Sports, and Murdoch is a director of News Corp, which owns the same shareholding.
The sports addressed are all members of the Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports and it was assumed it would make a submission. But the AFL, whose games are broadcast by Ten, Foxtel and Seven, told COMPPS it would not make a submission and, even if did, it would be a separate response.
The NRL, whose broadcast rights are held by Fox Sports and Nine, said it would not make a submission but would be happy to meet the ACCC.
Cricket Australia, whose rights are shared between Nine and Fox Sports, did not make a submission but met the commission on Monday. It offered the bravest response, telling the Herald: ''We are keen for the marketplace to be as competitive as it can be.'' A commission spokeswoman would not reveal which sports had received letters or replied.
The commission's written questions allowed sports to comment on whether they believed the possible closure on Ten's 24-hour sports channel, One, could be designed to protect the investment of Packer-Murdoch in their pay TV monopoly.
Some of the questions asked were: ''Please provide your views on the extent to which Ten competes with PMG [owners of Fox Sports] and/or Foxtel for the acquisition of sporting content? Do you consider that the [share] acquisitions are likely to change the incentives of Ten and PMG and Foxtel to compete vigorously for the acquisition of premium sporting content or other content in future?''
The AFL's refusal to make a submission raised eyebrows at the NRL, whose rights contract expires at the end of the 2012 season, a year after the AFL deal. Both codes expect $1 billion from their next five-year agreements, although insiders say the AFL will receive $900 million and the NRL $700 million.
The AFL now receives $780 million and will have an extra game to sell, while the NRL's existing deal is worth about $450 million, an undervalued fee that does not reflect the code's superior cumulative audience ratings this season.
Foxtel-Fox Sports are expected to supply most of the increased fees, particularly for the AFL, which plans to conclude its negotiations before the NRL can begin its.
This has raised fears Foxtel's ''pot of gold'' will be gobbled up by the AFL and explains, according to the conspiracy theorists, the code's non-response to the commission.
If the AFL already has a sweetheart deal with Foxtel to televise the third and fourth best games each week, it does not want to be antagonising Packer-Murdoch with critical letters to the commission.
This is ironic, considering the commission's explanation for not commenting on which sports had replied to its letter. ''We want sports to be frank and fearless in their responses,'' a spokeswoman said.
