So we have all cancelled the early retirement plans and started stockpiling baked beans. The global credit crunch has had a world wide effect, but what impact will it have on the Australian sporting landscape? And if there is a football war going on, what will it do to the war chests?
Wearing a different hat than that of a humble Roar columnist, I spoke to the NBA’s commissioner David Stern last week about the financial robustness of the competition, given that plenty of football fans in Europe are nervously watching the news as their chairmen deal with eye-watering debts as assets often secured by the football club plummet in value.
Stern was confident that the system of debt limitation and salary caps would help limit the exposure of the franchises to the problems of the wider business world.
He is a strong advocate of strong central regulation, which was interesting given that he hails from a country that prides itself on being the home of market liberalism (or at least, was until the word ‘bailout’ was on everyone’s lips).
His jargon would have almost had him in front of the House Committee on Un-American Activities during the McCarthy era.
Stern argued the cap prevented the owners from “spending to oblivion” and it was clear he had little time for the business models of the Abramovich’s of this world.
However, it was equally illuminating given that it seems only yesterday people were claiming the need for the abolition of such caps in Australia.
We were told, “there is no limit on what a CEO can earn.”
We are now finding out the precise problem with such a situation.
It is interesting to note that the sports facing the biggest problems currently are ones who weren’t policed by a salary cap.
There is even talk of one being brought into European football. However, I’d be quick to dismiss that as hollow rhetoric.
Stern admitted that season ticket renewals are slower this year in the NBA, but he believed that this coupled with an increase in new season ticket purchases as well as opportunity for an increase in general sales.
Still, the experienced commissioner did agree that sporting tickets fell into the category of “disposable income” and when this gets tight, the competition for that income increases.
In Australia, with greater scarcity of the punter’s dollars, our football codes have the tougher challenge of making the spending decision of the fan tip in their favour.
First of all, let’s dispel the myth that the economic downturn is bad for everybody.
That is simply not the case.
Already seeing an upturn in fortunes are Domino’s pizza (nothing makes you feel better about a plummeting house price than an extra large Hawaiian), Tie Rack (a new tie might make the boss think twice about firing you, despite you spending the last eighteen months on Facebook) and, interestingly, movie cinemas, as people seek escapism and simple pleasures.
This last one was especially salient for sporting administrators as the line trotted out is often that lean economic times automatically equate to a drop in attendances.
I’m not so sure this should be the case.
Surely if the credit crunch means it is more likely someone will fork out their hard earned to watch the latest offering from Adam Sandler over 93 minutes, then they might also want to take the opportunity to also watch their team strut their stuff.
Anyone who has spent any time listening to talk back radio will no doubt have heard the tales of woe of the cost of a family man taking his kids to the footy.
I’ve never heard the same complaints about the cost of getting them in to see Wall E on the big screen.
But maybe that has something to do with our mindset: we feel like we can complain to our local footy team but not to Hoyts.
Despite the general admission to most club games being comparable to a full priced ticket at the movies, it does seem that people need to be enticed more to attend the footy than they do to roll up to the multiplex.
It is often argued that ticket prices shouldn’t be dropped because it then appears that you are cheapening the product.
However, in the English Premier League, newly promoted West Bromwich Albion actually cut the price of season tickets to a three year low at the same time as going up, despite having a greater wage bill to sustain.
It was all about locking supporters and guaranteeing income rather than allowing their fate to be dictated by whims of form during the season.
But if we are not watching games at the ground, we seem to be doing so at home.
The crunch is likely to have a big impact on the next wave of television deals that football codes have been eying off since the ink dried on their last one.
Sporting CEOs have resembled Enron executives as they seemingly pluck an enormous figure out of the sky and claim this is their new target for the next deal.
It was an easy job because everywhere was awash with cash, but now that this isn’t the case, it is likely the respective bean counters are starting to revise their figures as the cash to support those deals are drying up over night.
And if that happens, there may be a few questions to consider.
How might the AFL fund their raid into Western Sydney without the next bonanza of TV cash?
What effect will any drop in funding have on the NRL grants system?
And with the Foxtel deal keeping most A-League clubs afloat, what happens if the big increase that has been banked on at the end of the current deal simply doesn’t arrive?
I had coffee recently with an A-League insider who claimed their next television deal would surpass the NRL’s. It was simply a matter of the clubs surviving until then.
That survival suddenly might not be so simple.
What of John O’Neil’s grand plan to see private benefactors from the big end of town pouring cash into rugby franchises?
As Spiro has pointed out in a previous article, they might have a few other things on their mind at present.
The collapse of TV money has had disastrous effects on sports in the past in both the UK and Germany. And while it may seem a little dramatic to predict the downfall of a channel in Australia, it might not be so radical to predict some serious belt tightening.
Then again we might have said that before C7 checked out.
My prediction is that fans of one code will have plenty of optimism about their chosen sport but dire predictions about the health of others,
This off-season could have more drama than most.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.


oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 8:08am | Report comment
The soccer t/v deal bigger than the nrl deal, your on some sort of fantasy drug, tell your mate that steve, even if we did not have the down-turn this would never happen, the nrl is a t/v gallioth even aussie rules struggles to beat the nrl at the t/v game. The only t/v deals that might go up would be the nrl, why, because they were underpriced in the 1st place, and they can split up parts of the game to make more from it. Aussie rules were over-priced, they should struggle, and the a-league will also start having to flog a dead horse to get money from the deals, the 1st thing you lose in a down-turn is pay t/v, but the older and retired folk who watch league wont be in that catagory. What they should do is bring back packages, like “A” for league “B” for AFL or “C” for soccer, this would sort out the men from the boys. In the t/v world .
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 8:20am | Report comment
oikee,
when futbol starts talking about getting bigger tv deals than NRL it is not just HAL, it includes the Socceroos as well. Interest in the Socceroos in no small measure helps subsidise the HAL.
By itself, HAL would not get a large deal, it does not rate that well on Pay TV yet, for the last reporting period, the highest ranking HAL game was at 84th in all sports events, that being the final. The Socceroos got the top spot, and the Super 14 final was second, although NRL and AFL did dominate the top 100 overall.
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 9:09am | Report comment
I cant dispute figures that you give me TT but i also have said on previous posts that at the moment they (socceroos) are a novelty, this wares thin after awhile and you will get a better idea down the track, its like 20/ 20 cricket, people move on.
The Link said | October 14th 2008 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Steve – nice work on Stern.
If only the Yanks could apply the same common sense shown in running their sports as their financial system and country in general. In the past they may have only been a Karl Rove ‘socialised sport’ attack away from changing that, however recent events and even an Obama presidency make this more unlikely.
TT and Oikee, News are on the record as saying that Pay TV rights deals are based on potential subscription growth, not ratings. So the question is more about how Socceroos games and A-League can drive subscriptions rather than ratings at this stage. Ratings must become more important however as saturation increases in the Australian Pay TV market.
The key for the FFA is not the A-League clubs not falling over, but getting the Socceroos on the anti-siphoning list. This way they can charge top dollar for Free to Air rights to subsidise the A-League, along with allowing on selling to Pay TV for the lower ranking Socceroos games. The current list expires at the end of 2010, will this be in time for the negotiations?
Michael C said | October 14th 2008 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Any FFA broadcast deal will porbably see HAL still safely tucked away exclusively on Pay TV and the FTA vs Pay main bidding would be for the Socceroos component in the hope of a FIFA WC campaign. But, if Socceroos are placed on anti siphoning list, then that limits the bidding by removing the pay tv bid. If it’s all packaged, then you need a FTA/Pay consortium and they’ll split their value propositions accordingly, or the FTA network would most likely on sell as much as possible of the HAL.
Along the way……..a direct feed of Socceroos in Tashkent at 2 in the morning…………..what value do you place on that? What really is the value proposition for the Socceroos? Given the Wallabies for example can sell out Suncorp at the drop of a hat and not get on tv in Melb until midnight.
and re the Pay TV value proposition of increasing subscriptions – - there’s limited value for domestic soccer as most soccer fans will be signed up already to see their EPL and the like – - the saturation global coverage of soccer must diminish the new subscriptions potential for the HAL.
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Very interesting article Steve. I thought you’d get oikee fired up about the TV deal comparison to the Rugby League. Of course, you are spot on. Football’s deal will end up sitting between League and AFL in the next round of negotiations.
Oikee remember that NRL is only a TV goliath in 2 states, and in a limited demographic in those 2 states at that. It is not a national product. Also mber that League’s Free-to-Air offering is on Channel 9 which is in real financial trouble and owned by private equity who want only to cut costs as much as they can. I think League will be ok on Fox but it’s reliance on Channel 9 to get to its lower-class fan base is a very real weakness.
And for those that say its not fair that Socceroos would bolster the football TV deal, I’ve been hearing all month about this important League World Cup coming up too… surely if its so good and credible as people tell me it is, it should add enormous value to the League TV rights value…
And finally to Oikee again, the ‘novelty wears thin’ argument about the Socceroos just doesn’t wash for me. We’re talking about our national team in the biggest sport in the world. Has the novelty worn thin for the national teams of Argentina? England? Brazil? France? Germany? They have all been playing for many many years… Sinilarly has the ‘novelty worn thin’ about our 100+ year old national cricket team, or the Wallabies (despite both cricket and Union being much smaller sports than football)? No. Quite the contrary, the Socceroos are just starting to achieve now in a way they never have before. The next 20 years will see them take the Australian public on a journey that is absolutely scintillating… with the next step of that journey tomorrow night at Suncorp.
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 10:32am | Report comment
MC – valid points. One thing I must remind you of, of course, is that FTA is already asking Fox for access to one or two HAL matches to play each week. So while I agree that HAL will primarily stay on the Pay platform, don’t underestimate the appetite to have some (though not comprehensive) HAL content on pleb TV.
Interesting point about both time zones and subscriptions which I agree both warrant some thought. On time zones, to my mind there are home Socceroos and big HAL matches that are obvious FTA sweet-spot. Wee-hours games will be a matter of judgement for the networks. I suspect the answer will be live on Fox with extended highlights or a full replay the next morning on FTA. Though depending on a range of factors, FTA may yet decide that at 3am the Socceroos still rate better than info-mercials and run them live. Question is what the deal will do in relation to ACL? Will it be an extension of the predominantly Pay TV HAL deal or will it be attractive to FTA (remember we’re talking a Wednesday night, either prime time or up to 6 hours later depending on location)
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 11:01am | Report comment
That journey is about to begin, i thought that journey has now been going for 20 years, seems to be a long journey, look to be honest millster i am with M.C and if you take into account the saturation as i have previously said myself, i dont see a global market either for socceroos verse qatar, they only have 250 thousand over there, i dont watch france playing romania, whats your lifeline, socceroos playing china, china benifits, the world cup will get a world following for football of course, but if your team is not in, the interest diminishes, a small world cup is probably the future, not this long dragged out qualifying and games played out between countries who in my opinion devalue the game, if a tiny nation can knock off a world power then its sad times. What does it prove.? I also dont see the sense of a team drawing and then riots.
And finally you hit the nail on the head millster, yes league is mainly only 2 states, theres plenty of room for growth. Not only here but also other countries who are interested in league, who else besides ozzies are interested in the socceroos.?
And your 1st statement millster does not make sense, the rules and league deal are very much on par, one was over-sold the other under-sold, so where do you sit, your either going to say that soccer deals are going to be number 1 or number 3. not this in-between because there is no in-between. Make a call and then i can shoot you down if your wrong. I will be around in 5 years time so i am patient.
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 11:13am | Report comment
And your point about channel 9, what are you saying that if league was lost to 9 then the game is lost, are you also on some sort of fantasy drug, the other channels would love to pick up the rights, probably do a better job at selling the game anyhow, league is already looking at better free to air deals, if nobody picked it up then pay t/v would go through the roof.
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Oikee – badminton is only played in a few countries in Asia. Does that mean there is enormous room for growth of that game in Australia? Get my point? Just because a game isn’t somewhere doesn’t make that place an automatic growth opportunity. Or else you’d have a strange argument going that would say that the smaller and more isolated a sport is then the more fantastic its opportunities are. Doesn’t work. Small sports are small sports for a reason, especially if they have been around for decades or even a century or more.
Also your analysis jumps (as it usually does) between club and national level. Only Aussies are interested in Socceroos is like saying only Aussies are interested in Kangaroos. But if you talk about other countries interested in League (the game in general, not just one country) you have to compare it to the contries interested in Football (again the game in general, not just the Australian game).
I can’t even start picking apart your first para – it is so full of holes. First, thanks for the stereotypes about draws and riots, cheap shots always much appreciated. On global market remember no SINGLE game (except those mega-ginals such as World Cup and UEFA) get global coverage. The globalisation is in each nation supporting its clubs and national teams in the world, plus some spill-over into the continent. So with Socceroos and Qatar, yes you’ll have mainly Aussies and Qataris watching, plus some interested viewers from the other nations in our group, plus then some general global football fans watching out of interest. Same as in your League World Cup. Not everyone will watch every game, each nation will watch their own, with some but not a lot of spillover. The globalisation comes from adding all those individual bits of interest together.
You also have to remember in terms of that general interest that in Australia it is ABNORMALLY low by world standards. As one example, in 2006, I watched the famous Socceroo win over Uruguay from a cafe in Montparnasse, in Paris. Yes, thats right, French people had on a game between 2 completely unrelated nations and yet were following intently and getting into it. It even occurs in non-football nations. I spent a few hours in the ESPN bar in Vegas when I was last there and the big screens were showing key World cup Qualifiers – not only USA but also Mexico and Central and South American countries. Oh, and by the way I did watch France vs Romania streamed on the web.
And finally on World Cup structure and qualifying, how else do you cater for a game played and followed by over 150 countries? How do you ensure some excitement and a ‘slice of the pie’, even for those that don’t make the finals? And how do you ensure that the one-off freak win does not decide the fate of an entire group if you don’t have proper qualification series played over a number of games? So quite the opposite to you, I see it as the lifeblood of the sport and as the true greatness of it. Also look at the ultimate winners of all World Cups since the start. You can’t argue that the strongest teams don’t usually rise to the top. Sure like in all tournaments there is a freak result here and there but once you get to the top 4 or so you’re usually talking football royalty in terms of the nations involved.