Nine won’t prop up the rights price next time around
By Bruce Walkley, 15 Oct 2008 Bruce Walkley is a Roar Pro
Related coverage
The global finance crisis should be ringing alarm bells loud and clear as the AFL pushes on with its fanciful plans to base the competition’s 18th team in western Sydney. The league’s strategy is centred on being able to get a hefty increase in payments for television rights when they come up for renewal in 2012.
But this is a long way from being a lay-down misere. It certainly wouldn’t happen if the rights were up for negotiation now.
And, in the unlikely event that the world economic scene rids itself of all its woes in the next three years, there’s no assurance that big dollars will automatically be on offer from the television networks.
The current AFL deal under which the Seven and Ten networks are forking out $780 million over five years came about only because Kerry Packer goaded them into it by pitching in with that unrealistically high figure on behalf of Nine, knowing full well that his competitors had the right to match it and probably would.
Next time, with KP no longer with us, Nine is highly unlikely to even bother putting in a bid, given its commitment to rugby league, which comes a lot cheaper.
Nine’s new masters are not into spending big dollars on anything much these days, let alone a football code that is still like a foreign language to more than half their viewers.
All of which means there’s unlikely to be another bidding war like the last one to force Seven and Ten to pay top dollar.
Another pertinent factor is viewers’ resentment of delayed telecasts, and the networks’ indifference to their plight.
This year’s finals series had Seven and Ten scurrying for cover and asking the AFL to allow delayed transmissions of Friday and Saturday night games in Sydney and Brisbane, apart from the ones involving the Swans, partly because of a clash with Seven’s Olympics coverage but also because the networks feared poor ratings.
Live Friday night telecasts on Foxtel’s Main Event channel, which had happened throughout the season under an arrangement with Seven and the AFL, were conspicuous by their absence, with Main Event saying it hadn’t been asked, either by the network or the league, to telecast the finals matches.
The AFL was weak-kneed in agreeing to the networks’ pleas – after all, it had trumpeted better coverage in the northern states as an important step forward in its expansion plans when the rights agreement was signed.
It should have insisted that if Seven and Ten didn’t show the finals games live on their main channels in Sydney and Brisbane, they should hand them over to Main Event or run them on their new high-definition outlets.
There was some mumbling that the networks couldn’t use the HD channels because of regulations prohibiting multi-channelling. But, curiously, that hadn’t stopped Ten from showing some of the US Masters golf on HD instead of its main channel earlier in the year.
The answer is for the Federal Government to insist on a use-it-or-lose it system for major sports events, or for the anti-siphoning laws, under which the free-to-air channels get first crack at a ludicrously long list of events, to be scrapped or relaxed to a great degree.
It isn’t just football fans who have suffered under these archaic regulations, either. Remember the shemozzle when the Ashes cricket tour clashed with Wimbledon a few years ago?
It will be interesting, too, to see what happens to attendances at big sports events as a result of the current financial climate.
The people who fill the corporate boxes – largely affluent yuppies who make a living in the rarefied atmosphere of the sharemarket, where many of them owe their success to selling shares they don’t own – have been feeling the squeeze as credit has dried up.
There are reports of a glut of second-hand Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Alfa Romeos up for sale because, as the market has plunged, their “owners” have been forced to meet calls on margin loans they took out to buy shares, which in turn has meant they can’t afford the car payments.
Another report early this week said there were 200 houses in the million-dollar price bracket for sale in the affluent Sydney harbourside suburb of Mosman.
And while all this is going on, the AFL is pinning its hopes on pulling in more and more corporate dollars, including even higher TV rights payments, to support a team in the far less affluent western suburbs of Sin City.
But what will the outcome be if, as expected, Nine sits on its hands? It’s hard to see even a half-hearted bidding scuffle, let alone a war, if the only two players in the game are the present joint rights holders.
In those circumstances the rights outside the traditional Australian football states could go for a song.
Is that Half A Sixpence I can hear in the distance?
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.


Suzy Orman said | October 15th 2008 @ 1:49am | Report comment
There are reports of a glut of second-hand Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Alfa Romeos up for sale because, as the market has plunged, their “owners” have been forced to meet calls on margin loans they took out to buy shares, which in turn has meant they can’t afford the car lease payments.
Redb said | October 15th 2008 @ 6:28am | Report comment
There was a comment on the ABC’s 7:30 Report the other night that everything discussed in parliament now is spoken about through the prism of the global financial crisis (GFC).
This is not too dissimilar to the days, weeks and months post Sept 11 when all things terrorism dominated the mindset. We still live with the results but mostly only when travelling through airports, ahh the joy of being vaccumed for explosives.
At the moment its the GFC and every new project is under inspection as the world shakes with the daily tremors of Wall Street, so why should sport be any different? The point is don’t fret most horrors won’t happen but a few unfortunately will.
The AFL is one year into a five year contract. Who really knows how the AFL got to its $780 million – the fact is it did. The AFL is debt free and has an enormous financial reserves for the future.
The other fact is ever since CH 7 won back the AFL rights it has taken the lead in the overall ratings and CH 9 has declined. Did Kerry Packer know something we all did’nt back then?
Will there be less money for all sport let alone the AFL? Who knows? The $780 million maybe a one off – what an endowment of the future for Aussie Rules. It’s certainly money that can be considered a bonus.
Redb
Pippinu said | October 15th 2008 @ 7:14am | Report comment
These things can be difficult to call three years in advance – but I will say this – in respect of the previous TV rights of around $500 million many thought it would never be surpassed.
The Link said | October 15th 2008 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Bruce, some sanity at last in looking at the latest AFL deal. The AFL by rights should have the biggest deal and still will come next negotiation, but the margin is unlikely to be as high. Of course KP bidded the price up last time.
Other codes can point to it as the yardstick and perhaps bid themselves up based on their relative merits
Millster said | October 15th 2008 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Bruce – while we have some specific points of disagreement that have previously been discussed (e.g. on the Main Event / Live issue and finals) I think you raise an enormously interesting point here.
Channel 9 has very rapidly changed as a power in the FTA landscape. Unless another drastic shift occurs it will go into negotiations with the codes from a position of financial and ratings weakness, and being owned by foreign private equity interests who have shown across the network a scant regard for any loyalty to nine’s strengths or Packer’s former strategy (e.g. the demolition of what was formerly an agenda-setting news desk).
So I agree that they will be a glaring omission on the “demand” side of the supply-demand equation that will determine the value of TV rights next time around.
At least 9 is not the incumbent for AFL, which relies on the stronger networks as its platform and has the safety of diversification through dealings with 7, 10 and Fox.
MAJOR issue for Rugby League I think. League’s demographic is a lower socio-economic class than AFL’s and therefore less likely to switch to PayTV, though the League offering on PayTV is quite good. League is also deeply identified with 9; indeed 9 has ‘the voice of the game’ and all other long-term personnel and infrastructure and expertise vested within itself. So if 9′s new owners decide to cover League ‘on the cheap’, the impact on the ability for that code to reach its core market will be immediate and profound. I believe this so much that if I was Gallop, I would be in discussions right now with Fox to offer League supporters a limited “Foxsports Light” offering that ensured affordable access to the code that was not at the mercy of 9′s future.
Football is the interesting one. On the one hand 9 may be attracted to is as a code which would be cheaper to buy up-front and a growth investment for the future. Also, with ACL and Socceroos matches mostly mid-week (so not crowded out by other sports deals) and with the ability to balance HAL with PayTV (e.g. FTA taking one ‘match of the week’ and the other 3-4 on Fox) it is a flexible footprint. But again 9′s owners may be so intent on cost-cutting that such a gamble is not on the cards. Indeed, WC2002 aside, it is 10 that has most recently dabbled in FTA football coverage, with the Beckham game shown live and with reasonable reporting of the code on the Sports Tonight platform. The offering would eld up being balanced not identically to, but not unlike, that of Union with Ch7 and Fox sharing the internationals and club game.
Back to AFL, I think it will retain the biggest deal and the strongest position next time around. Football is positioned to overtake League for #2 spot, but that relies on the ACL model working for a couple of years and on 2010 World Cup qualification. League is in a very vulnerable position with respect to its TV footprint.
The Link said | October 15th 2008 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Millster, why wouldn’t 7 or 10 pick up Rugby League? Its the consistently highest rating sport by far in NSW and QLD and stacks up well nationally, particularly for SOO. Channel 9 has had the rights for about 15 years for RL, but before that it was mixed. Channel 7 was also once the voice of the game for AFL, but the last AFL deal (prioir to current one) show that things can change.
Remind me again if football is ‘cheaper to buy up front’ then why will it get a better deal than other codes (except AFL)?
Michael C said | October 15th 2008 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Who actually retains the final right of offer for the next AFL bidding process? Last time, Packer was able to go hard knowing that Ch.7 had purchased the rights to make the final bid. What’s the dynamic for the next round?
The AFL is 2 years into the 5 year agreement, traditionally the bidding process is in year 4, towards the end, so, mid/late 2010 we’d see the issue at a head.
What can happen between now and then?
A lot. That’s for sure.
but – - recognition that ‘potential for NEW BUSINESS’ is the key driver for Foxtel has allowed some NRL advocates to perhaps see the light that their historical ‘power base’ of Foxtel dominance is not a plank upon which to stand to demand increased payments going forward.
The question is what value soccer offers in such respects? As, for fans of EPL and other international leagues – foxtel is already their domain – what value does the HAL provide on that front?? And a few of us agree the next few years for the HAL might actually be far more graft and hard yards consolidation rather than the first 3 years of upward trending crowds (and ‘interest’).
The AFL position might actually be strengthened in the relativity of the ‘domestic football market’.
However, the capacity by media providers to pay, pay more or for the AFL to self promote and generate revenue – - that’ll all be interesting.
What is noticeable – in the tv ratings – when people speak of the tremendous value the socceroos might provide – - is that the RUWC of 2003 provided some massive ratings events – -and yet, 5 years on, the Wallabies don’t hit Melb screens until after midnight.
Millster said | October 15th 2008 @ 9:25am | Report comment
The Link – interesting and valid points. On why 7 or 10 wouldn’t pick up League, I see no fundamental reason apart from the AFL’s insistence on a certain amount of live or near-live coverage even in those northern non-core markets, which would clash potentially with League coverage. But those two networks would then have to invest in all codes, and so the spoils to each code would be lesser. Also when I look at those other network shows that are well supported and therefore good for revenues I see them addressing a particular set of demographics that is different to the core League market. League brings a substantial TV audience but (completely on gut feel) I don’t think it is the particular audience that the networks and advertisers most want.
Football would be cheaper to buy up front in terms of the FTA component, which would not likely cover all HAL but which would include some international games in the mix. ‘Cheaper’ was shorthand (so sorry for confusion) for flexibility and value given the total package and the way it could be split up between different platforms. I was not suggesting that the aggregate cost of rights for all of football would be cheap in the 2012 timeframe!
The Link said | October 15th 2008 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Millster, I wish football all the best in getting a bigger TV deal. I’m assuming the WC rights go to FIFA not the FFA, so that may limit what the FFA will get for FTA rights.
It will be interesting how the A-League, ACL, WC quals and Asian Cup rights are divied up, or if they’ll be a package.
I’ve said before that getting on the anti-siphoning list is in the best interest of Football to grow it domestically.
oikee said | October 15th 2008 @ 10:52am | Report comment
The next t/v rights deal for league will more than likely be split up, Origin, internationals, nrl , so the rights will improve, anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming, even if its only watched in 2 states, origin is a showpeice event, the game is shown throughout asia and europe and is played on other outlets around the world, let rugby league have some glory, or have you got something better for me to watch in the middle of winter.