Waiting for the democratisation of Australian Football

Roar Pro

By Con Stamocostas, 26 Aug 2009 Con Stamocostas is a Roar Pro

Tagged:: Argentina, Australian Football, football, Maradona, World Cup, World Football

Related coverage

There were some very interesting developments that took place in the world of television football broadcasting recently. The first piece of news I found interesting was the BBC’s attempt to get football events such as the World Cup and FA Cup back on free-to-air television.

The Guardian report said that events such as the World Cup, Olympics and the FA Cup final benefited society as a whole if they were to return to free-to-air television.

Its research shows that one in five adults claim that watching at least one sport on TV motivated them to participate. What about the other four?

I guess that’s another researcher’s job.

Meanwhile, FFA chairman Frank Lowy stated in an interview to the SMH last week that the future of Australian football needed free-to-air to be included in it.

Speaking to Michael Cockerill, Lowy said: “We have a contract now, until 2013. I’ll do my damndest to make sure we get free-to-air after that. We can’t do it beforehand. These people [Fox Sports] are not going to give up. They came in and took a punt, a big punt; they gave us the basis for the competition. They’re not going to give up their contractual rights, and I don’t blame them for it. But the future needs more teams, a second division, and also some free-to-air.”

In Argentina, football fans there are enjoying watching their teams go around on free-to-air television for the first time in eighteen years. A deal by the FA and the government was struck to ensure that all domestic top flight matches can be broadcast for free by any national television channel wishing to do so.

In a recent article penned by one my favourite football writers, the Guardian’s Marcela Moya y Araujo reported that Julio Grondona the president of the Argentinian Football Association (AFA) said the decision to give football back to the people was “like the parable of life itself.”

Standing next to Grondona was the president of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, and she announced it as a “historic” day in the “democratisation” of football.

While accepting an Argentina shirt from Diego Maradona, the president said “Football is an extraordinary business,” and “It doesn’t need to be subsidised. It needs to return the right to those who provide us with it to be enriched by it.”

She mentioned its importance as part of the cultural heritage of the nation, and referred to Argentinian football as a “registered trademark”.

The World Cup hosted by South Africa will be shown on SBS in all its glory next year. Whether you love them or loath them, knowing you haven’t paid for the privilege will make it taste that much sweeter.

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.

The Crowd Says (47) | Page 1 of Comments

Freud of Football said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:40am | Report comment

Well said. I think most people can see that for the game to truly grow in Australia we need free-to-air channels to pick it up. Until this happens the local competition will not get the exposure it needs to go up the ladder of the codes.

Reply
Gaz said | August 26th 2009 @ 6:24am | Report comment

Great read, Con. I think the key word from Lowy there was “some” – he’ll negotiate to get some games on FTA, but Murdoch might keep the bulk for a while yet. Unless we can exert more pressure from fans.

The Argentine situation is incredibly interesting, especially against the background of political movement to the left across Latin America since Bush 43 came to power. Maybe that’s why some of our business-oriented football media organisations have not had too much too say about it? Will be interesting to see if there’s a kick-on effect through Uruguay, Brazil, Chile… Obviously it’s a hugely popular move by the Argentine President, and other politicians might follow suit.

Mind you, probably NOT our own Kevin Rudd! LOL!

Reply
- Con Stamocostas said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
  
  Hey Gaz,
  
  I think having two games a week and a highlights package is all that is needed.
  A-League
  A Live Friday night game and a delayed Sunday night game would be ideal. The other advantage of FTA is that the TV station would sell it more thus more ads and more space on it’s nightly news and sports coverage. The other FTA stations would follow suit.
  
  All Socceroos matches should be on FTA.
  
  Reply
albe said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment

it’d be great if free TV would get on board. They were nowhere to be seen when the A-League launched, so good on Fox for getting in early to get things moving.

In the end, i don’t think its a case of one or the other. A game a week and highlights on FTA would suffice, but more important is a broadcaster that will embrace the game across its network.

Rather than waiting till 2013, maybe Fox will get in first and tie up a deal with Nine or someone. They could risk losing more games to OneHD perhaps or another free multi-channel if it goes to the open market. Fox sports are rightly protecting their investment, but long term they’d be better off ushering the league on to free to air on their terms.

Reply
Tom said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment

A different perspective on the Argentinian issue.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14228653

Personally, I think 2013 might be too soon to push to have the A-league on free to air. It may be some time before we have to stop relying on the national team to subsidise the local league.

Reply
- Gaz said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
  
  Keep in mind that The Economist is a right-wing Euro businessman’s bible. And this stuff scares the hell out of them.
  
  Reply
  - Ben of Phnom Penh said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
    
    same magazine advocates free access to all drugs and abolishing the war on drugs……. constrictions on trade though do worry them somewhat though
    
    Reply
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment

Thank you for that link Tom – I smelled a rat that minute I read this article by Con. Democratisation??!! Does anyone truly believe that a modern professional sport can survive on ensuring everyone has equal and free access!!??

If anyone thinks a modern professional support can survive by being shown on a Government broadcaster in a modern market economy, they are absolutely daydreaming.

Also, people should have a very careful think what it would mean if the Government were to put the Socceroos on the anti-siphoning list, thus breaking up the current nexus between the A-League and the Socceroos.

Think about it, analyse it carefully – you will soon come to the decision that it is not a panacea.

A highlights package for FTA would be a brilliant first step and a very good fit for FTA – but anything beyond that would actually risk reducing the revenue from TV, not increasing it.

Reply
- Luke W said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
  
  The A-League and the Socceroos MUST be packaged together. If any of the FTA want to get their hands on the Socceroos, the FFA has to get it somewhere in the contract that at least one A-League game is shown live a week, probably with a highlights show on another night.
  
  Reply
- Gaz said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
  
  Pip, it’s not just a choice between Pay TV and “a Government broadcaster” – although SBS or ABC would be my preferred broadcaster (ad free of course). Rugby and AFL both have solid commercial TV deals on FTA, why can’t we?
  
  Reply
- Con Stamocostas said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
  
  aahhhh Pippinu
  
  A highlights package for FTA would be a brilliant first step and a very good fit for FTA – but anything beyond that would actually risk reducing the revenue from TV, not increasing it.
  
  always the joker……….
  
  Reply
- Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
  
  Ok, so Government puts the Socceroos on the anti-siphoning list – please explain to me how that helps increase the value of TV rights when:
  
  1. one player (Fox) is completely taken out of the bidding process; and
  2. the A-League is set free on its own – and if anyone thinks anyone is going to cough up big bucks for the A-League without the Socceroos, they have rocks in their head.
  
  I simply invite people to check the latest Fox ratings.
  
  Reply
  - Con Stamocostas said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
    
    I’m not a speculator on TV revenue I am only interested in Football getting back on FTA.
    
    More kids would get to see their heroes play, that is something that can’t be measured by dollars$$$$
    
    The cultural implications of not having Australia’s most popular participation sport (football) and most popular sporting team (Socceroos) on FTA is again unmeasurable.
    
    Reply
Spanner said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment

Showing the games in isolation would do very little to grow the game but it would give great relief to the lovers of any sport. Is this a case of democracy? I think so especially for the football crazy Argentinians. Imagine if all the NRL and AFL games were taken off FTA and put on pay TV. Tell me these codes wouldnt suffer and the followers would be up in arms. SBS has kept the football dream alive for all lovers of the game in this country. Nice work Con.

Reply
- Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
  
  Spanner
  it’s certainly true that there was an outcry from Victoria when the AFL increase Pay TV’s share from 3 of 8 games to 4 of 8 games.
  
  But note these distinctions:
  
  1. VFL/AFL has been on FTAs for 5 decades on a continuous basis, and all the FTA stations are bidding big bucks to get it.
  
  2. There are two sweeteners for Fox in their current deal: the Socceroos; and exclusivity of the A-League.
  
  Uncouple the Socceroos (especially by Government decree), take away Fox’s exclusivity, and what are Fox left with?
  
  These are the sorts of permutations that people need to think about – it’s not as simple as saying: it would be good if it were on FTA – there could actually be revenue implications.
  
  Reply
  - Davos said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
    
    answer Spanner’s question PIp, you have baulked at it and answered the question with irrelevant context.
    
    Q. ” Imagine if all the NRL and AFL games were taken off FTA and put on pay TV. Tell me these codes wouldn’t suffer and the followers would be up in arms.”
    
    So tell us us why these codes wouldn’t suffer being exclusive on PAYTV? Not something else.
    
    Your very righteous in your opinion Pip, hop out of your comfort zone for a minute.
    
    Reply
- Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
  
  Re the Argentine situation – democracy is used as a euphemism for Government bail out.
  
  If there is one thing we have learned form economic history of the last 100 years or so – Government bail outs never,ever end well for anyone (except those who have been fortunate enough to have had the Government take over their debts).
  
  That Argentine football needs a government bail out is actually a sad indictment on that country’s FA and their proud history as a footballing nation.
  
  But this is where we have arrived people.
  
  Arsene has put back on the agenda a European super league – which would effectively be the top league in the world, with the very best players in the world, commanding billions upon billions of dollars in revenue – and everything else would descend to 2nd, 3rd, 4th rate leagues (include those of Argentina and Australia).
  
  You all might think that these two topics are unrelated (bankruptcy and Government take over of Argentine football and the European Super League), but I can promise you that they are very closely related.
  
  When mega dollars are involved – those that can’t afford it end up with scraps – democratisation becomes a euphemism.
  
  Reply
  - Gaz said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
    
    The government bails out the people’s game with the money that the people have paid in taxes. Argentina became an economic basket case because they followed US- and IMF-proscribed paths to privatisation, and this is the backlash after all whole thing went terribly wrong.
    
    Yes, if such “Craziness” spread to Europe it could mean there is less money in the game. But personally I think most top footballers are overpaid anyway – it’s madness right now in the EPL and other Euro leagues.
    
    Give the game back to the people.
    
    Reply
    - Art Sapphire said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
      
      Well said Gaz!
      
      There is nothing wrong with a state broadcaster buying the rights to the football so it can be shown free to air to the masses. The Argentinians will be collecting money from ad revenue during the games just like a private broadcaster. This means all the people get to see top class football and the advertisers are happy as there ads are seen by everyone
      
      The Greek state broadcaster bought the rights to broadcast UCL games and Greek Super-League games years ago. This is what you call spending tax revenue wisely. Its a win-win for everybody.
      
      Except ofcourse, business types who will complain about having lost an opportunity to exploit a mass popular culture product for their own private gain
      
      They didn’t teach you that at the Chicago School of Economics!!
      
      Reply
    - Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
      
      Look around the world – the biggest and wealthiest leagues are those that have zero government involvement (EPL, NFL, etc).
      
      Anytime you rely 100% on government assistance for your survival, it is an absolute admission of failure.
      
      Reply
      - Art Sapphire said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
        
        Give me a break Pip. Its not about who is biggest or wealthiest. Its about having a sustainable, viable professional football competition in countries like Argentina. Private enterprise failed and the govt had to step in.
        
        Gee, it was only last year that we had govts bailing out all sorts of fat cat bankers who produce nothing of value.
        
        Football at least is worth saving as it puts a smile on peoples faces, regardless of their circumstances.
        
        Reply
      - Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
        
        Art
        the question becomes whether the game ends up relying on Government forever and a day – and that is definitely a road to nowhere.
        
        Reply
        
        Art Sapphire said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
        
        Pip – when you get companies who buy right solely for profit and not for the betterment of the game, then you have a problem. What would a Brazilian company (Globo – the company that had the rights to Argentinian football until last week) give a crap about the state of the game in Argentina.
        
        In your delusional capitalist utopia, you think people run businesses for the betterment of society. They don’t.
        
        When they do I can comfortably say that govt does not have any business in anybody’s business.
        
        Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
        
        The Government has just stepped in and paid over twice the market value of the TV rights to save the game.
        
        If that’s all that ends up happening, you could almost say fair enough.
        
        But this is what inevitably ends up happening.
        
        The gap between revenues and costs starts to widen (afterall, why go chasing revenues if the Governemnt will bail you out).
        
        Then two years down the track, the Argentine FA says to government, geez, we’re still having trouble holding onto players, we’re going to have to double salaries – so the Government is now farming out four times the market value for the TV rights, on top of god knows what other support it’s offering.
        
        That’s the slippery slope to nowhere that I’m talking about and it can never resolved itself as long as government continues farming out money way, way over market value.
        
        It’s the same recipe that has reduced Argentina to relative poverty over the last century (when in fact it was once one of the richest countries in the world).
    - Kurt said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
      
      Oh dear oh dear oh dear. If you really believe that Argentina became an economic basket case simply due to US and IMF proscribed policies, strongly suggest you read some economic history, starting with Niall Ferguson’s excellent ‘The Ascent of Money’.
      
      Reply
      - Art Sapphire said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
        
        Ofcourse it didn’t Kurt. There are many causes for the Argentina’s problems but following the IMF/ Chicago School Doctrines did set the country back.
        
        Why don’t you read Noami Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine” and get some balance.
        
        Reply
        
        Tom said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
        
        I suggest you all learn the difference between ‘proscribe’ and ‘prescribe’.
        
        Art, the company who owned the rights to Argentinian football were Grupo Clarin, who are Argentinian, not Rede Globo, who are Brazilian.
        
        In my view, governments should be able to find better things to do with their time than worry about the success of sporting organisations.
        
        When governments involve themselves in sports its almost always to appeal to a specific set of voters rather than to improve society.
whiskeymac said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment

with Frank mooting two divisions and “some” FTA coverage maybe he is inclined to let the second division be on FTA (midnight slot on ch7 or on some digital channel like OneHD….). Although Fox does a great job and should be commended for not only taking apunt but showing all the games they do there are many people who dont get the chance to see a game because they dont have pay tv. IMO a highlights package wld be a start but in order for a sport to get beyond a niche following it does need some wider exposure. when is the main issue not if.

Reply
AndyRoo said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment

Pip I think even if it costs money the FFA have to make sure there is one game on FTA and at a good time slot.
Getting the good timeslot means the FTA deal would be worth close to zero money and rules out 9, 7 and 10 in my mind.
Hopefully the extra games by having 12 teams uphold the value for Fox even though it loses it’s exclusivity. And by having only one game a week on FTA it’s giving a little to whet peoples appetite but if they want to be satisfied they will have to get Pay TV. That should actually help grow subscriptions for Fox
If you’re an A league fan you still need Fox (since 5 of the 6 games are on there) to watch your team and anyone who only has FTA and starts following the competition will be drawn to getting a fox subscription.
That said Fox might not see it that way and so getting the FTA plus Fox deal may mean accepting less money than if they just pitched an exclusive deal to Fox.
But whatever money they forgo the exposure of FTA is worth it. The HAL will not grow without it.

Reply
cbowden9000 said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment

My best bet would be OneHD.

Channel 7 has half the AFL, Tennis and swimming.

Channel 9 has exclusive NRL

ABC has the W-League

SBS has football programs, but no leagues.

I think that SBS and ABC would be a bad choice for the A-League as they have much less exposure than the main 3.

OneHD has already jumped on the football bandwagon with the exclusive showing of both the German Bundes Liga and the Italian Serie A. I hope they can expand to the A-League in 2013. This would be a huge boost for football in Australia.

Reply
- Eddie said | August 27th 2009 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
  
  OneHD don’t have the exclusive rights to the Bundesliga and Serie A in Australia, the Bundeslaga is also shown Setanta and the Serie A is also shown on both Setanta and ESPN in Australia.
  
  Reply
Mikas said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment

Interesting timing with this article. Apparently there are some reports from the UK today about the cricket ratings on Sky (pay tv) coming back lower than Songs of Praise whereas 4 years ago when it was shown free to air it rated through the roof.

Reply