By Michael DiFabrizio
September 5th 2009 @ 12:08am
Related coverage
The tide is turning for live football
Jimmy Bartel of Geelong marks ahead of Adam Schneider of St Kilda. Slattery Images
Having footy games broadcast live on TV has been a recurring topic this week. With two of this weekend’s finals – both featuring two Victorian teams – being shown on delay in Victoria, Geelong president Frank Costa kicked it off by pushing for all finals to be screened live.
The talk continued yesterday in the Herald Sun, with the small paper belatedly reporting that “rogue websites” have been offering live streaming of AFL games online without cost. The article said that the AFL’s Gillon McLachlan was trying to have the streams blocked for this weekend.
But the most interesting piece of news came from Caroline Wilson, who wrote in The Age that live Friday night football could become mandatory from the next broadcast deal onwards, as it is part of the prospectus handed to potential rights-holders.
The trade-off to the broadcasters in such an environment would be the extra revenue that can be attained by linking up with a betting agency to show live odds. TAB Sportsbet’s Gary Davies told The Age that a fierce bidding war would occur for an exclusive deal with the Friday night broadcaster.
So are we finally nearing the day footy fans have been waiting for?
Does this mean the AFL will fall into line with pretty much every other major sports league around the world?
Well, only so much can be taken from Costa’s comments. They simply offer further proof of just how irked the footy public are by the delaying of games. Every time there’s a big game that looks like not being shown live, there are calls for change.
A little bit more can be taken from the rebellious live streams, though. They are a haven for fans who are either Foxtel-less or simply can’t stand the delays and the possibility of having the result ruined because they chose not to completely shut themselves off from the world for four hours.
Another factor at play would be that the AFL’s power to block them would be limited. Just yesterday you could tune in to live NFL and college football online, as well as US Open tennis. The EPL also has a strong presence on such sites.
That this week’s article implied that McLachlan was only made aware of the sites on Thursday is in itself mystifying.
These streams don’t yet have a massive audience for footy games. Having seen the sort of numbers they attract, they wouldn’t yet be making any dints in ratings, that’s for sure. But they are an indication of where things are headed if nothing is done.
Above all, however, Wilson’s article provided the brightest light at the end of the tunnel for shut out fans.
Up until now, it was considered to be all about the money. The reason we haven’t had live footy on Friday nights is because Channel Seven can squeeze an extra hour’s worth of advertising dollars by showing Better Homes and Gardens.
Recently, however, the landscape has changed. The AFL now receives dividends from major bookmakers on bets made on footy. The bookies now have greater abilities to advertise. This has all come about since the last broadcast deal was signed.
Nothing’s official yet, of course. What was reported was just part of a prospectus. But all of the sudden, it seems as though there is money to be made out of live footy.
All of the sudden, a shift towards more live football doesn’t seem all that impossible.
At last, there is hope for fans. And even that is overdue.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(4)
Pippinu said | September 5th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
It’s a bit sad that it will actually be gambling that drives this debate to its conclusion – I’m not really sure whether that is a great outcome to be honest.
Anthony said | September 5th 2009 @ 10:56pm | Report comment
Can anyone explain to me how I can watch the Finals on justin.tv? I tried Saty & no luck!
Shayxin said | September 6th 2009 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
Here’s another aspect that surprisingly I still don’t hear a lot about. I live in China, and watch sites like Justin.tv and others every weekend for both rugby league and AFL, among other sports. If one feed gets shut down, I jump onto google and merely find another one. Am I proud to be doing this illegally? Not at all. But THERE IS NO WAY I CAN LEGALLY WATCH AFL OR NRL HERE. So I have no choice. Even the EPL is now only broadcast in China through a digital pay channel, which my apartment building cannot get. So I watch that online too, or head down the pub. But here’s the thing: If the NRL (for example) were to offer games online and live or near-live, and were to charge a pay-per-view or per-season charge, I would willingly and happily cough up. Both competitions are broadcast live for free into the UK, but not anywhere else, presumably because of conflicts with other broadcasters.
So next time the rights are up for negotiation, how about the NRL/AFL/EPL/Whatever sell TV rights and internet rights separately. The TV rights holders might then lose a few potential viewers, and therefore pay less, but surely that would be more than made up for by the subscriptions of internet viewers. The technology is mature enough now, and they would open up a whole new revenue stream, along with allowing millions of potential viewers who are currently frozen out of the game to watch. And it would add flexibility to those in Australia who don’t want to pay $50-100 for Foxtel when all they want is the sport. They could just choose the competition/s they want, pay 10 bucks a month for the privilege and everyone is happy. Except perhaps Foxtel and Channel 9, but surely the NRL would be happier making more money and being seen by more fans. So come on guys, move into the 21st century!
Brett McKay said | September 6th 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
I have no doubt that the current discussion in regards to the future use of digital multi-channelling will have a major impact here too. Now doubt in the world, Seven would be hoping that the Govt rules the networks are allowed to show live sport on their digital channels first (currently, the anti-syphoning laws dictate that sports on the AS list can only be shown on regular FTA channels first. Of course, these laws were also drawn up prior to the introduction of digital TV in Australia; hence the current discussions between the Govt, FTA networks, and Pay-TV, who want more policing of the “use it or lose it” clauses in the legislation.)
If Seven could get extra benefit from extra advertising by showing BH&G AND live football, then that will drive up TV rights too. The NRL will find themselves in a simlar boat in a few more years. And legislation changes allowing the use of digital multi-channelling will undoubtedly help rugby and football in the future too…