Why SBS must screen the A-League
Roar Pro
By Jesse Fink, 23 Oct 2009 Jesse Fink is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- A-League, FFA, football, Football Federation Australia, Frank Lowy, SBS
Finally, some commonsense from Football Federation Australia, with Frank Lowy realising the game is up for the A-League and the Australian World Cup bid if drastic changes aren’t made – and made now.
At a function hosted by Melbourne Victory, Lowy acknowledged the future of the game wasn’t in being squirreled away on pay-TV and said “there’s no doubt that the game needs to be shown on free-to-air from time to time, or certain parts of the competition on free-to-air”.
This is a seismic statement from the FFA chairman and will have Fox Sports executives, to extend the earthquake metaphor for a moment, shaking in their boots.
With two years left on their seven-year, $120m deal, Fox would have been forward-planning to embed themselves even further in the profile of the local game, withstanding the rights already purloined by SBS, which include the 2010 and 2014 World Cups. Instead it has been left on shakier ground than ever before.
Football has been Fox’s glittering prize: A-League matches, A-League highlights shows, Socceroos qualifiers in Asia and for the World Cup, home friendlies.
A not inconsiderable bounty.
In the process, broadcasting careers have been made and a wedge driven between Fox and SBS for the bragging rights as the “home of football”.
But it appears Lowy has cottoned on to the fact that if he is going to bid for the World Cup, a mission whose raison d’etre is to bring the game of football to as many people as possible, he can’t at the same time be seen to be denying it to the majority of Australians, the very people he needs to get behind the campaign.
Hence his new, calculated message of “football to the people”. Up until now, true to his businessman’s creed, it was “football to the highest bidder”.
Football fans would be right to be cynical about it but hardly in a position to complain. For the game to truly grow it does need to be seen by as many people as possible, and that is on free-to-air.
What Lowy must equally do, however, is not make the same mistake as his predecessor, David Hill, and sell the game’s soul – or part of it – to the station with the biggest ratings or advertising revenue. Hill’s selling rights to Channel Seven back in the late 1990s was one of the greatest mistakes in the history of Australian sport.
Who can forget the slogan: “NOBODY SCREWS SOCCER LIKE 7”?
A former chief executive of its then-pay TV arm, C7, even admitted in an email the network had deliberately “suffocated the sport” in order to appease the AFL, who transferred its own rights from Seven to Nine and Ten.
No, the rights must go to the station that will do the right thing by the game. That station is SBS.
I say that not as a SBS employee (though I am) but as a football fan who appreciates what SBS has done and continues to do for the game I love. No one else, in my opinion, comes close to their passion for the game and the credibility and intelligence of their staff.
Give it to SBS, Frank. And let’s all get on with the show.
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.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Football articles
- Phoenix need more than flash in the pan crowds (133)
- ‘New football’ fans may help save the game in Australia (124)
- Does Tasmania have a case for A-League inclusion? (119)
- What happened in Port Said was not a football riot (118)
- Magilton struggling to make a mark (68)
- Socceroos screwed over by FIFA, again (41)
- Gulf influence cripples the FFA again (40)
- Redknapp tight-lipped over England job
- Departing Lavicka has players’ respect
- Victory gain Spanish recruit for Mariners
- Melbourne derby reveals tale of two journeys
- Midweek regional matches not hitting the mark
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (13)
- Capello ‘walks’ from England’s top job (13)
- Melbourne derby reveals tale of two journeys (0)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (13)
- Capello ‘walks’ from England’s top job (13)
- Why Manchester United are never really beaten (13)
- Die Lowen a chance for a Bundesliga rise? (2)
- Hey, Victory! Give them kids a go (9)
- The problem with Melbourne Victory’s ‘hole’ season (25)
- Explore:
- A-League, FFA, football, Football Federation Australia, Frank Lowy, SBS
albe said | October 23rd 2009 @ 6:44am | Report comment
the rights belong to Fox for a while yet, so the only chance if is they choose to on-sell a game. Which would be great.
If Fox can tie something up long term though – in exchange for giving up a game and some highlights – it could be win-win for everyone.
Mushi said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
I’m struck by the hypocrisy of soccer fans. They should be free to air for the obvious financial benefits. But foxtel should just surrender the rights because it is the right things for soccer.
Here is the thing with out foxtel there is no A-leauge. They took a punt on the leagues future and at the first opportunity your are kicking them to the curb.
If we get the world cup it will be the flat out worst thing for the Australian population. We an not support, long term, the stadiums required to host the game, it will be a billion plus black hole coming out of a recession.
dasilva said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
No one saying that Fox should surrender their rights
That’s ridiculous. The government anti-siphoning list has already decided that they let FOX contract to finish before forcing Socceroos on Free To Air.
The article is just about how next contract negotiation for the rights to broadcast A-league, ACL, Socceroos etc should have been given to a FTA channel
mushi said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Should be given to FTA? Why the blanket statement? Sure if they offer up better terms and compensation I can see hwy but you are still saying the HAL just abandon the channel that actually helped and that fox should let them go in a “if you love something set it free” kind of way?
dasilva said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Mushi my actual opinion is the A-league should remain on FOX. Perhaps with one match a week or a highlight package on FTA
The ACL should be on FTA as I believe that this has potential to be a very important sporting event that could capture the imagination of the Australian public especially if we have a melbourne or sydney team making it far in the knockout stages of the tournament
I’m just responding to your comment that FOX should be surrender the rights
No one is suggesting it. Just that the next time the Football rights are negotiated that there must be some FTA component.
I don’t want football to be on FTA for reasons that we have the right to see events for free. I actually don’t believe in that rubbish and I think the anti-siphoning laws are a bit of peculiarity of Australian culture.
However I think it’s the best interest of the game that there is some FTA component to ensure that people can watch it and actually become a fan of the sport. FTA allows growth of the fan base in the game (I see ACL as a major key to that).
I don’t believe in loyalty bonus. This is business. FFA showed no loyalty to SBS despite years of wonderful service to the game and neither should FFA show any loyalty to FOX just like AFL didn’t show loyalty to channel 7 when it temporarily moved to another TV station.
Of course if FOX is willing to pay obscene money for exclusive rights, my opinion may change. But for know, ideally there should be FTA component in the next deal
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Jesse – I vehemently disagree – returning to SBS would be the worst possible thing for the A-league’s future.
There is more than a sliver of truth to the widely held perception that your stablemates at SBS have not moved on, one iota, from the NSL days; barely a week goes by without someone either whinging that their views (by which they usually mean their cronies’ ambitions for a paid job somewhere on the FFA/A-league roster) are being ignored, or that things were better in the “good old days”. With their reach into multicultural Australia, they had an immense opportunity to assist the game by encouraging their audience to get on board and embrace the changes to the national competition. Instead, for 5 years, they have taken every opportunity to snipe, niggle and undermine the A-league, all from the safety of a taxpayer funded TV job. Their “football owes us a living” approach has been to the local game’s detriment.
More than that, the future of the game must be mainstream and commercial. Put it another way – to have a future, the game must be mainstream and commercial. That means someone other than the tax-payer needs to fork out money to pay for the A-league. Foxsports will certainly offer more than the current $120m for the long-term rights – at least double and probably a multiple. For the game to go free-to-air, someone needs to come up with that sort of money (either alone or in a consortium). SBS is a specialist broadcaster with a much needed mandate in the community for speciality and boundary-pushing TV. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars of predominantly taxpayer money on mainstream sporting rights is nowhere near the proper use of the channel’s funds.
With the proliferation of channels and the fact that the game has massively increased in popularity, the FFA holds a strong negotiating hand. Certainly that hand is strong enough to insist that every game on FTA or cable be shown live, in full and uninterrupted. That is all the punters really want. In the content starved world of multi-channel, the analysis shows will appear wherever the TV rights end up. The much vaunted SBS footballing staff – will have a choice to throw their hats into the ring with whoever gets the rights (and the opportunity will surely arise for them to do that), or stay on the sidelines spending tax-payers money sniping about a game that is moving on, with or without them.
Finally – this is likely to be the last “TV broadcast rights package” in the game’s history. The next package will be mostly an internet delivery rights package (possibly with a remnant TV component), and it is entirely uncertain as to whether that will be more or less profitable for the game. The betting money is on less. It is incumbent on the FFA to get as much money for these rights and to make sure the game is as commercially driven as possible, so that the league and the clubs are in a position to set up for the next phase of media.
Cheers
md
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
md
very good post – all points well made.
But – there remains a big question mark as to whether live A-League games are a good fit for commercial FTAs.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
It’s probably worth expanding on my last point about internet rights.
If you want to see where we are likely to head, go to hulu.com (click through the bit that says only available in the USA), and have an explore. Its early days, but there are full games of college football available for on demand HD download (as well as movies, sitcoms ets…) – some for free and some for a subscription fee. The next gen of TV’s will be (are already in some OS markets) set up to take advantage of sites like this, as well as FTA and cable channels.
Brendan said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
md
Keep in mind that Internet Companies very rarely create content. Site’s like Hulu are aggregators. They purchase the right to distribute programing that has already been created (generally) by broadcast companies.
It is doubtful that companies like this are going to buy rights directly as they would have put in signficant investment into recording infrastruture. I suppose a sport could make that investment and sell the feed directly but again I doubt the sport would want to tie up its capital in that way.
It is more likely that broadcast companies will buy exclusive rights to record and broadcast sports, they will then onsell the recording to aggregators like Hulu for internet distribution (live or delayed). If the sports are clever they will have clauses in the rights deal that pays them a percentage out of the forward rights.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
There are plenty of production companies that can do that (e.g. Southern Star, Endemol, possibly IMG), without a broadcaster needing to be involved. It’s not beyond question that the rights go to a production company and its left to them to negotiate the distribution strategy with broadcasters of any format.
Things like Hulu (combined with the national broadband network) will make the distinction between FTA and cable completely obsolete. Shows will be available in every home online either for free, or possibly for an i-tunes single style micropayment. How much weight does an anti-siphoning argument have if the tariff is say $2 or even $5 per game, and you have no ongoing obligation to pay for anything else?
Freud of Football said | October 23rd 2009 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
md, you are right about the internet, this is likely to be either the last or second last tv-rights deal, after that the internet will take over.
In fact I watched the Bordeaux – Bayern CL game online just this week, it was being streamed by SAT1, one of the big tv channels here in Germany and believe me, no German company would bother doing something like that if there wasn’t money to be made. They did an excellent job of monetising it with a number of ads before streaming began and a packed half-time program and I’m getting quite used to the number of games available from actual tv channels online.
However there is some truth that football in Aus needs to be FTA. Australia has long been privileged enough to get its main sports on FTA and many hold the view that if it’s not on FTA that it’s not worth paying for.
Either way, for the game to grow at least one game per round must be shown on FTA. The majority of the Australian public do not have Pay TV and don’t forget many can’t afford it so if we want interest to grow then that’s the best way to do it. Foxtel will in turn be rewarded as the League’s popularity grows and more “casual” fans develop an interest, some to the point that it might tip them over the edge into getting Foxtel.
Also, on FTA football might lose some of the stigmatism surrounding it. It’s naive to think that it’s not still called “Sokah” or “Wogball” in many parts of the country. By putting it out there and providing free entertainment from the game people will lose their skepticism over time, the more people that are exposed to football in Australia the better, that’s the only way the game will grow, Foxtel has more-or-less reached its potential for growing the game and unless it spreads, even with some unique advantages, Australia will struggle to get the WC
Midfielder said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Jes & MD
Totally agree with MG Jes … SBS for mine need to get over themselves …
Also the Fox agreement was for 7 years signed in Hal 2 so it’s in place until hal 8.
Brett McKay said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
as an occasional football viewer (and who doesn’t have Fox) even just a Friday night FTA A-League game over the summer months would get me watching it. Now that the winter codes have finished, and with key ratings periods also soon to wrap up, there’s not much on the box from now on.
I don’t doubt Fox Sports’ significant contribution to football in this country for one minute. It’s helped re-build the game and become a significant source of entertainment for the Australian (and NZ) public. That source would just get a whole lot bigger with a FTA presence.
In my mind, the A-League and/or T20 domestic cricket should be targetting that vacant Friday night slot over summer. Live sport or re-run Chevy Chase movies?? Seems like a no-brainer to me…
dasilva said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
I don’t agree with FTA should be given to SBS as a principle. Now I don’t mind SBS being given some rights for a few games or even all A-league games but they should be given only by playing in the level playing field with other TV stations not be given simply because they are SBS and helped the game in the game.
Although I’m not as harshly against it as md. After all SBS has become far more mainstream nowadays. You can’t exactly call the Ashes and Cricket to be a marginalised game played only in ethnic community. I still enjoy watching the World Game.
However I don’t like this sense of entitledment that SBS arnd you are giving. They do not deserve to get Football simply because they help the game in the past. Football in Australia is bigger then SBS and it’s always have been. we thank them for their services but they have to play on the same playing field as any other television station when it comes to getting football rights.This isn’t a mate’s club anymore. It’s business.
I’m quite sure the next TV deal, SBS will be very competitive in its bid secure a few A-league games as they don’t seem to be a great interest from the commercial station for it yet. I think Frank Lowy has always had a goal in trying to bridge old soccer with new football so perhaps SBS will have a large role to play.
However SBS is going to have to live with not having a monopoly over Australian Football on FTA.
In any case the channel 7 deal will probably never happen again. There will be some sort of clause that you must show 80% or whatever percent of live A-league game in the contract just like there is in the Foxsports. So we don’t have to worry about ti.
Although I do agree that Channel 7 should never be given football ever again. However I don’t mind it on other channels
True Tah said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Jesse
“Football has been Fox’s glittering prize”
I take it you are unaware of the fact that the NRL and Toyota Cup absolutely dominate the Pay TV sports ratings. Yes a handful of futbol games rate very well, but I understand that in the top 100 programs, over 60% are NRL/Toyota Cup.
Midfielder said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
TT
Jes is right … for a fraction of the cost of any other sport it rates quite well.. the Socceroos out rate all other events… and the A-League out rated the union or it did in Hals 2 / 3 / & 4… ot to sure about this year…
BTW the RU thing is based on an Australian wide thing the East Sydney Blues rate very well … on par with any team its the other teams that are not that viewer pulling…
The Bishop said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Talking of credibility, a writer who left Foxsports under a cloud and then went to SBS is slagging of foxsports and spruiking his own TV station in an article he gets payed for. Very credible indeed
Exhibit A: The Premier League in England, the richest and most watched league in the world why? One reason – pay TV. These deals made it what it is today, short and simple. I believe Buckley has made the same point. Likewise, Pay TV has been crucial and continues to be for the good of the growth of the A-League. In fact, it has made the A-League possible to date. End of.
SBS have rarely been able to afford (or have refused to pay enough for) decent football coverage in recent times, they save their pennies and cherry pick one or two events like the world cup, I doubt things have changed in ‘this financial climate’. In any case, I already switch over to ESPN when the cover the Champions League as they are dreadful and biased – their agenda-driven comments show that passion can sometimes be a bad thing.
Gaz said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
SBS is still the home of “old soccer” or whatever you wanna call it, which is all the more reason to give the A-League to SBS. We need to get those Euro-snobs and NSL die-hards on board, and FAUX is never going to do it.
Besides which, in case anybody hasn’t noticed, News Ltd is owned by a man who deserved to be tried in the Hague for his war-mongering propaganda. He uses profits from sports and movies to prop up his global political agenda. Just sayin…
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Gaz – Rupe’s main vice is chasing money. He supports Foxnews because it appeals to the right-wing third of America, which gives him 100m+ rusted on loons to sell advertising to. One man’s war-mongering propaganda is another mans constitutional right to free speech and/or dissention. It might be highly distasteful to make money out of it, but denying those rights of free speech and/or dissention to rightwing loons is the first step down a path that actually does deserve to end up in the Hague.
Art Sapphire said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
md – spinning for Rupert. What a load of tosh. Since when has Rupert been an advocate of free speech.
He is an advocate pure self-interest, making money and weilding power.
New York Time reported – Mr. Murdoch cooperates closely with China’s censors and state broadcasters, several people who worked for him in China say. He cultivates political ties that he hopes will insulate his business ventures from regulatory interference, these people say.
Gee md – I wonder how many of his worldwide publications opposed the Iraqi invasion. Can you name any??
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
I think we are saying the same thing, but with different angles to it. Criticise Murdoch all you like for shady deals with authoritarian governments (and some democratic ones), and I won’t disagree a jot.
My point is that you cannot legitimately take issue with the fact that in countries like the USA, the UK or the EU (which have strong free speech protections, fearless regulators and plenty of other avenues for people to obtain information), he runs channels or newspapers that appeal to and play off the prejudices of lunatics, for commercial profit. He’s a sensationalist and a tabloidist. That’s how he makes a large portion of his money. It’s distasteful, but completely legitimate.
If on the otherhand, you want to send him to the Hague, on the basis that you disagree with what he publishes, or find his business distasteful, then that is the first step down a very dangerous path that leads to Chinese style state censors.
Art Sapphire said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
md – There is a fair bit of hypocrisy here. The Chinese authorities disagreed with what the BBC was showing so Uncle Rupe did them a favour and took the BBC off his Star TV Network.
You, don’t want those simple Chinese folks to be exposed to anything but the official party line now do we. As long as there is a buck in it News Ltd has no problem doing business with fascists and dictators.
What was that you said about heading down a dangerous path?
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Absolutely. Our miners have the same problem. Stern Hu is sitting in jail charged mostly with letting Rio get one over the Chinese state apparatus.
As I pointed out on Davidde’s recent blog, we are going to have to do deals with these same compromised regimes and turn all sorts of blind eyes to get a real chance of hosting the world cup.
It’s a very dangerous path. Do you pack up your bat and ball though?
Art Sapphire said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
md – When did multinational corporations like Rio Tinto become “our miners”?
I thought they were only “your miner” if you owned shares in them.
Stern Hu is an Australian citizen working for a multinational. Rio Tinto’s brief is not the betterment of Australian society, it is to maximise profits for their shareholders.
The same applies to News Ltd. I can’t see how owning over 70% of the national daily press is healthy for a democratic society. Where are the fearless regulators in Australia?
I know where – Hiding from big Rupe.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Look – farbeit from me to be spokesperson for this planet’s highly compromised reality, but you may wish to google the cross media ownership rules, take a look at parts 5 – 7 of this http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/ and possibly consider the fact that simply by being online you have access to an extraordinary range of media diversity. Or is Rupert preventing you from doing that too?
Art Sapphire said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
md – That’s hilarious – you give me a link to a set of rules that can be changed at anytime if the regulators are ever brave enough.
Rupert has never prevented me from doing anything – what a trite line. I am just stating certain realities that I and reasonable people find unsatisfactory.
If you want to be a Murdoch apologist. You should charge him for it.
In the world according to Rupert, its a user pays world. You are selling yourself short, md
Gaz said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
One of the top Nazis sentenced to death at Nuremburg was Julius Streicher, a major propagandist and editor of Der Stuermer, a virulently antisemitic newspaper. Of course he was just following Herman Goerring’s line, right?
It’s funny how all the Murdoch papers were madly keen to go to war in Iraq, innit? And even though we know the intelligence was “sexed up” we still cannot get a real inquiry. But that’s just clever business to you is it, md?
A million Iraqis or more are dead as a result. That’s my point.
And that’s why I will never suscribe to News Ltd.
md said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
I invoke Godwin’s law. You lose this one.
The Bishop said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Gaz, has it escaped your notice that the main football analysts on SBS are extremist eurosnobs themselves (as is most of their demographic)? Are they the ones you want handling A-League coverage?