Time for Australian TV to move into the 21st century
Roar Rookie
By jasonf, 28 Jan 2010 Jason Feldman is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- AFL, anti-siphoning, Australian Open, NRL, pay tv, Stephen Conroy, Tennis, TV Rights
If Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is a tennis fan, he would have been a little grumpy after he returned home from Australia Day celebrations.
He would have switched on the TV and been absorbed by a great contest between Andy Roddick and Marin Cilic.
As the match seemed certain to enter the decisive fifth set, he would have thrown his remote at the TV as the local broadcaster, the Seven Network, predictably crossed to the News. In this digital age, the game was nowhere to be seen, not on 7TWO, 7HD or anywhere on Pay-TV.
For the fan, the message is simple: “it’s 6pm, the news is a ratings winner, we couldn’t give a stuff if you care about the tennis or not.”
Under the current anti-siphoning legislation, Channel 7 is not permitted to show the Australian Open on a secondary channel. The logic behind this law is to prevent Free to Air networks from hoarding sporting events and forcing Fox Sports to the wall.
Conversely, the selected events on the “Anti-Siphoning” list must be offered to FTA providers prior to Foxtel.
This enables viewers without Pay-TV access to events of ”national importance.”
The result for couch-based fans throughout the country is one of frustration.
Whilst Pay-TV uptake remains relatively low, FTA providers serve up a mish-mash of delayed sporting broadcasts, ridiculous cross promotions (I’m pretty sure that John Alexander is not a fan of Desperate Housewives) and pretty much a second rate coverage of the nation’s most popular sporting events.
If you live outside of the Melbourne/Sydney time-zone, the concept of live sport of FTA TV may be one that you’re no longer familiar with.
The Beijing Olympics in 2008 are a prime example of how the viewer is the loser under the current legislation.
Not only were we subjected to the horrible coverage presented by Seven, featuring such sporting luminaries as Sonia Kruger and Andrew Daddo, but the broadcast was also interrupted by AFL games that Seven were not permitted to show on the secondary channel.
Therefore, Olympic fans in Sydney and Brisbane had to twiddle their thumbs and follow progress via ABC Radio and the Internet as Channel 7 featured an AFL game between Adelaide and Richmond.
It wasn’t good enough 18 months ago and it isn’t good enough now.
Both the AFL and NRL are eagerly anticipating the results of the current review of the anti-Siphoning legislation.
The major codes would be hoping that the restrictions of the current arrangements are loosened and they can sell their product directly to Pay-TV providers. The best result for Messrs Gallop and Demetriou would be record TV rights deals where fans throughout the country can watch every game of the premiership season live and in full.
As Pay-TV providers should be given the right to bid directly for all sporting events, FTA Networks should be permitted to feature events on secondary channels such as GO, 7TWO and ONE.
Sports fans throughout in the Southern states would be the winner if Nine could feature live AFL on its primary channel whilst broadcasting live NRL on GO.
The situation could be reversed for the Northern markets.
For those without digital access, a simple trip to Dick Smith to purchase a $50 set top box would do the trick. Beside,s it’s the only way TV will be accessible when the analogue signal is switched off in 2013.
Australia is renowned for its obsession with sports. It’s time that we had a standard of TV sporting coverage that reflected tha.t
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
Other Sports articles
- Victoria Azarenka vs Maria Sharapova: Australian Open women’s final live scores, blog (89)
- The sporting fallacy of the Olympic ‘Games’ (46)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (46)
- Djokovic vs Nadal was great, but do we need six-hour finals? (36)
- Sonny Bill looking sharp for his first real test (29)
- Sonny Bill wins title in first round (25)
- Nadal vs Djokovic: The match for the ages (20)
- Real boxing still exists: here’s where to find it
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (10)
- New champ Williams looking to next fight (5)
- Aust and GB aim to convert 4ths to bronze
- Young pitcher signs big deal with Red Sox (7)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (13)
- Real boxing still exists: here’s where to find it (0)
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (10)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (13)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (20)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (46)
- Lachlan Murdoch squashing FTA sport for Fox’s benefit (4)
- Explore:
- AFL, anti-siphoning, Australian Open, NRL, pay tv, Stephen Conroy, Tennis, TV Rights
Kurt said | January 28th 2010 @ 3:31am | Report comment
The anti-siphoning legislation is just a bit of legislative nonsense that entrenches the FTA TV protection racket. The solution is clear – let sporting bodies sell their products to whoever they want at whatever price they want. Regardless of what we sports fanatics might think, televised sport is not an essential public good and as such the state should have no role in regulating its sale and distribution. If the AFL/FFA/NRL/ARU want to sell all their games exclusively to a pay tv network to maximise revenue then that’s their call to make. So what if it costs people a monthly subscription, last time I checked people don’t expect to receive gas, electricity, water, internet or telephone services for free, so not sure why it’s an inalienable human right to watch footy (or any other sport) on the telly for free.
The sooner the FTA networks have this protectionist racket taken away, the sooner they’ll realise they need to provide a decent service to sports watchers, or lose viewers to more responsive, customer-oriented pay TV operators.
Glen said | January 28th 2010 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
So what if it costs a monthly subscription??? Your Gen Y seams are showing my friend.
Subscription to Foxtel (with sports channels and very little else) costs more than $700 a year. A Fu%$king big chunk out of an age pension of $17,446 pa. That $700 is more than the average power bill, rates and telephone bill combined just for one quarter. A huge section of the community just simply cannot afford it.
Why should you have exclusive rights to sport just because you can afford it….. You’re the sort of person I hope that loses their job or your business goes bust or you suffer a major loss to find out that some people struggle… some people get sick and can’t afford the sort of health care that they really need let alone access to what is a birth-right in Australia.
Just make em pay you say!
You make me sick!!!
JiMMM said | January 28th 2010 @ 5:54am | Report comment
Wow Kurt that is quite a rant you have there.
Whilst I agree with you that the FTA quite often treat us with contempt, I dont think that Pay TV is any better as you get gouged just to get FoxSports. All TV networks are pretty ordinary when it comes to sport 7 are just the worst though.
Kurt said | January 28th 2010 @ 6:49am | Report comment
Yeah, it probably was a bit of a rant but I do feel quite strongly about government intervention in areas where it’s clearly unproductive. I’m not saying that the pay TV operators are brilliant, just that by giving the FTA networks legislative protection from competition the government discourages innovation and comprehensive coverage of sports.
JiMMM said | January 28th 2010 @ 6:09am | Report comment
With regards to the anti-siphoning list I think there are a few common sense chnages that could be made that will keep everyone happy.
1. Use it or lose it, if a network could not be bothered to broadcast something live then they should lose the rights to the part they dont broadcast live (contractual delay of coverage should be excluded from this, think the old cricket not broadcast live into host city unless sold out clause). This would exclude the Olympics and Commonwealth games, as they are too large to have every event live.
2. Allow the event to be broadcast on the digital channels live in its entirity (so we avoid having to watch half an event on one channel before having to change channels to watch the other half). Most people have access to digital TV, lets amke the best use of it.
3. The codes should look at breaking up thier rights into parcels, using the NRL example they could sell Friday night football (2 games) to Channel 9, Sturday (3 games) to Foxtel, Sunday afetrnoon (1 game) to Channel 9, Sunday Night (1 game) to Foxtel and Monday Night football (1 game) to One.
sheek said | January 28th 2010 @ 6:14am | Report comment
JiMMM,
That was the gist of Kurt’s ‘rant’ – “All TV networks are pretty ordinary when it comes to sport”, as you said.
After all, the title of Kurt’s post was: ‘Time for Australian TV to move into the 21st Century’.
I have pay-TV, primarily for the privilege of watching sport. And don’t I know I am paying for that privilege. There’s nothing cost-friendly to me for that privilege either.
CraigB said | January 28th 2010 @ 6:46am | Report comment
I agree fully, being an Adelaide based Rugby fan I have no chance of seeing the Wallabies live without Foxtel. 7 put it on generally after midnight and after a couple of rubbish movies. I understand that if the Crows or Power are playing that they are always going to show that, but then to put on a movie rerun before the rugby is ridiculous. If the option is putting it on a secondary channel live vs not at all, surely the secondary channel is a better option…
Mick said | January 28th 2010 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Ch-7 no idea when it comes to sport, ch-7 did not want supplementary coverage on another network (fox in previous years, sbs the olympics) yet ch-7 give up on sport
All FTA live sport should be given to SBS & ch-7 should stick to sport that does not have to been shown live
Redb said | January 28th 2010 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Ch 7 do an atrocious job of the AFL with their delayed old world coverage. As the tennis ratings are proving, fans want live games.
AndyRoo said | January 28th 2010 @ 11:11am | Report comment
I don’t watch any AFL on Seven since 10 always seems to have the lions games but I am not surprised at this.
I think Roy & HG were a surprising home run for their 2000 olympics coverage but apart from that I can’t think of anything else positive to say about the network.
As a football fan they were horrible, not just their 10 years of burrying the NSL but their olympic coverage of the Olyroos was shocking.
The have ruined the olympics for me with the over the top jingoism and showing interviews with swimming bronze medalists mums rather than live big events. Their belief that today tonight is some sort of important institution…..
I ended up watching the smaller events that they farmed out to SBS because the coverage was better even though I had much less interest in european handball than Swimming.
the winter olympics was pretty much just figure skating while on 7, I know they copied that from America and it probably rates well but it sucks being in an unimportant demographic (males) during the olympics as I used to like the winter olympics. Years of 7′s coverage has made me wary about the event now even though 9 have got it back.
Rugby Union gets treated even worse, they go head to head with fox which just higlights how bad they are.
Redb said | January 28th 2010 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
As Jeff Dowling mentions below Richard Hinds had a fair crack at Ch 7′s coverage compared to ESPN in the fairfax papers.
Hinds was on SEN last night talking about ESPN and how old world Ch 7′s coverage appeared, its the same rubbish with the AFL, retaining the out of touch Bruce McAvaney, ordinary camera angles,etc. Same problem with no live game, the Friday Night AFL game would rate its socks off if live, but on 1 hour delay the game is half over before they start to telecast, many listen to the radio instead.
Mark Young said | January 28th 2010 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Great Article Jason. Well written and easy to read mate.
I agree with you, time to use the capabilities of multi digital channels!
Jasonf said | January 28th 2010 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Thanks Mark
The last week has shown how far Australia is behind in spoting coverage.
We have to also work on the AFL coverage in SA & WA where the local game is shown on FTA and Pay-TV whilst a game between two Melbourne based teams received no coverage at all!!
Mark Young said | January 28th 2010 @ 9:52am | Report comment
ONE has done a stupendous job broadcasting my sport Formula 1.
The do every race live, regardless of whether it clashes with the news or the AFL and really do a great job.
No I know that F1 is on the Anti-syphoning list, so how come they can do it one their digital channel and 9 and 7 can’t??
Mattay said | January 28th 2010 @ 10:34am | Report comment
The tennis at the moment is a perfect example. In Adelaide, we have to sit through the news, Today Tonight and Home & Away before getting the night’s action, which is delayed by half an hour. I’m an impatient man, so I just flick to Fox Sports News to get a score update and don’t bother watching the tennis unless the game really interests me.
I agree with the use it or lose it policy. And there is no way in hell I am watching Cougar Town channel 7, you hear me.
Those FTA Sport ads also make me cringe.