AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou addresses the media during an AFL Media Conference at AFL House, Melbourne. Slattery Images
The AFL wants television networks to show matches live when the next broadcast rights deal is brokered for the 2012 season and beyond.
The next five-year agreement is expected to be worth more than $1 billion and AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said the league would also seek a commitment to screen games live.
Currently, the four games per week shown on free to air television are usually delayed telecasts.
“Regardless of what people have thought in the past and regardless of what my personal view is one way or the other, the world is demanding to see their sport live,” Demetriou told the Ten Network, one of the current rights-holders, along with Seven and Foxtel.
“The consumer, the viewer out there, wants to watch their sport live and you can’t stop the tide coming in.”
Demetriou said the current delayed telecasts were partly due to a past AFL belief that live screenings caused reduced attendances, but that had since been shown to be false.
“We’ve always believed in a delay on Saturday afternoon, for example, for 30 minutes or 40 minutes,” he said.
“On the Friday night that was the choice of the Seven Network to delay.
“We’re finding, there’s no doubt now, that certainly when you go live it doesn’t affect the gate, which is one of those misnomers that have been perpetuated over a long period of time.
“We’re going to kid ourselves if we think the consumer and the viewer at a point in time (will) tolerate not getting their sport live.”
© AAP 2012Enjoy 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 (9) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- More rugby league players to defect to the AFL? (160)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (106)
- Foxtel’s AFL coverage is nirvana for footy fans (89)
- AFL’s most hated club turns 120 years old (78)
- Israel Folau now ready for AFL (76)
- Optus ruling actually a good thing for AFL fans (52)
- Ling holds hope for club loyalty in AFL
- Andrew Krakouer given four weeks leave from Collingwood
- Giants inspired to prove doubters wrong (32)
- Malthouse not fazed by assistant issue
- Richo says look out for the Tigers in AFL
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- Who’s to blame for the Majak Daw beat-up? (32)
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (107)
- Crows changing, but will this AFL preview change your life? (2)
- Is Heath Shaw the right leader for Collingwood? (11)
- Could a female coach succeed in the AFL? (36)
- Demons’ two captain Jacks the right leadership choice (5)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- Explore:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou
Millster said | March 20th 2010 @ 6:34am | Report comment
I think that’s fair enough in his core markets of VIC, SA and WA. However I would not like to see the next AFL TV rights mandate live coverage in QLD and NSW when this would risk displacing other prime-time shows that the public up here would relate to far more. I think delayed or even later evening is no problems for these 2 states.
Mister Football said | March 20th 2010 @ 8:02am | Report comment
But if any network wants the rights bad enough, they will have to do it as part of the contract.
Jason said | April 9th 2010 @ 9:57pm | Report comment
Yeah, you wouldn’t want to do without (Channel 7) Birdcage, (72) 60 Minute Makeover, (10) NCIS or (OneHD) Formula 1.
Quality stuff.
What I can’t believe is the exorbitant price Channel 7 paid to be a part of AFL only to bury it past midnight anywhere north of Wodonga. I think they underestimate how well they could’ve done with this investment…..but then again, they have a habit of being short-sighted.
Forgetmenot said | March 20th 2010 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Most stations have 2 or 3 channels now. I’d say the AFL would state that the football should be on the primary (C1) channel, and shows like Better Homes and Gardens be shown on channel 2.
Quite simple really.
Brett McKay said | March 21st 2010 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
ForgetMeNot, this is exactly what I wrote in one of my very first articles for The Roar (http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/10/20/sport-the-digital-tv-deal-clincher/). Sadly, very little has changed since then, and this artcile appeared nearly 18 months ago…
allblackfan said | March 21st 2010 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
Then people like me in Sydney who don’t want to watch live AFL (and there are a helluva lot of us) will turn to another channel.
Equally simple!!
James said | March 21st 2010 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Thankfully the AFL is waking up to this problem! I feel Channel 7 are damaging the code with their delayed coverage.
Millster said | March 21st 2010 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
I think this is downright ridiculous. In those places where Better Homes and Gardens – fo example – are FAR more popular than AFL then the small minority who want AFL should be perfectly happy to have it live on one of the secondary digital channels. Whats the difference to them anyway? Or is the evangelism complex SO bad that they want to avail themselves of every single symbol that they can of the power of their code to ram itself down everyone’s throats?
Put more simply, what is it to Melbourne people whether or not AFL is shown live in other markets?? You get your fixes live, and we don’t care that we don’t. Or is it not good enough that you are well-served, and on top of that what you want is to know that your game is imposed on us too?
In any case I would hate it if, when I come back to Sydney in 2-3 years, I found a bunch of channels locked into showing things for contractual reasons when those things relate to contracts that are simply stupid in this part of the country. Its a ridiculous perverse logic. Or alternately the AFL should be told that its conditions actually de-value the TV rights as it reduces the flexibility of the networks to do what actually makes sense and is enjoyed to people in each separate state.
Mister Football said | March 22nd 2010 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
It’s up to the networks to decide whether they want the rights or not, and to negotiate the total price and any conditions.