Why isn’t rugby shown live on Free To Air TV?
Roar Rookie
By Gavin Norman, 14 Jul 2010 Gavin Norman is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- free to air tv, Rugby Union, Seven Network, shute shield
227 Have your say
You may have noticed we recently launched a campaign “Rugby on Free To Air”. The aim of the campaign is to get some backward Television Network operators to give rugby viewers throughout Australia (in particular Melbourne) a fair go.
The main focus is the Seven Network and their rights to broadcast coverage of the Tri-Nations.
For those who are unaware, the Seven Network have the Free To Air broadcast rights for June Tests and Tri-Nations. 2010 is the last year of their broadcast agreement, with the Nine Network to take over next year.
At present, fans in Melbourne (and Perth) can either pay a premium for Foxtel (live coverage), or watch a re-run of some classic family movie, then “enjoy” delayed coverage four hours later at midnight!
Considering we’re living in 2010, you could scratch your head and ask why do we have this issue? Surely Digital Television or “Free View” could solve this dilemma?
The anti-siphoning laws stipulate that particular sporting events must be accessible to all viewers, therefore they must be broadcast on the analog channels only. Currently analog and digital are broadcast simultaneously, with the analog signal earmarked to be decommissioned in 2013.
A long wait, you could say.
“Everyone should have the right to watch Rugby live on Free to Air (FTA) television. Especially when their national sporting team, the Wallabies, are competing in the toughest international Rugby competition in the world, the Tri-Nations.”
It’s hard to argue with that statement, considering how many other national sporting events are broadcast live (Rugby League Internationals, International Cricket, Melbourne Cup etc.). So why isn’t international rugby?
People have their opinions about the Seven commentary team. But it’s about the quantity, not the quality, getting the public interested in Rugby.
In addition, since ABC have ceased to broadcast their high definition channel, ABC HD (a simulcast of NSW ABC 1), we’ve subsequently lost coverage of the Shute Shield competition. A significant blow for rugby tragics.
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
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (27)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- free to air tv, Rugby Union, Seven Network, shute shield
Rob said | July 14th 2010 @ 1:45am | Report comment
Rugby Union doesn’t Rate Well Simple… The game is struggles for media attention is this Country.
James D said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Yep thats why people write blogs asking for its return
sheek said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:48am | Report comment
JamesD,
Yeah, but not enough people writing blogs to return rugby to FTA for it to be significant.
sheek said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:50am | Report comment
With the exception of the rusted on, “rugby can do no wrong” diehards (& Reds in 2010) rugby has failed to grab the overall interest of the majority population.
Not enough quality cattle to showcase the game at its best…..
Nick said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:57am | Report comment
NSW and QLD hold over 50% of the population and I am sure we have confirmed thier love for all things rugby generally. So apart from the southern states (really only VIC and SA) there is an audience for the majority of the population but the networks try and cater for each state.
if you were referring to VICs population then absolutely they havent captured much interest but how can interest be sought if its never shown in the first place?
Gavin Norman said | July 14th 2010 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Plenty of interest shown.
Considering we set an attendance record in 1997 at the MCG, and continue to show healthy numbers at all Tests given to Melbourne.
Interesting to note also, rumours are that Melbourne will continue to get Tests (possibly Tri-Nations even an additional June match), while Perth and Canberra (most likely) will not.
Dan said | July 14th 2010 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
I’m not so sure about that… it may have been high in 1997, but I went to the last bledisloe cup match held in Melbourne in 2007, and the stadium was about 70% full and the majority were All Blacks fans. Meaning that the place only had about 30% born and bred melbournians (if that).
Craig Johanson said | July 15th 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
I’d love to see the various matches on free to air, but I think the main problem is to do with the broadcast rights as dictated by foxtell.
Not too sure why they couldn’t be shown a few days after though.
Also would have thought that Channel One would be a good option for picking up more matches but instead we seem to get all sorts of obscure sports and sports popular in other countrys but not necessarily followed in Oz.
rugbyskier said | July 15th 2010 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
Ask Qantas and Virgin what the loads are like on flights to Melbourne from Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra when there’s a test match at the MCG or Docklands. When the Wallabies played Ireland in the RWC all flights from CBR and SYD were fully booked. I think you’ll find that a significant proportion of the crowds in Melbourne are not “sports-mad Melburnians” but rugby tragics from NSW, Qld and the ACT. Great for the Victorian economy but not doing much for interstate rugby supporters.
JamesP said | July 14th 2010 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Massive flaw in your argument when you pull out the NSW/QLD have over 50% of the population line. We all know the Rugby League folk have been using that to claim superiority over other codes. The simple facts are that in the Southern States, sport is very heavily supported. I would argue perhaps QLD holds a similaer level of interest but not NSW, were going to beach, or doing other things is more highly valued.
JF said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:57am | Report comment
So every program on FTA grabs the interest of the majority population?
The Link said | July 14th 2010 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Gavin – how have the Wallabies been rating on FTA in recent years? Crowds are healthy but its TV we’re talking about here.
Gavin Norman said | July 14th 2010 @ 10:44am | Report comment
I’d have to ask Channel 7 that question, doubt I’ll get the information though.
Jay said | July 14th 2010 @ 11:33am | Report comment
its been reported that huge viewing numbers have dropped from test rugby in Australia. Im not sure of the figures, but approx 20-40%.
Whites said | July 14th 2010 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
These are the Sydney ratings only.
Channel 7
6.00pm-Seven News – Sat Seven 387,000
6.30pm-Islands Of Britain Seven 287,000
7.30pm-Seven’s R.U: Aus V Eng Seven 215,000
Channel 7 lost over 170,000 viewers in Sydney alone from the end of the news to the start of the Rugby Union. At 9.30pm that same night in Sydney 265,000 watched Netherlands vs Japan at the world cup. At midnight 513,000 watched Australia play Ghana.
JF said | July 14th 2010 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
AFL and RL audiences have been cultivated over years and years through media activity and promotion, you can’t just expect a single Rugby test to come in and be an instant ratings winner when there is no Super Rugby on FTA, or there is none of the same cross promotion given by the relevant network news services. For Rugby to succeed on FTA it needs a firm commitment from a broadcaster to work with the sport, Wallaby only tests are never going to get us anywhere.
Billo Boy said | July 14th 2010 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
You’re being too kind to our rugby leaders JF. We had the ratings and the public on side at the end of the 2003 WC. We lost all of that support. There’s no one to blame for that except us ourselves.
Whites said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
1 week later only 166,000 bothered to watch Australia vs Ireland in Sydney. More people watched National Lampoon’s European Vacation for the 76th time.
Pete said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
Whites, only 166, 000 bothered to watch… I prefer to say 166,000 were chomping at the bit to watch
The main reason for these numbers is there is no excitment around rugby (outside rugby circles) because there is little media excitement. I have work collegues who don’t care for the NRL but they watch SOO because of the hype surrounding it. The RWC in 2003 put rugby on the map in Australia because of the media hype surrounding the tournament. The problem for rugby is that the adminstrators thought that rugby had finally ‘made it to mainstream’ and took their foot off the gas.
The quality of the Rugby at the moment has never been better, but none of the FTA networks have a vested interested in promoting the code and generating this hype. Seven use Rugby as a small ‘cash cow’. Little investment but happy to take the profits. AFL is their main game not rugby. Next year 9 takes over and they’re wedded to RL. Neither AFL or the NRL would be happy for their network to promote a rival code. These networks of course will promote their best revenue stream. Its just business.
The ARU are trying to recreate the hype of 2003 by using a top down approach. They are using the smaller pool of funds they have to make the wallabies successful. If the Wallabies are successful the TV ratings will go back up. IMO this a risky strategy because no team can be successful for long periods. Rugby needs to think outside the box to bring the fans back rather than just follow the leaders in FTA TV.
Gatesy said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
…yes, but what’s your point, Rob?
JVGO said | July 14th 2010 @ 2:36am | Report comment
The game needs to improve itself as a TV spectacle to compete in the Australian market. AFL and NRL are simply way more consistently entertaining than RU at the moment.
James D said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Totally disagree with you on that one. League for mine has been poor this year and as predictable as always. Union on the other hand has not been and the AFL has had an average year so far. Entertainment wise.
The Link said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:59am | Report comment
James D – millions of Australians disagree with you and that’s what counts when it comes to FTA coverage.
Jay said | July 14th 2010 @ 11:34am | Report comment
not sure about union not being entertaining, rather its a case of Australian teams not performing so well…
Michael C said | July 14th 2010 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
forgive me for posting on the RU tab,
but,
this occurs to me,
RU is based on mostly one the year in year out test match ‘season’ plus the Supers.
NOw, re the Supers, they miss out big time on the ‘tribal’ elements of both the AFL and the NRL.
Also – - correct me if I’m wrong – - but, I haven’t seen any ‘supercoach’ or ‘dreamteam’ style promotions for RU.
One thing for certain, is that with huge numbers of people riding every game for the often otherwise meaningless stats generated in the defensive 50 whilst running down the clock…….without that, then it ONLY comes down to core interest in the result and general ‘entertainment value’…….and those 2 factors alone are perhaps too limiting these days.
Hanzo said | July 14th 2010 @ 2:47am | Report comment
You said it yourself, we live in 2010. And in 2010 it’s paytv or no tv. Get foxtel or stop your moaning.
Gavin Norman said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:17am | Report comment
If you woud of read the article, you would understand it’s not about my own selfish interests, but for the greater good of Rugby. I actually have Foxtel anyway.
GT75 said | July 14th 2010 @ 7:04am | Report comment
Tackle pass, tackle pass, tackle pass, tackle pass, tackle pass kick!!! Oh how exciting, seems to me Australians have a potato head when it comes to sport NRL is not more exciting television rights are a joke if they call Storm a national comp
sheek said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:54am | Report comment
GT75,
Popular doesn’t always been its right. For example, more illegal refugees arrive by aeroplane than by boat, but boats off the coast is highly visible & emotive.
‘
‘TPTPTPTPTPK’ is popular with a huge proportion of Australia’s East Coast. Who are we to say they’re wrong in their pursuits, & we’re somehow right…..
Brian said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:59am | Report comment
rest,whistle,rest,kick,whistle,rest,kick,kick,clap.
The Link said | July 14th 2010 @ 10:18am | Report comment
GT75, that’s it, its all Rugby League’s fault. Watch out for those League players under your bed, they’re coming for you.
The Answer said | July 14th 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Oh boo hoo hoo! It’s all rugby league’s fault. Wake up, they aren’t putting rugby league on instead of the union tests they are putting on Get Smart movies. So blame him…or agent 99.
The simple answer is: ITS NOT ON, BECAUSE IT DOESN’T RATE! TV stations aren’t a charity they are there to make money so they can spend money on broadcast deals for sports people want to watch.
JF said | July 14th 2010 @ 11:00am | Report comment
The ratings suffer because no network has ever made a commitment to Rugby, how would Kangaroos tests rate if there was no NRL on FTA?
There are far more complexities and vested interests involved in the decision making, it is not as simple as saying “doesn’t rate, won’t show it”. If ratings were the deciding factor, how do you explain the Swans going live into Sydney FTA?
Ken said | July 14th 2010 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
You’re right, more people will be interested if it’s on FTA more often – which is precisely why this campaign exists – but the networks know this and still don’t think it’s in their best interests to pay for and show Union instead of a cheap movie re-run.
I’m sure they’d love to dump the Swans in Sydney (or at least play it after midnight) but this was a negotiated right by the AFL who had considerably more bargaining power than the ARU.
taylorbridge said | July 15th 2010 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Do FTA networks target the Rugby demographic. If the Rugby watchers (166,000 mentioned ) are the same who watch movie reruns then maybe advertisers are correct in not supporting Rugby. If the Rugby watching audience are likely to be strong supporters of the advertisers then maybe FTA can afford to program it with a more discerning viewer but less ratings
JF said | July 15th 2010 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
This was the reason given for Nine’s interest in Rugby tests, they believed they could entice high end financial advertisers.
Whites said | July 14th 2010 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
sniff bum, pass, sniff bum, pass, sniff bum, pass, sniff bum, penalty, 3 points
Final score- 18-15
JK said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
If you want to tell people what you did today just use twitter!
James said | July 18th 2010 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
What are you on about?
Dan said | July 14th 2010 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Some punctuation please.
kovana said | July 14th 2010 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Meanwhile i can watch 3N on the ‘australian Network’ channel for free.
They also show some Shute shield action and The Darwins 7′s comp as well FTA…
The Media in Aus is too biased to League and AFL… And yet everywhere i hear leaguies saying union is conspiring to bring down Loig in other countries… two faced me thinks.
M.O.C. said | July 14th 2010 @ 7:55am | Report comment
I find the most annoying problem with the current free-to-air coverage is it is Wallabies or nothing. I appreciate that this is Australia and I am not expecting the channels to show every AB or SA match not featuring Aussie, but surely in a rugby comp that consists of only 3 teams (tri nations), even Wallaby fans would want to see AB Vs SA games not just the games featuring the Wallabies. To me this is the equivalent of cancelling the Wimbledon broadcast once Lleyton Hewitt has been eliminated – SBS managed to show the soccer finals despite the Aussies being elimiated.
titus said | July 14th 2010 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Hey MOC, the other day I gave you a link of where to watch rugby on the internet. I forgot to say that the quality isn’t that good. Watchable, but not that good. Just forwarning you that’s all. Still, better than nothing.
M.O.C. said | July 14th 2010 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Thanks regardless Titus – poor quality is better than being caught for being a peeping tom while trying to watch throuhg the neighbours window!
Jay said | July 14th 2010 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Agree.
One HD showed some south hemisphere teams touring Europe last year. I remember watching the France v SA match and thought it was brilliant.
Brett McKay said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Gavin, have you got a link for your campaign, for those that agree with you??
Gavin Norman said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Thanks Brett. The contacts on the page are Melbourne numbers, however feel free to contact Channel 7 in your local city etc.
http://www.rebel-army.com/rugby-on-fta
Paul J said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:03am | Report comment
The FTA Super 15 highlights show starting next year should be a big help to rugby. Highlight shows are great and may get people interested.
The NRL stupidly allowed Nine to “promote” the NRL in Melbourne with their current deal; hence all Strom games are midnight viewing in Melbourne.
Does anyone know what obligation Nine will have with Wallabies games in Melbourne & Perth next year?
Gavin Norman said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:51am | Report comment
If their coverage of League Internationals is anything to go by, we should get it live. However, Rugby international fixtures occur more frequently then League, so it’s 50/50.
We’ll focus on 7 at present, and if 9 choose the same path, we’ll put them in our sights.
Billo Boy said | July 14th 2010 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
Gavin they don’t show Kangaroos internationals live into Melbourne. They did this eyar because it doubled as the opening of the new stadium. They didn’t even show the 3rd S of O live in Melbourne.
All I see here is a failure for some rugby fans to accept rugby’s current place in the pecking order. It’s not rugby league or AFL that is keeping the Wallabies off live tv nationwide.
In 2003 and the years after they were showing Wallabies games live nationally. Once the bottom fell out of the code’s support Channel 7 did what any responsible business would do and cut it except for New South Wales and Queensland.
The AFL doesn’t rate in Sydney and Brisbane but the AFL secured a far better deal for itself than the ARU. Mind you 10 and 7 won’t get fooled by the AFL again.
Chris said | July 14th 2010 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
I hope your right mate, I hope 10 and 7 don’t get fooled by the AFL again.
Redb said | July 14th 2010 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
The only fools are from the previous comments, the AFL insisted on better coverage in its non heartland states. It was not a case of the networks requesting prime time AFL content. The NRL feels the exact same way about Melbourne ,wanting more free to air coverage. It needs to negotiate a better deal. ie: If you want our core markets you need to helps us in non core.
oikee said | July 14th 2010 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Your copping a belting in the non-core by the hard-core. The only reason Melbourne dont want rugby league on live t/v, they are worried that afl will be belted again. I talked to Eddie, he told me so it must be true.
Rabbitz said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:11am | Report comment
I would also add that a big part of the problem is the (lack of) quality and production values by the FTA broadcaster, actually the same goes for Fox coverage. The commentary is very ordinary, I often wonder if they are watching a different feed, or game.
Gordon Bray has reduced his commentary to pointless trivia and condescending explanation (which is often wrong or unrelated to the on field action).
The camera work is poor, O/B editing and vision mixing is so formulaic that it is boring and misses important sideplay and structure.
This means that people switch off. If it doesn’t rate well in the heartlands, then the network is unlikely to push it into emerging markets.
Brett McKay said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Rabbitz, I think you’ll find the FTA and Fox production/coverage/camera work is actually one and the same…
Rabbitz said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Brett,
I am sure that is probably the case for local games. The TN and S14 feed from NZ & SA (on Fox) has better production values, so I guess it comes down to who-ever it is who puts the Aust. feed together should get the bullet.
I would also say the both Seven and Fox’s commentary teams should also be harshly dealt with
Brett McKay said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:38am | Report comment
yeah can’t argue with that too much Rabbitz, though I would happily take Bray/Horan/Crowley over Kearns/Martin any day. Greg Clarke does a reasonable job, I think, but too often gets drowned out.
But listening to Nisbett/Fox/Smith last Sat night, you realise what you’re missing in the quality analsis dept. I know he’s been doing it for years know, but Ian Smith is a surprisingly good sideline comments man, for a former Test wicketkeeper…
Rabbitz said | July 14th 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
The Fox coverage has a seemingly new option, you can opt to have the commentary from Oz, the OS commentary or crowd + ref. Mrs Rabbitz decided the crowd + ref was better than either of the other two. I am slowy starting to agree.
Out of the possibles vs probables from Oz would like to see Clarke/Horan/Kafer as a team.
Nashi said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Rabbitz, what about a forward? I agree on those three but you need a forward to explain the scrums surely, perhaps with a little less bias as well….
Any suggestions?
Rabbitz said | July 14th 2010 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Good point Nashi,
Only I can’t think of many who would suit. I guess Crowley would get my vote over Kearns.
ncart said | July 14th 2010 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Brett,
Totally agree. I like Grant Fox’s analysis – he tells it like it is, regardless of the team – if an opposition player is particularly good he will praise them and doesn’t resort to trivia about players and trying to make jokes. I think Foxtel would be better off by following the same lead and getting Rod Kafer in the commentary box rather than just on the sideline – I am sure that he could give more informative comment on the play as it goes.