Outfoxing Fox: formula to A-League success
Roar Pro
By Michael Turner, 2 Sep 2010 Michael Turner is a Roar Pro
133 Have your say
Central Coast Mariners players (L to R) Tom Pendeljak, Matthew Simon and John Hutchinson sit dejected after loosing 0-1 to the Newcastle Jets in the A-League Grand Final in Sydney on Saturday, Feb. 24, 2008. AAP Image/Paul Miller
I am currently finding myself in a big and dire predicament. I am one of many Australians that deem Pay TV a very pointless investment. Of course, this limits what I can view on my television. But there is one main pitfall. Sports.
As I have previously stated in one of my previous posts, the FFA needs to embrace the youngsters in order to improve the interest in the competition, and to breed new players. A-League on Fox Sports is a major hindrance to progress.
When the major television deal was struck before the first season, the FFA essentially signed a cap on competition interest. It was a stupid and inevitably thwarting move. They need a free-to-air deal struck. And they need it sooner rather than later.
If you still don’t understand why Pay TV is an impediment, just look at statistics. 8 per cent of Australian households have access to Foxtel in their homes (1.63 million), and the other 92 per cent only have free-to-air access. This isn’t just a choice however; it is often the harsh reality. Not all homes can get Foxtel coverage, and some cannot afford this investment. The catchment of the competition would be far larger if it were televised free-to-air.
As I have previously stated on other posts, the FFA need to connect more with the community, and another way to do this is through free-to-air broadcasting. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s a simple concept.
Someone notices a match or team on television, possibly giving them impetus to attend a match live. Advertisement of matches would be more effective on free-to-air. It will reach almost 20 million more people!
I never find out a match is on until I bother trolling through the internet. Imagine being a sporting bystander. You may not even know the competition is underway!
Increase of catchment means increase of interest, which means increase in attendances.
It’s a formula that the FFA have missed, and the public have been yearning for.
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)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (44)
- Socceroos screwed over by FIFA, again (41)
- Sydney and Perth eye A-League crunch game
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (97)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (9)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (7)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (8)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (46)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (97)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (9)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (7)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (8)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Melbourne derby reveals tale of two journeys (3)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (16)
moo cow said | September 2nd 2010 @ 1:30am | Report comment
I think Fox Sports coverage of the league is great and it probably made sense to the FFA at the time. But you are right about pay-tv simply limiting by up to 92% of Australian households, that’s ridiculous. Whenever they do the next rights deal I will be disappointed if no games make it to Free-to-Air, it will just mean another seven years of crowds of 5000 and that is not good for the game.
AndrewMc said | September 2nd 2010 @ 5:53am | Report comment
Great article and I think you are completely right! I just wanted to get in quickly and say that before all the responses from people saying how much they like the commentary blah blah
Mister Football said | September 2nd 2010 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Does anyone have any evidence that the commercial FTAs are even interested in televising the A-League?
It’s a while since I’ve looked at the ratings, but they really weren’t so high that it would make you think commercial FTAs would be clamouring for it.
Art Sapphire said | September 2nd 2010 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Predictable AFL cheerleader comment
Mister Football said | September 2nd 2010 @ 9:27am | Report comment
It’s the obvious comment that comes to mind.
Many argue that soccer needs FTA exposure – the obvious questions that come to mind:
1. do we know how keen the FTAs are to show live games of the A-League?
2. are they willing to pay more than what Fox pays?
These are more than reasonable questions.
Let me qualify this by saying that I’m sure the Socceroos would be attractive to the commercial FTAs.
But this is about the A-League.
Art Sapphire said | September 2nd 2010 @ 10:35am | Report comment
As I already noted MF, when the next deal is done. It might look something like this.
12 Team A-league – 6 matches a round – 4 on Pay TV, 2 on FTA (One HD)
Socceroos friendlies and away qualifiers on Pay TV. Socceroos home WC qualifiers on FTA (Ten, One HD).
FFA will be remiss if there is no FTA component in the next Deal.
A platform like One HD give platform to show at least one A-League game a week and a highlights package.
This is all about improving the A-League and Australian football.
An outcome that brings disquiet to certain people.
Axel V said | September 2nd 2010 @ 11:44am | Report comment
If One HD was to ever get matches, then it would have to be either on the friday or sunday, not a chance in the world that they would telecast it over their beloved AFL on saturdays.
Art Sapphire said | September 2nd 2010 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Depends if retain they AFL rights, Axel V. That is no certainty.
Axel V said | September 2nd 2010 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Channel 7′s sports coverage is the worst in Australia, that’s a certainty!
on Friday nights, there is 2:30 hours of AFL, and 2 hours of ad’s
Fussball ist unser leben said | September 2nd 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Let’s look at some facts about LIVE AFL & NRL on FTA TV in Melbourne.
1. NRL
No matches – apart from the NRL GF – shown live into Melbourne
2. AFL
Despite being the “home of Aussie Rules”, the number of AFL matches shown live into Melbourne each week is generally … ZERO, ZILCH, NADA.
The only exceptions are:
a) if the AFL match is being played outside Vicrtoria;
b) certain “one-off matches” (e.g. Anzac day, occasional “blockbuster” b/w top sides)
c) Grand Final and some sold-out finals if they are played on Saturday or Sunday
Black Diamonds said | September 2nd 2010 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
Maybe you’re not aware of this – but that is done at the request of the league – and its members – THE CLUBS.
Why?
To maximise attendances. Seems to work when you look at the facts mate.
Fussball ist unser leben said | September 2nd 2010 @ 6:45pm | Report comment
Most sporting leagues around the world (not just football, but gridiron, NBA basketball, baseball) discovered several decades ago that LIVE broadcasts have minimal impact on gate receipts … but, I guess, if your sport only attracts a “fickle fan demographic” there is reason to be afraid of broadcasting games LIVE.
It may take a(nother) decade before the AFL catches up?
jimbo said | September 2nd 2010 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
MF,
a few weeks ago the AFL game on Sydney TV had an audience of 7K – I’m sure we could get more than 7K people to watch an A-League game on FTA.
It just takes the desire, but the TV stations who have invested heavily in overpriced AFL and NRL TV deals have a conflict of interest and will not show football, because they have no incentive or need to make money out of it.
Davstar said | September 2nd 2010 @ 7:38am | Report comment
Good article i agree with you all the way
Aka said | September 2nd 2010 @ 7:51am | Report comment
‘When the major television deal was struck before the first season, the FFA essentially signed a cap on competition interest. It was a stupid and inevitably thwarting move.’
The fact was that the league was pulling itself up by it’s bootstraps. It needed money. The FTA didn’t want to support the league in any meaningful way. The FFA either had to go with Fox or have no league.
Did you realise that after the first season the TV deal with fox was re-negotiated and a second deal signed? It was a much more lucrative deal but still a good deal for Fox. John O’Neill has indicated that without that second deal the league would have folded.
There is no justification IMO for calling that decision stupid.
Fox have invested money and effort into developing the football TV product. to the point that FTA now wants some. Credit to fox. Credit also to the FFA for getting us to season 6 with an expanded league that is now wanted by TV networks, a monumental achievement given the situation football was in in 2004.
FKCZ said | September 2nd 2010 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Well said.
Axel V said | September 2nd 2010 @ 11:49am | Report comment
true, but he is argueing the long term pain and short sightedness of giving the rights to Foxtel. It’s possible that we could be averaging 20,000 crowds had it been on FTA. But did they have to sign for 7 years? Still 2 years left on the current TV deal, and every club in the league (except MV) is in dire financial situations. Next TV deal will secure the league, if the clubs can hang on for that long.
Aka said | September 2nd 2010 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
That maybe what is being argued but it is highly likely that we wouldn’t have a league if they didn’t sell the rights to Fox. What were the FTA stations offering? Was Fox prepared to pay good money for a short contract?
What would the crowds be like now and what would the financial status of the clubs be now if they got paid pittance for the rights. Would the gate takings be greater than the difference in TV revenue?
It’s possible that the crowds would be no better than they are now.
Axel V said | September 2nd 2010 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Well it’s pretty certain that whatever FTA was offering, Fox were offering more.
Had they gone for the 5 years instead, i would not call that a short contract.
But the question is, in the longterm, what would have made the most money? right now every club is in the red and perhaps in 2 years, several clubs will be dead. And most people will never know it happened.
Aka said | September 2nd 2010 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
But you still seem to be assuming that things would have been better if they hadn’t signed the foxtel deal.
I am saying that you cannot seriously call the FFA stupid for signing the deal
Art Sapphire said | September 2nd 2010 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
Aka – the deal was 2 years too long. 4 – 5 deals are standard.
Axel is correct – There can’t be a golden egg without the goose.
Stevo said | September 2nd 2010 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
Spot on. Fox held out the money and the A-league needed it to kick start the comp. Pure and simple. I remember when Ch7 Melbourne paid money to the NSL to get access to local games and the Socceroos. What a flop that was. Ch7 relegated replays of the NSL matches to somewhere around midnight ensuring no audience. Socceroos matches were interupted with ads. No way was Ch7 going to prioritise any roundball game ahead of the oval game. So the bright sparks at the NSL were not bright at all.
Fussball ist unser leben said | September 2nd 2010 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Michael Turner
By labelling the contract with Foxtel as “stupid” you are demnostrating a lack of appreication for the dire status of professional club football in Australia, circa 2005.
Perhaps, the FFA could have sold the broadcast rights to a FTA commercial network for (even) less money and access to a wider audience.
But, I would rather have Foxtel provide a professional broadcast of the HAL to a small market of Australian sports fans; than have a commercial network – like Ch 7 or 9 – offer wide coverage to the whole of Australia but only televise the matches in the middle of the night.
Channel 9′s coverage of NRL in Melbourne and Channel 7′s coverage of AFL into Sydney is unprofessional and treats fans of those sports with utter disrespect.
I have no doubt, NRL fans in Melbourne (and AFL fans in Sydney) would prefer to watch games live on Foxtel than at midnight on Channel 9.
As far as I’m concerned there are only 3 FTA networks are capable of broadcasting Football matches in a professional manner – ABC TV, SBS TV and ONE HD, who seems to be doing everything possible to woo the Football fan.
Melanie Dinjaski said | September 2nd 2010 @ 10:18am | Report comment
In Sydney, Ten and 7 always played AFL matches at decent times. It’s the English Rugby League on Nine that gets a midnight showing, and that’s been widely criticised.
Maybe the solution – and I agree there are some deficiencies with 7 and Ten – would be that ONE get’s the rights to broadcast the A league. I mean it’s only really Sports Tonight and Fox Sports that follow and cover the A League news adequately anyway. They have shown support for showing free to air football anyway with the BUndesliga and Serie A coverage. Which I’m loving!
Fussball ist unser leben said | September 2nd 2010 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Melanie
Thanks for the informaiton coverage of AFL into Sydney. I was under the impression only Channel 10 broadcast the Saturday night games at “the normal time” in Sydney, even though this telecast is easily beaten each week by SBS TV’s The Iron Chef!
I thnk you’ll also find every day of the week that World News (SBS TV: 630 p.m.) provides excellent coverage of the A-League in the Sports Report.
I’m also loving the Bundesliga – fantastic football, reasonable broadcast time and the atmosphere must surely be the best for any sporting event in the world?
Melanie Dinjaski said | September 2nd 2010 @ 7:41pm | Report comment
Yes of course you’re right, there’s no doubt SBS have excellent coverage – they had the ONLY football coverage for a long long time!
The Bundesliga is very entertaining yes. And so soon after the World Cup, I can recognise some of the players. It’s great seeing how they perform at club level, definitely.
Couldn’t comment on the atmosphere though – might have to make a trip there and find out!
Jim Martinze said | September 2nd 2010 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Always good to have an opinion. However the better opinions usually get their basic facts right. There are 32-34% of homes who have pay TV in Australia. – not 8%. http://www.budde.com.au/Research/Australia-Pay-TV-Statistics-Subscribers-Overview-and-Analysis.html
Approx 2.3 million homes (Austar and Foxtel) with each home in Australia having an average of 3 people.
I certainly like having 5 dedicated high quality sports channels. I don’t miss the old days of 7, 9, and 10 or SBS only showing us some games from an event, at hours that suited them not the punters, not live, or worse pretending they were live.
Without the substantial financial investment by everyone we wouldn’t have the A League.
Michael Turner said | September 2nd 2010 @ 10:51am | Report comment
To counter your facts, you are correct, however your stats include Austar, and Budget, which do not offer FoxSports as either Standard or a strong push for the sports package.
Axel V said | September 2nd 2010 @ 11:54am | Report comment
very true, it’s $60 minimum per month to watch Fox sports, and this is in a low definition (greatly inferior to standard definition that ordinary digital FTA channel’s broadcast), not only that, you have to pay EXTRA for HD, what a scam.
if i could get fox sports only without the rest of pay tv for $15 a month, i’d get it straight away, but $60 is way too expensive, that’s $720 a year.
jupiter53 said | September 2nd 2010 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
I totally agree.
It goes against the grain to waste money on all the stuff in which I have no interest.
When they produce a football only deal I’ll sign up but not before.
Eamonn Flanagan said | September 2nd 2010 @ 8:50am | Report comment
An Aussie League worth watching, games on Live TV and a TV deal that saved the day. Fox saved the day. the reason we have ANY football at the level we have it is because of FOX. Were you on one of the boats stuck out at sea for awhile Michael.
Blind Freddy knows we need FTA, every Grand Final major game, Socceroos qualifiers has been missed since 2006 bar World Cup games; but no FTA bar SBS wanted the game back then and certainly wouldn’t pay the money Fox paid.
Club get $1.2 mill per year currently from that same “stupid” deal. How many clubs would be around now without that fee?
How much would SBS have “paid.”? No other channel wanted the game.
Far from being stupid the Fox deal paved the way for seven years of football. Can we build on this when the next deal comes in, more money and some FTA, well lets hope so, then maybe you will change your assessment.
mds1970 said | September 2nd 2010 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Fox took the punt and signed up the rights for the game at a time when no-one else wanted to know about it – and the round-ball code’s previous arrangements with Channel 7 were far from satisfactory for both sides.
The round-ball code isn’t suited to commercial TV. Aussie rules has naturally occurring breaks after a goal when ads can be inserted, rugby league has naturally occurring breaks after a try when they can show ads. The round-ball game doesn’t have any such breaks – and while the continuous flow of the game is one of its attractions, it would be a big ask for commercial networks to run 2×45 minute halves without ad breaks.
It’s easy enough to insert ad breaks if the games aren’t being shown live. But if we’re going to delayed telecasts, that’s a backwards step from Fox showing every game live.
And while a FTA network may take a leap into the unknown and show, for example, a Sydney FC game live into Sydney; I can’t see that there’d be any interest from any network in showing North Queensland Fury v Wellington Phoenix in Sydney in prime time. It wouldn’t rate.
Art Sapphire said | September 2nd 2010 @ 9:16am | Report comment
New TV deal could look something like this.
12 Team A-league – 6 matches a round – 4 on Pay TV, 2 on FTA (One HD)
Socceroos friendlies and away qualifiers on Pay TV. Socceroos home WC qualifiers on FTA (Ten, One HD).
Australian Football said | September 2nd 2010 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Art,
yes the cards are now in favour of the FFA. By the end of this December (2022 WC hosting decision) they could even be higher stakes at hand, with a record number of sponsors wanting to get on board. Long term commitments in favour of the FFA for the taking.
Art Sapphire said | September 2nd 2010 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Yes, AF. Patience is a virtue if you run a A-League club.
The TV money deal is around the corner but they have to keep going until the 2022 decision in December.
Lets hope the wait was worth it.
Black Diamonds said | September 2nd 2010 @ 6:28pm | Report comment
A double or nothing bet on the FIFA execs deciding to send the World Cup South for 3rd time in 4 outings. A huge risk wouldn’t you say?
I reckon that if we don’t win the hosting rights, Clive Palmer will be the first out the door, closely followed by whoever is in charge of the Newcastle Jets at the time.
We’ll be back to 10 teams for Season 2011/12.
Melanie Dinjaski said | September 2nd 2010 @ 10:19am | Report comment
That could work. Or at least something to work out how the ratings go.