Is free-to-air best for the A-League?

 
phil osopher Roar Guru

By phil osopher, 22 Sep 2010 phil osopher is a Roar Guru

Tagged:
 , , , , , , , ,

60 Have your say

Related coverage




So an SBS poll determined 46 per cent deem it is lack of free-to-air television coverage as the main factor for the problems of the A-League. Daylight was second. It’s a clear democratic mandate for the way to go.

Winston Churchill, our war-time defender of democratic society, said if you want a problem solved, democracy is the worse system around, and the biggest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Thanks, Winston. So do we have it right?

Would free-to-air actually boost things?

Netball was on free-to-air and I didn’t see it set the public ablaze. Basketball was too. I have pay television and the A-League hasn’t really caught me and I’m already a football seeker.

It may seem an extreme argument but do we actually want the mass public seeing this product just yet? When they see tiny crowds and dull atmospheres they may prematurely conclude the sport a joke and turn off the idea rather than become involved. No, that’s silly, is it?

The runner up was low crowds, pulling 20 per cent. It’s a bit like which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do you need free-to-air for crowds or crowds to get free-to-air?

The sale to Foxtel was a huge financial contribution to the league, that is undeniable. Without that money, the financial problems would have been a huge problem before now. The game needs that money.

Fox paid big because they assumed the A-League would be a huge success. Well that’s all changed. Will they pay big in the future? This is business and they may actually offer less for it next time given the current trouble decreasing demand.

This could be a God-send for our 46 per cent, for if the price drops it will become more attractive to free-to-air. I can’t see SBS coming up with the required funds even with a drop in price, forget the ABC altogether, which leaves us with the commercials. These lot are not ones to stick their necks out.

Even the huge appeal of the EPL was never flirted with.

But the new ONE HD may be the great hope. They seem intent on Fox-bashing judging by some recent moves.

This could be the way for maintaining television cash revenue, a bidding war between ONE and Fox. If this doesn’t evolve, the options may be limited. And it may not evolve because ONE seem obsessed with and have the AFL.

You might say a copy of the AFL/NRL model would be the best outcome; games on free and Fox pick up the scraps. But commercial stations pay big for these sports because the support is already there. The chicken came first and they know that chicken will lay eggs.

Is this the same for football? Would free TV go for it, would Fox go for it? If the price falls would a combination of these lowered revenues be equal to what the FFA have and need now?

Insisting the sport goes free-to-air may provide as many questions as answers, and could paradoxically damage the show. Maybe Winston was right after all.

I hope not. I’d like to see it on free-to-air.

Wild Turkey - find out more
The Turkey 10

The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.

Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!

Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.

Find out more.

Get a daily football email

Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it.

We value privacy. More.