I was a little surprised to read that Fox Sports is celebrating their fifteenth anniversary in Australia. Yes, Fox Sports on Australian Pay Television turns fifteen this month.
Is it really fifteen years? Seems like only a few years ago that Fox Sports first kicked off in Australia, or maybe time moves faster for sports fans.
We have always been interested in a lot of sports, having grown up in Melbourne.
But I must confess we only bought Foxtel the year when the A-League started and the Socceroos games were only shown on Fox.
What a sports education since then – Ultimate Fighting Championship, Curling, Bikini Beach, American Football and the Lingerie Football League, Baseball, Surfing, Monster Trucks, Super Rugby, The Ultimate Fighter, all forms of Motor Racing, a 24 hour Fox Sports News channel and the list goes on.
I now know what Digby Ioane does and who he plays for.
The other interesting thing about the fifteenth anniversary is a list of the fifteen most watched Foxtel Pay TV sports programs in those years.
Here’s the results:
1. World Cup Qualifier – Australia v Uzbekistan 1/4/2009: 431,000
2. AFC Asian Cup Qualifier: Japan v Australia #3 21/7/2009: 419,000
3. Chappell-Hadlee Trophy – New Zealand v Australia 18/2/2007: 415,000
4. Parramatta Eels v North Queensland Cowboys 02/04/2011: 407,000
5. World Cup Qualifier – Australia v Japan 17/6/2009: 378,000
6. Canterbury Bulldogs v Wests Tigers 14/3/2011: 365,000
7. Parramatta Eels v Sydney Roosters 31/7/2007: 361,000
8. South Africa v Australia – Second Test, Day 2 7/3/2009: 358,000
9. Canterbury Bulldogs v Melbourne Storm 23/5/2009: 357,000
10. South Africa v Australia – Second Test, Day 1 6/3/2009: 355,000
11. South Africa v Australia – Second Test, Day 4 9/3/2009: 353,000
12. Bledisloe Cup – Australia v New Zealand 26/7/2008: 350,000
13. South Africa v Australia – Second Test, Day 3 8/3/2009: 350,000
14. AFC Asian Cup – Australia v Oman 8/7/2007: 345,000
15. World Cup Qualifier – Australia v Qatar 1/4/2009: 345,000
Firstly, the most popular sporting team on Fox Sports in the last fifteen years has been the Socceroos. Not only do they make up the top two, but also have five of their matches in the Foxtel top fifteen.
And who would have thought it would have been Uzbekistan at number one?
Next is Cricket at number three with the Chappell-Hadlee trophy match against New Zealand. Again a surprise for me having New Zealand as our most watched cricket opponent. Cricket also has five of the top matches featured in the list.
Next most popular was Rugby League at number four and four of the top fifteen on the list were rugby league games – all NRL season games and Parramatta and Canterbury featuring most prominently.
The only other sport to make it was Rugby Union at number 12 with the Bledisloe Cup match of July 2008 against the best rugby nation in the world – New Zealand.
Recommend this story.
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.
- Explore:
- anti-siphoning, football, Fox Sports
April 6th 2011 @ 8:42am
whiskeymac said | April 6th 2011 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Interesting the final against Japan for the AFC didnt rate as well as the WC Qualifiers.
Do Asian Cup games rate well at all outside of the Japanese games?
Monster Trucks is not a sport.
Lingerie Football shld be on FTA.
Any comparison for roos games with SBS (ie WC proper)?
April 6th 2011 @ 8:50am
Titus said | April 6th 2011 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Do you mean the final that was on at 2am?
These results show that football in prime time at a high level rates very well and it should serve as encouragement that if the a-league can raise the standard and build a profile, then there is a good, nationwide audience out there for football.
April 6th 2011 @ 9:18am
whiskeymac said | April 6th 2011 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Doh, fair point! yes that was the one i meant.
I did note that most of the games (all codes) were 2007 – 2009. not much TV watched since 2009? Credit crunch affecting subscriptions?
April 6th 2011 @ 9:33am
Titus said | April 6th 2011 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Was just the world cup build up I think, was a lot of hype surrounding the team at that point.
Hasn’t been any prime time national games since then.
It is crucial that we get this next generation of youngsters coming through and playing well so that we can maintain that level of interest that was built on the back of a very good national team.
Oh wait…I see your question….yeah I think there must have been a drop off in subscriptions, getting too expensive, new digital FTA channels, growing Internet capabilities etc
April 6th 2011 @ 9:51am
Moonface said | April 6th 2011 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Yes Foxtel subs may have dropped off a little, however, the NRL seems to be doing well with two matches this season making the top six and record numbers for NRL games on Foxtel.
April 6th 2011 @ 10:01am
Moonface said | April 6th 2011 @ 10:01am | Report comment
In comparison to FTA TV the Socceroos also hold the record for the most watched FTA football programs according to Morgan research.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4035/
And this was at 2am in the morning.
So if the interest is there, football, especially the Socceroos, seems to outrate everything else.
April 6th 2011 @ 10:15am
Moonface said | April 6th 2011 @ 10:15am | Report comment
And here is the Roy Morgan Research Top 10 most watched sports programs on Australian FTA:
1. 2005 Melbourne Cup 10.5 Million viewers
2. 2006 Australian Open Men’s Final 10M
3. Commonwealth Games 2006 — Opening Ceremony 9M
4. Soccer World Cup Qualifier — 2nd Game (Nov. 2005) Australia v Uruguay 8.5M
5. Commonwealth Games 2006 — Closing Ceremony 8.5M
6. Cricket One Day International — Australia vs. South Africa (Jan. 2006) 7.3M
7. 2006 Soccer World Cup — Australia vs. Japan (Jun. 2006) 7.1M
8. Cricket: Test — Australia vs. West Indies (Dec. 2005) 7M
9. 2006 Australian Open Women’s Final 5M
10. 2006 Fosters Australian Grand Prix 4.9M
April 8th 2011 @ 9:53am
Wombat said | April 8th 2011 @ 9:53am | Report comment
April 8th 2011 @ 10:48am
RedOrDead said | April 8th 2011 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Err…well said Womabt!
lol
April 6th 2011 @ 9:29am
Fool said | April 6th 2011 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Victorians don’t bother hooking up to Foxtel, we get loads of AFL for free and actually GO TO GAMES as it is far cheaper than Fuxtel.
Free to air is what really counts. A rerun of Iron Chef beats all this list you have provided.
April 6th 2011 @ 9:47am
Fussball ist unser leben said | April 6th 2011 @ 9:47am | Report comment
@Fool
Given the low penetration rate of PayTV in Australia and the extremely high penetration rate of FTA TV in Australia, it is naive – perhaps even “foolish” (pun intended) – to simply use raw numbers when comparing FTA TV ratings & PayTV ratings.
Rather, an adjustment factor would need to be applied to make any comparisons. I would suggest a factor of 3-4 would need to be applied to PayTV.
So, the AUS v UZB WCQ match PayTV rating of 431k could reasonably be equivalent to a FTA TV rating of 1.3-1.7m.
Note: AUS v GHA during the 2010 FIFA WC, was broadcast on FTA TV b/w Midnight-2:00 a.m. and had FTA TV ratings of 1.4m
April 6th 2011 @ 2:27pm
Football United said | April 6th 2011 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
liking the analysis
April 6th 2011 @ 9:35pm
Fake ex-AFL fan said | April 6th 2011 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
I’m not sure you go far enough with this analysis Fossy. I believe that in order to develop a true picture of TV audiences we should apply a ‘Soccer fan wish fulfillment index’ (SFWFI) to all TV audiences for sport in Australia. When we consider the vast numbers of people who watch AFL and NRL solely because of the advanced mind control techniques used by these competitions, and factor in the massive number of soccer fans who would / could watch games if not for the various obstacles put in their way (i.e. the weather, jobs around the home, wife watching repeats of Poirot), the figures look much better for our game:
Average A-league TV audience 2010: 15 thousand
Average A-league TV audience with SFWFI applied: 75 million
I think we’ll agree this is a superior analysis.
April 6th 2011 @ 10:13am
Jake said | April 6th 2011 @ 10:13am | Report comment
@ Fool. What then are Foxtel paying so much for the AFL rights for?
April 6th 2011 @ 10:21am
clipper said | April 6th 2011 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Fool – I see what you did there with the Iron Chef remark – very funny!
April 6th 2011 @ 10:38am
whiskeymac said | April 6th 2011 @ 10:38am | Report comment
interesting Richard Hinds article in the Sydney Morning Herald re: Swans – a large proportion turn up in Sydney for the Swans as well (his article roughly pointing out that 30k turned up for the game, 90K watched it on TV) – that is fairly active support for Sydney (even if disappointing for AFL, its not bad IMO).
April 6th 2011 @ 10:58am
JVGO said | April 6th 2011 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Hinds actually said 65,000 av viewers on TV. The 90,000 was cumulative with the at ground audience. The NRL Sunday audience was 340,000 av watching and 20,000 at the ground. He didn’t seem to think the Swans figures were not bad. I would expect quite honestly that if the Storm got similar friendly treatment as the Swans do in Melbourne and had a decent timeslot that they would murder those figures. But we’ll probably never know.
April 6th 2011 @ 11:06am
Redb said | April 6th 2011 @ 11:06am | Report comment
I thought it was simplistic statement by Hinds to add the crowd to the ratings figure. It was a poor result of 66K for a close game, but TV ratings are an average so over the 3 hours an average of 66K watched the game. What was the peak audience?
April 6th 2011 @ 11:15am
whiskeymac said | April 6th 2011 @ 11:15am | Report comment
so he did – i read it quickly this morning and tried to remember roughly what he said – i dont see the swnas figures as bad either. Was mentioned mostly in comparison to the ground figure and the TV viewing figure having a high ration compared to , in his article, the NRL where bums on seats is dwarfed by TV viewers.
April 6th 2011 @ 12:16pm
JVGO said | April 6th 2011 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
In the print article Hinds also pointed out that reruns of Fawlty towers achieve over 69,000 viewers. But this may have been too racy or provocative to beam online into Melbourne. Interesting ed policy on behalf of SMH anyway.
April 6th 2011 @ 2:09pm
Redb said | April 6th 2011 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
JVGO,
Like the Storm would ever out draw two AFL Melb teams in Melbourne head to head. Please. Storm get heaps of leg ups from the Herald Sun. The Daily Tele is downright hostile to AFL and buries it.
The Swans do out draw the NRl crowds regularly, ok not great TV ratings, but crowd figures pretty good, beat two NRL teams easily in Sydney.
April 6th 2011 @ 2:42pm
JVGO said | April 6th 2011 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Did I really infer any of those things? I simply feel that given a better timeslot the Storm could do better than 65,000. I guess you disagree.
April 8th 2011 @ 11:02am
RedOrDead said | April 8th 2011 @ 11:02am | Report comment
You must excuse some of us Melburnians JVGO, as Fake ex-AFL Fan mentioned the AFL uses “advanced mind control techniques” and any attempt to argue or even suggest that an NRL game (Melbourne Storm) might get a bigger crowd than an AFL game in Melbourne must be quickly eradicated and the perpetrator educated as to how great the AFL really is!
How dare the Daily Telegraph be downright hostile to AFL??? I suppose that’s not unlike the Herald Sun is downright hostile to the A-League where the only time it makes the paper it’s to ridicule the “most violent” supporters or how Muscat chopped another player on the field, but hey, just don’t knock the AFL otherwise you’ll get told!!
April 6th 2011 @ 12:26pm
Moonface said | April 6th 2011 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
I don’t think the Swans were too happy with 28,101 for their opening game of the season.
Its their lowest ever and they gave away a lot of free tickets too.
April 6th 2011 @ 1:07pm
Moonface said | April 6th 2011 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
That’s not true Fool [love calling you that
].
The AFL shows 4 games a week live and exclusive on Fox Sports.
That’s why they pay them $100M a year.
AFL doesn’t make either the Pay TV top 15 or FTA top 10 list as the most watched sport.
April 6th 2011 @ 1:51pm
Redb said | April 6th 2011 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
That’s not true fool. [love calling you that
].
Foxtel currently does not pay $100M for AFL rights.
April 6th 2011 @ 3:53pm
Moonface said | April 6th 2011 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Then MyLeftFoot is wrong and the fool, not me.
He is the one bragging about the 500M/5 year deal with Foxtel.
But stop trying to divert the argument by attacking me.
AFL is shown exclusively on Pay TV as well, so no excuses for AFL not being in the Fox Sports top 15 list.
April 6th 2011 @ 7:01pm
Redb said | April 6th 2011 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
you said:
“that’s why they pay them $100M a year.”
they don’t, just pointing it out for accuracy.
April 6th 2011 @ 2:49pm
The_Wookie said | April 6th 2011 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Foxtel does have live access to 4 games a round. However its also not completely exclusive as under the rights agreement matches featuring non victorian sides MUST be on FTA even if they are foxtel designated.
Foxtel paid $315.5 million for 5 years @ 3 live games, live main event coverage into NSW/ACT/QLD on Friday, the right to replay every game and finals. The payment consisted of $50 million per year, rising by 3% every year, and an additional $10 millioon a year in contra advertising annually. At no point does this add up to 100 million a year
April 6th 2011 @ 9:38am
db swannie said | April 6th 2011 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Also on that list except for the NRL (club games) the rest are ALL INTERNATIONALS..
Shows the popularity of RL in OZ.
April 6th 2011 @ 10:43am
whiskeymac said | April 6th 2011 @ 10:43am | Report comment
and that most Sydneysiders watch TV and avoid going to the games.
April 6th 2011 @ 11:38am
Moonface said | April 6th 2011 @ 11:38am | Report comment
True db Swannie,
NRL is showing strong growth in TV ratings, both FTA and Pay TV.
But like AFL, Rugby League has limited appeal as an international sport and no Rugby League internationals made the list. Realistically only 2 or 3 countriess are competitive.
Agree though that international football is more popular on Australian Pay TV and the A-League is outrated by the other sports on Australian Pay TV, except for the grand final.
However, as I mention previously in one of my other articles, the A-League is watched in over 100 countries around the world – mainly pay TV, and watched by an audience estimated to be between 30 and 50 million viewers.
Funnily enough, the A-League is one of the most popular football leagues around the world watched in betting shops.
April 6th 2011 @ 2:27pm
Jake said | April 6th 2011 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Rugby league internationals are shown on free to air. That’s why they aren’t on the Fox list. Most Socceroos games are Fox exclusive aren’t they?
On free to air doesn’t the Anzac league match usually rate higher than the Bledesloe does?
April 6th 2011 @ 2:38pm
BigAl said | April 6th 2011 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
Way before the A-League, in fact possibly way before the NSL Aust Soccer results were hugely popular in the UK via the ‘Pools’
Just about every team playing in Aus. were involved – It was basically like a TattsLotto comp whereby if your numbers/teams came up you won !
Interestingly enough, they were run by an aussie rules personality, Harry Bietzel . . . who ended up in the can for defrauding a Pools winner!
April 6th 2011 @ 4:05pm
Birkish Delight said | April 6th 2011 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
Do you have any sources for the international viewer figures? With that sort of audience don’t you think the FFA would have got a bit more TV revenue or does Fox have rights to on sell the content without paying royalties to the FFA?
April 6th 2011 @ 9:58am
Midfielder said | April 6th 2011 @ 9:58am | Report comment
I remember when FTA executives said the Socceroos will never get ratings…. the same people are saying the A-League will never rate….
The time will be soon …. when the A-League will get at least one match FTA ….. and then football will have FTA chasing ….
Seven years from now we will be in a totally different position … and one to two years from now we will be in phase 3…. be patient guys just let it build…
April 6th 2011 @ 10:42am
Mahony said | April 6th 2011 @ 10:42am | Report comment
My impatience has passed – I am on your Zen bandwagon now Brother Football!
April 6th 2011 @ 11:57am
Nathan said | April 6th 2011 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Hell, the W-League can rate on ABC, so I don’t think its an enormous stretch of the imagination to say the A-League could rate on one of the commercial stations.
April 6th 2011 @ 1:27pm
nordster said | April 6th 2011 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
you’re right Nathan… and i hope your last name is ‘Tinkler’ and you’re planning to buy one of these stations
April 6th 2011 @ 1:47pm
Midfielder said | April 6th 2011 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Nathen
It is hard to believe now but in 2005 even after the masssive audience for the World Cup Qualifer…. the people running the sports media areas of the electronic media believed the Socceroo would never rate and no-one would watch…. today the Socceroos are the most sort after sports media product…
The W-League and being totally honest it is of a very poor quality and in direct competition with the NRL & AFl outrates other female sport (leave tennis aside) and in general no-one can quite believe the ratings….
So the media boffins who made the call about the Socceroos will never rate …. and said no-one will watch women play football…. are the same ones who say the A-League will not rate…. time will prove them wrong…
The funny thing is their (media people with no faith in the A-League) will at best… only put two but more likely only one A-League match on FTA….. this will be actually good … the experience from the US was when football went FTA all games ….the viewing audience was not ready for it…. but one or two matches a week thats fine… as i said just let it build …
Mahony … my football brother…. glad to see you in my zen… as i have always said slow but steady is the way to go… rapid growth normally means mistakes… in seven years we will look back at this time and say what were we so worried about…
April 6th 2011 @ 10:11am
Jake said | April 6th 2011 @ 10:11am | Report comment
It’s a bit warped though to argue what has been the top rater over the past 15 years when the subscriber numbers have been growing over that same period. That list has nothing before 2007 yet as a % some pre 2007 events could have been massive in comparison.
April 6th 2011 @ 10:45am
whiskeymac said | April 6th 2011 @ 10:45am | Report comment
the bigger events (Olympics, Wrld Cups, Rugby Tests, SoO, finals etc) tend to be FTA
April 6th 2011 @ 11:50am
Jaceman said | April 6th 2011 @ 11:50am | Report comment
The AFL Pay TV figures are lower because
plenty of AFL on FTA so AFL fans dont necessarily subscribe as they can watch their side on TV at the pub if they have to;
to watch NRL on Saturday you have to have pay TV (or go to the pub ie none on FTA);
the AFL games on pay-TV have a split audience as there is usually a game on FTA at the same time;
On the other hand that NRL figure for saturday night was excellent but PayTV subs have plateaued in northern markets – the only room for growth is thru AFL in southern markets;
NRL fans generally watch more games than AFL fans in a weekend – there are more NRL fans who are NRL fans of the whole competition rather than a lot of AFL fans who tend to watch their team only.
April 6th 2011 @ 12:35pm
Titus said | April 6th 2011 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
You may have a point, but I think you would have to include the fact that the AFL doesn’t have a national audience.
The audience outside of its traditional markets is extremely limited. The highest rating shows are Cricket and Football, with a national audience, and NRL, for reasons you list above.
April 6th 2011 @ 3:42pm
Jaceman said | April 6th 2011 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
I have forgotten another point . AFL watchers have to commit 2.5 hours to watch a game whereas NRL followers have to commit 100 minutes. I have included some of breaks in the time because perhaps this is why the FTA networks are willing to pay more for AFL even though the numbers watching the the respective codes (in the main week by week competitions) is about the same (give or take depending upon who is talking) allowing for the NRL’s 26 rounds and the AFL’s 22? rounds.
April 6th 2011 @ 12:59pm
JVGO said | April 6th 2011 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
I would suggest that NRL fans watch other teams games because they like many of the other teams players who they watch and barrack for particularly during SOO and test matches. Everyone love Hindmarsh and even Locky for instance. This is one of the advantage of having the next level of contest., it weakens the tribal loyalty at club level but spreads interest and identification throughout the comp. This is part of the challenge for soccer, how to bring that interest at international level down into the A-league. There is big drama watching Kewell and Cahill and the superstars playing for the socceroos. I loved the Asia Cup but find t hard to get up for the no names in the A-league. i guess it is imperative that these guys be bought back into the A-league once their overseas careers are finished, particularly for the cities from which they originate. In 5 or 6 years Sydney FC with Cahill and Kewell would surely be a marketers dream.
April 6th 2011 @ 3:57pm
Moonface said | April 6th 2011 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
The same would apply to AFL fans.
I would even argue that AFL fans are more likely than NRL fans, to watch more than one game of AFL in a week.
They also get counted more than once in the membership figures too, when you can buy 3 match tickets and be counted as “AFL Club members”.
April 6th 2011 @ 11:54am
Brendon said | April 6th 2011 @ 11:54am | Report comment
We’re entering a similar phase that we did in the mid to late 70′s. Its cultural and due to times changing – just like in the mid 70′s….
———–
This comment has been promoted to a Roar of the Crowd article.
Read and respond to it here: Australia’s culture breeds sporting success and failure
Please suggest worthy comments to be promoted to article status by contacting The Roar.
April 6th 2011 @ 12:24pm
Roarsome said | April 6th 2011 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
One of the best posts i’ve ever read on this site!
April 6th 2011 @ 12:36pm
Moonface said | April 6th 2011 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Very well written post Brendon.
Apologies, but I am scratching my head as to what this has to do with the topic I raised, or if it is in relpy to any other posts on here.
Can you please elaborate.
April 6th 2011 @ 12:39pm
Tristan Rayner said | April 6th 2011 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
Think Brendon was responding to this thread: http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/04/06/is-australias-sporting-dominance-over/
Regardless, we’ve promoted it to a Roar of the Crowd article, it’s worthy of a greater audience.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/04/06/australias-culture-breeds-sporting-success-and-failure/
Tristan
April 6th 2011 @ 12:41pm
Moonface said | April 6th 2011 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Thanks Tristan,
that does make more sense.
April 6th 2011 @ 12:13pm
Moonface said | April 6th 2011 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Steve,
it will be interesting to see how the negotiations for the AFL TV rights pan out now, after so much hype form the AFL and so little delivery from the expanded competition.
Attendances and ratings are down noticeably on previous seasons and must be worrying to the AFL.
April 6th 2011 @ 6:06pm
Jaceman said | April 6th 2011 @ 6:06pm | Report comment
Moonface,
You are obviously anti-AFL because you just ignore any counter arguments that dont fit your own thinking eg the Bledisloe Cup number for Pay TV is pretty good considering it was live in NSW,Qld and ACT on Channel 7. The Socceros provide a one-off hit during the World Cup qualifiers (ie every 4 years). When the next contract means the Socceroos have to be on FTA (although that mightnt be live), we’ll see how much money Fox pays for it. You dont quote the A league numbers which might make interesting reading…
April 6th 2011 @ 12:15pm
The_Wookie said | April 6th 2011 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
AFL crowd averages are down 140 people per match on last years total. or about 66,000 overall. When you consider that the big drawing clubs havent faced each other yet –
Collingwood – Port (etihad), North (MCG) – both clubs with low interest and turnout.
Essendon – Bulldogs (etihad), Sydney (ANZ), both clubs with lower interest and interstate
Carlton – Gold Coast (gabba) – new club and interstate
Those are the leagues biggest 3 drawing clubs playing their first 2 rounds against clubs who draw bugger all. Come talk to us again in 3 weeks about crowds and averages.
April 6th 2011 @ 12:46pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | April 6th 2011 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
@The_Wookie
I think you’re really scratching for excuses. The opening 2 rounds for those “3 biggest drawing clubs” you’ve identified is remarkably similar to 2010. Doesn’t the AFL try to have the same opening rounds each year?
And, besides, if AFL memberships are as massive as everyone alleges and they are FULL memberships as everyone alleges then it shouldn’t matter who these clubs are playing since they SHOULD be attracting 40k+ crowds on their own.
The FACTs below indicate there’s insignificant difference in the “drawing power” of the matches played by the “big 3 AFL teams” in the opening 2 rounds of 2011 compared to 2010 & 2009.
Opening 2 rounds:
2010:
Collingwood: Bulldogs (etihad); Melbourne (MCG)
Essendon: Geelong (MCG); Fremantle (Etihad)
Carlton: Richmond (MCG) … exactly the same fixture as 2011!; Brisbane Lions (Gabba) … same venue as 2011
2009:
Collingwood: Adelaide (MCG); Melbourne (MCG)
Essendon: Pt Adelaide (AAMI); Fremantle (Etihad)
Carlton: Richmond (MCG) … exactly the same fixture as 2011!; Brisbane Lions (etihad) … same opponent different venue as 2010
PS: What are you on about with your comment about crowd averages are down by 140 per match? That’s nonsense.
Round 1, 2011 crowds were down by 2.5k per game; and Round 2 crowds were down by 6k per game. Or, if you prefer to use “totals” Round 1 total was down by around 20k, Round 2 was down by 48k total.
April 6th 2011 @ 2:34pm
The_Wookie said | April 6th 2011 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
im talking about the year average not the round average, because unlike many I dont condemn a league based on its first 2 rounds of a season.
April 6th 2011 @ 2:43pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | April 6th 2011 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
@The Wookie
Your assertion that:
“AFL crowd averages are down 140 people per match”
doesn’t make sense regardless of how you look at it … even if you are using AFL-endorsed ‘rose-coloured glasses’ it doesn’t make sense!!
Perhaps, you’ve discovered some new statistical methodology that you are willing to share with us.
April 6th 2011 @ 2:41pm
Jaceman said | April 6th 2011 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
You Germans love causing trouble. For someone who sledges AFL you certainly follow it very closely. One assumes you have a vested interest in sledging the AFL – are you from a competitor football code or just envious?. The Gold Coast will bring down the AFL figures this year but the aggregate will still be significant 6m. Compare the numbers after Round 17 for a better guide.
April 6th 2011 @ 4:05pm
Sherrin-Burley-Faulkner said | April 6th 2011 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
Extremely envious ! IMO.
April 6th 2011 @ 1:13pm
MyLeftFoot said | April 6th 2011 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Foxtel is about to pay $500 mill for AFL rights for five years, exclusive rights to five of nine games.
Nine still involved in the bidding for the remainder, with 7/10. AFL inching closer and closer to the magic $1 billion mark.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/channel-9-pitches-tv-deal-to-afl/story-e6frf9jf-1226034326407
April 6th 2011 @ 1:37pm
whiskeymac said | April 6th 2011 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
“Eddie McGuire yesterday slammed reports Channel 7 was lobbying for 7.50pm game starts to accommodate Better Homes & Gardens on Friday nights.”
Appears nine and seven will be throwing handbags at 10 paces too for the remainders.
April 6th 2011 @ 1:54pm
Midfielder said | April 6th 2011 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Leftie
That is a big sum … wow 100 million per game or 20 million per match…. over say 20 rounds thats one million per match or there abouts on a pay channel …. my uncle Leo would say … for the love of Mary that is a Farking heap of coin…
April 6th 2011 @ 3:23pm
MyLeftFoot said | April 6th 2011 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
$100 mill per annum, or $20 mill per game comes to around $909,000 per match (assuming 22 rounds).
22 rounds x 5 games x $909,000= $100 mill per annum x 5 seasons = $500 mill
April 6th 2011 @ 4:47pm
Nathan said | April 6th 2011 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
$100m per annum is not a bad deal for half the rights. With competition for the other four matches a round between the other networks, could provoke some hefty bidding. $1b definitely still on the table especially with Finals football yet to be decided.
April 6th 2011 @ 5:10pm
MyLeftFoot said | April 6th 2011 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
The digital rights pushes it over $1 billion with ease.
April 6th 2011 @ 11:56pm
Fool said | April 6th 2011 @ 11:56pm | Report comment
Wonder what it would cost to keep all games on FTA, share it over a number of networks. Do not know what the point of pay tv is, maybe to show cult sports like NRL.
April 6th 2011 @ 1:16pm
Willy said | April 6th 2011 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Fifteen years!
I would just like to send out a big thank you to everyone at Fox Sports. You have my my life – and the world – an infinitely better place…
What on earth did we do before you came along?
I LOVE YOU FOX SPORTS!