A-League’s television picture remains fuzzy
Columnist By Adrian Musolino, 25 Nov 2011 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- A-League, a-league tv coverage, football, Fox Sports
107 Have your say
Are Harry Kewell and Brett Emerton boosting A-League TV figures? (AAP Image/Joe Castro)
Related coverage
In a season of strong numbers for the A-League, the most important is arguably the television ratings increase; given the current television deal expires in mid-2013.
According to a recent stat, Fox Sports’ A-League live average audience is up 62 percent on last season.
As far as timing goes, given the recent setbacks for the code, the strong TV numbers are a much-needed boost given that Football Federation Australia (FFA) needs to wrangle more than the current $19 million per year it gets from Fox Sports in order to ease some financial concerns around the league, let alone increase television presence.
And so recent chat has focused on whether the league is ready for a free-to-air presence – that old chestnut.
According to a recent article in The Herald Sun, “TV industry sources say all the free-to-air networks have cast an eye over the soccer rights and it is understood all remain interested at this early stage, although the looming negotiations over NRL rights make the timetable uncertain.
“SBS will almost certainly bid, but industry sources say Channel 10 will emerge as the most serious contender.”
Following on from the AFL’s deal with Channel Seven and Foxtel, the NRL’s television rights become the next most sought after property in the sporting arena, undoubtedly. Then, some way down the pecking order is the A-League.
When Channel 10 rebranded OneHD, moving it away from its sports-only platform, it could have condemned the FFA’s only real chance of getting proper A-League coverage on the commercial networks.
But any interest would only come once networks are left counting the dollars that remain after they’ve splurged on the NRL’s rights, or if they’ve missed out and are left looking for what they can get to help compensate in some small way. And remember there’s V8 Supercars and more out there up for grabs.
Remember too, as a summer sport the A-League falls in the non-ratings period. So even if it had numbers to rival the AFL and NRL, it would still be hamstrung.
And considering cricket’s place in Australia’s summer psyche relative to football, surely the new-look Big Bash League is first in line to be poached from Fox Sports; no matter how artificial it may seem at this stage (Australian free-to-air networks love nothing more than artificiality).
Then look at the NBL and how Channel 10 has treated it. Even if there is free-to-air interest, what degree of interest and how will it translate into the schedule? If the likes of Channel 10 can pick up exclusive free-to-air A-League content for a pittance, then nothing’s stopping them from treating the product like cheap goods it picked up at the Sunday market.
With the World Cups till 2022 locked in at SBS, the commercials’ interest in the round ball is likely to go cold. And, after all, marrying football, with its uninterrupted 45-minute halves, to commercial networks and its need for pauses to slot in ads will always hurt the likelihood that we’ll see Melbourne Victory versus Perth Glory slotted between the summer versions of X-Factor and Beauty and the Geek.
What I’m getting at here is to curb your enthusiasm, A-League fans. The golden free-to-air ticket of live games could be some time away, if it ever happens. It remains to be seen whether the likes of Channel 10, interested or not, are ready to commit to the league beyond a token gesture of an 11pm replay (again, see the NBL).
Fox Sports will likely retain the A-League rights. But, yes, marrying some free-to-air component to the TV deal is critical for the FFA. Fans just need to accept that it could be as minimal as an A-League highlights package sold to a free-to-air digital secondary channel, or a game a week on football-friendly SBS.
Free-to-air is needed for growth, we are told. But as the NBL has shown at what cost?
Better to be a big fish in the small pond of pay-TV than a small fish being monstered by the sharks in the commercial TV world?
This is ultimately about leverage; how much more the FFA can squeeze out of Fox Sports. So the talk of free-to-air interest comes in very handy. But let’s just be realistic here.
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:
- A-League, a-league tv coverage, football, Fox Sports
November 25th 2011 @ 7:41am
Whites said | November 25th 2011 @ 7:41am | Report comment
The best comparison is Super Rugby. Fox Sports will pay just enough to ensure they get exclusive rights and pay a pittance if the FFA sells anything other then a highlights package to free to air.
November 25th 2011 @ 1:58pm
Kasey said | November 25th 2011 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Is there a Superugby highlights package on FTA? I don’t follow the sport so genuine question.
November 25th 2011 @ 3:14pm
Stuart Fazakerley said | November 25th 2011 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
Yep, an hour-long package at the sexy new time of 1am Tuesdays.
November 25th 2011 @ 3:30pm
Kasey said | November 25th 2011 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
So what makes Football fans think our sport will be treated any better? FTA TV is not the silver bullet many think it is. You’d think the Ch7 “Nobody screws Soccer Like 7″ NSL debacle in the late 80s early 90s would have demonstrated that. I know the ‘product’ is much more appealing with HAL > NSL, but really have the atitudes of the TV execs changed enough in the intemediate period? I think not.
November 25th 2011 @ 4:29pm
Whites said | November 25th 2011 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
As mentioned further down they also have something else in common now with the changes to the anti-syphoning list. Football world cup qualifiers now have to also be shown on free to air TV. However, rugby union has 6-10 international games of some appeal every year. Football might only have few games of wide appeal every 4 years.
November 25th 2011 @ 5:11pm
ian said | November 25th 2011 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
Whites, That’s funny i have only ever seen one world cup Qualifier on FTA Tv a,nd tht was Uruguay and Aust in Nove 2005 so I think you will find that this statement is incorrect. Oman and Aust played last week and that was not on FTA TV..
November 25th 2011 @ 7:43pm
Whites said | November 25th 2011 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
Ian
Not currently but in the next TV rights deal. The full details of the current interim arrangements can be found here:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010L03383/Html/Text#param7
November 25th 2011 @ 4:30pm
Cpaaa said | November 25th 2011 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
Dosnt it all come down to a contract? cross the t’ dot the i’. for example, if its written in BnW to show a highlights package before 10pm est monday or tuesday or default on the contract.
1am for Rugby fans- i feel for you, weve been there.
November 25th 2011 @ 8:13am
Realfootball said | November 25th 2011 @ 8:13am | Report comment
The game is better off on Fox for a whole raft of reasons. A promotional highlights package on FTA, say 1 hour per week, would work for both Fox and the code, but having had some dealings with Fox Sports, I doubt they will see it that way.
We all need to remember that it is because of Fox that we have an A-League. The bottom line is that FTA isn’t necessary – a reasonable marking and promotions spend from FFA (and, no, they still haven’t done it anywhere near at the level needed) is more important to bring people to live games. Yes folks, even if you don’t have Fox, you can still actually attend half the games in a season in your city – a salient fact that often seems to be forgotten.
November 25th 2011 @ 10:02am
wisey_9 said | November 25th 2011 @ 10:02am | Report comment
+1
November 26th 2011 @ 11:03am
PeterK said | November 26th 2011 @ 11:03am | Report comment
We can’t attend ANY games in NQ, yet!
November 25th 2011 @ 8:19am
agga78 said | November 25th 2011 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Another negative article from Adrian Musolini, any chance you can write a positive piece for once, how you can compare NBL to the A league and the socceroos is beyond me. NBL games were not rating like the A league has on Pay TV Melb’s game against Brisbane was the most watched program on all of foxtel a few weeks ago.
FTA networks can still get adverts on live A league matches even with no stop in play like other sports, they just have to be more creative and this might actually appeal to company’s wanting something a bit different.
The A league is going very nicely and this is without 150 millon a year that AFL and NRL get from tv networlks, if Foxtel or FTA had the vision they should see if they put that type of money into football the returns would be much greater, if a tv network just put in $25 millon a year into getting all 10 A league teams a top marquee player like a Yorke, Kewell, Lampard or Gerrard on top of a tv deal, the ratings and brand of the A league would soon reach those of the other codes and for half the price.
November 25th 2011 @ 9:11am
pbedo said | November 25th 2011 @ 9:11am | Report comment
What do you want to do? Reduce football to the level of a circus?
November 25th 2011 @ 12:59pm
Ian Whitchurch said | November 25th 2011 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
In my universe, an average English premiership player earns $2.5m a year each, and half of your old ex-stars turn out to be highly paid duds.
November 25th 2011 @ 8:28am
jamesb said | November 25th 2011 @ 8:28am | Report comment
one advantage the A-League has over V8 Supercars is that majority of A-league games are on twilight or the evening time zones, due to the summer heat. Whereas the V8s are only on during the day and not prime time in the evening.
Not been on FTA, it does prevent A-league clubs getting big sponsorship money
When Demetriou was doing his tv deal for the AFL, he claimed that the AFL will have a deal that reaches out to as many viewers as possible. Thats coming from an established code.
Do you think the A-league needs a deal that reaches out to as many people similar to AFLs thinking?
There certainly needs to be a balance for the FFA.
Revenue and Reach.
November 25th 2011 @ 8:43am
Emric said | November 25th 2011 @ 8:43am | Report comment
i hope that the A-League gets 30-million a year it will really help the sport in Austrlaia and New Zealand.
November 25th 2011 @ 8:58am
jamesb said | November 25th 2011 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Emric
I’m hoping its about $40-$50 million a year. IF that happens, it does give the sport a chance to become established.
IMO, I also like to see, One/ Ten telecast 1 game a week of HAL which is 1 or 2 hour delay, that way Fox still has exclusivity of LIVE games. Also One/Ten would have advertisements of pay tv during the HAL games.
If that happens, One/ Ten would have content and give the sport a possible chance of growth. Fox will still have live games and cross promotion of their product on Ten/One, while the sport will have increased their reach having it on FTA.
Win ,win for everyone.
November 25th 2011 @ 9:07am
Emric said | November 25th 2011 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Unfortunately its not going to happen like that Fox will want complete exclusive rights to teh games no delayed coverage, else they will drop the price and unfortunately Soccer and Rugby in Australia suffer from the same “issue”
FTA will not pay what Fox will – and fox does not want to share the spoils with anyone. Its going to be a choice between the money or exposure – also i see exposure as being risky – if you look at how 9 has treated the rugby league where most of the games in 4 of the 6 states are played closer to midnight rather then being given a fair chance to prove they can be ratings winners.
Anyway this is all my personal opinion
November 25th 2011 @ 3:34pm
cliff said | November 25th 2011 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
I think it is simplistic to say Fox will want exclusivity and nothing else.What Fox and FTA want is a product that will rate well and increase revenue.Fox are not dummies.If they can see that some FTA content will increase the likelihood of subscriptions they will be for it.
The bottom line is increasing revenue.Anyone can see football is getting little media exposure compared to other sports.Hence there is a huge potential upside for Fox if they can see football get this increased media exposure.
If for example FTA TV recieved one game of the week on a near live basis,would this benefit Fox in the long term?
If the FTA coverage was a ratings winner,I would expect Fox would be delighted as they have the rights to all the other games and maybe all games live.So there is potential for new converts to pay a subscription fee to watch their team every week.
If FTA ratings are average to poor.Fox have really lost nothing except the cost of exclusivity.Real football fans will subscribe regardless.
So having one game a week on FTA is a win -win for Fox.
The only way Fox lose is if subscriptions fall.In either scenario Fox subscriptions should only fall if overall interest in the A-League drops.A scenario ,that barring disaster,should not happen.
November 28th 2011 @ 1:22pm
Ka-Blonk said | November 28th 2011 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Who cares about New Zealand football? They are lucky to have an A-league team in the first place. if the Aussie TV deal outweighs what they bring into the League financially, then there is no point having them in the A-League
November 28th 2011 @ 1:47pm
Emric said | November 28th 2011 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Ka-Blonk
Perhaps the FFA who make money from Sky-TV by selling the product there? It’s worth about 20% of the total TV rights deal. If you think that the NRL, FFA, NBL have New Zealand teams involved because they have some sort of soft foundness for New Zealand you would be wildly mistaken having a New Zealand team encouragers New Zealanders to watch these programs on Sky-TV (approx 900,000 New Zealanders have Sky) if this happens the ratings justify those institutions selling more TV rights to Sky at ever increasing prices, the NRL and SR rights over a 5 year period are worth approx 75 Million Dollars (NRL) and closer to 140 million dollars for SR. I do not know what Sky is prepared to pay for the basketball, or A-League.
So having New Zealanders watching the NRL, A-League, Basketball and SR is well worth it because its real money being paid.
November 25th 2011 @ 9:14am
striker said | November 25th 2011 @ 9:14am | Report comment
I Rekon giving SBS one game a week would be a good thing as channel 10 would most likely put the game on 11pm, this would give the legue a boost especially the people that dont have fox sports, its great to see people who were all against the A-League talk the league up thanks to Brisbane Roar who have shown how good our game can be to watch on TV. i think this wil be the best rating ever, where is Rebecca Wilson with her articles and the dire state of our game no where to be seen hahah.
November 25th 2011 @ 9:20am
Chris said | November 25th 2011 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Yes, I would see getting a reasonably increased amount from FoxSports coupled with a continuation of their excellent coverage to be the ideal result. Unless a FTA network would offer the same level of coverage (and let’s face it, that’s not going to happen – just look at the shameful way 9 dealt with the Rugby World Cup), I would rather a continuation of the existing arrangement.
November 25th 2011 @ 9:24am
pbedo said | November 25th 2011 @ 9:24am | Report comment
For footbal to get a bigger following you only need to improve the standard. There’s plenty of people in Australia who follow European football but won’t go to the A-league. Equally I know some of these people who will go to watch the Roar because of the way they play.
There’s no question in my mind that if all clubs tried to emulate the Roar the level of interest would go through the roof. And that does not mean they have to squander zillions on marquees. They just need genuine talent and great manager coaches like Angie.
November 25th 2011 @ 9:43am
Stevo said | November 25th 2011 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Agree with this point 1000% Just look at the fools at MV who decided Harry “The Bling King” Kewell was more important than regenerating the team and coaching staff. Now they’re playing rubbish football and the casual football fan will think twice about turning up to games. However a highlights package on FTA would be a very good idea – SBS would do a good job.
November 25th 2011 @ 10:13am
pbedo said | November 25th 2011 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Yes Stevo, a one hour package ala Premier League would be good but on SBS it would only preach to the converted. I say better that it can be sacrificed to one of the commercial stations. They’ll put it on a time slot based on free market public demand. That can be a useful barometer to see how the game is faring. All this over and above the current set up. It could work well for Foxtel aswell in promoting their product.
November 25th 2011 @ 10:27am
Stevo said | November 25th 2011 @ 10:27am | Report comment
There’ll be plenty of arguments for/against SBS but I think that Foxtel has much to gain by allowing a FTA highlights package. It is a promotional vehicle for the A-league and Foxtel with hopefully more casual fans coming to games and therefore a better look/atmoshphere for Foxtel televised games. It may in turn lead to additional Foxtel subscriptions.
November 26th 2011 @ 11:15am
PeterK said | November 26th 2011 @ 11:15am | Report comment
From the perspective of someone in NQ living over 1000 km from the nearest live games, and not willing to pay for all that other content on Fox, I’d prefer any FTA weekly programme to be a single full game (even if condensed to an hour) rather than a general “highlights of the whole round” programme. I would think Fox could onsell the delayed game to FTA and have as part of their contract smart adverrtising for people to watch the whole round LIVE on Fox.
What a pity Fox can’t come up with an exclusively A-League package — now that might be worth buying!
November 25th 2011 @ 10:16am
Punter said | November 25th 2011 @ 10:16am | Report comment
IS this easier said than done.
While Barcelona dominates in Spain & Europe, & we all marvel at them, why don’t all the other Spanish sides play like Barcelona or why doesn’t Man U adopt the same approach, they were made very 2nd rate in that Champions league final, why don’t all teams just play like Barcelona, not just Arsenal.
November 25th 2011 @ 10:27am
pbedo said | November 25th 2011 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Good point Punter, but it can be done. There’s probably more that one answer to that. Maybe it’s club inertia, inability to change, happy with the way things are? Maybe it takes a crisis before a club takes action? I dont know
November 25th 2011 @ 11:01am
Punter said | November 25th 2011 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Pbedo, I think Brisbane has set the benchmark & the other teams need to adapt, I know quite a few of my friends who are non A-League followers bit followers of football in Europe who has been talking about Brisbane.
I noticed that Newcastle are trying to play the same high intensity game, some way to go. The team that also plays good football is Melbourne Heart, but results haven’t gone their way. Gold Coast also looks good much better than last place. Sydney FC are also trying, they are playing alot better than that tripe they served up last year.
While I’m a Sydney supporter, I hope Brisbane again wins everythibg in sight to show the others that you can play good football & still win even with Australian A-League players, you don’t all have to be Leo Messi.
November 25th 2011 @ 2:58pm
Al said | November 25th 2011 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
The Barcelona model requires generational change to implement, including overhauling the youth systems at these clubs. The roots of Barcelona’ current success stems back to Johan Cruyf and his implemnation of the Dutch Total Football philosophy and methodology back in the late 80s.
November 25th 2011 @ 9:56am
Stabilo said | November 25th 2011 @ 9:56am | Report comment
I’d much rather the FFA tries to get a much improved deal and stays exclusive to Fox Sports, they have done a spectacular job over the last 6 years. Aside from SBS, Free to Air TV has NEVER done football any good. If the FFA get enough cash from a Fox exclusive deal to cover most of the Salary Cap then we are set.
Also agree with what pbedo said, we should look at improving the quality, this comes down making sure the clubs get as MUCH money as possible from the TV deal, not having a reduced deal from some FTA deal, who would surely not offer the quality live broadcasting of the games.
November 25th 2011 @ 9:58am
Ken said | November 25th 2011 @ 9:58am | Report comment
There’s a huge percentage of households who either can’t afford pay TV or won’t pay for television (I’m the latter). Purely and simply, by televising on FTA it opens the league to these people. If they’re impressed with what they see on TV they might be tempted to attend a game, which in turn could lead them to becoming lifelong football fanatics. More supporters has a roll-on effect (no, not deodorant) with larger sponsorship and bigger TV deals.
A highlights package on FTA is nice but only gives you a glimpse of the action. Typically just goals, you miss out on the little details that makes watching a game in full so worthwhile.
Our lives are busy and it’s nice to be able to take a break and watch a game of football. Doing so by attending the game is great but requires hours of time in the form of preparation and transport (I have a family). Being able to kick your legs up and watch a good A-League game on FTA sounds very inviting indeed.
November 25th 2011 @ 12:55pm
FootyWiffaJ said | November 25th 2011 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
I fully agree. My brother in law and my nephew both play soccer but don’t have pay TV and live 300km+ from Melbourne. I invited them down for 1 game but all they got to see was the boring 0-0 derby. My nephew also plays and follows AFL which he can watch on TV anywhere so his only dream is to play AFL. He sees it all the time. If he could regularly watch the A-League on FTA then quite a lot of these juniors will grow up wanting to play in the A-League rather than just AFL. They would also be more interested in coming down to Melbourne to see more games.
November 25th 2011 @ 3:18pm
Football United said | November 25th 2011 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
if you are a sports fan and can afford it, then you have fox sports. Complaining about having to pay for it is kinda pathetic when you consider how much you get out of it.
November 25th 2011 @ 4:46pm
The Cattery said | November 25th 2011 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
I’ve come to this thinking over the last few years (I”ve had Fox in that time).
Cut down on smokes, have one less night on the turps, stop hiring movies that you don’t watch, buy less junk food, drink more water, and you’ll pay for your Fox subscription and be far better off.
November 26th 2011 @ 11:27am
PeterK said | November 26th 2011 @ 11:27am | Report comment
I don’t smoke any more, I have NO “nights on the turps” (and I’m not stopping my anti-heart-attack nightly red or two), I never hire movies, I extremely rarely buy junk-food, and I’ve always drunk lots of water, but I still don’t want to pay for a whole lot of stuff on Fox in which I have little or no interest. I need an “A-League only” package!
November 26th 2011 @ 5:55pm
The Cattery said | November 26th 2011 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
I understand Peter, it’s true that you are forced to pay a lot of stuff you’re never going to watch (on the basic package, and it can be a bitter pill to swallow.
There are a couple of stations that the kids watch, and that makes it a bit more tolerable, and I’ve even caught the wife watching one of the renovation or real estate shows.