A-League needs Channel 10, but does 10 need A-League?
By Stefanov, 10 Jul 2012 Stefanov is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- A-League, A-League television rights, Channel 10, FFA, football, Network Ten
148 Have your say
Glory beckons as Perth make A-League Grand Final AAP Image/Paul Miller
Related coverage
There is no question that the future of the A-League is highly dependent on free-to-air television.
Free-to-air television is the staple of organic growth of a sporting organisation. Its ability to reach the wider population is essential in the promotion of our game.
While we NSL and old football diehards are eternally grateful that Fox Sports resurrected our game from its death bed in the early years of the A-League, we need to move away from this highly restricted marketplace.
Effectively, we are now too big for pay TV.
The last reported figure on the total number of Foxtel subscribers, including wholesale subscribers and customers in the installation queue, was at 1.66 million.
This is simply not a large enough supporter base to develop any significant growth in our marketplace. We have moved on from a novelty product to a legitimate premium sport package.
The recruitments of Harry Kewell and Brett Emerton last season and the rise of crowd numbers and social media interaction has proved that the A-League is no longer an ugly duckling in the Australian sporting market.
It is now recognised and even followed by the majority of Australian sporting fanatics. The A-League is here to stay, so we need to embrace this.
The 2011/12 season was not only a success from the rise in crowd numbers, media coverage and profile, but it was a monolithic success in TV ratings. The highly publicised debut of Harry Kewell and subsequent match against Sydney F.C drew the title of the highest pay TV rating A-League match of all time.
That’s right, the highest pay TV rating A-League match of all time, with an audience of 162,417 on Fox Sports.
Also, TV ratings for the 2011/12 season were reported to be up around the 40 percent mark. Now while Harry Kewell has left us for personal reasons, Brett Emerton and other genuine big name players still remain in ever present in our league, proving that the A-League is far from just a one trick pony.
Household coaching names such as Tony Popovic, John Aloisi and Graham Arnold still remain in the game, adding profile and intrigue, while players such as Archie Thompson, Marcos Flores, Shane Smeltz and Fred have become well-known and respected sporting figures nationwide.
Besart Berisha, also known as ‘BB7′ of the Brisbane Roar, has a cult following so potent we may see him in a Neighbours episode soon.
Recently it has been reported that high profile names such as Mark Bresciano, Lucas Neill, Richard Garcia and even Tim Cahill are all in the frame for a future return, with some of these names closer to a return than first thought (Bresh to Heart anyone? Lucas Neill in West Sydney?).
The marvellous addition of a Western Sydney team in the Wanderers has removed the prickly thorn in the Gold Coast and turned it into a growth project, with Western Sydney being a true footballing heartland.
Western Sydney will be a success, there is too much riding on it to not be, and this is a footballing heartland rather than a fickle ‘Hollywood’ town. They have done everything right so far, from the kit, to the signings to the fan interaction. West Sydney is there for more than just making up the numbers.
The A-League derbies, especially in Melbourne and soon to be in Sydney, have become legitimate big ticket items on the Australian sporting calendar, with viewer and crowd numbers skyrocketing on every occasion. They demonstrate the pinnacle of what the A-League is capable of, legitimate market share in the mainstream sporting arena.
Now, what does this have to do with Channel 10? After a recent capital raising, the company has enough funding to launch a successful bid for the upcoming A-League free-to-air TV rights.
While SBS is and always has been the home of the world game for decades in Australia, it does not have the funding to launch a significant bid which could land all games on free-to-air, in fact there are massive doubts that it can afford the one game a week that it has reportedly targeted.
Channel 10 on the other hand may be looking for a premium sporting product, and have the A-League right on their doorstep.
A relationship between the two would be a marriage to benefit both parties. While the A-League may be still a B to B+ proposition, it has A-grade potential. The A-League, with a rapid promotional campaign in conjunction with Channel 10, could well and truly become a premium sporting product within five years.
With proper exposure and 10 teams across the whole nation, the A-League has potential to be a 400,000-500,000-plus ratings puller for the network. Pushing the product into the mainstream, focusing on the big names in the game and the eccentric rivalries would be a catalyst for ratings that could even surprise the network.
Now the original Fox Sports deal featured Socceroos and the A-League and was purchased for a shrewd $120 million, seven-year deal. This surely has to be eclipsed as the game has grown in leaps and bounds from its original inception.
I would love to see a $200 million deal over five years, valuing just the A-League at a cool $40 million a season. Now while this seems a tad ambitious, it is nothing compared to the recent $1 billion AFL rights and upcoming $800 million plus NRL TV rights.
Channel 10 has an opportunity to pick up the rights to a nation-wide game for less than a quarter of the price of other two codes mentioned, which are still not yet nationally loved and embraced.
Now I put the challenge to Channel 10 to seriously look at the A-League as viable player in the sporting market. It has potential to bring benefits to the TV network and grow the game at the same time.
We can only look back on the success of the 2007 LA Galaxy vs Sydney FC exhibition game which drew a very respectable 1.084 million viewers nationwide, so perhaps games with something to play for could even draw more viewers? You never know.
The coverage that night was excellent and showed that Channel 10 could run a more than serviceable product that would indeed even please footballing diehards.
Channel 10 was once the home of ‘footy’. Let’s take it upon them to make it the home of ‘football’; this is something that it is more than capable of.
![]()
Passionate about your football? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily football email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Football articles
- What A-League matches should be on Friday night FTA? (158)
- Are we supporting the Soccerwhos? (126)
- Scrap the A-League finals and replace it with State of Origin (110)
- A-League expansion possibilities (102)
- The mainstream media continues to ignore football (96)
- English football has drama Aussie sport can’t replicate (95)
- The FA Cup final lost its lustre long ago (93)
- Socceroos need to give up on World Cup (3)
- Socceroos’ door not closed on Kewell
- Osieck banks on World Cup experience
- Osieck announces Socceroos squad for World Cup Qualifiers (88)
- Scrap the A-League finals and replace it with State of Origin (111)
- AS Monaco’s taxing promotion to Ligue 1 (17)
- FFA misses opportunity with FTA coverage (19)
- Socceroos need to give up on World Cup (3)
- Scrap the A-League finals and replace it with State of Origin (111)
- AS Monaco’s taxing promotion to Ligue 1 (17)
- FFA misses opportunity with FTA coverage (19)
- Central Coast Mariners vs Guangzhou Evergrande: ACL live scores, blog (118)
- Fourth place should not be cause for jubilation for Arsenal (17)
- How does the A-League rate? (24)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- A-League, A-League television rights, Channel 10, FFA, football, Network Ten


July 10th 2012 @ 5:21am
AndrewMc said | July 10th 2012 @ 5:21am | Report comment
Nice article. If anyone had any doubts about the need for the A-league to be on FTA, have a look at the W-league ratings on the ABC. The W-league outrates the A-league purely because it is exposed to a bigger audience!
July 11th 2012 @ 12:18am
pete said | July 11th 2012 @ 12:18am | Report comment
W League out rates the A league? What have ypubeen smoking???? Nobody watches the w league on ABC, go check the figures – it’s appalling.
And A League is barely European third division at best.
Very poor standard that will not add audience to a terrestrial TV station.
July 11th 2012 @ 7:43am
Kasey said | July 11th 2012 @ 7:43am | Report comment
“European 3rd division”, a typical sort of blanket poo-poohing statement made by a football illiterate. The differences between the standards of the various countries is myriad. Example, the Championship in England I one of the bet supported football leagues in the world and it’s the 2nd tier! How much Belgian/Romanian/Bulgarian 3rd division football have you watched to lend your statement even the modicum of weight?
July 11th 2012 @ 8:21am
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 11th 2012 @ 8:21am | Report comment
pete
Which European 3rd Division football leagues have you watched & how many A-League matches have you watched to form that conclusion?
In Australia, the majority of AFL matches I’ve watched over 20 years are barely above VFL or VAFA standard, yet the AFL rates very nicely on FTA TV.
For most people in the world, sport is all about watching the team you love – regardless of how well or badly they’re performing.
July 11th 2012 @ 8:15pm
asanchez said | July 11th 2012 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
I’m pretty sure the W-league was averaging 90k viewers on ABC at some point.
The average A-league game gets 60k viewers.
So the W-league goes alright!!
July 10th 2012 @ 8:20am
Futbanous said | July 10th 2012 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Dont think that theres any doubt that free to air exposes anything to a broader audience. Have been in Europe whilst the Euros were on free to air everywhere,people talking about the Euros everywhere. Compare this to the Socceroos coverage on Fox & viewing audience. I personally know people who tuned in to the Socceroos after the 2006 WC when it was on SBS. Not died in the wool fans like me admittedly ,but still with a passing interest. Maybe with continuous FTA their Football interest could have developed.
But as we all know the A-League needed the dough to survive let alone develop so a Socceroo free to air sacrifice was made.
Guess it boils down to the fact of Channel 10 willing to take a gamble on a B to B+ proposition becoming capable of A-grade reality.
Whatever,the Socceroos are proven & deserve a bigger audience than they’ve been getting regardless of the A-League.
July 10th 2012 @ 8:32am
agga78 said | July 10th 2012 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Channel 10 is perfect for football as football key age demographic is exactly the same as channel 10 the under 40 market, go to Melbourne Victory A league game and 90% of the crowd are under 40 and im sure it is repeated around the country.
Channel 10 were the most proftable network when they had the Simpsons, big brother and Australian Idol all shows for under 40′s, they have lost there way in the past 2 years and now the new board is trying to get it back to the way it was and football could play a part for a third of the price of AFL and NRL about 300 milon over 5 years channel 10 could get all socceroos matches and a 150 A league matches a year and with friday to sunday night’s basically bare for channel 10 I think they would be mad not to have a go.
Football is a perfect fit, it goes for 2 hours you could have a 2 1/2 hour coverage with plenty of time for ad’s before the game, halftime and after the game, it is the game for the young generation and has potential to grow 10 times to what it is now while other games have reached or a near their peek audience.
July 10th 2012 @ 8:49am
Midfielder said | July 10th 2012 @ 8:49am | Report comment
The key will be who gets the NRL… 10 want the NRL…
I have read a report that the station that gets both the NRL & Football will beat 7 in the rating …
The key to football is twofold…
1) Ensure games are played live and not in the wee small hours … remember nobody screws soccer like 7..
2) Were are not ready for to many games FTA nor are the greater public.. RU made this mistake with the ARC going live before the quality was high enough with reasonable crowds to be a TV product… One, two at most is what the FTA A-League should be …
The bigger picture is to launch the Ace in the FFA pack that despite is best efforts SBS has never been able to do [methinks because of their low general audience] … these aces are the other national teams IMO well marketed the Matilda’s and mens U 23 & U 20 are screaming as a rating winner … not at Socceroo levels but IMO very decent rating especially if FFA play in small stadiums with cheap entry prices for a crowd atmosphere..
The decision is whether you go with SBS, and build the game be assured it will be shown live and shown with respect and with knowledgeable commentators, for the next media deal….. or risk 10 understanding football, getting the right commentators and shown in prime time…
Finally there is how will SBS react… when they lost to Fox last time from Hal 2 to Hal 5, there was a super league type war between Fox & SBS … Football was the looser … SBS still carry the flag and are extremely influential ..
My feelings is SBS need to be a meaningful part of the next media deal in some form or other … if nothing else because they deserve to be…
July 10th 2012 @ 12:06pm
Griffo said | July 10th 2012 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
I would like to see some of the other national teams on FTA as well – SBS would probably be the best fit for those and take it seriously where the commercial TV stations would not touch them because of not being a mainstream product for the sport.
On the other hand, if U20, U23 and Matilda’s were all that was offered to SBS, would they be happy with that?
Don’t know if their finances are able to fund coverage but the ABC for U20, U23 games would be a nice way for ABC to grow football coverage along with the Matilda’s on the network.
July 10th 2012 @ 8:54am
Geordie said | July 10th 2012 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Advertising is the problem – where to fit in ads during play (maybe send out Kevin Muscat to provide some breaks in play for injuries). Another issue may be that a large chunk of the season occurs during the non-ratings period.
Did enjoy their coverage of the Beckham match a few years back with SBS’s David Basheer on board for match commentary.
Surely at least one match needs to be on free to air. Friday night would be ideal for those creatures of habit watching Friday night footy every week – if they were to find the week after the AFL/NRL seasons finished there was still “football” being shown at that time I’m sure many would give it a go rather than watch Better Home and Gardens or have a conversation with the wife.
As for the Socceroos – welll that’s a discrace those games have not been on FTA. After the 2006 world cup they were the #1 national sporting team. The minumal exposure on pay tv has bumped them down below netball.
July 10th 2012 @ 9:08am
Kasey said | July 10th 2012 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Advertising can be done ‘picture in picture’ that seems to work for AFC ACL broadcasts.
July 10th 2012 @ 9:50am
phutbol said | July 10th 2012 @ 9:50am | Report comment
As long as its only during stoppages… Nothing wrong with the scrolling marquee type ads along the bottom of the screen either… as long as its only during stoppages, but there are plenty of those so not a big issue.
And one would think that live coverage (and no ad breaks during play) would be non-negotiable in any FTA deal. I dont know if FFA would be doing the negotiations or the Singapore group they sold the rights to (is it World Sports Group or similar?), but there has to be no repeat of the Channel 7/NSL debacles.
July 10th 2012 @ 10:09am
Ian Whitchurch said | July 10th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
“And one would think that live coverage (and no ad breaks during play) would be non-negotiable in any FTA deal.”
Why ?
Lets take, for example, a corner. If you had a mandated 30 second break for a TV commercial, the game doesnt change that much.
I understand why you dont want to monkey around with a game to make it more commercial-friendly. But if it’s the difference between using the money you dont have to pay to be on FTA tv, like the Shute Shield, WAFL and SANFL have to, and being paid to be on FTA tv, then I’d be thinking about it.
July 10th 2012 @ 10:14am
philipcoates said | July 10th 2012 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Ian, i hope you are joking. A mandatory 30 sec break for a corner? So the team cant take short corners any more, or if they do and score a goal, we just accept that we missed it while watching an ad for Aust Idol V25!!
July 10th 2012 @ 10:31am
Futbanous said | July 10th 2012 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Ian Whitchurch
Your overlooking the fact that any monkeying around with football needs the approval of FIFA.
Would be nice occassionally if it didnt, .but it does.
July 10th 2012 @ 10:42am
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 10th 2012 @ 10:42am | Report comment
“If you had a mandated 30 second break for a TV commercial, the game doesnt change that much.”
Thanks, but no thanks.
I’d rather HAL got less money from SBS & have decent analysts, commentators & respect for the game; than some clowns on FTA tv who giggle & laugh at in-jokes throughout the broadcast & have ZERO understanding of, or respect for, our Game.
July 10th 2012 @ 11:52am
Ian Whitchurch said | July 10th 2012 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Fussball,
I know that, for you, the good is the enemy of the perfect. In any case, you can write into the contract that the FFA needs to sign off on commentators, or even have FFA do the production and the TV station do the broadcast.
PhilipCoates,
No, Im not joking. If you want money out of FTA tv, you need to think about what you will and wont do.
Futabanous,
Yup, I agree. FIFA needs to sign off. But they signed off on a NZ team in the Australian competition, and thats pretty uncommon.
July 13th 2012 @ 11:38am
tj said | July 13th 2012 @ 11:38am | Report comment
oh dear:
“Lets take, for example, a corner. If you had a mandated 30 second break for a TV commercial, the game doesnt change that much”.
You think this wont make it the laughing stock of the world? changing established FIFA rules to get a couple of bucks?
you don’t see it on your EPL because they are so powerful and can on-sell TV rights hence make $$$ through that medium.
You see pop up advertising in football games all over the world : asian league, south american local & continental games, etc, internationals . they have funding concerns too but incorporate into the bottom of screen whilst at goal kicks… just another revenue raiser & is perfect solution.
July 10th 2012 @ 12:13pm
Griffo said | July 10th 2012 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
I think scrolling marquee ads can be over done (CNN coverage as an example) – and I would not be happy if any ads blocked the view of the game, particularly a key moment in the game or a goal.
Quick PIP/pop up ads in the screen corner during the match when keeper is lining up a goal kick, or during a corner or throw-in is ok, but 5 second duration max – enough for the company/product logo and the tagline to capture the message.
Loads of room to experiment and get it right, but easily overdone and annoying.
The other side of the ‘ad during coverage’ coin here is IPTV: no reason you can’t watch the match with targeted ads in the browser window…this would also be true for any networks catch-up TV service online.
July 10th 2012 @ 12:37pm
Titus said | July 10th 2012 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
I don’t think the game needs to be live on FTA.
The important thing is to get it out in some form to the mass audience to get them into it, to make them aware of it, to add to the exposure.
Having the game 30 mins delayed will preserve the value of the “live” product for Foxtel (who are still going to be the main resource providers). The diehards like myself and you guys will most likely watch it on Fox so you can watch all games live.30 min delay would allow for ad beaks.
This is a win-win. C10 gets a product that is cheap and should rate well. Fox gets to expose more people to the product and hopefully increase uptake of Foxtel.
July 11th 2012 @ 9:14am
phutbol said | July 11th 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Exceedingly sensible idea Titus. What does a delayed telecast do to the value of the rights vs live though? I have no idea but i guess if the loss of exclusivity to Fox is made up by the lower valued loss of live telecast to FTA then there is no net loss… All good if you can paid by both broadcasters.
July 10th 2012 @ 10:04am
nordster said | July 10th 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Pad out the pre game build up with ads, place them at half time, post game. 45 min halves of football get shown by major tv networks all over the world without ads …its not that hard. If they place them in game – even in stoppages – major turn off. Scrolling ads and sponsered graphics are fine tho.
July 10th 2012 @ 4:42pm
Nafe said | July 10th 2012 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
There is plenty of technology and fancy ways to incorporate adverts into a telecast. You can superimpose a graphoc that looks like its printed on the turf so it’s front and centre but the players are on top of it. Annoying, hardly as it looks like turf painted and it doesn’t disrupt the game. As the screen and plauy moves away, so does the ad.
July 10th 2012 @ 5:14pm
Geordie said | July 10th 2012 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
We kind of already have scrolling ads as in the annoying electronic advertising boards which have appeared in most big stadiums in the last few years. Surely the network broadcasting the game could profit from the extra exposure these ads get from being shown on free to air coverage.
July 13th 2012 @ 3:29pm
Jim said | July 13th 2012 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
“As for the Socceroos – welll that’s a discrace those games have not been on FTA. After the 2006 world cup they were the #1 national sporting team. The minumal exposure on pay tv has bumped them down below netball.”
Don’t you think that perhaps that was the Murdoch strategy all along – to “bury” the sport on pay tv just like Ch 7 did ten years ago – in order to suppress it’s exposure and therefore the value of the next tv contract, mmm???
And Uncle Frank walked straight into the trap.
July 10th 2012 @ 9:06am
Cappuccino said | July 10th 2012 @ 9:06am | Report comment
I agree that A-League should be on free to air, at least in part. But SBS has made it clear they are keen to bid for one or two A-League matches per week. They have even contemplated dropping their UEFA Champions League coverage to free up the funds for such a bid. Right now, one or two games on FTA is plenty. Moving to Channel 10 would potentially be a disaster… If the A-League isn’t pulling good TV ratings, 10 will be happy to show the games delayed at ludicrous times in the early morning (they’ve done this with AFL in NSW before). SBS, on the other hand, will treasure the A-League and ensure the best coverage live- no matter what the ratings are.
July 10th 2012 @ 10:04am
Geordie said | July 10th 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
The ideal result would be SBS Friday night marquee games and Sun night highlights show with Fox on board for the rest. If Channel 10 were to get games they could always move games onto One if ratings were poor (in HD – sweet) but I honestly believe that no ad breaks in live play or no delayed telecasts to insert some ad breaks would be a deal breaker for 10.
July 10th 2012 @ 12:30pm
Dave said | July 10th 2012 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
This is the point for me. Is anyone truly set against a slightly delayed telecast? if you look at the rugby league coverage the sunday afternoon game has always been delayed by about an hour and a half, friday night games only started being live a couple of years ago I think, and it hasn’t done any harm there has it?
I’d be more than willing for an Aleague game to be shown delayed coverage by half an hour or so and have a couple of add breaks in there if it meant it was on FTA.
Yes live is better, but if the delay is only equivalent to the length of a few add breaks you’re not going to find out the result while watching or anything, and then the FTA stations can make their money on adds.
Hell they could even do 30 second adds at corners or things that ‘felt’ like natural stoppages instead of solid add breaks, so that the game still ‘felt’ live while watching on tv, but there wouldn’t actually be any stoppage at the ground.
July 11th 2012 @ 12:42pm
Brendo said | July 11th 2012 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Up to a one hour delay is imo fine, it should be mandated that channels cannot move past that delay period however. This would mean a 7:30pm match would have to be shown no later than 8:30pm on the east coast. Would work for the network better and wouldn’t impact on the viewing audience that greatly.
Delayed coverage also have a impact on the gate as people are more willing to go along to see the match live.
Finally a delayed start would also allow a FTA network to work in some innovative ad breaks with no impact to the loss of game viewing time. As suggested above goal kicks being the obvious target. Ball goes out for a goal kick cut to break, return as the keeper is lining up for the kick in. The only thing you lose is the replays of the strike at goal.
This would make the game much much more attractive to FTA networks for a only a small loss to viewer enjoyment.
imo
Selling the Friday Night/Saturday Matches to FTA with up to 1 hour delay should be the target.
July 10th 2012 @ 4:33pm
Jerome said | July 10th 2012 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
One is no longer a HD channel.
November 20th 2012 @ 10:13pm
Cappuccino said | November 20th 2012 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
One simply doesn’t provide the exposure of a ‘main’ TV channel- I think even SBS outrates it.
July 10th 2012 @ 9:50am
BennyD said | July 10th 2012 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Favourite Line – “Besart Berisha, also known as ‘BB7′ of the Brisbane Roar, has a cult following so potent we may see him in a Neighbours episode soon.”
July 10th 2012 @ 10:00am
nordster said | July 10th 2012 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Nice read mate …the point from andrew above about the w-league is a good one. Squirrelled away on a weeekend afternoon on the abc, does pretty well.
On A grade potential and ‘vision’ required to see it …shouldnt be too hard …i remember growing up hearing all about the potential of this one particular sport that was going to sweep allcomers from beijing to berlin. Now if someone had the ummm ‘vision’ to invest in that…. Difference with football is as far as Asian and global links go, it is the real deal already. No dressing mutton up as lamb required this time. Domestically, strong support from a wide cross section of aussie society …different backgrounds, strong youth appeal. And for a fraction of the price, just needs to be contracturally bound to commit to supporting it fully.
July 13th 2012 @ 3:53pm
Jim said | July 13th 2012 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
LOL, and that same clown – Rupert Murdoch – who backed “super league” to the hilt by “investing” more than $5Billion in trying to turn a LOCAL “turkey” (RL) into a INTERNATIONAL “swan” and landed flat on his face in the process and in which his own shareholders had to carry the loss for his folly!
But NOT to be detered he is at it again and threatening to throw another $1Billion of his shareholders money away on trying to save this dead carcuss of a sport that has no chance of ever being relevent to the world!
But then again Murdoch and his companies are yesterdays news anyway and are becoming increasingly irrelevent themselves – and good riddance to them I say!
July 10th 2012 @ 10:10am
philipcoates said | July 10th 2012 @ 10:10am | Report comment
It would be a huge mistake to give any FTA station a full A-League package. When A-League goes to FTA we must put our best foot forward and those of us who watch all the matches need to admit that the quality of the product, both on the field and off the field, is not yet consistent enough across all games to promote the league to the un-committed. No right minded fan would promote say, Heart vs Newcastle in front of 6000 people on Friday night prime time (or even Sunday night twilight), as a great advertisement for the game. No disrespect meant to either team, but in no time at all we would find matches being shown delayed at midnight.
However, it shouldn’t be too hard to find one game per week that would be a positive advertisement for the sport. We would probably all be happy to see the Melbourne derby and the new Sydney derby shown on FTA.
But a one-game per week package on FTA has its own scheduling dilemmas. A FTA station like Ch10 would no doubt want to fix a time slot eg Friday 7:30 or Sat 7:30. What happens when half way through the season you realize the match of the round is actually Wanderers vs Phoenix on Sunday at 5:00? Would those crying out for FTA exposure accept the match being rescheduled a few weeks before the game to bring it into prime-time (assuming it were possible with ground availability)? Would the station accept their “match of the week” schedule is a moving target? SBS probably would, but Ch10 – I don’t think so.
As much as I am still annoyed at SBS over their very anti-A-league stance during HAL Seasons 2-5, they have (very) slowly started to show more respect for the Australian game. Any FTA package is probably in the best hands if SBS have it. They understand football, they won’t be forcing ads during match time, and they would be flexible with scheduling.
There will be a lot of conjecture over the next TV deal for some time to come and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
July 10th 2012 @ 10:16am
Ian Whitchurch said | July 10th 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
“I would love to see a $200 million deal over five years, valuing just the A-League at a cool $40 million a season. Now while this seems a tad ambitious, it is nothing compared to the recent $1 billion AFL rights and upcoming $800 million plus NRL TV rights”
This values the A-League at a fifth of the AFL, and – given any metric you want to use – it isnt worth that right now.
Where is the value in this for Ten ?
It comes down to the question of if you want FTA to help grow the code, or do you want it to generate income for the code ?
Pay TV makes more money. FTA grows the code.
Me, I’d go for a hybrid deal – mostly Pay TV, but bundle the Socceroo rights with an A-League match of the week, which is to be screened on a consistent day at a consistent time. If the TC station says ‘we have Sunday night free’, you write that into the contract and play then. If the TV station says “Sunday afternoon between 3 and 5 is a dead spot, you’re welcome to it’, then you write it into the contract and play then.
Take a bit less money and get the FTA to grow the code.
July 10th 2012 @ 12:18pm
Punter said | July 10th 2012 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Ian,
While I think the A-League is not a fifth of the AFL, if you bundle in the Socceroos & the other national sides football has that AFL doesn’t you will find that yes football is a fifth of AFL.
You also need to remember that while AFL is massive in some states in Australia, it’s really quite small in 2 of our biggest states. the likes of Harry Kewell, Timmy Cahill, etc has a far larger profile than gary Abblett or Adam Goodes in NSW & QLD.
Need to get out of AFL heartland for awhile.
July 10th 2012 @ 1:47pm
Axelv said | July 10th 2012 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
“It’s really quite small in 2 of our biggest states”, Really? AFL is small in Victoria? Or has Queensland magically grown by 1 million people over the last 30 days?
July 10th 2012 @ 1:53pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 10th 2012 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
The 3 biggest states in Australia are: NSW, Victoria & Queensland
Even Big Andy would agree that “AFL is really quite small in 2 of our biggest states”.
July 10th 2012 @ 2:00pm
Axelv said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
When he says 2 biggest states, I assume he meant the 2 biggest states! Not the 3rd.
July 10th 2012 @ 2:04pm
Kasey said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
The exact phrase he uses is ” 2 of our biggest states” , implying not #1 & #2, but 2 out of numbers 1 to 3. factually correct statement as far as I can figure out.
July 10th 2012 @ 2:11pm
Punter said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Thanks guys, I did say ’2 of our biggest states’ & implied as Kasey & Fuss too it.
I know Victoria is the 2nd biggest state & AFL is by far the biggest sport there. Next time just for you Axelv I’ll say 1st & 3rd biggest.
July 10th 2012 @ 2:17pm
Axelv said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Wouldn’t saying 2 of the 3 biggest states be the correct thing to say? Biggest is an absolute.
Like if I were to say the 2 biggest cities in Australia, you wouldn’t think that I would mean Perth or Adelaide? Though it’s true they are among the biggest cities in Australia but they’re not the 2 biggest.
LOL cheers punter
July 10th 2012 @ 2:24pm
Kasey said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
you fail English? That’s unpossible.
You’re missing the point. The ‘of’ is the qualifier and a very important word here. If I were to say that “homelessness was a serious problem in 2 of Australia’s biggest cities”, that’s a completely different sentence and statement to “homelessness, is a problem in Australia’s 2 biggest cities.” The first sentence doesn’t imply that I necessarily mean Sydney and Melbourne(whereas the 2nd version does), the 1st version means that of all of the big cities in Australia, 2 of the biggest ones have a homeless problem IMO.
July 10th 2012 @ 3:01pm
Axelv said | July 10th 2012 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
I’m not sure, that still doesn’t quite make sense to me.
So the ‘of’ in “homelessness was a serious problem in 2 of Australia’s biggest cities”, is talking about anything that would mean a ‘biggest city’ in Australia?
So If I were to say “AFL is very popular in 4 of our biggest states”, which would mean Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, would this statement be true? Tasmania is our 6th biggest state.
I’m not trying to be a smart by the way, just trying to learn.
July 10th 2012 @ 7:45pm
Punter said | July 10th 2012 @ 7:45pm | Report comment
Axelv, what is wrong with this statement, Rugby League is 1 of the biggest sports in Australia, I didn’t say ‘the’ biggest, but one ‘of’.
Look at it this way;
Football is the biggest sport in the world.
Tennis is 1 of the biggest sports in the world.
July 11th 2012 @ 1:27am
Axelv said | July 11th 2012 @ 1:27am | Report comment
Yeah Punter, I understand the context of one of, it’s saying that it’s one of many. ’2 of the biggest’, sounds like it’s only those 2. I dunno.
July 11th 2012 @ 1:55pm
Punter said | July 11th 2012 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
Try this for size, Tennis & golf are 2 of the biggest sports in the world.
I did not say the 2 biggest, but 2 of the biggest.
July 11th 2012 @ 8:12pm
c said | July 11th 2012 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
try this for size afl is one of the smallest sports in the world
July 10th 2012 @ 2:10pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
“This values the A-League at a fifth of the AFL, and – given any metric you want to use – it isnt worth that right now.”
Really? Which metric would you like to use?
Crowd numbers (average per game):
AFL: 33k
HAL: 12k
PayTv ratings
AFL: 190k
HAL: 60k
HAL is approximately 1/3 the value of AFL by these commonly-used criteria.
HAL rates much higher on Foxtel than AFL in Sydney (nearly double the AFL ratings) & rates much higher than NRL in Melbourne, Adelaide & Perth.
Keen for you to provide some metrics, Ian
July 10th 2012 @ 2:27pm
Axelv said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Fuss, you forgot about the AFL metric, where Soccer is nothing compared to AFL in every way because it’s Soccer!
July 10th 2012 @ 2:29pm
Kasey said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Also known as the “S,W&P principle”
July 11th 2012 @ 7:19am
Australian Rules said | July 11th 2012 @ 7:19am | Report comment
HAL attendances were 10.4k (not 12k) in 2011/12
AFL were 36.4k (not 33k) in 2011
July 11th 2012 @ 9:30am
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 11th 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Australian Rules
1. HAL attendances in 2011/12 were 11.8k according to my records (excluding GCU, who are no longer in the competition)
2. AFL attendances were 34.9k 12 months ago; this year, they’re 32.6k.
July 11th 2012 @ 12:12pm
Australian Rules said | July 11th 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Haha, fudgey Fuss at it again…
1. When quoting attendances, you can’t use part-season figures, there’s no point…otherwise comps like the NRL suffer during Origin but spike again at the end of the year. So reference to a completed season is the only one that makes sense.
2. Using that logic, yes, AFL attendances for Season 2011 (exclusding finals) was 34.9k acc to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Australian_football_code_crowds
3. HAL figures for Season 2011/12 were 10.4k acc to
http://www.goal.com/en/news/808/australia/2012/03/27/2994226/new-attendance-records-for-a-league-after-popular-2011-12
4. Why fudge the HAL figures for 2011/12 by omitting GCU?
Naturally, the AFL crowd averages have gone down due to the 2 new teams. Should the AFL also exclude it’s lowest drawing club/s when quoting attendance figures?
July 11th 2012 @ 12:44pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 11th 2012 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
AR – what are you on about?
1. GCU are no longer in the competition; neither are NQF. It’s pointless using any data attributable to those clubs since they have ZERO impact on the HAL
2. It was YOU, who fudged the figures by claiming “AFL were 36.4k (not 33k) in 2011″. That was simply factually incorrect information you provided.
3. I don’t care what goal.com says, my figures for HAL attendance – excluding teams that no longer compete in the HAL – is 11.8k
It’s HAL off-season, so I’m more than happy to engage in such trivial discussion.
It’s the middle of the biggest AFL competition in the world … surely, you have things to discuss: probables & possibles, was it a 50m penalty, who will win the flag next year; who will make the 8 next year, etc. etc?
July 11th 2012 @ 1:36pm
Australian Rules said | July 11th 2012 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Yes, of course…
It makes complete sense to exclude GCU from the 2011/12 A-League season…even though GCU competed in the 2011/12 A-League season.
July 12th 2012 @ 8:24am
Kasey said | July 12th 2012 @ 8:24am | Report comment
AR:
There is a danger in just blindly talking figures and not understanding any context behind them.
For example those goal.com figures are garbage, for starters they talk of Adelaide United’s decrease, but fail to mention that the one number that dragged down their overall average was the regional round game played in Bathurst somehow classified as a home game, hardly fair to include that figure given the ability of United fans to travel to outback NSW to see their team is it? Removing the Bathurst game demonstrates more accurately the level of support in the Adelaide community for the Reds and pushes the crowd average up into the top half of the table – not bad for a team that finished 2nd bottom!
Knowing things like that (AU do not play an ‘away from SA’ regional round game this new season), and that GCU are no longer around to drag the HAL average down – I’m yet to meet one person who thinks that WSW wont do better through the gate than GCU I find it fairly easy to predict with s good degree of confidence that the HAL is set to demonstrate some really impressive numbers this forthcoming season. I wonder how it will be received if football ‘suddenly’ has a bit of positive news to report. As discussed in the ch10 thread, I expect it to be poo-poohed as unsustainable by those with the most to lose by a successful HAL – the columnists who know next to nothing about the sport!
July 10th 2012 @ 2:50pm
Titus said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
Thats how I see it Fuss, and take into account that it is a new league without much exposure, that is starved of resources and continually loses players.
I don’t see why the a-league wouldn’t be worth about 1/3 of the AFL/NRL which means about 300-400 million over 5 years. With this, money could be invested into developing and retaining players and the league, crowds and ratings would only grow.
July 10th 2012 @ 3:17pm
Axelv said | July 10th 2012 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
One thing you have to factor in though, is how would those ratings compare to say another program at that same time.
Let’s say an average AFL match broadcasted attracts 800,000 nationally (making this up), an A-League match gets 300,000 and 4 reruns of Family Guy gets 200,000 all in the same time slot.
So if Ten were to show the A-League instead of Family guy, that would be an increase of 100,000 viewers, if they were to show AFL instead of Family Guy in that same time slot, it would be an increase of 600,000 viewers.
If Ten were to show a double episode of the Amazing Race in that time slot with 100,000 viewers, this does not mean that just because 100,000 is 1/8 of 800,000 that the Amazing race is worth 1/8 of an AFL match, it would in fact be worthless because it’s viewers are too low for that time slot and wouldn’t even be worth showing.
July 10th 2012 @ 9:17pm
Ian Whitchurch said | July 10th 2012 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
Fussball,
Im going to start with two very very obvious things that are reasonably important for FTA television.
First of all, a game of AFL goes for somewhat longer than a game of Association Football.
Secondly, the AFL has inserted ad breaks after the reasonably frequent goals.
Commerical television makes money out of, well, commercials.
Put those things together, and a commercial television station can sell many more commericals.
July 13th 2012 @ 10:01am
Bondy said | July 13th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Not a bad idea Ian Whitchurch good post.