Internet Provided Television is the way forward for Super Rugby
By Working Class Rugger, 15 Sep 2012 Working Class Rugger is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Television, The Rugby Championship
Related coverage
With both the AFL and NRL securing lucrative broadcasting deals with Seven, Nine and Foxtel, the question will soon be asked: what is left for rugby among the scraps?
Considering the surge in viewership witnessed since the enactment of the current deal (somewhere in the realm of 30%), SANZAR could and should be looking for a significantly improved combined TV rights agreement.
Well, in theory anyway. From an Australian perspective, with football also chasing an improved media deal, we really must question whether much will be left in the major broadcasters’ kitties for rugby.
It’s a question that really needs to be addressed, and possible alternatives must be devised. It would be safe to assume that once again Super Rugby will be confined to Pay TV, something many have decried throughout its existence, with free-to-air coverage seen as the vessel through which to expand the game’s reach.
However, money talks, and as a code rugby has had to take the surest bet. Pay TV is the platform which has sustained the game since the inception of Super Rugby.
Having said that, the world of broadcasting is changing at an ever-increasing rate of knots. There is no better example of this than IPTV (Internet Provided Television).
The concept of IPTV isn’t new. In fact, we can look to some of the largest sporting competitions overseas for guidance. Even the NBL in Australia has recently developed subscription IPTV content.
How many of you only subscribe to Foxtel for the rugby? How many of you have been annoyed by the price? You and I have a lot in common.
What if you could watch the entire Super Rugby season for a comparatively poultry $200? Would you seriously consider making the switch to IPTV?
Here’s what I have been pondering.
We are lead to believe that the true value of the SANZAR deal is in the former Tri Nations, now The Rugby Championship. Fair enough.
Thus the question has always this: how do we garner more interest in Super Rugby, hence developing the value of the code?
The conference system has been the most significant attempt at achieving this, with pleasing results. But we have yet to determine exactly how much value it has added.
I think IPTV is worth a look. SANZAR and its partners could develop a channel based on, say, a $200 12 month subscription (less than $17 a month).
Are there enough rugby fans across the SANZAR nations to make this idea work? Perhaps. If a million viewers subscribed it would yield an average annual income of $200 million.
Sound like great value? It does from my perspective.
There would also be an opportunity to include Argentina in the deal. By creating an even, four-way split, we could further integrate Argentina into the fold. There could even be a chance to create our own alternative to the Heineken Cup.
The current Super Rugby format could conceivably split into four distinct competitions, with South Africa getting its Currie Cup, New Zealand its ITM Cup and Australia its own domestic competition. Add in a professionalised version of the Campenato Argentino and we could have the making of a whole new Super Rugby format, akin to the HEC and Challenge Cups in Europe.
Now, many will see this as limiting the game’s reach to a select few, forgoing the benefits of a larger audience. I agree. It would.
However, it is unlikely to occur. Finances are tight, and as I mentioned earlier in the piece, SANZAR has to take the money where it can to fund its member unions.
Another problem with rugby at the moment is a lack of development at the grassroots level. Many blame this underdevelopment on a lack of funds.
But what if a move to IPTV could double the annual income of each union? We could expose more kids to the game, hooking their interest, which would (in theory) lead to more subscribers in the future.
Some may argue that the IPTV movement is only in its infancy and that it may be a decade before it really finds its place. But why wait? Let’s be early adaptors instead of mere followers.
The possibilities are endless.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- SPIRO: Beale and Folau brilliant, Mogg subbed (278)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (242)
- I was dead-set wrong about Folau (237)
- What gives with Israel Folau? (184)
- Deans promises ball in hand rugby for Wallabies against Lions (183)
- Quade shouldn’t be fly half against the Lions (180)
- My Lion tamers for 2013 (167)
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (91)
- Wallabies 2013 Lions Tour squad announcement: Live blog (147)
- Berrick Barnes inspirational in Tahs win over Brumbies (146)
- Picking Quade and Izzy is a no brainer (27)
- Cheetahs vs Reds: Super Rugby live scores, blog (175)
- Leinster win European Challenge Cup (4)
- Ireland rugby flyhalf Ronan O’Gara retires (6)
- Wallabies 2013 Lions Tour squad announcement: Live blog (147)
- Picking Quade and Izzy is a no brainer (27)
- Cheetahs vs Reds: Super Rugby live scores, blog (175)
- Waratahs vs Brumbies: Super Rugby live scores, blog (517)
- Wallaby backline options (68)
- An exciting weekend in Australian rugby (1)
- Western Force vs Sharks: Super Rugby live scores, blog (114)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Television, The Rugby Championship



September 15th 2012 @ 6:51am
Pogo said | September 15th 2012 @ 6:51am | Report comment
I like the idea. It’s different, and getting there first may be a substantial benefit. The question I guess is how it would affect existing broadcasting revenue, which is still the major income stream.
September 15th 2012 @ 9:34am
Working Class Rugger said | September 15th 2012 @ 9:34am | Report comment
I’m arguing that SANZAR should look to it as a possible primary platform. It’s an alternative.
September 15th 2012 @ 1:17pm
Ian Whitchurch said | September 15th 2012 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
You nailed the right questions, but look at this from Fox Sports’ perspective.
“What if they could watch the entire Super Rugby season for a comparatively poultry $200? Would they seriously consider making the switch to IPTV and de-subscribing from Fox Sports?”
From the point of view of Fox, this is enabling ambush marketing of some of your best customers.
Now, thats not to say a sport shouldnt do it – but if a sport does, I wouldnt rely on Fox Sports giving them guaranteed money.
September 15th 2012 @ 2:45pm
Working Class Rugger said | September 15th 2012 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Ian,
Perhaps it didn’t come across as clearly in the article posted than it did in the one I submitted. It has been been edited significantly as it was well and truly beyond the preferred restricted article length. What I am suggesting is that SANZAR should investigate their options in regards to IPTV as a possible platform to broadcast their content instead of Pay TV. So, instead of subscribing to Foxtel for Rugby, you would subscribe to the independently run SANZAR channel.
Like I allude to in the article, it would also need additional content in terms of the ITM and Currie Cup’s an cold force the ARU to develop our equivalent as well. It could also look to broadcast other League (Top League) from other nations. Basically an all in one Rugby channel run by SANZAR on a subscription basis. You could have live and recorded content, Rugby related sports show etc. It just takes a bit of creativity and imagination.
September 15th 2012 @ 3:30pm
Ian Whitchurch said | September 15th 2012 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
WCR,
Absolutely. Its the Big Ten TV model, and its the one Im expecting the AFL to do at the end of their current contract round.
Its the right thing to do in the long term – but dont expect Foxtel to sign over a guaranteed amount if it’s done, because you are going head-on against the major driver of Foxtel subscriptions.
September 15th 2012 @ 2:11pm
Campbell Kyle said | September 15th 2012 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Bugger the existing networks, keep it simple, to keep costs down, have less cameras and stream it live. Perfect what a great idea. Have a set format so club volunteers can man the cameras. Each area has its own equipment. All that’s needed is the bandwidth and with the low costs of cloud computing I don’t think you would have to charge $200pa. Sponsors would pay, with a small additional charge for profits for the clubs.
September 15th 2012 @ 7:26am
soapit said | September 15th 2012 @ 7:26am | Report comment
the sooner they work this out the better. you can already watch any super rugby game online for free. i’d prefer to pay for it and get the official feed (and perhaps better quality) but if they insist on only offering it as part of a ridiculous package i’ll go for the only part of the product i want thanks.
the dys where they can dictate terms to the customer are gone. its happened to music then movies and now live sport. the industry can adapt or drive people to the free options.
September 15th 2012 @ 8:13am
nickoldschool said | September 15th 2012 @ 8:13am | Report comment
yes thats the thing soapit: we can already watch pretty much everything online for free: why should we pay for the same product then?
Personnally, online rugby is only a last resort solution: you’re overseas, rugby isnt on the local channels and pubs, you watch the game online then. I dont see it as a mainstream solution. Plus the rugby product is too attractive not to get a good deal with sports networks like fox.
September 15th 2012 @ 8:23am
soapit said | September 15th 2012 @ 8:23am | Report comment
well i do try and pay for things if theres a reasonable option. there is some value for being able to do something legally. also the level of service would increase (reliable quality)
paying for a package of crap to get one single element im interested in is not reasonable to me though (especially when the tech has moved on to put the power back in the consumers hands)
September 15th 2012 @ 8:03am
Tarragon Fields said | September 15th 2012 @ 8:03am | Report comment
For two seasons when I was living in Asia, I watched the Super 14 and Tri Nations via the net. It cost me $99 for the S14 and I forget how much the 3N was.
It was awesome, although, I must admit, sometimes the stream wasn’t perfect. However, the good thing about it was, the games were on demand or available for download for the rest of the season in HD.
They also had a good system where the results could be hidden from view. So for me, I would go out on the juice on a Saturday night, come home, spend the Sunday morning in bed watching rugby and not know the outcome of any of the games until finishing.
BUT then, Sentata bought the digital rights and the service was no longer offered. It left a gaping hole in my life and forced me to search for those terrible streams out there. Crazy I thought; I was happy to pay my $200 or thereabouts for the convenience that the game offered.
September 15th 2012 @ 10:50am
Emric said | September 15th 2012 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Guys – its really up to the IPTV channels to come to the party more then the ARU to actively explore the alternatives the IPTV companies must WANT to buy the product and spend large amounts of money doing it.
From my understanding the bulk of SANZAR’s money is coming from SS South Africa with a large share coming from SkyNZ and Fox is paying the least perhaps SANZAR needs to put more pressure on Fox to cough up more cash? Or SS and Sky need to start paying what the product really is worth to them. Sky would be a dead product without the Rugby in NZ. I’m not sure about Super Sport but I suspect they wouldn’t want to give up the Rugby rights easily either these 2 companies should be squeezed during the next TV deal to obtain more cash from their revenue flows
Australian rugby will continue to get 1/3rd of any income generated but I feel the best hope for SANZAR is to pressure the companies which are a vested interest in keeping the tv rights
September 15th 2012 @ 12:12pm
soapit said | September 15th 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
online rights are not necessarily bundled with tv rights
and the iptv are offering what they think its worth. the aru or whoever is selling dont like it the dont have to sell but they’ll them just be getting zero dollars.
ideally it should be run by foxtel and yo ubuy the internet games through them but it will need them to rethink their model which will take a while and it will need a lot more people to cancel their subscriptions and use the free net alternative before they realise how behind they are.
September 15th 2012 @ 10:52am
Atawhai Drive said | September 15th 2012 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Sorry to be pedantic, but IPTV stands for Internet Protocol Television, not Internet Provided Television.
Australia has slow broadband by international standards (the NBN may improve things but don’t hold your breath) and we are also one of the few countries offering capped access. IPTV coverage of rugby or any other sport is scarcely worthwhile at this point.
And it’s paltry, not poultry. That’s what happens when Autocorrect isn’t worth chicken feed.
September 15th 2012 @ 11:31am
Bakkies said | September 15th 2012 @ 11:31am | Report comment
I think there are data limits in Ireland I have never reached the limit or noticed it slowing down. In Australia it takes no time to eat in to your data limits at home. You have areas with poor mobile coverage so mobile broadband is not an option.
Can you watch Foxtel on the go yet? Sky here allow you to remote record programs on their Sky + app while you are out and there is a Sky Go app where you can watch Sky coverage on your phone so you won’t miss a match when you are out. Sky Go works on your computer so if you commute a lot and travel with work you can still get your moneys worth. The pic is good too.
September 15th 2012 @ 11:03am
Working Class Rugger said | September 15th 2012 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Thanks for the correction. Nobodies perfect. Not too bad for an article I conceived, wrote and submitted in under 15 minutes. Mistakes were always going to be present. Regarding download speeds in Australia, I think that relies heavily on your provider. Through my ISP I can easily watch streams in real time without any real need for buffering.
September 15th 2012 @ 11:29am
Atawhai Drive said | September 15th 2012 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Minor mistakes don’t undermine the credibility of your argument, WCR, one that I found particularly interesting and persuasive.
You’re right, some ISPs are much more equal than others. I’ve been happy with Internode for many years, but maybe I need to shop around a bit (or even see if Internode has added better plans than the one I’m on). Cost is a big factor, of course.
September 15th 2012 @ 6:24pm
IronAwe said | September 15th 2012 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
I would absolutely pay for this. No hesitation. Most if my friends stream their rugby already anyway. They either dont get channel 9 (live well down south and reception is not good, but internet is) or they simply hate channel 9, or they cant afford foxtel. There are plenty of sites providing this already, SANZAR might as well get a slice of the pie.
If you cant stream, for reasons of poor internet connection or whatever, provide the game the next day or later that night to download and watch at your leisure. Wonderful, fantastic, idea.
September 15th 2012 @ 7:02pm
Pete said | September 15th 2012 @ 7:02pm | Report comment
Its very risky at this stage. If they go to this model and it doesnt attract enough revenue, then they are in deep trouble. They don’t have cash reserves to risk it as anything but a sideline in my opinion.
200 million sounds attractive, although a bit high imo since the ratings don’t support these sort of numbers (I would think Australia would provide 100-150k subscribers max). Even if they got that, there would be significant costs from producing and streaming the games, as well as increased marketing and opertaional costs. So it may not end up that much ahead of the current deal.
So I think its better the devil you know until streaming is more established in SANZARs key markets.
September 16th 2012 @ 3:15pm
klestical said | September 16th 2012 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
WCR,
This is the future of broadcasting, where sports will be almost ‘Twitter-like’, where people can subscribe to their channels, or ‘App-like’ where people will download the Super Rugby App..It is similar to what the NFL already does with their ‘GamePass’ where users pay a bit over $200 for complete internet access to all games, all analysis, all commentary etc.
I think you have also underestimated the potential rewards. The growth of rugby (and internet usage) worldwide means that there are worldwide fans of rugby, which exist outside the Home and SANZAR nations. Your idea should absolutely be looked into as there are many users that are rugby fans, yet are unable to view any of the games.
However, I also agree with Pete in the above comment, as completely switching over to this new strategy is a huge risk. What I would argue is that this should complement the current TV deal, rather than completely take over it. Perhaps this should be available only to countries outside SANZAR (so as to not annoy the broadcasters too much)
What I would argue is that Super Rugby adds this internet model, in a similar method to the NFL GamePass. It should be seen as a significant opportunity with an international, rather than domestic focus
September 16th 2012 @ 3:33pm
Trouble Ahead said | September 16th 2012 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
One thing is right in this article. The tin is just about empty.