So an SBS poll determined 46 per cent deem it is lack of free-to-air television coverage as the main factor for the problems of the A-League. Daylight was second. It’s a clear democratic mandate for the way to go.
Winston Churchill, our war-time defender of democratic society, said if you want a problem solved, democracy is the worse system around, and the biggest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Thanks, Winston. So do we have it right?
Would free-to-air actually boost things?
Netball was on free-to-air and I didn’t see it set the public ablaze. Basketball was too. I have pay television and the A-League hasn’t really caught me and I’m already a football seeker.
It may seem an extreme argument but do we actually want the mass public seeing this product just yet? When they see tiny crowds and dull atmospheres they may prematurely conclude the sport a joke and turn off the idea rather than become involved. No, that’s silly, is it?
The runner up was low crowds, pulling 20 per cent. It’s a bit like which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do you need free-to-air for crowds or crowds to get free-to-air?
The sale to Foxtel was a huge financial contribution to the league, that is undeniable. Without that money, the financial problems would have been a huge problem before now. The game needs that money.
Fox paid big because they assumed the A-League would be a huge success. Well that’s all changed. Will they pay big in the future? This is business and they may actually offer less for it next time given the current trouble decreasing demand.
This could be a God-send for our 46 per cent, for if the price drops it will become more attractive to free-to-air. I can’t see SBS coming up with the required funds even with a drop in price, forget the ABC altogether, which leaves us with the commercials. These lot are not ones to stick their necks out.
Even the huge appeal of the EPL was never flirted with.
But the new ONE HD may be the great hope. They seem intent on Fox-bashing judging by some recent moves.
This could be the way for maintaining television cash revenue, a bidding war between ONE and Fox. If this doesn’t evolve, the options may be limited. And it may not evolve because ONE seem obsessed with and have the AFL.
You might say a copy of the AFL/NRL model would be the best outcome; games on free and Fox pick up the scraps. But commercial stations pay big for these sports because the support is already there. The chicken came first and they know that chicken will lay eggs.
Is this the same for football? Would free TV go for it, would Fox go for it? If the price falls would a combination of these lowered revenues be equal to what the FFA have and need now?
Insisting the sport goes free-to-air may provide as many questions as answers, and could paradoxically damage the show. Maybe Winston was right after all.
I hope not. I’d like to see it on free-to-air.
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
In the current financial climate, and with as many clubs struggling as the A-League has, they are playing a dangerous game holding out too long... if fox are prepared to pay a bumper premium, we'd be mad to turn it down. you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
RobD
Guest
Just to be clear, Churchill actually said that democracy was the worst form of government except all of the others. Slight difference..
jimbo
Roar Guru
Fox Sports are under threat from all sides - FTA, new digital FTA stations, T-Box, X-Box, PCs, IPTV, Other global sports pay TV, the new Anti-Siphoning list. They are not interested in selling the Socceroos or the A-League to FTA or anyone else while they still have a contract with the FFA. Fox have offered FFA five times what they are currently getting for exclusive rights for another 5 years, but the FFA hasn't agreed.
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
as far as distancing themselves from the traditional "Old Soccer" prejudices, yes... but the reality is that the NSL was semi-pro at best, facilities were sub standard. Without a large cash injection, you would never have been able to set up sleek, modern, professional clubs that we have now... distancing themselves from the worst aspects of "old soccer" in this country. Look how hard South Melbourne have pushed for both of the Melbourne A-League franchises... we would have ended up with a situation like the "New NBL", wait a minute, all the teams are the same as the "Old NBL"... We'd all be standing around admiring the emperor's new clothes... OneHD now have a highlights program, and are generating interest in football in thier own right... If they are going to be showing Bundesliga, Seire A and Liverpool and Arsenal games (albiet not live), it is in their interest to get more interest in the game, getting them better ratings. Yes, I completely agree that the FFA needs to be more proactive in this regard, but what i'm trying to say is that the money that bankrolls the game comes from fox. OneHD won't be able to put in the same amount of money that Fox can, they are set up on different financial models... for advertising to pour the money in, the game needs to be able to generate the ratings first. It is very much a chicken before the egg environment. the correct solution is to drip feed the A-League to a commercial network, generate ratings that way... but we could be looking at a 20 year process, you're not going to get the rapid expansion of the game that we've had through FTA...
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
Yes momentum was building, but it was only building behind the Socceroos... This translated into absolutely no increase of interest in the NSL... If the 100,000 that turned up to the games in 97 and 01 went to South Melb/Melb Knights games... Aussies are very open minded when it comes to big ticket, one off events... support week to week we are actually very conservative, hence why it is so hard to break the AFL/NRL duopoly. Yes the EPL was on SBS, but outside of the highlights show and unless you were a Man Utd or Arsenal supporter, it might as well not have been on. the coverage pales into insignificance compared to what Fox now broadcast (all 360 games shown live). Frank Lowy was the visionary, but lets be fair, he's one of the richest men in Australia, you know that people become that wealthy by sloshing the cash around... The deal with FoxSports was in place long before the A-League kicked a ball, long before Guus was appointed. The fox money was the catalyst that took the momentum behind the socceroos and turned it into a full blown football movement in this country...
Phil
Guest
I think the A-League needs to be on free-to-air and so do the Socceroos. There are many people who can't afford Foxtel and I am one of them.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Art your internvetion was not needed - I had already apologised to axel for getting it wrong (about what the Matlidas won) - but equally, I'm merely mentioning that there are a host of other sub-confederation regionally based tournaments - which was Axel's original question - keep up please.
jimbo
Roar Guru
The A-League is proving very lucrative for Fox especially the overseas sales - it is now shown in over 100 countries around the world. That's why Fox were prepared to go to $60M a year for 5 years in exchange for exclusive football coverage in their latest bid to the FFA.
jimbo
Roar Guru
Asian Cup a question mark, Mister Pip Football? The 2nd highest rating PayTV program ever was an Asian Cup game - Australia v Japan QF in 2007. The highest ever rating Fox Sports program you ask? Australia v Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan? Yes - Asian Football WC Qualifier 2009. No doubt Socceroos Asian Cup games would rate well on FTA too.
Axel V
Guest
thanks Whites!
moo cow
Guest
There might not be that many people attending matches but once people actually know of their existence which FTA hopefully willm and a marketing campaign is effective such as "Are you a Melburnian? Then come support the Heart" (yes it sucks but I'm no advertising genius) nevertheless something along those lines which advertises the sport well and get people to watch will mean some more people will want to go to the matches. I truly believe crowds can be triple what they are in the first season of FTA if this is done right.
Mick
Guest
It needs FTA but to what level, who knows? All socceroo games are marketable, even the Asia Cup qualifiers, you just have to charge the right amount on tickets to ensure a full house, which the FFA did not do on the last lot.
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
It's definitely not a black and white decision of course…. If it was my money involved I would be a lot more cautious. As a fan I it’s quite easy for me to be emotionally invested for the next 10 years so I see the benefit of another tough 5 years for the owners so that in 10 years the competition is much stronger. The owners can’t be so sure of there position given Con was the last of the original owners.
Midfielder
Guest
Black The media deal in five yerars time will be as much about interrnet TV and streaming... IMO the next media deal needs some FTA ... enough to get noticed but not over expose... and have it where FFA change change a schedule around to suit the FTA match... eg you match maybe scheduled for Sunday afternoon but if yo get selected for thr FTA friday night match ... your match schedule needs to change...
Black Diamonds
Guest
Don't deny its needed in the long-term, but medium-term (ie next TV deal) it might be very tricky to arrange. At the end of the day this is what the folks at the FFA are paid for, so good luck to them, but its not an easy decision.
Art Sapphire
Guest
Wrong again Mister Football - The Matildas won the AFC Womens's Asian Cup and qualified for the Women's World Cup in the process by being in the top 3. They did not win a regional (ASEAN) competition. In fact we hosted the AFC Womens's Asian Cup back in 2006. This is the list of nations that participated in 2010 AFC Womens's Asian Cup in qualifying and the finals. JORDAN, UZBEKISTAN, KYRGYZSTAN, PALESTINE, MALDIVES, MYANMAR, CHINESE TAIPEI, THAILAND, UZBEKISTAN, IRAN, VIETNAM, HONG KONG, JAPAN, DPR KOREA, CHINA, AUSTRALIA, KOREA REPUBLIC
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
Obviously it's all relative unless and depends on a lot of variables like the $$$ involved or which network and what time slots. But as a rule yes I think it is worth it for the A league teams to sacrifice TV money in order to increase exposure. The product on the field is good enough that they should back themselves. Even giving up 50% of the FFA dividend (less than 2m a team per year and made up of sponsorship and TV money) too each club would be worth it as far as I’m concerned because otherwise there going to have to spend that money on promotion anyway. Is FTA worth 1m a year in promotion to a club? I think it is because as it stands with Fox reaching plateau in subscribers I don’t see how the current set up will allow clubs to find any new fans. When the German league put more games on FTA attendance and sponsorship increased even in the short term. But really for the long term it’s needed.
Whites
Guest
Household television ownership: 98% of the population Subscription TV subscribers: 34% of the population http://astra.org.au/pages/stv-in-australia If most of the highest rating PayTV shows are live sport on FoxSports it's highly likely that 20% of all households have Fox Sports. http://www.mcn.com.au/Channels/Detail.aspx?IdDataSource=15#panelProfile
Mister Football
Guest
BD all good points, which brings us to: 1. people should stop believing that the AFL became popular just because it was lucky enough to grab a TV deal - it was popular first, going all the way back to the 1860s, and the TV followed afterwards (obviously); and 2. it's a warped logic that you can get the FTAs to show your game to help you - there has to be a value proposition - there must be value there for the commercial FTAs, if the value isn't there - you can forget about it. First and foremost, they will show your game if there's something in it for them.
Black Diamonds
Guest
For those arguing that the A-League should be on FTA - fair enough. There is a point worth discussing here though. The AFL sacrifices revenue to ensure its product is on FTA in Sydney and Brisbane. As part of the overall package, the AFL forces these channels to show it FTA in these markets, and as part of the contra to that, the networks pay less for the rights to broadcast the AFL elsewhere. Given that. Are those saying the A-League should be on FTA prepared to push for the A-League to receive a reduced amount of money in pursuit of FTA coverage? Is that productive or counter-productive for the A-League? At the present stage, I would say it is likely counter-productive. It takes time to build up a following on TV - FTA networks don't like to do this groundwork one little bit (Witness AFL again - and witness FTA NRL coverage in Melbourne - non-existent because the NRL aren't prepared to reduce the size of their TV deal to get it on Melbourne FTA) Looking at the clubs at the moment, I hardly think it would be in interests of the clubs to reduce the projected TV revenues to secure this FTA coverage. How many more clubs would end up on life support?