Central Coast Mariners players (L to R) Tom Pendeljak, Matthew Simon and John Hutchinson sit dejected after loosing 0-1 to the Newcastle Jets in the A-League Grand Final in Sydney on Saturday, Feb. 24, 2008. AAP Image/Paul Miller
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which is the driver of football in this country, the game itself or is it as a result of the Fox Sports cash injection?
The common consensus seems to be that we need free-to-air coverage to solve the A-League’s problems, but there is a certain naivety in this.
As in any start up, capital is the key. It costs money to run fully professional clubs. This extends beyond merely a professional playing staff, but also includes backroom staff, training and playing facilities. It is this side of the game that has truly been revolutionised since 2005.
One fact remains; this costs money.
Despite what people think, businesspeople don’t invest in black holes. Who’d heard of Sheikh Mansour, Roman Abramovich or the Glazer family before their high-profile takeovers of football clubs? The prestige and publicity attached to the ownership offsets the outlay. Sadly, the A-League model does not providing this upturn to justify the cost. The existence of a salary cap really takes out the benefit of this kind of ownership model, this isn’t a bad thing though.
The FFA/A-League should be issuing grants to cover the salary cap. By distributing money to cover the cap, you are never left with a situation whereby players aren’t getting paid. This was the worst part of the Newcastle Jets issue, the A-League’s credibility has been built on the solidity of its management and finances.
So, where does this leave us in regards to FTA coverage? The cold hard reality isn’t great. FTA is driven by ratings, higher ratings equal bigger advertising dollars. The interest simply isn’t there to generate the ratings required to generate the money that the game needs to run sustainably.
Fortunately for both the AFL and NRL, their popularity was cemented long before the television hit our shores. The culture was established, facilities in place. The TV deals have allowed them to move to the next level. Between the two, they have a captive audience in Victoria, NSW and Queensland. More than half the Australian population. This is pure gold, and worth top dollar.
Unfortunately for football, we are starting from scratch. As a game, we have been steadily been building momentum since 1997, but prior to that, to paraphrase the late Johnny Warren, it was the domain of “sheilas, wogs and poofters”. We have had to carve out an existence from nothing but a belief that there was interest brewing at the grass roots level. What the game needed was a huge injection of capital to act as the catalyst to really get things moving and put the wildly unpopular NSL into the past.
Enter Frank Lowy and Fox Sports.
Frank Lowy took the game by the scruff of the neck, but he isn’t bankrolling the game. He never has. A brilliant businessman, with all the contacts, his ability to bring Fox Sports to the table, squeeze a good, long term TV deal out of them, has bankrolled the A-League and led us into a new age for football in this country.
Make no mistake, without Fox Sports we would not have the A-League. It’s a simple reality. The money they put up was a sign to people that there was a change in the game in every aspect. Without it, we would have had existing NSL clubs putting together new business plans to meet new requirements, but really nothing would change. All the stigmatisms regarding “old soccer” would still be in place. If you don’t think that this is the case, look at the radical revolution that basketball is currently undertaking, the “new NBL” looks an awful lot like the “old NBL”, doesn’t it? Something is definitely not right with the emperor’s new clothes…
Fox Sports aren’t innocent. They have exploited the anti-siphoning legislation. Only the FA Cup and World Cup are covered for football, and sensing the growing popularity of the Socceroos, they grabbed to opportunity to offset the risk associated with the A-League. As far as Frank Lowy was concerned, it was a fair trade. Six years on, I think the mere existence of the A-League shows that he was correct.
Fox Sports’ monopoly of the A-League is how they can justify stumping up the cash, cash we need in the game. Why would we jepordise that? Weakening Fox Sports’ stake won’t be offset by gains in FTA. The game is more valuable to Fox Sports than it is to a FTA network.
The A-League is now established, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves, it’s still in its infancy. The MLS, J-League and K-League are all 10 years ahead of us, but experienced similar problems at similar times. We still need the Fox Sports cash to bankroll the game for another 10 years at least.
The FFA needs to do a better job of marketing the game, and we should have a strategy to take the A-League to a FTA network in some capacity, but caution is required. An extended highlights program would be a good place to start. It would protect Fox Sports monopoly of the game, and the subsequent cash it generates for the FFA/A-League, but drip feed domestic football to the wider public.
The FTA networks need to come to us though. We can’t be seen to be crawling to them begging, it shifts the power from us to them. If they are not going to add value (in dollars, which is what we need), then don’t do it. It’s not beneficial to the game.
If Fox Sports can guarantee the future of the game for the next 10 years, then we’d be mad not to take it.
You never bite the hand that feeds you.
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
Conceptually I agree with you, but my conern (hence the article) is that by moving the "blue ribbion" aspects to FTA, where they need big ratings to generate the income that the game needs, it cheapens the product for FoxSports, where most of the money came from. I remember a few years ago during an AFL TV deal process, Ch7 planned to buy up the rights and simply assumed that foxtel would be happy enough to pay top dollar for the "least desirable" games each week. Foxtel (who due to anti-siphoning leg. cant negotiate directly with the AFL) threatened to walk away, meaning that ch7 were over committed financially. in the end 7, 10 and Fox came to some arrangment. But it highlights why STA is the uncomfortable bedfellow in the relationship. And considering that football desperately needs cash to develop the game, either to prop up struggling clubs in thier infancy or to pour money into developing talent at a grass roots level (which we were all complaining about 3 years ago), we need the cash
Adam
Guest
The biggest problem that the A-League has is Euro snobs, plain and simple. The FFA has to work harder at getting grass roots players interested in the game at home rather than abroad.
Lu
Guest
Channel 9 paid top dollar for NRL NRL is their flagship sports event no coverage in south or west Channel 7 Paid top dollar for AFL refuse to show any games live unless it's a sell out. Virtually no coverage in Northen states by both channel 7 and 10 This is FTV's attitude to the most popular sports in Australia.. what do you think they will do with the A-league?
Millster
Guest
Good thanks Middy, Actually just back from Parc des Princes to see PSG play Nice (unfortunately 0-0), and then a few wines over dinner after. Needed them to get over the learning the Liverpool-Blackpool result - I'm not a reds man but it is a stunner/shocker. And yes, to your post, it does strike me that ACL may be good 'initial' FTA especially as it has the Aust v Foreign dimension that give the games a little more appeal to the neutrals. Plus mid-week sports content has less competition and is probably quite handy for broadcasters.
Midfielder
Guest
Milly Great to here from you how is France...I hope all is going well in your world.... Good article Danny … my reading of the Tea Leafs is less is more… We have numerous products … Internationals, Asian Cup, A-League and in time a FA cup… I think we should lead with our strength and show the Internationals … however spread them… Assume Ch 10 Socceroos along with Fox, Matildas ABC (they are doing a good job with the women’s game), Under 23 & U 20 to SBS & Fox… The ACL I would show on both 10 & Fox… The A-League 1 … (or 2 at best games only) on 10… The rest on Fox… The cold hard facts the A-League is not ready for FTA as yet… What I would like but is some kinda agreement between those that broadcast the game and related coverage… so Fox would be required to give say 50 to 70 minutes of their footage to 10, SBS & the ABC… as would SBS be required to give 10, Fox & ABC their highlights…
Reveen
Guest
Your timeline is incorrect. NBL started airing on Fox Sports at the introduction of STV to Australia in 1995, with the league continuing its presence on free-to-air TV with Ten (until 2000) and later the ABC (early 2000s) plus additional live coverage provided by selected regional affiliaties up until 2004, when finally Fox Sports assumed exclusive coverage for the first time. Fox broadcasted the league continuously from 1995 to 2010.
Millster
Guest
I was very interested in Rusty 0256's post before and it gives me a further thought. I am reminded of some of the ideas of Palmer, Sage, Travotenko, Lord (and I'm sure now Tinkler) - the major owners in the A-League and significant, successful businessmen in their own right. I particular I refer to their call for home games not to be broadcast live into the home city of the club. Thinking about this before, I've wondered how Foxtel would achieve it even if they agree. Because we all know that Foxtel's model is to have one universal programming structure shown nation-wide, without even allowance for time differences. So a delayed game on Fox is potentially troubling not only in the period when it would have been live, but also to whatever 2 hour timeslot it has to take over. You all know where I'm going with this... why don't Fox and Ten/One make the delayed 'home' game part of the FTA sampler that we are envisaging, rather than putting it later on Foxtel? So on Rusty's proposed Monday 7.30 to 9.30 timeslot, in a particular centre, we would have the highlights plus panel on weeks when the home team was away (and therefore shown live on Fox) and we would have the full match replay when they had played at home, with perhaps the hour of panel after. So people only utilising FTA would get a cross-league view every second week, and on the alternate week their home team's game delayed but in full. The main questions in my mind in relation to this would be how to deal with TV regions that have more than one home team - though Victory and Heart would probably never play at home on the same weekend, nor can I imagine Sydney and Rovers/Wanderers clashing on a weekend either if/when that ends up happening. All other teams are in their own TV regions I think (my only question mark is Mariners). More generally I agree totally that a move to FTA should be done in small steps and it would be counterproductive to move the whole league across. I also agree with the basic notion that we owe the league's existance to Fox, and they deserve to be part of a win-win into the future. Good article.
Mister Football
Guest
Strictly speaking, they are both FTA networks - but your point remains the same. It may sound harsh, but any sport that ends up on a publicly funded network these days may as well rely on government funding for its very existence for the remainder of its days.
Brett McKay
Expert
Mr F, Danny, this was exactly the scenario that played out in the latest SANZAR dealings for Super Rugby and Tri-Nations starting from next year. It was widely reported that Ten/OneHD were massively keen to take up the FTA component of the broadcast rights, including one live Australian SR game each week. It would have been a fantastic chance for the Australian rugby to build on its small FTA footprint. But in the end, the ARU stuck with Fox Sports, who made it clear that by not having exclusive rights to SR, they didn't see the value nearly as high, and thus would not pay the same amount. No doubt, the ARU would argue that by taking the extra funding in the short term (and subsequently with the FTA rights going to Nine, who will show a weekly highlights show), they can help build the case for getting Super Rugby onto FTA in the long term...
Dale
Guest
There are two important things that need to be remembered about FTA coverage 1) The benefits are uncertain, increased exposure can result in higher crowds and increase the value of sponsorship but that result isn't guaranteed. 2) The majority of the benefit will be received in 5-10 years into the future, there is no point building brand recognition if your brand will not exist in three years time. A-League clubs are haemorrhaging cash now, will be something around $40 million between the 11 clubs this year. The A-League need immediate cash flow and certainty, something only STV can provide.
zach
Guest
For people actually attending matches the A League is the top soccer competition in the country. But on TV it is a different story - the EPL is the premier comp for those watching from the comfort of their couches. For them the A League will always be second fiddle or lower. From a TV point of view, it's like comparing it with the AFL and the VFL (and other state leagues). The VFL is a good competiton, with many AFL quality players. It is broadcast on FTA on the ABC and attracts a healthy but modest audience. The thing is that the ABC doesn't pay anything for the rights, and commercial stations certainly wouldn't, because most football fans will watch the AFL on TV in preference because they have the choice. Some people watch both and this would no doubt be the same with soccer fans, but not enough to make it commercially viable. This is the problem the A League has with TV rights and it is the same problem basketball had.
james
Guest
Even if the a-league somehow managed to go on FTA, there are other issues the FFA and the a-league need to look at. It needs to connect with grassroots football, try turning registered players into members or supporters of the a-league. Also try and connect with asia as far as commercial opportunities is concerned. Frank Lowy keeps saying that asia has two-thirds of the worlds population and is trying to justify Australias bid for the world cup. Maybe Lowy should be using that statement to the a-leagues advantage.
Mick
Guest
SBS spend more time on oz & a-league football on Monday nights than fox on Tuesdays which i only watch once a month as fox do not know the game exists outside of england. Fix the matchday $%^& that supporters have to put up with to getter better crowds. FTA tv is going to do stuff all when you have you can't fix basic issues such as kids not being able to bang on the fence at the game, let alone the more difficult issues such as fixturing
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
The FoxSports deal is for exclusive coverage as opposed a fixed number of games. I have heard that OneHD have been trying to purchase a game a week from FoxSports, but they (FoxSports) aren't interested...
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
But again, what happens if Ch10/OneHD secure a new AFL deal, and perhaps get in on the NRL deal too, all of a sudden we're playing 3rd fiddle? I don't see any of the mainstream network channels showing the A-League, so that only leaves OneHD, and don't kid yourself, they'd leave us high and dry if they could show a better rating event in our place. It is the nature of FTA.
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
I think that people are underestimating just how valuable the exclusive nature of FoxSports' deal for the A-League/Socceroos actually is. My concern is that at this point in time, going to FTA isn't going to expand the value of the league as people think it will... increasing the crowd average by 1000 a game at every game is great for the number of people we are bringing through gates, but the extra income generated won't offset the downturn in TV revenue due to losing FoxSports' exclusivity
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
Sorry Timmuh, but this attitude regarding basketball and STV is driving me crazy... That isn't how it went down... Basically, at the peak of it's popularity, the NBL got massively greedy in it's TV negotiations, and Ch10 walked away from the table, nobody else - not even Fox - was prepared to pay the ridiculous demand of the NBL... the game ended up on the ABC where the game was starved of cash, and withered and died. Five years later, Fox realised they could pick the game up cheaply and use it to fill a Wednesday timeslot. The game was on the way out long before it went anywhere near STV...
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
SBS & ABC are public broadcasters and not FTA networks... Despite everything SBS has done for the game over the years, economically speaking, we will want to avoid them like the plague... There is no money in public broadcasting. The game being exclusively on STV is better than a public broadcaster...
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Why didn't the FFA sell the 5th game to FTA when they went from 8 to 10 teams? (genuine question, I don't know the answer)
james
Guest
You still need to have a FTA component. Don't forget when fox did the deal at the time, there were only 4 games a week with 8 teams, and it is more likely there will be 6 games a week with 12 teams. So you should have at least one FTA game a week. It won't hurt