Fifteen years of Fox Sports: Football on top

You must excuse some of us Melburnians JVGO, as Fake ex-AFL Fan mentioned the AFL uses "advanced mind control techniques" and any attempt to argue or even suggest that an NRL game (Melbourne Storm) might get a bigger crowd than an AFL game in Melbourne must be quickly eradicated and the perpetrator educated as to how great the AFL really is! How dare the Daily Telegraph be downright hostile to AFL??? I suppose that's not unlike the Herald Sun is downright hostile to the A-League where the only time it makes the paper it's to ridicule the "most violent" supporters or how Muscat chopped another player on the field, but hey, just don't knock the AFL otherwise you'll get told!!

Err...well said Womabt! :-P lol

Midfielder. Fair point, You raise the point of say a top spin lob, or a forehand volley or the player looks uncomfortable going into the net. My point being their is no level of true diagnosis of sport anymore,remember the old days where people actually new what they were talking about. Nowadays their are kids under the age of 27 on Fox with bleached teeth that can only rattle of scores I.E. 6-4, 6-2, 6-3,. I know dont watch it then.

Wonder what it would cost to keep all games on FTA, share it over a number of networks. Do not know what the point of pay tv is, maybe to show cult sports like NRL.

I'm not sure you go far enough with this analysis Fossy. I believe that in order to develop a true picture of TV audiences we should apply a 'Soccer fan wish fulfillment index' (SFWFI) to all TV audiences for sport in Australia. When we consider the vast numbers of people who watch AFL and NRL solely because of the advanced mind control techniques used by these competitions, and factor in the massive number of soccer fans who would / could watch games if not for the various obstacles put in their way (i.e. the weather, jobs around the home, wife watching repeats of Poirot), the figures look much better for our game: Average A-league TV audience 2010: 15 thousand Average A-league TV audience with SFWFI applied: 75 million I think we'll agree this is a superior analysis.

Bondy The lack of media folk who can talk about football is nothing new .... however the same folk find it difficult to talk about any sport other than their chosen ... most media folk depending on your state are AFL or NRL.... so ask about a swimming stroke or a back hand top spin in tennis .... same problem.... has been the complaint by many sporting bodies the media promote and employ the sport they pay the most for... This is the hand we have been deal with ... no use complaining simply don't watch .... go to 442 or the Roar football forums...

you said: "that’s why they pay them $100M a year." they don't, just pointing it out for accuracy.

I purchased my subscription just before our first tilt at the Asian Cup. But what strikes me with those figures is why cant anybody on Fox Sports News talk about Football, they don't know the game ,dont understand the game and pretend they watch it. Perhaps that could be subject matter for the future if in summer and you work on T.V. ( cable ) and dont watch A League football why should they be on T.V.

Moonface, You are obviously anti-AFL because you just ignore any counter arguments that dont fit your own thinking eg the Bledisloe Cup number for Pay TV is pretty good considering it was live in NSW,Qld and ACT on Channel 7. The Socceros provide a one-off hit during the World Cup qualifiers (ie every 4 years). When the next contract means the Socceroos have to be on FTA (although that mightnt be live), we'll see how much money Fox pays for it. You dont quote the A league numbers which might make interesting reading...

The digital rights pushes it over $1 billion with ease.

$100m per annum is not a bad deal for half the rights. With competition for the other four matches a round between the other networks, could provoke some hefty bidding. $1b definitely still on the table especially with Finals football yet to be decided.

NRL is doing well on paytv surprised Eels vs Cowboys it was a cracking game to those who watched it made number 4 not too far off from the soccerroos games. it's unfortunate that rugby league doesn't have a bigger international profile if it did it be in a better position than is now. Shows that despite the idiocy of the admin and lack of forward thinking league can still get it done. PS: Storm deserve to be shown live in it's own state if Suns/Lions & Swans can be shown live despite terrible ratings and countless advertisement than the Storm deserve a fair share of the saucebottle.

Extremely envious ! IMO.

Do you have any sources for the international viewer figures? With that sort of audience don't you think the FFA would have got a bit more TV revenue or does Fox have rights to on sell the content without paying royalties to the FFA?

I have forgotten another point . AFL watchers have to commit 2.5 hours to watch a game whereas NRL followers have to commit 100 minutes. I have included some of breaks in the time because perhaps this is why the FTA networks are willing to pay more for AFL even though the numbers watching the the respective codes (in the main week by week competitions) is about the same (give or take depending upon who is talking) allowing for the NRL's 26 rounds and the AFL's 22? rounds.

$100 mill per annum, or $20 mill per game comes to around $909,000 per match (assuming 22 rounds). 22 rounds x 5 games x $909,000= $100 mill per annum x 5 seasons = $500 mill

Foxtel does have live access to 4 games a round. However its also not completely exclusive as under the rights agreement matches featuring non victorian sides MUST be on FTA even if they are foxtel designated. Foxtel paid $315.5 million for 5 years @ 3 live games, live main event coverage into NSW/ACT/QLD on Friday, the right to replay every game and finals. The payment consisted of $50 million per year, rising by 3% every year, and an additional $10 millioon a year in contra advertising annually. At no point does this add up to 100 million a year