Free-to-air sport is not viable

I currently have Fox (strictly HD and Sports) and it's value for money. Cannot wait for the NAB Cup on Friday and Super Rugby soon :)

We had Foxtell, paid extra for Sport (to get more choice of AFL games), but were not able to watch certain games, because we live in Victoria. The AFL, or Foxtell, or both, decided that interstate subscribers could watch these games, but we couldn't, beaurocratic mongrels that they are! There was one game (can't remember which) that was even 'free to air' on the Gold Coast, while we weren't ALLOWED to see it down here! When the contract was up we cancelled our subscription, for this and a list of other reasons, and wouldn't have pay tv again, unless we were given the chance to CHOOSE WHAT WE WATCH, rather than the AFL, or Foxtell, TELLING US what we'll see. Maybe that's why they're called Fox TELL.

Axelv At the moment Channel Nine lock away the rugby league in Australia to the so called AFL dominated states and lets not forget how we in the east lost the last half hour or hour of each Ashes match from the west thanks to some higher rating news service. They are only able to do this thanks to protection of the ant siphoning legislation. As mentioned elsewhere, FTA Networks are dieing and I cannot wait for the day when I can watch what I want, when I want.

@mds1970 What you fail to mention is that the FTA TV networks in Australia LOSE money from broadcasting AFL (and I presume the same LOSS occurs from broadcasting NRL) notwithstanding, the "advertiser-friendly" (supporter unfriendly) viewing experience in sports where the play stops with boring monotony each period. Of course, it is totally irrational for any business to intentionally pursue business that consistently loses money, yet FTA TV broadcasters to do so. It has been reported that Channel 10 loses over $1m per week from its current broadcasting of AFL matches on Saturday and only makes a profit for the 4 weeks of AFL finals. That is, each week, the advertising revenue obtained by Channel 10 for broadcasting AFL is over $1m LESS than the money Channel 10 paid for the broadcasting rights. Over and above this loss, Channel 10 loses even more money after it pays for all the production costs (cameras, commentators, etc.), which are estimated to be about $200k PER AFL game. So, it is no wonder Channel 10 has washed its hands of broadcasting AFL and the shareholders of Channel 10 can be satisfied that the new management team is finally behaving rationally.

I just wish Foxtel would release a sports only package. None of that General + Sports crap. A Cheep fox 1,2 and 3 plus fox sports news, and extra for espn etc if requested. I think it would sell. That said fox wont do it because it would be too popular and they would loose money from all of those people paying for Fox8 that they dont watch, just to get the sports channels. I dont mind the idea raised about foxtel linking up with free to air channels to show "Fox presentations" on delay with add's, possibly a friday night CH7 AFL, CH9 Monday nite NRL, TEN Saaturday night A League, Big bash on a sunday etc . Benefits the free to air channels, bemnefits foxtel who get ppl watching things they show each day on paytv. Wont happen tho.

And the other thing axelv people like you have to get used to is pro sport is exactly that professionalism it is a business all those good stadiums, elite training facilities , super athletic human beings are not for free. making money is what pro sport is about , and producing a good product for the fans but the fans do have to give a bit of money and they willing do with the EPL an example people , like a movie will pay to watch it and if it is to expensive they wont and the movie producers will have to drop prices so people watch . the world is capitalist and money whether we like it or not is part of life 1 has to get used to it, and these pro sport orginaztions give in relaity money back to the fans by putting them in nice stadiums, fantastic camera technology, grate players, it is a 50/50 relationship. money is here to stay for ever in this world.

Premiership football in England formerly known as Division 1 was on it's death knells before Murdoch came only with Sky. Poor crowds, crap facilities which had to be upgraded, lack of marquis overseas players (well gone the other way now). There is a big pub culture in the UK where there a lot of pubs with people packed watching the football so if you don't have sky there is somewhere nearby that will. The collaspe of ITV digital (ITV is a terrestrial network for those who haven't been to the UK) stuffed up a a lot of lower league clubs financially. They get exposure because of Sky coverage. The big clubs even have their own channels.

So has the EPL soccer died aXELv it has just got bigger, and is the biggest soccer league in the world all thanx to pay tv dominated market, and they do make it affordable to the masses, unemployed people have pay tv.. The seri A was slow off the mark with pay tv and hasn't recovered. The NFL and NBA, the NHL, . Pay tv brings in the revenue, to build modern stadiums, better quality more professional training facilities which equals more higher standard players, and a better product otherwise the free to air only sorts organization would fail to pay the big bucks for players they'd al join the pay tv aligned sports organisations. plAYERS ARE NOT LOYAL ONLY LOYAL TO MONEY who pays them the most they are greedy, get used to it sport is capitalism and market forces take over and the fans run the show this way to , not the other way round where dictator style ARL and nswrl ruled and cricket Australia. and if the product is crap or to expensive and the fans wont pay it will go down and be cheaper market forces working again.

Ya but the majority of it's viewership and success is thanks to Free to Air. Lock it away exclusively to Foxtel and those codes will slowly die, the most loyal fans will stick by (that can afford it) but the overall interest in them would drop. People aren't interested in something they can't follow or keep track of.

In AFL you're mostly looking at plain grass during play(outside of the players), for Cricket you watch batsmen scratch their bums, for Football there are sponsorship boards that are viewable (many of them) for the majority of the game at the top of the pitch which is mostly in view thanks to the zoomed out camera. E.g During the European Champions League, Sony Playstation, Heineken, Mastercard etc come into my mind from remembering those boards that are imprinted on my mind. Did you take this into consideration? Team shirts also receive money for sponsorship, the more people that look at it the more it's worth.

AxelV rugby league has thrived they make good money out of the tv deal, same with afl more money to by tv rights. and if the govt gave pay tv total control like the epl THERE WOULD BE EVEN MORE MONEY AS PEOPLE WOULD IF THEY LIKED sport would have to pay for it, so more money comes in and the product gets better and we can pay for all those fancy stadiums like in the epl, and top our best rleague union players going overseas. and to be honest it is a constrait on trade.the govt does not own sport the fans do. A sports orginzation is a private group who sell a speicifc sport how dare the govt tell them they cant be on pay tv if they want.it is there money sport is owned by the fans , if the fans like it they will pay for it if not the sports orginzation may be forced to put it on free to air to survive,or reduce pay tv subscriptions. its like telling a car company they have to make a certain amount of small cars, or telling a clothing company they have to make a certiain amount of winter clothes, talk about socialism, and just plain ridciulous. Players love pay tv as they no it will generate more money for them, pro sport is a business not a charity and they deliver a prodduct if you the fan dont like it and enough dont then u put them out of business, thats how capitalism works, and the govt should but out of telling them how to run there businesses. Super league was formed out of players wanting more power, and a private company news offering them more money, and super league won in the end coz the arl new it needed to merge back and accept foxtel and new limtied in there lives to survive. and dont think the ARL cared any less about the players than Super league, they only cared about there own jobs being lost. and world series cricket was founded on the same princibles, more money for players and more money for big bussiness and a better product for the fans. sO ARE PLAYERS GREEDY CAPitalists to then, probably and it is there right to be, pro sport is a busniess not a charity or amatuer sport,and should not have there desire to make money be restricted us like any other free market business, and if players dont liek 1 league,new ones are formed eg IPL that offers more moeny than the controlling cricket australia for example And pay tv channels are way better for sport, you get better camera angles, and channels dedicated to sport not awnsering to other shows , eg haveing to leave cricket to go to news.free to air is not the publics friends blokes like eddie mcgauire just porbably dont like pay tv coz they would be out of a job, they dont care about being un australian there like Qantas or the harvey norman bloke only concerned about whats in it for them , lots of money, well stuff them.

The other driver for FTA, related to ratings but a seperate indicator, is advertising revenue. Cricket will do well on that score, as an ad break can be seamlessly inserted after every over and at the fall of a wicket - so there's plenty of revenue-earning opportunities for a TV network when showing cricket. AFL also does well on that score, as an ad can be inserted after every goal. Rugby league does OK with having an ad after every try, but not so well as AFL. Football/soccer is disadvantaged on that score - the continual flow of the game, although one of its attractions, isn't so compatible with commercial FTA TV, as there's no logical place in which to insert ad breaks during play. When the AFL pulls in higher value for its TV rights than the other football codes, that's a key factor. Not only does an AFL game go for considerably longer, but the number of ads that are shown in a FTA AFL telecast is considerably higher than in a FTA telecast of other sports. Although the ratings for AFL in Sydney are often terrible, FTA TV is willing to show it when the local teams are involved, as there's no shortage of advertisers who are willing to pay for the timeslots; and plenty of opportunities for the station to show ads. Personally, I'm not a big fan of ads. I'd rather have a telecast with a longer and more detailed pre-match and post-match analysis, no ads during play, and which won't cut off to go to the news or another program if the event runs overtime. I'm willing to pay for that.

Most people here seem to be pro pay tv as they already have Foxtel. If you like being in your little exclusive club fair enough. But if you want football to succeed, how is pay tv going to do that? Can you name one growing sport that has thrived on Pay TV?

If free to air tv were to die off in australia i can guarentee you there wouuld not be alot of people at there funerals lol . Sorry i would not miss eddie Mcgaurie or fatty or sam newman. Eddies latest show , i have already forgot was hopless . Free to air in australia spins the, unAustralian QANTAS argument we are australian don't let foreign airline sin BS . While you QANTAS rip of the regular aussy bloke and his family, or the the Harvey Norman bloke saying we the consumers are unustralin not to buy there good and shop on the internet. Okay lets pay double for the goods so you can be a billionare how Australian are you MATE. And while were at i cant wait for cost co to get big in Australia, to knock Coles and Woollies of there high horses, flamin mongrels.

1. They have to show those matches live or there is no point in paying for them. They usually come on Foxsports around 11pm. Never watched OneHD are they just showing recent round matches or classic matches from yesteryear? 2. That was always going to be the case given how much Ten splashed out on AFL, BB and Aus Idol. 3. See my post above about poor time zones. 4. Budget 5. They might get better personalities when the whole country changes to digital however the historic mainstream Channel 10 channel will get priority.

Australia and America have the worst time zones in the world which doesn't suit international sports coverage on FTA tv. FTA only suits local provincial sporting comps like the AFL and the NRL which can be shown at prime time and filled with ads. F1 and Wimbledon were shown on delay on FTA because of news and current affair coverage plus they had to show CSI or the Footy Show before the tennis started. Even with the delayed coverage they were skipping parts of the race to show ads. That failed because Foxsports had live coverage with results and the internet has real time score updates. 7pm on the east coast in the USA is midnight in London and god knows what time it is in Australia then probably when everyone is at work. the Ashes coverage from Australia in the UK started at midnight with the day's play finishing at around 7am. So people missed out on watching any cricket at all because of Australia's time zone. Super Rugby won't work on FTA in Australia because the kiwi games which kick off at 5:30 pm eastern time interferes with the news (how often do we see cricket coverage stopped because 9 won't delay news coverage even though their shows run late a lot) and the Saffie games games are on at 1am or 3am (which is lunch time in the UK). The games in Australia can't be shown live against the gate as no one will turn up to the games (FTA ratings are capital city based). the night games from Australia and NZ kick off at around breakfast time in the UK which is perfect as you can tape the game and have all day to watch it (and sleep in) with plenty of time to go out and do things. Where as when we watch sport from the UK it kicks off after 11pm which pushes it out of FTA prime time and ratings will be hammered. SBS used to show Premier League games but obviously the ratings were low because of the time zone and the rights costs couldn't be justified. the Premiership has early kickoffs but no FTA staion in Australia would buy rights just for that particular match.

Korea has the best broadband and the world and there seems to be in excess of 200 cable channels. There is also an on demand station provided by my cable company that has a massive amount of TV shows and Movies (more than a DVD store). Network TV still dominates and makes plenty of money. They are the masters at giving the general populace what they want. That said 9, 10 and 7 are pretty hopeless so competition would be a good thing but they wouldn't die if there is some competency at the top. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.

The advantage of pay tv over free to air is you can have dedicated speicalist sports channels, where everyone focuses soley on sports, you dont have to have annoying things like leaving the cricket at 6PM for news while it is still exciting, or other excuses as they dont have to comprimise with other tv shows, get the pre and after match analysis if you want it, and just an energy when you watch that the pay tv sports channels are devoted to sport and thats all.

Personally I am over it. You can just buy or knock off what you want off the web these days. Keep doing whatever you are doing tv networks, your heading the same place as AM radio no matter what you do!

All I hope is that they continue to show NFL games live. The rest I am not bothered about.