There have been a number of articles and comments written recently about whether the next NRL TV deal will reach the magical $1 billion. The arguments for and against have been largely written by two groups of stakeholders with differing biases.
There are those from the code war corner who fear what the NRL could do with a more money behind it. They argue without cause or provocation that the NRL cannot reach $1 billion dollars.
Their arguments usually do not sit well with league enthusiasts who see their analysis as shallow and skewed analysis.
On the other side is the league tragic. They are often fixated too much on what their competitors are doing, and use this as a barometer to gauge what their TV deal should be worth.
They ignore all the inherent governance and internal issues that are holding the NRL back and instead focus on the NRL’s position as the number one TV rating sport in Australia as the reason why the game should be the top earner.
For the record, I often sit in the latter corner, and admit that I am frustrated at times with the limited finance the NRL has at its disposal.
What it comes down to when we sift through all the rhetoric from both sides is that the NRL is only worth what one is willing to pay.
And in this we are left with the big tangled mess that is the current NRL ownership structure. Is it any wonder the NRL is being underpaid when its primary negotiator is its parent company?
While it is true that the ownership structure has been a major roadblock at the negotiating table, the other big influence has been exclusivity.
Exclusivity has been the reason that Channel 9 has hoarded Friday night games, restricting viewership into new territories. This has not only restricted the NRL’s ability to grow its brand, but has hurt sponsorship and other commercial opportunities.
Exclusivity has been the reason that rugby league lovers have not been able to watch decent coverage of Super League for the last three seasons. It has also been the reason that Test matches are not watched in all Australian markets.
Exclusivity gives a safety blanket to a network, allowing them to pick and choose their programming knowing full well that another network cannot capitalise. To date we have seen the self interest shown in markets like Victoria, where our supposed network partner is more interested in protecting rival sports than growing brands which it has the rights to show.
This is both counterproductive to growth and devaluing to our sport. There is no premium that a network can give that can justify exclusivity. All exclusivity does is restrict market reach.
It is this mistake made in our last TV deal that will make it difficult for the NRL to achieve significant growth in any new deal, if they persevere with the same structure (that is, one free-to-air network with exclusive rights, plus Fox Sports).
This is because under our current structure, the NRL has been unable to determine its true worth, and poor viewer numbers in non-strongholds are a major roadblock for the NRL.
The NRL has a real opportunity here to re-engineer the way sports are viewed in Australia. The internet is where the NRL can significantly grow its product and brand. It is also where it can maximise its revenue by reaching a global audience.
The NRL should retain all intellectual property and production rights and build on the league internet channel both here in Australia and abroad. This platform would show all games live and be subscription based.
They should then offer free-to-air rights to three NRL games per week, State of Origin, and internationals. These games would also be available live on the internet platform.
Fox Sports should be offered the same package as it has now, without the exclusivity rights, given content would be shared with the internet platform.
The value of both free-to-air and Fox Sports rights would shrink in the initial stages as the relevant parties objected to the loss of exclusivity. This however would be more than offset by the value with which would be generated from the internet platform.
If produced and marketed properly this has the potential to dwarf any of the current dollar numbers being splashed around, as the NRL will retain all advertising and subscription revenue associated with their platform.
When you do the sums and look at the NRL’s potential market reach both here and abroad, the potential is staggering.
The other benefit that it will have is that it will give free-to-air TV a better understanding of the NRL’s real worth and market pull in Australia.
This is because the NRL will have the capacity and platform to invest heavily in extending its market reach, and the subscription and viewer base will be there for all to see, not skewed or restricted because programs are not shown in certain markets.
Over time this will rebuild the value of free-to-air deals and allow the NRL to maximise coverage and value via all media platforms.
Now is the time to act if we want to grow our game. One thing is for certain, if we maintain the status quo everybody in league circles will be very disappointed come the conclusion of this next TV rights negotiation.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Then why did you write it in the first place?.Attention seeking? trolling?Or to stir up interest in a stale thread?Or to start a code war?
Phelpsy
Guest
Hence the AFL push for the gay market - big incomes and big spenders. I'll wait for the obvious response
Phelpsy
Guest
Not sure if relkated but there was an article adding up all RL viewers a year or so ago and it counted SOO, Internations, and Toyota Cup - and compared this to AFL and included the NAB Cup. It had the RL figures as higher but I question why they didn't count the VFL on the ABC in Victoria and the SANFL and WAFL (if shown in these states on ABC) and Tassie's comp in Tassie. So I guess people can mix and match the figures how they want - I mean it has only been recently that the cry from NRL fans to include regional areas - but of course only those in QLD and NSW. In the end, I think the people who know, the TV execs, will decide.
Boomshanka
Guest
Remember you read it first in "the roar", but even the media are now starting to make noises. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/opinion/siphoning-still-tied-up-in-red-tape/story-e6frg99o-1226256696171 "A new version of the law is needed not least because, some claim, at the moment the AFL's $1.25 billion, five-year deal with the Seven Network, Foxtel and Telstra is invalid."
Boomshanka
Guest
And true to form, Channel Nine have decided that repeats of Big Momma's House, City Slickers Two, and Antique Roadshow will suffice for the Melbourne market instead of the NRL All stars game this coming week. This game is not on the anti siphoning list and is shown outside of "the ratings period". In simple terms, it should be on - not hoarded! The silence from the NRL is the biggest concern here by quietly allowing its so called "broadcasting partner" Channel Nine to screw the game. The puppet administrators of the game, along with the Channel Nine programmers in Melbourne should be lined up and shot.
The Link
Guest
For a sport with primary markets in NSW, QLD, ACT and Auckland, NRL punches well above its weight on TV. Anything north of 900m will be a fantastic result for the NRL on the next deal, not sure whether this would require expansion or not.
tiger
Guest
really? the last time i checked the act and new zealand arent part of nsw and qld. the nrl also has a decent following in the northern territory.
tiger
Guest
the hours the sport goes for isnt as relevant as you make it out to be, otherwise the cricket tv contract would be worth $10 billion. it is also completely irrelevant in relation to pay tv.
Boomshanka
Guest
The use it or lose it clauses are in the same proposed legislation changes that also see the AFL get their pay tv deal legalised. The days of free to air rugby league into melbourne being delayed until after midnight are either over, or the AFL deal is unachievable. The first bounce is 24th march, and legislation changes are required before then. The pressure is currently on Conroy to deliver for all sports fans in the southern capital.
Not Really
Guest
But if its the same people watching each of the 3 hours then adding, multipling, finding the derivative or whatever black magic you want to apply means nothing. So unless you can come up with some links to respected studies or research saying that being exposed to three hours of advertising in a row is signifigantly more effective then being exposed to two then your "calculations" aren't worth squat Redb.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Boomshanka, Nice link, and it does show it might be quicker than expected (but theres also the question of would it scale if 50 000 people download the same stream, but thats a network engineering question). In any case, anti-siphoning legislation has nothing to do with what Channel Nine does with the League rights ; if you want to force them to show it when they dont want to, write it into the contract, just like the AFL does.
Boomshanka
Guest
Ian The technology is already there and being used with www.livenrl.tv However as the blurb says, LIVENRL.TV is only available outside Australia and New Zealand, with the live service only available in areas currently not covered by one of the NRL's International Broadcast partners. It can be worked around with a proxy server (but its a hassle to configure and not for mainstream). There is a balance between pay TV and free to air that the sports holder would naturally be aware of and hence reality dictates that free to air programming will get a guernsey. (For example New Zealand cricket went down the 100% pay TV option a few years ago before realising it affected grass roots support and attracting players. It now strikes a happier balance.) We don't need Sentator Conroy dictating what we can and can't watch depending on where we live or what sport we enjoy. The present situation where rugby league is hoarded outside of NSW and QLD is a disgrace. Watch this space as the AFL deal as it stands today is not enforceable and requires parliamentary changes before a subscription TV provider can hold rights to a listed sport. Conroy needs to get off his arse and enact changes before that descends into a pile of the proverbial.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Boomshanka, Firstly, streaming something for nothing is much simpler than arranging billing and payment systems. Secondly, having your product exclusively on pay-tv isnt a completely good thing.
Boomshanka
Guest
There was only ever one serious buyer for both subscription and free to air TV with the AFL and look at the value they achieved with a sport that has limited appeal outside its heartland.
Boomshanka
Guest
The NRL / ARL IC currently own the rights. It should not be for the government to dictate where and who they sell to. Unfortunately as it stand at the moment thanks to protectionist legislation, they have to sell to Nine, Ten or Seven. IPTV could be set up fairly quickly and efficiently as has been shown previously with the IPL; http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/20/youtube-live-indian-premier-league (YouTube confirms worldwide deal for live Indian Premier League cricket IPL games to be streamed live on YouTube in every country except the US – calling into question the value of TV rights)
The Cattery
Roar Guru
the top link is a ripper, highly recommended reading
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Johnno, No it doesnt - not if the money just flows straight from the NRL to the clubs to the players. If the NRL needs, say, $100m to get NRLTV off the ground, it doesnt have that.
Johnno
Guest
If the government changed the anti siphoning laws to have it exlusive on pay tv, the NRL could charge more for the right. And also as Ian mentioned solve the problem of the IPO, and get dividends form that as well.
Paul
Guest
The real problem in negotiating a new deal is the NRL are 2nd Cab of the rank after the AFL and there is only 1 Buyer!. Until there is a competing pay tv broadcaster we will never know who rates the best or is worth the most.
Slinger Ant
Guest
This old chestnut about TV numbers picked up by trolls. Let the league forum pages use whatever method of TV they want and vice versa for the seagulls chasing a chip game. Good article, lets hope the NRL can milk the most out of bleeding edge technologies for the next TV deal.