In mid-2011, the news reported that consumers (not fans) had “reason to celebrate” as several corporate giants signed a deal to secure television rights to AFL.
It was worth over one billion dollars (that’s a one, with nine zeroes after it).
Every news site and mainstream media outlet has offered some form of commentary on what this means for fans (in fact, they really mean consumers).
The reason why I write “consumers” rather than “fans” is that fans carry too much baggage as far as televised AFL is concerned; calling them “consumers” rationalises the economics behind the deals and makes it easier to brush aside fan-atical concerns.
For example, if fans ran the deals you would probably see all AFL games broadcast live in each state. If fans ran the deals you would probably see more AFL coverage online, on blogs, forums and independent coverage. You wouldn’t see the same game being simultaneously televised on free-to-air and pay TV at the same time, which is an oddity in itself.
Alas, we are locked in. Corporatism has prevailed.
According to Webster, corporatism is “the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction”. In other words, we are locked into having elite representative bodies make our decisions for us.
These “representative” bodies, unfortunately, also include our elected government. I do not understand why a nine-figure TV-rights deal does not negate any right to more government funding? Perhaps the government would be better placed to re-allocate AFL funds into the ABC so that “non priority” AFL games can be shown there live?
Let me put this analogy forward. If you earn around $30,000 a year you receive government benefits such as low income earner benefits (or low tax rates). If you have a family and you earn $70,000 you get family tax benefits or education rebates. At some point, as your income gets higher, the government cuts these benefits from you because surely – after reaching a certain point – you are able to look after yourself.
Has not the AFL reached the point where it can be weened off the breast of government? I have a simple, yet contentious, Darwinian proposition that will solve this dilemma.
Let any television station air any game it so chooses at a weekly base-line cost to the station as determined by the AFL.
Yes, that’s right; any station can show any game.
It might even mean that the same game is broadcast on five different stations! But it would be a bit mystifying if all 30-odd current digital stations bought the same one game. The heat would certainly be on stations to come up with a cracker team of Commettis, experts and revered analysts.
This means that fans such as myself, who do not reside in the same state as their team, will have more chance of watching their team live. Indeed, it could actually result in niche marketing of AFL games where fans can have alternate viewing options rather than being stuck with the usual televised heavyweights.
The station with the greatest coverage, commentary, facts and figures will prevail over the others. In typical Darwinian fashion, the others will compete and will win or drop away by natural attrition. However as others drop away, they could still remain at a niche level or could attempt a specialised coverage of the event.
In essence, the fans should decide who prevails.
As an AFL club member, I was never consulted about the television rights by the corporate elites. They only have the final dividend as their concern. This will ultimately be to the detriment of the game whereby people such as myself will have to take up watching lawn bowls on the ABC (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Monkey
Guest
I agree. Every game should be shown on free tv; nuff said.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
The WAFC pay almost no rent for Subiaco - not really practical for a stadium in desperate need of an upgrade. West Coast have at last report $20 million in the BANK so the WAFC arent exactly poor. Adelaide Oval is going to be no different. The days of being gifted land and stadiums are gone.
TW
Guest
MM, That is correct and that is exactly what the WA Footy Commission is very worried about - The financial basis/return from the new stadium. The WAFC gets a very healthy return from Subi ATM which helps underpin WA footy. And the other point about the new stadium - There will be a WA State Election next February and if the Barnett Liberal Govt have not signed any contracts the Labour oppposition said recently if they win Govt they will build it next to Subiaco Oval (Pattersons). The current Govt is a minority govt - So anything can happen. It aint done and dusted yet folks.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
MM who has built every other stadium in Australia that all the major sports use? I can't speak for all, but at least I can say that: 1. the AFL built Etihad witih zero Government funding, and has funded the refurbishment of the MCG, and 2. has made significant contributions to recent stadiums like Carrara and the Showgrounds - something that is not done by any other sport in Australia.
Consumer
Guest
Ive read this article a few times now and still cant make sense of it, i dont know who this Britton character is but he sounds like he has far to much time on his hands..... Maybe lawn bowls woul dbe a good option for you after all?
Morris Minor
Guest
In WA the government is basically paying for the building of a stadium (about 1 billion dollars I think). The AFL will then "rent" the stadium - I hope the rent is high!
Jaceman
Guest
If fans ran the competition it would be the VFL still in Victoria only and NRL would be in every other state...
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Well said Wookie - I have no idea what this article is on about. What does he mean by: Has not the AFL reached the point where it can be weened off the breast of government? When it comes to funding statiums, governments are generally begging the AFL to take part - because they know AFL games will pay for it.
TomC
Guest
Agreed Wookie. This is a really strange article.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
Here we go again. Government funding? Would you be so kind as to point out government funds which go to AFL initiatives - and not stadiums that arent owned or operated by the AFL. And what in hell does this have to do with broadcasting? Oh and state leagues evidently pay for the privelige of having their matches on the ABC. If fans got to choose ALL platforms would have games live and uninterrupred by advertising. What your proposing here isnt darwinian - although it would qualify the AFL for a Darwin Award - it would be televisual anarchy. Support a low drawing club? You'd never see Port, North, Bulldogs, North or Melbourne on TV. Every channel would be Hawthorn, Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, Geelong. Every goddamn week. You seem to be saying theres a lack of coverage? Are you seriously for real? In AFL states the media wont shut up about the sport. Theres any number of blogs, tv programs and websites devoted to discussing the sport - including the one this is posted on. Indeed its likely in Australia that NO other sport has the coverage that the AFL does and you think fans dont think this is enough? As of this week we have blanket coverage across Mobile, Internet, PayTv and FTA - something NO other sport in Australia comes close to at this time. Try telling a soccer or league fan we dont have enough coverage. Any station can bid for any game or games - its a compettive tender process that has seen ALL major networks show footy at some pooint in the last 10 years - hell even Foxtel will even allow them to show it at the same time. You get to see what you see in your state as a result of antisiphoning legislation that mandates that home teams outside of victoria are prioritised. Broadcast rights pay for everything the AFL does, the rights are the lifeblood of any sport. Without them, sport goes back to amateur status, stadiums are for crap, and players are paid in peanuts. No one wants that. And for the life of me I still cant figure out what you are going on about Government funding for.