Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced the bulk of his new strategy on sports media broadcasting and the anti-siphoning list.
While the NRL and AFL continue to enjoy protected species status on free-to-air television, the A-League didn’t even get a mention.
The Socceroos fared a little better and now all Socceroos World Cup Qualifiers must be shown on free to air, before they can be broadcast on any other media.
This is added to the FIFA World Cup matches and the English FA Cup Final, which are the only other football content to have made the anti-siphoning list to date.
There have long been arguments about whether showing the A-League on free-to-air will actually boost the popularity of the league or not. The old NSL was shown on SBS but that never really caused it to take off significantly.
When commercial stations bought into the NSL, they showed the games at ungodly timeslots until surprise surprise, with no viewers they were pulled from our FTA screens.
Others might argue that if the A-League was shown on FTA, particularly a highlights package or game of the round, it would help to promote and ultimately grow the league’s popularity.
Well, the Communications Minister has made that decision for us – A-League games don’t have to be shown on FTA in Australia.
The other controversial outcome of the new deal is that the Minister will have wide-ranging powers to determine how many AFL and NRL sporting matches are broadcast on free-to-air television, under proposed reforms unveiled yesterday.
The reforms will give Senator Conroy the power to declare quotas for the number of games broadcast on free-to-air TV, versus subscription TV.
“For example,” Senator Conroy said, “the Minister may declare that an eight-match round of the NRL premiership season is a quota group, with a quota number of three. This would mean that subscription television broadcasters could acquire the exclusive rights of up to five matches of this round.
The new anti-siphoning laws also give Senator Conroy the power to “declare” a sporting event be listed as a “Tier A” or “Tier B” event, and the coverage obligations of broadcasters showing them.
Events in Tier A include “nationally iconic” events such as the Melbourne Cup and “football” premierships, but not including A-League premierships.
Tier B refers to “secondary regionally iconic and nationally significant” events such as Australian Open non-finals games, but again no A-League or Asian Champions League games.
.
Tier A games must be televised live on FTA TV.
And, for the first time, Twenty20 cricket matches involving Australia and played in Australia will be on the anti-siphoning list, as well as Twenty20 World Cup matches involving Australia.
But if you want to watch the A-League, Asian Cup or Asian Champions League matches on FTA, you’re going to have to wait to see the outcome of negotiations between the FFA and the media companies later this year to see whether they will be on FTA TV or not.
asanchez
Roar Guru
I think we can get $60m per year from Fox and maybe FTA combined. Not sure about your $80-$100m predictions, but let's hope your right.
Lucan
The number of people in my area who need to reserve time at the public library to use PCs and access the internet would boggle your mind. Many homes don't have the internet, and of those that do, many would struggle to maintain accounts which provide adequate speed and download limits to make streaming of live sports a viable alternative to TV. Some of us are very much fortunate. But bear in mind there's a good percentage of the population who aren't.
David Jones
Roar Rookie
I'd think most people already have a PC and internet access, so that shouldn't be additional to. Fox is proprietory and you have to pay to get it installed - as well as the regular ongoing costs
Lucan
Just like Foxtel, internet access (especially at high speed + decent download limits) can be quite expensive for some people. Folk on pentions, students, etc. A $2 flag-fall to watch a game online is all well and good, but consider that people may need to have a $50-$100 per month contract with their ISP before the $2 suggestion is an accessible option.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Totally agree that the price of watching football in Australia on TV is far too high and the sooner we break the Foxtel monopoly the better. Right now it costs football fans around $8 per game to watch every HAL & National Team game and, quite frankly, this is ridiculous. In particular, a significant number of HAL fans are students & adolescents, who do not have access to Foxtel unless their parents pay for it. In my opinion, at the most, it should cost $3-$4 to watch 90 minutes of entertainment in your own home and the internet provides a platform for new entrants to compete with Foxtel for the broadcasting of football in Australia. I expect the FFA to directly - or, in partnership - sell pay-per-view HAL football to Australia for around $2 per game = $284 per season, which is $1000 less than the fee charged by Foxtel to watch HAL football.
PeterK
Guest
Yes, without PayTV, I LOVE to watch the W-League.
PeterK
Guest
Lucan, I prefer to be more responsible for my own self. Get governments out of it -- and if I want protection, I certainly don't want a government trying to provide it.
PeterK
Guest
MattF, I agree re the affordability. I choose that for me the price of PayTV is too high, but I recognise that if my life depended on it, I'd certainly find a way to afford it. Governments should leave these matters to the market to decide!
PeterK
Guest
I am one who decides that the price of PayTV is too high for me, and I would dearly love for FTA to be able to get at least a Match of the Round for a Monday night -- after whoever has shown all matches live has done so. However, I also believe strongly in free enterprise and think the siphoning and antisiphoning stuff should be put into a Garbage Bin -- governments inevitably mess things up when they get their sticky fingers into them. Yes, let the free market decide the price and who gets it, even if I have to miss out.
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
There's little doubt that if the A-League was on the anti-siphoning list that TV revenue would decrease substantially. Fox is the main network with any substantial interest in showing it. Hard to see any of the commercial networks showing any interest, meaning you're left with the ABC and SBS duking it out for the rights. And the Socceroos can rate, yes. However, without the ability to show ads, their value to FTA is a lot less than Pay TV. Fox is needed to drive the price up. But in any case, the Socceroos ratings are highly volatile, and are by no means certain ratings winners for most qualifiers. Matches in the World Cup and Asian Cup finals are of course unable to be sold by the FFA.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
TC Why do you think Fox would want to negotiate a new contract with the FFA - 3 years PRIOR to the end of the existing contract? Do you think Fox wanted to lock in a new price for broadcasting FFA content b/c Fox felt delaying the contract negotiations would mean: a) a higher price in the future; or b) a lower price in the future. If you answer (b), the obvious question is: do you know of any rational businessman, who prefers to spend more to buy a product rather than waiting for a lower price in the future?
The Cattery
Roar Guru
I'm giving the version of the story that I've heard on these sorts of forums - that Buckley was offered a small fortune, he didn't take it, and many feel he has missed the opportunity - that's the story that you hear pedalled. Did this happen? I don't know - but I am saying that there are a number of versions of the story floating around, especially as it relates to the amount offered.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
No sensible person, who has a modicum of business knowledge would think the HAL's value has plummeted. With club sponsorship across the HAL far greater than it has been in the past, it's clear that savvy businessmen are well aware of the true value of being associated with the HAL.
ItsCalledFootball
Roar Guru
That's the 60 million dollar question cliff. Do you take the Fox deal and shut out FTA for another 5 years or do you take a bit less from Fox in the hope of getting a bit more from FTA stations. If A-League is on FTA, more people see it - wider audience. If they like it, more people attend games and buy merchandise - more revenue for clubs and FFA.
ItsCalledFootball
Roar Guru
I think you are wrong that the value has plummeted, especially if we still have 10 teams or more next season. Despite all the Palmer nonsense, ratings and crowds have increased this year by about 30% compared to last year and is aproaching the peak again. Too many football insiders have commented on the Fox deal for it not to be true. What evidence do you have that it isn't true?
ItsCalledFootball
Roar Guru
Sorry TC, misinterperted what you said. You have a foot in each camp which is a dangerous thing and your comments can be ambiguous and taken as cynical. It will be interesting to see what happens now and if we have 9, 10, 11 or 12 teams when the contracts expire in Spetember and the new deal is negotiated. After all the Palmergate goings on and more court cases to come, will Buckley go back and accept the 60M a year. Or will we have 12 teams in 2012-13 with GCU resurrected, Canberra and West Sydney.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Harold Mitchell has since admitted that he got it wrong, unsurprisingly. What Itscalled and Fussball and I are talking about is a story that did the rounds about two years ago about Fox offering a king's ransom to renew the rights for another 5 years and supposedly Buckley turning it down, only to now see the value plummet - but I have trouble believing that Buckley would turn down such a quantum - if it was truly offered, and given the different amounts that have been reported, it's hard to take the story seriously.
Qantas supports Australian Football
Guest
asanchez-----my apologies my memory was a bit skew-with---it was Harold Mitchell (media expert) who said the Football rights would be worth $100m per year by 2013 if Ben Buckley handles things properly.. http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/jesse-fink/blog/1053310/Will-Buckley-show-us-the-money
cliffclaven
Guest
I have had fox for seven years to watch the HAL. The current deal is what about 120 over 6-7 years. If you could double that for the same period and remain on Fox then i think that would be good to stabilize the finances of the game - including the HAL. We can be more bullish after that.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Contract Negotiation 101 In any market, if a BUYER wants to lock in a new contract BEFORE the old contract expires, the clear indication is the buyer desperately wants your product and wants to lock in a price today because he/she thinks the price TODAY will be better than in the future. By contrast, in any market, if a SELLER wants to lock in a new contract BEFORE the old contract expires the most obvious reason is: the seller thinks he/she will get a better selling price TODAY than in the future. This fundamental principle of "price uncertainty in the future" is the basis for the whole derivatives industry. So, Foxtel's desire to lock in a price of $60m p.a. suggests to me a buyer, who is keen to lock in a price rather than wait for the future; and, Buckley's rejection of the offer suggests to me a seller who expects a better price in the future for football broadcast rights than $60m p.a. To give another example ... suppose I own an airline and my biggest expense is fuel. Now, if I were worried that the price of fuel will RISE over the next 5 years I'd try to negotiate a new fuel contract to lock in prices today. However, if I thought fuel prices would fall in the next 5 years, what's the motivation for locking in prices today? In any negotiation it always pays to see who blinks first. It seems Foxtel blinked 2-3 years before the FFA.