News that Football Federation Australia are considering splitting their TV rights deal, to ensure one game a week on free-to-air TV, shows they value the importance of exposure.
While the FFA risk their revenue from Foxtel being reduced, they realise the value gained by having free-to-air exposure is worth as much, if not more.
Football has always suffered since it went exclusively to pay TV for both Socceroos and A League games, effecting cutting off its exposure to the masses (envied by all other footy codes).
Yet the FFA had to cut that deal at the time for the money, in order to keep the professional game alive in Australia.
Australian rugby was never in the same turmoil that football was, but has been just as beholden to pay TV since it funded the conversion to professionalism in 1996. Old habits die hard and the filthy lucre is hard to give up.
The problem to many is that rugby has been withering on the vine, exposure-wise; its main competition Super Rugby can only be seen in Australia on pay TV.
Meanwhile, AFL and rugby league are prospering, with their wall-to-wall exposure on free-to-air.
While there had been noises and rumbles about some free-to-air coverage for Super Rugby, the current TV deal – which commenced in 2011 – has seen the most free-to-air exposure for the code since the initial deal in 1996 (which, from memory, Seven botched or didn’t stick with, or both).
Mind you, that free-to-air coverage is nothing more than a regurgitated Fox Sports highlights package, around midnight on Channel Nine.
The FFA is looking at SBS – the traditional home of football in Australia, and the FFA knows it – showing one game a week. This shows exactly the type of thinking (or, in the case of the ARU, probably an epiphany) that Australian rugby needs.
Times have been tougher recently, thanks to the International Rugby Board’s poor handling of the World Cup and inbound tours for the southern hemisphere (you’d never see the Six Nations get mucked about the same way).
But the ARU needs to bite the bullet and realise it needs to get its product out there.
While this is complicated by being part of SANZAR, the next TV deal for Australian rugby absolutely has to have some free-to-air coverage, along the same lines as the mooted FFA/SBS deal.
They could allow a simulcast with Fox and cop some less money, but they must get a game on free-to-air.
Friday night, Saturday evening, Sunday anytime, I don’t care; we need Australian rugby out there selling itself.
It doesn’t even need to be game of the round (because that would affect the revenue badly); just so long as it is an Australian side playing (although Aussie derbies would be even better).
Mr O’Neill won’t be here for the next TV deal.
But the ARU (hopefully in Commission mode by then, thanks to the Cosgrove-Arbib review currently underway) needs to take off the tweed jackets, step away from the buffet, roll up their sleeves and cut a deal that best serves Australian rugby as a whole.
It might mean sacrificing the second serve of saveloys, or that second assistant kicking coach, but it’d be worth it.
jmacredie
Roar Rookie
They should do it in NZ too. FTA games would be great. Just 1 a week and at a decent time.
nomis
Guest
Well, I love the idea Bay. If there was any way at all, it would do the game so much good. With the conference system, there is an Australian derby almost every week. It's all about a FTA station seeing it's potential and making something of it, to compensate for the drop in revenue from Fox. Imagine a Friday night game. Friday night RL has really helped to entrench it as part of the culture. There's no doubt SR would also make further inroads.
Munter
Guest
Just a thought, SBS can be viewed via FOX so they already have a relationship, why not get SBS to take over the highlights package from ch-9, maybe show a repeat of the best game of the week? see how it rates.
Blake
Guest
Foxtel delivers great coverage of the rugby and is the SOLE reason I have foxtel membership. FTA coverage of union in the past has been absolutely woeful. There coverage of the 2011 RWC was terrible!!
Justin
Guest
Its the former and thats why foxtel is involved. Without them we would be a breeding ground for European clubs and be in the same position as soccer.
p.Tah
Guest
I agree Foxtels rugby coverage is very good. Channel 7s and 9s attempts in the past have been woeful. ABC and 10 have been the best of the FTA networks.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
I'm pretty certain that in the early days of the Super 12s there was at least one game per round on FTA.
p.Tah
Guest
It doesn't work that way unfortunately. The game needs the money.
p.Tah
Guest
Fair enough about a game causing a revenue drop but surely they could have tried to get the weekly highlights program on at a decent hour. Midnight on channel 9 is pointless.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
You have to answer the question - do you run rugby union for the benefit of rugby union, or for the benefit of Foxtel ? If its the former, then tell Foxel how it's going to be.
BigAl
Guest
It certainly would be interesting to have the source for the claims here. As pointed out by Yikes (above), the offers by Foxtel drop enormously for anything short of exclusive coverage.
glacier
Guest
There will be 14 Wallabies' internationals this year on FTA which is great exposure for rugby in anyone's language. Only Socceroos' World Cup qualifiers will be on FTA with the rest still on Pay TV so I think rugby comes out on top on this regard. The Wallabies are the 'shop-window' of Australian rugby. Foxtel does a terrific job with Super Rugby and deserves to keep its exclusivity as long as it pays appropriately for it.
PeterK
Guest
As a roundball enthusiast I do so hope you're right about the FTA for one game of the A-League. Do you have a source for that? Rugby IMO would be wise to consider what you propose. FFA surely should be able to persuade Fox that they can have a little free advertising on SBS by releasing one game a week to SBS to be replayed maybe on a Monday night or some such. Fox retain all live broadcasts, and get a bit of free advertising. SBS get lots more eyeballs of such as me who don't want anything to do with Pay TV while it's anywhere near the price it is (when ALL I want is my football!)
Yikes
Guest
The problem is, contrary to your implication it wasn't even considered, ARU tried to get one match per round on FTA in the last broadcast deal (even on delay). The potential $ amount from Foxtel dropped ENORMOUSLY. The shortfall was not even close to being made up by the $ offered by the free-to-air network in question. Fox wanted exclusivity, full stop. We're not talking no-second-kicking-coach reduction, we're talking just-not-feasible reduction. And I assume the Fox operators have factored in the usual assumptions about how some FTA might grow their Pay TV audience. They clearly just think it's a load of rubbish, unfortunately.
Emric
Guest
The ARU has to consider how much money it would lose for this. It would also have to consider how a channel like 9 or 7 might treat the product once it has the contract tied away. Take a look at the complaints streaming from the mouths of our Rugby League friends about how their product is treated by the TV stations. Rugby in Australia does not have the same pulling power as the other sports.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
Thanks for bring this up BayXXXVPablo, Perhaps an argument can be put to Fox that this move would have marketing benefits. People who have forgotten they enjoy Rugby may start with the FTA product and then move up. To placate the bean counters perhaps an hour delay allowing some editing to fit it into a time slot. Our sponsors need to involved in the negotiations to guarantee advertising slot pick up (cannot be avoided). But more importantly the calls have to be casual viewer friendly, not incessant esoteric hard nut Rugby backs v forwards jokes, whinges about refs etc. The package could also consider school and club results being scrolled across the bottom of the screen to indicate just how widely the game is played. A weekend afternoon timeslot is probably the best to pursue. JON should be in on this at the strategic level, does he have Ruperts email or number?
Sailosi
Guest
Unfortunately Aussie rugby needs the cash otherwise they could potentially lose maybe 50% or even more of their best players overseas. I know this is similar to soccer but our best players already play overseas and it is seen as somewhat advantageous for them to play overseas from a standard and development point of view. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.