With both the AFL and NRL securing lucrative broadcasting deals with Seven, Nine and Foxtel, the question will soon be asked: what is left for rugby among the scraps?
Considering the surge in viewership witnessed since the enactment of the current deal (somewhere in the realm of 30%), SANZAR could and should be looking for a significantly improved combined TV rights agreement.
Well, in theory anyway. From an Australian perspective, with football also chasing an improved media deal, we really must question whether much will be left in the major broadcasters’ kitties for rugby.
It’s a question that really needs to be addressed, and possible alternatives must be devised. It would be safe to assume that once again Super Rugby will be confined to Pay TV, something many have decried throughout its existence, with free-to-air coverage seen as the vessel through which to expand the game’s reach.
However, money talks, and as a code rugby has had to take the surest bet. Pay TV is the platform which has sustained the game since the inception of Super Rugby.
Having said that, the world of broadcasting is changing at an ever-increasing rate of knots. There is no better example of this than IPTV (Internet Provided Television).
The concept of IPTV isn’t new. In fact, we can look to some of the largest sporting competitions overseas for guidance. Even the NBL in Australia has recently developed subscription IPTV content.
How many of you only subscribe to Foxtel for the rugby? How many of you have been annoyed by the price? You and I have a lot in common.
What if you could watch the entire Super Rugby season for a comparatively poultry $200? Would you seriously consider making the switch to IPTV?
Here’s what I have been pondering.
We are lead to believe that the true value of the SANZAR deal is in the former Tri Nations, now The Rugby Championship. Fair enough.
Thus the question has always this: how do we garner more interest in Super Rugby, hence developing the value of the code?
The conference system has been the most significant attempt at achieving this, with pleasing results. But we have yet to determine exactly how much value it has added.
I think IPTV is worth a look. SANZAR and its partners could develop a channel based on, say, a $200 12 month subscription (less than $17 a month).
Are there enough rugby fans across the SANZAR nations to make this idea work? Perhaps. If a million viewers subscribed it would yield an average annual income of $200 million.
Sound like great value? It does from my perspective.
There would also be an opportunity to include Argentina in the deal. By creating an even, four-way split, we could further integrate Argentina into the fold. There could even be a chance to create our own alternative to the Heineken Cup.
The current Super Rugby format could conceivably split into four distinct competitions, with South Africa getting its Currie Cup, New Zealand its ITM Cup and Australia its own domestic competition. Add in a professionalised version of the Campenato Argentino and we could have the making of a whole new Super Rugby format, akin to the HEC and Challenge Cups in Europe.
Now, many will see this as limiting the game’s reach to a select few, forgoing the benefits of a larger audience. I agree. It would.
However, it is unlikely to occur. Finances are tight, and as I mentioned earlier in the piece, SANZAR has to take the money where it can to fund its member unions.
Another problem with rugby at the moment is a lack of development at the grassroots level. Many blame this underdevelopment on a lack of funds.
But what if a move to IPTV could double the annual income of each union? We could expose more kids to the game, hooking their interest, which would (in theory) lead to more subscribers in the future.
Some may argue that the IPTV movement is only in its infancy and that it may be a decade before it really finds its place. But why wait? Let’s be early adaptors instead of mere followers.
The possibilities are endless.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Ian, It's about looking at the possibility of SANZAR setting up it's own channel via this platform in order to broadcast their content. Independent of Foxtel and such. That way they could develop their own revenue streams to further enhance the current levels of income they receive. A great many independent streams presently use the current setups as their source. This would establish its own avenue for fans from around the world to subscribe.
Ian
Guest
Don't understand this article as there are already 4 IPTV options Foxtel and Telstra offer: Foxtel on Xbox 360 Foxtel on Telstra T-Box Foxtel on Internet TV (Samsung) Foxtel on Telstra Mobile (Telstra mobile customers only) (you can then connect mobile to TV using an adapter) All of these services have the Sports Play (507) channel available which shows all Super Rugby matches live. Also you could use one of the many websites that stream Super Rugby for overseas viewers (you have to use a proxy though). All of these options are cheap and don't have locked in contracts.
Sydney Kiwi
Guest
Foxtell have to come to the party with cheaper/more flexible options. NO WAY I will pay a subscription just to watch the rugby-rather see it in a bar or streamed online.
Trouble Ahead
Guest
One thing is right in this article. The tin is just about empty.
klestical
Guest
WCR, This is the future of broadcasting, where sports will be almost 'Twitter-like', where people can subscribe to their channels, or 'App-like' where people will download the Super Rugby App..It is similar to what the NFL already does with their 'GamePass' where users pay a bit over $200 for complete internet access to all games, all analysis, all commentary etc. I think you have also underestimated the potential rewards. The growth of rugby (and internet usage) worldwide means that there are worldwide fans of rugby, which exist outside the Home and SANZAR nations. Your idea should absolutely be looked into as there are many users that are rugby fans, yet are unable to view any of the games. However, I also agree with Pete in the above comment, as completely switching over to this new strategy is a huge risk. What I would argue is that this should complement the current TV deal, rather than completely take over it. Perhaps this should be available only to countries outside SANZAR (so as to not annoy the broadcasters too much) What I would argue is that Super Rugby adds this internet model, in a similar method to the NFL GamePass. It should be seen as a significant opportunity with an international, rather than domestic focus
Pete
Guest
Its very risky at this stage. If they go to this model and it doesnt attract enough revenue, then they are in deep trouble. They don't have cash reserves to risk it as anything but a sideline in my opinion. 200 million sounds attractive, although a bit high imo since the ratings don't support these sort of numbers (I would think Australia would provide 100-150k subscribers max). Even if they got that, there would be significant costs from producing and streaming the games, as well as increased marketing and opertaional costs. So it may not end up that much ahead of the current deal. So I think its better the devil you know until streaming is more established in SANZARs key markets.
IronAwe
Guest
I would absolutely pay for this. No hesitation. Most if my friends stream their rugby already anyway. They either dont get channel 9 (live well down south and reception is not good, but internet is) or they simply hate channel 9, or they cant afford foxtel. There are plenty of sites providing this already, SANZAR might as well get a slice of the pie. If you cant stream, for reasons of poor internet connection or whatever, provide the game the next day or later that night to download and watch at your leisure. Wonderful, fantastic, idea.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
WCR, Absolutely. Its the Big Ten TV model, and its the one Im expecting the AFL to do at the end of their current contract round. Its the right thing to do in the long term - but dont expect Foxtel to sign over a guaranteed amount if it's done, because you are going head-on against the major driver of Foxtel subscriptions.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Ian, Perhaps it didn't come across as clearly in the article posted than it did in the one I submitted. It has been been edited significantly as it was well and truly beyond the preferred restricted article length. What I am suggesting is that SANZAR should investigate their options in regards to IPTV as a possible platform to broadcast their content instead of Pay TV. So, instead of subscribing to Foxtel for Rugby, you would subscribe to the independently run SANZAR channel. Like I allude to in the article, it would also need additional content in terms of the ITM and Currie Cup's an cold force the ARU to develop our equivalent as well. It could also look to broadcast other League (Top League) from other nations. Basically an all in one Rugby channel run by SANZAR on a subscription basis. You could have live and recorded content, Rugby related sports show etc. It just takes a bit of creativity and imagination.
Campbell Kyle
Guest
Bugger the existing networks, keep it simple, to keep costs down, have less cameras and stream it live. Perfect what a great idea. Have a set format so club volunteers can man the cameras. Each area has its own equipment. All that's needed is the bandwidth and with the low costs of cloud computing I don't think you would have to charge $200pa. Sponsors would pay, with a small additional charge for profits for the clubs.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
You nailed the right questions, but look at this from Fox Sports' perspective. "What if they could watch the entire Super Rugby season for a comparatively poultry $200? Would they seriously consider making the switch to IPTV and de-subscribing from Fox Sports?" From the point of view of Fox, this is enabling ambush marketing of some of your best customers. Now, thats not to say a sport shouldnt do it - but if a sport does, I wouldnt rely on Fox Sports giving them guaranteed money.
soapit
Guest
online rights are not necessarily bundled with tv rights and the iptv are offering what they think its worth. the aru or whoever is selling dont like it the dont have to sell but they'll them just be getting zero dollars. ideally it should be run by foxtel and yo ubuy the internet games through them but it will need them to rethink their model which will take a while and it will need a lot more people to cancel their subscriptions and use the free net alternative before they realise how behind they are.
Bakkies
Guest
I think there are data limits in Ireland I have never reached the limit or noticed it slowing down. In Australia it takes no time to eat in to your data limits at home. You have areas with poor mobile coverage so mobile broadband is not an option. Can you watch Foxtel on the go yet? Sky here allow you to remote record programs on their Sky + app while you are out and there is a Sky Go app where you can watch Sky coverage on your phone so you won't miss a match when you are out. Sky Go works on your computer so if you commute a lot and travel with work you can still get your moneys worth. The pic is good too.
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Minor mistakes don't undermine the credibility of your argument, WCR, one that I found particularly interesting and persuasive. You're right, some ISPs are much more equal than others. I've been happy with Internode for many years, but maybe I need to shop around a bit (or even see if Internode has added better plans than the one I'm on). Cost is a big factor, of course.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Thanks for the correction. Nobodies perfect. Not too bad for an article I conceived, wrote and submitted in under 15 minutes. Mistakes were always going to be present. Regarding download speeds in Australia, I think that relies heavily on your provider. Through my ISP I can easily watch streams in real time without any real need for buffering.
Atawhai Drive
Guest
Sorry to be pedantic, but IPTV stands for Internet Protocol Television, not Internet Provided Television. Australia has slow broadband by international standards (the NBN may improve things but don't hold your breath) and we are also one of the few countries offering capped access. IPTV coverage of rugby or any other sport is scarcely worthwhile at this point. And it's paltry, not poultry. That's what happens when Autocorrect isn't worth chicken feed.
Emric
Guest
Guys - its really up to the IPTV channels to come to the party more then the ARU to actively explore the alternatives the IPTV companies must WANT to buy the product and spend large amounts of money doing it. From my understanding the bulk of SANZAR's money is coming from SS South Africa with a large share coming from SkyNZ and Fox is paying the least perhaps SANZAR needs to put more pressure on Fox to cough up more cash? Or SS and Sky need to start paying what the product really is worth to them. Sky would be a dead product without the Rugby in NZ. I'm not sure about Super Sport but I suspect they wouldn't want to give up the Rugby rights easily either these 2 companies should be squeezed during the next TV deal to obtain more cash from their revenue flows Australian rugby will continue to get 1/3rd of any income generated but I feel the best hope for SANZAR is to pressure the companies which are a vested interest in keeping the tv rights
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
I'm arguing that SANZAR should look to it as a possible primary platform. It's an alternative.
soapit
Guest
well i do try and pay for things if theres a reasonable option. there is some value for being able to do something legally. also the level of service would increase (reliable quality) paying for a package of crap to get one single element im interested in is not reasonable to me though (especially when the tech has moved on to put the power back in the consumers hands)
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
yes thats the thing soapit: we can already watch pretty much everything online for free: why should we pay for the same product then? Personnally, online rugby is only a last resort solution: you're overseas, rugby isnt on the local channels and pubs, you watch the game online then. I dont see it as a mainstream solution. Plus the rugby product is too attractive not to get a good deal with sports networks like fox.