Four years a chance to position football for the next deal

Tony Tannous Columnist

By Tony Tannous, Tony Tannous is a Roar Expert


174 Have your say

    Roar players celebrate following the A-League season 7 grand final between the Brisbane Roar and Perth Glory (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)

    Related coverage

    The new football TV deal will be announced next week, a four year deal, with a free-to-air element, amounting to just under $40 million dollars a season.

    That’s according to a report from Roy Masters in today’s Sydney Morning Herald.

    The only detail that needs to be fleshed out between now and then is whether the one live game a week on SBS features on Friday night or on the more ratings-friendly Saturday night.

    I’ve previously suggested that Friday night would be the perfect opportunity to showcase the A-League on free-to-air.

    For Fox Sports, the broader attention from free-to-air coverage on Friday should also drive up their ratings and help introduce to rest of the weekend’s action.

    This seems to be model that the NRL have adopted, with great success.

    What’s new in the report this morning from Masters is the mooted length of the deal, with all previous reports suggesting the deal would be five years.

    While I’d previously suggested a three year deal would be the perfect scenario, bringing football to the head of the queue at the next TV negotiation cycle, the reduction from five to four is certainly a win for the round ball game.

    What it means is that the following TV deal will start on July 1, 2017.

    With the AFL and NRL five year deals also up for negotiation around the same time, it give football an opportunity to be at the bargaining table, not left with the scraps.

    Incoming boss David Gallop now has a carrot.

    The likelihood is that the negotiations for the next deal will start during the 2015/16 season, and that’s only three years away.

    It would come on the back of having had Alessandro Del Piero here for at least two seasons, and the hope is that the A-League can continue to grow in that period, attract more marquees of his calibre.

    TV ratings, attendances and media coverage are all significantly on the rise this season on the back of the arrival of Del Piero, Emile Heskey & Shinji Ono.

    The arrival of Harry Kewell and Brett Emerton at the start of last season gave the A-League an opportunity to start an upwards trend after a two or three years of decline.

    The key, now, is to keep building on this, every season.

    Better players, more educated coaches, more sophisticated media coverage, more sponsors and a competition that always has fans as the centerpiece.

    Then there’s the national team, the Socceroos.

    Certainly reaching Brazil 2014 would be a massive boost, and the spirited come from behind win in Doha over Iraq gives the Socceroos a better chance than they appeared to have ahead of that qualifier.

    It’s no guarantee that Holger Osieck, struggling to rejuvenate the side, will get us there, but the hope is he will, and that the team will be starting the climb back up the mountain by then.

    Certainly, having them back on free-to-air, even on hour delay, should return the Socceroos into the national conscience.

    There’s no doubt the length of the previous TV deal and the fact the Socceroos were relegated from free-to-air had a big impact on the Socceroos “brand”.

    Giving the back to the nation is one of the best things football can do.

    Then, on back of the World Cup, we can immediately start to look forward to the Asian Cup the following year.

    If it’s a hit, and if the 1993 World Youth Cup is any indication, it should be, that would allow Gallop to come to the bargaining table from a position of strength.

    While the $40 million a season deal mightn’t line the FFA’s pockets for the next few years, what the four year deal ultimately does is give football an opportunity for a better deal at the next round.

    Tony Tannous
    Tony Tannous

    Follow Tony on Twitter @TonyTannousTRBA

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (174)

    • November 1st 2012 @ 8:20am
      Punter said | November 1st 2012 @ 8:20am | ! Report

      Thanks Tony, it’s all upwards & onwards for this game. There is still so much to do & there will be alot of hiccups, but we are ticking all the boxes at present.
      How lucky are football fans in this country now, after years of being the joke of a sport in this country, we now have a viable local competition, where we can go & see live football that is now part of mainstream sport in this country, a national side that now plays meaningful games & we are there or thereabouts in qualifying for the biggest competitions in the world & we are competitive amongst the best in the world, we all still have our beloved O/S sides who we followed since childhood & of course, we have the World cup, Euros, Champions league to watch the best players in the world competing against each other.
      We are football!!!!

      • November 1st 2012 @ 10:47am
        mahonjt said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:47am | ! Report


    • November 1st 2012 @ 8:47am
      JAJI said | November 1st 2012 @ 8:47am | ! Report

      Do remember we have come a long way since season one of the A League where the TV rights were $750,000. Yes the Socceroos qualifiers are also thrown in but this does not include the World Cup which SBS seperately owns the rights for at $25 million for tournaments till 2022

      The last deal cut was back in March 2006 so it has been a long time – almost 7 years. Buckley cant be blamed for this as this deal was cut by the Lowy-O’Neil partnership 18 months before Buckley joined. That deal was a touch over $16 million a year so this is a significant improvement in a very tough environment for media companies. That last deal probably erred in putting the Socceroos off free to air – but the A League was very young at the time and essentially needed the Socceroos to get the deal done. The A League after one year was broke and I can understand why they jumped at $16 million a year from $750,000

      Many people can afford Foxtel but refuse to get it. This now gets that 70% of people exposed to the game again. One game a weekend is perfect – I like the mix of 1/5 Free to AIr – in the same fashion as the NRL with its from memory 3/8 on free to air. Remember Rugby from memory has no live games on Free to Air of its Super Rugby tournament – and interestingly has Foxtel and Free to AIr on the same time for Wallabies games. Maybe thats the Government Anti-siphoning laws being relaxed for Football in this instance

      Friday night live on SBS would be perfect – it better be SBS 1. Sets up the weekend well. Wonder if Foxtel will allow SBS to pick which game. Suddenly Les Murray will be on the sideline again interviewing players – which is a sight we havent seen for years. Should also increase the more positive coverage the A League gets from SBS which has been improving this season

      The money is very good. Put in context this doesnt include the World Cup or any overseas leagues and half the Socceroos qualifiers are not exactly played at family friendly times…..This should give each A League club a grant of over $3M each which more than covers the salary cap.The FFA has numerous other revenue sources to cover the rest of their running costs (grants, sponsership, mobile phone and internet – then there is also the sale of overseas TV rights for the A League which I assume goes straight to the FFA? (IE who is pocketing the Italian and Japan TV righst at present plus the fact the game is shown throughout Asia etc?) and the fact the FFA gets given $8 million just for the Socceroos qualifying. Remember the NRL money is for 8 games a weekend plus Origin and Test matches – we have onlky 5 matches and much lower wage bills PLUS the ability to transfer players overseas and earn lucrative fees which the other codes cant match

      So a good deal and sets up Gallop well for 2017 renewal – not too sure if we qualify for 2018 but that Archie goal 5 minutes from time 2 weeks ago is starting to look very important in many ways

      Put in context $40 million a year is very very close, if not better, than the ARU TV deal – which is amazing given the state of the respective games 10 years agao. ALso – we dont compete with the other 2 codes like they do directly

      A footnote it never ceases to amaze me with the football journalists in this country that Roy Masters is the one who has this scoop – where were all our journalists with this news?

      • November 1st 2012 @ 9:14am
        striker said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:14am | ! Report

        great news for our game after all the bad headlines last year with gold coast.

        • November 1st 2012 @ 10:21am
          Kasey said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:21am | ! Report

          Great news for football. Doubling our previous deal in $$ p.a. is nothing to be pooh-poohed.

          IMO football needs to enter a period of sustained consolidation to lay down a solid foundation for our top tier competition.

          There is nothing investors dislike more than the whiff of failure – it scares them and prevents them investing their hard earned money.
          Give me 4 more years as a solid and sustainable 10-team league please. It would do wonders for the image of the game and the HAL in general eyes.

          We’ve come a long way but football is valiantly battling its way up from the bottom of the football heap and IMO is not yet financially secure enough to even consider expansion in the current economic climate.
          I would prefer to see the HAL stay as a 10 team league for 2-4 years to give everything time to bed down before hasty expansion.

          Football can surely wait a couple of years to ensure it gets the WSW expansion 100% correct, then use that model for the proposed teams in Canberra and Wollongong.

          • November 1st 2012 @ 4:56pm
            AGO74 said | November 1st 2012 @ 4:56pm | ! Report

            Kasey – you are 100% spot on re pro consolidation and delaying expansion.

            • November 1st 2012 @ 5:22pm
              fadida said | November 1st 2012 @ 5:22pm | ! Report


          • November 1st 2012 @ 5:37pm
            Titus said | November 1st 2012 @ 5:37pm | ! Report

            This is true but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be planning it now.

            • Roar Guru

              November 1st 2012 @ 7:29pm
              Ben of Phnom Penh said | November 1st 2012 @ 7:29pm | ! Report

              Indeed. But that planning should probably include a NYL & W-League team ala Canberra. Hence you are bringing in a club, not creating one. This is really another discussion though and one that we’ve had many a time before.

          • November 2nd 2012 @ 11:12am
            Sky Blues said | November 2nd 2012 @ 11:12am | ! Report

            Then we have to worry about the league being stale though… Just saying.

      • November 1st 2012 @ 10:52am
        mahonjt said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:52am | ! Report

        A brilliant analysis, but was lacking the usual hate and hysteria I have become acustomed to from may around here! Well done on pytting the FFA’s performance into context.

      • November 1st 2012 @ 1:19pm
        Ian said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:19pm | ! Report

        nice post JAJI. i’m just curious about the one game sbs will show, if its on a friday night and you mention sbs picking it. the FFA brings out the draw and the games are already slotted into their time months in advance. will they change formula and leave it open and not allocate the times in advance or leave it open until a few weeks before?
        if its already allocated sbs can’t choose as there is only one friday night game to actually show.
        afl i think allocates all game times in advance but league leaves it open until 5/6 weeks before the round to allocate which games are friday saturday or sunday.

        • November 1st 2012 @ 1:25pm
          Kasey said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:25pm | ! Report

          I really hope FFA produce a solid schedule rather than a floating one.

          Away travel in this league is already difficult enough(have to organise airfares + accom.)

          Just 2 weeks ago I took the Friday off to fly to Melbourne for the Cross Border Rivalry. I got a good deal on my flights and stayed with a mate so my trip probably cost in the order of $250 all up. Not somnething you could do every other week although some seem to. A special place on the right hand side of the Football Gods is reserved for those who spend so much to show an away presence at games!

          • November 1st 2012 @ 2:16pm
            Ian said | November 1st 2012 @ 2:16pm | ! Report

            i agree a solid schedule is preferable. perhaps i like the preplanning more and like seeing the a-league draw in its entirety all settled.
            getting free accomodation is essential for any sort of trip where it can be done.

            brisbane too far for you to travel? i think i recall you saying you hadn’t been to brisbane.

            if we play like the first two weeks i am confident,if we play like last week i am not.

            on a side note, not endorsing gambling, but on one site last night the roar were $1.66 to win, adelaide were $5 to win. adelaide are on top and the roar played badly last week. i was shocked to say the least. maybe i’m missing something.

            • November 2nd 2012 @ 8:34pm
              Paul said | November 2nd 2012 @ 8:34pm | ! Report

              Maybe Tom Waterhouse knows something we don’t.

    • November 1st 2012 @ 8:49am
      Towser said | November 1st 2012 @ 8:49am | ! Report

      Personally( if this is the deal on the table) I think its a poor offering as is, in comparison to League & AFL.
      I say this not because those sports haven’t earnt the right to the moolah they’ve got & football has to this point in time given commercial realitys,but that in comparison to football they’ve got sweet FA to spend it on.
      For football to develop in Australia the reality is it needs more money invested than AFL/RL combined given that theres 9 National teams & A-League clubs(if in ACL) which have to be carted around Asia(with associated costs) & our coaching programs have to compete with bigger (in terms of financial investment) overseas ones.
      Also if Fox wants the sport to be a carry on from AFL/NRL seasons it needs to speculate to accumalate & fork out the dough for the item that will give it bigger ratings, genuine marquee players.
      SBS on delay, I watched it live in the past that is definitely a retrograde step.

      • November 1st 2012 @ 8:58am
        Winter Is Coming said | November 1st 2012 @ 8:58am | ! Report

        Only the socceroos games will be on delay. There will be one FTA A-League game LIVE every round next season. SBS are the only FTA station that would do the game justice. I cannot wait.

        • November 1st 2012 @ 9:04am
          JAJI said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:04am | ! Report

          Correct Winter – with this deal we are having our cake and eating it two. Look what Channel Nine did to Rugby. Hard to undrestand people like Towser – either a bitter from 2004 or an agent for another code.

          • November 1st 2012 @ 9:05am
            TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:05am | ! Report

            Why are you having a go at Towser?

            You’d have to live 10 lifetimes before you got to see the amount of soccer he has seen in his life.


            • November 1st 2012 @ 9:18am
              Towser said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:18am | ! Report

              Perhaps TC many football fans in Australia dont like realism. You have to laugh sometimes, a bitter from 2004 or an agent from another code.

              • November 1st 2012 @ 9:29am
                TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:29am | ! Report

                Especially when you weren’t having a go at the game – you’re making the obvious point that with a stack of national teams to support, greater sources of revenue are needed.


              • November 1st 2012 @ 9:35am
                JAJI said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:35am | ! Report

                Simple Economics Towser. The deal is more than double last time – 150% increase and 70% potential more audience. The Mighty AFL only increased 37% and you will find the Rah Rahs went sidewards. All at a time Channel Nine was rescued by a hedge fund, Channel Ten and Fairfax are teetering on the brink. Sounds like a good deal to me.

              • November 1st 2012 @ 9:40am
                c said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:40am | ! Report

                tows it is a good step in the right direction

              • November 1st 2012 @ 1:31pm
                me, I like football said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:31pm | ! Report

                JAJ,I the AFL deal increased 60% from the previous one

      • November 1st 2012 @ 9:31am
        Brick Tamlin of the Pants Party said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:31am | ! Report

        Don’t compare the deal to AFL/NRL Towser you’ll give yourself a headache,like JAJI said the first deal was $750,000 now we’re looking at $40m a year for four years,if the standard/marquees/attendence/ratings continue on the up maybe the next one will be double.We’ve already paid the price of trying to run before we can walk im happy with this deal personally.

        • November 1st 2012 @ 10:29am
          Kasey said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:29am | ! Report

          Why must some continually compare our 8 year old league to the AFL/NRL? Both of them draw upon histories orders of magnitude longer than the HAL. They are the giants in the Oz sports landscape with cultural inertia to match.
          We are not.
          This deal is a very important step that practically guarantees the league will reach its 20th birthday in 2015/16 with the current 10 clubs solvent and sustainable. A 20+ year old league would just be starting to see the 2nd generation of supporters (parents indoctrinating sons& daughters etc) As Tony says, this TV deal allows football to position itself well for the next TV deal. For once we are not a fly-by-night operation but taking a long-term strategic view of the landscape with a plan for the future.

      • November 1st 2012 @ 9:39am
        B.A Sports said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:39am | ! Report

        Towser, as a passive observer of the A-league I respectfully disagree with the statement

        “For football to develop in Australia the reality is it needs more money invested than AFL/RL combined given that theres 9 National teams & A-League clubs(if in ACL) which have to be carted around Asia(with associated costs) & our coaching programs have to compete with bigger (in terms of financial investment) overseas ones”.

        Football in Australia claims to have a stangle hold on participation in Australia and it has done for many years, yet we see nothing in the development of our Naitonal team and brand. The FFA has the grassroots numbers and hasn’t been short in federal funding either, but it has clearly totally misused its money in not being able to get so many people (players and parents) to stay in the game at a competition level and/or to connect those people participating/spectating at junior level to A-League teams. The AFL/NRL have to draw people to their games from outside the sport and they have had the advantage of media to do this, Football has the market there, they are already in the shop wandering the isles deciding whether or not to buy, they have just failed to connect with them.

        • November 1st 2012 @ 9:56am
          TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:56am | ! Report

          participation numbers are important, but they are a different metric to bums on seats and eyeballs on TV sets, which is where the money comes from.

          The ABS stats show that “walking” has the largest numbers of participants, but we aren’t exactly queuing up to attend walking championships.

          Rugby League participation rates would be a fraction of soccer’s, but the NRL currently get 12 times the aggregate TV viewers in any one season than does the A-League.

          That’s a pretty big difference. It’s pointless for soccer fans to moan about it – they need to get that huge difference way down to make any sort of headway.

          While the A-League rights increased by 100% (which is a very good result), the NRL rights increased in value by 150%.

          The AFL rights only increased in value by 60%, off a very large base.


          • November 1st 2012 @ 10:27am
            Realfootball said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:27am | ! Report

            Personally, TC, I find competitive walking absolutely thrilling. The speed, the spills. The fluid grace of movement.

            Right up there with the thrill a minute tumult of synchronised swimming.

            • November 1st 2012 @ 10:57am
              B.A Sports said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:57am | ! Report

              Those stats on walking I am guessing are ASC not ABS and were for 15 and overs, so didn’t count juniors. The ASC, i believe as correctly decommisoned that survey

          • November 1st 2012 @ 10:56am
            B.A Sports said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:56am | ! Report

            Thats the point TC. Football has the market in their hands. Kids play the game, parents put their kids in the game. I played for 15 years, i never recieved anything from the FFA or NSW FA when i played, I never saw a professional player at a training day, at school or a presentation day, but i had internaitonal crickters past and present at my presentation days for cricket, and i recieved regular cricket newsletters. Now i play tennis, and I know everything happening in the world of tennis in temr sof programs, new comps etc because i get it fed to me. Football has all of these people playing, thereofre people interested in the sport, yet they have historically preffered to go to NRL/AFL matches. Football doesn’t need more money than the NRL/AFL, they just need to spend it smarter and connect with the people who are already invovled in the sport. They have a ready made market, but they have thrown money hand over fist at the wrong things (getting W/Cups, unsustainable A-League Clubs and excessive – it would seem – spends on national teams).

            • Roar Guru

              November 1st 2012 @ 12:44pm
              apaway said | November 1st 2012 @ 12:44pm | ! Report


              You make some good points and in a way, football’s great potential strength – it’s massive participation numbers – can also be its Achilles heel. The advent of SSG has been a great plus for the game at a junior level but there is still a struggle for clubs to get qualified coaches, not to mention decent grounds to play on. My work involves interacting with sports clubs and it constantly amazes me the kind of numbers grassroots football clubs manage. And in a sense, the sheer numbers of clubs would make it very difficult to get that rub from an international or A-League star in the same way that NRL and AFL can do so because in reality, there are more “name” players in those codes (16 NRL clubs, 18 AFL clubs) with less ground to cover in terms of numbers of grassroots clubs.

          • November 12th 2012 @ 4:54pm
            Daryl Adair said | November 12th 2012 @ 4:54pm | ! Report

            Latest ABS stats actually show that organised swimming/diving is by far the sport with most participants (male and female). I was surprised. You can download the excel spreadsheets for details. See:

      • November 1st 2012 @ 9:50am
        Titus said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:50am | ! Report

        Towser–I actually think the greatest challenge football faces is making the game a part of the Australian culture. To put the juniors in a culture that supports, accepts and encourages them. That gives them something to aspire to.

        In the past football has thrived in communities that were a kind of dislocated ethnic culture. Immigrants to Australia would encourage their children with the aspirations and inspirations of another country, be it England, Croatia or Greece. Australia as a footballing culture was laughed at and shunned and participants and fans happily placed themselves outside the Australian culture or gravitated towards AFL or League where they found an Australian identity that they could share.

        This is where I see the importance of the a-league, as bringing an acceptance to football in Australia, this acceptance will then hopefully filter down to the junior participation level and with the quality we can get from enhanced development our game at all levels should continue to grow. The a-league certainly shouldn’t be above criticism but I think people who bag the quality of the league need to think about where the game could be in 10 years rather than where it is at the moment, which in itself is a pretty good place.

        This deal, whatever it turns out to be will mean that path of growth can continue at all levels, yes we need more money for development, national teams and to ease the financial burden on juniors but it won’t happen overnight.

        I strongly believe that bringing the game into the mainstream consciousness is the first step. I also believe the audience is largely already there just waiting for this to happen.

        • November 1st 2012 @ 1:10pm
          Newcastle Michael said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:10pm | ! Report

          It’s already happening up here. I already see parents who didn’t know about or go to the A-League a few years ago, not regularly attending and putting their children into off season clinics, futsal etc. Mainstream acceptance is already coming.

          • November 1st 2012 @ 2:54pm
            Newcastle Michael said | November 1st 2012 @ 2:54pm | ! Report

            edit – I mean these parents NOW GO to A-League games and follow the local and professional game.

      • November 1st 2012 @ 10:54am
        mahonjt said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:54am | ! Report

        I take you point – but broadcasters dont care about our costs – only our ‘value’. We will never have the cost structures of these provincial sports, and frankly, that is fine by me becasue #wearefootball.

      • Roar Guru

        November 1st 2012 @ 11:33am
        Peter Wilson said | November 1st 2012 @ 11:33am | ! Report

        No, I agree with Towser.

        Given that A-League on Fox is now rating at 100K avg and climbing steadily, while AFL and NRL have peaked and are falling,
        A-League ratings are now about one half of the avg NRL and AFL game on Fox, so the FFA should be getting about one half of what AFL and NRL got from Fox.

        $40M a year compared to $250M a year for the other codes represents less tha one sixth and is not a fair payment in my books.

        The FFA needs the money more than the AFL and NRL and the opposing codes will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars over the next four years to take away fans, viewers and junior players from football.

        The $40M will barely appease the disgruntled A-League club owners when they get their share and will do nothing to reduce the cost of junior football and attracting new spectators and players to the game. The AFL’s marketing budget alone is over $150M a year while the FFA has virtually no money to promote the A-League or Socceroos.

        If the $40M includes all the Socceroos, Olyroos, Matildas, and so on, and not just the A-League, then its an absolute rip off.

        • November 1st 2012 @ 12:01pm
          B.A Sports said | November 1st 2012 @ 12:01pm | ! Report

          “Given that A-League on Fox is now rating at 100K avg and climbing steadily, while AFL and NRL have peaked and are falling,
          A-League ratings are now about one half of the avg NRL and AFL game on Fox, so the FFA should be getting about one half of what AFL and NRL got from Fox”

          Where do you get your data from regarding AFL and NRL viewing?

          Sure the A-League numbers are improving which is good, but the AFL NAB Cup (preseason football) last season had higher average viewing figures for the duration of the entire competition than the A-League has had through three rounds this season (151,000 v 95,000).

          • November 1st 2012 @ 12:33pm
            Australian Rules said | November 1st 2012 @ 12:33pm | ! Report

            Yes it’s a strange comment…AFL has only been back on Fox for 1 year so not sure how it’s falling!

        • November 1st 2012 @ 1:22pm
          JAJI said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:22pm | ! Report

          Peter you cant compare the Foxtel ratings – what about the ratings and numbers the NRL gets on Channel Nine? You will find for events such as the Grand Final and State of Origin its alot more than double

        • November 1st 2012 @ 2:38pm
          oly09 said | November 1st 2012 @ 2:38pm | ! Report

          There’s so much more at play though when the AFL and NRL deals are struck.
          Channel 7 are willing to pay over the odds for the AFL because they couldn’t face Ten or Nine getting some of the coverage like in the past.
          For the NRL, Channel 9 had to get them otherwise they would have no winter sports and Ten came in with a bid to drive the cost up.
          There is also a huge pride factor for networks when it comes to AFL and NRL.
          That just isn’t the case for football yet so there was always less competition from rival networks. Also I’d rather SBS showing one game live every week rather than 9,7 or 10 screwing football over with midnight replays or on secondary channels.

          • November 2nd 2012 @ 8:43am
            B.A Sports said | November 2nd 2012 @ 8:43am | ! Report

            Correct Oly09 – Ch9/7/10 would probably screw with it and put it on delayed and why? Because they won’t believe they can get the revenue through TV advertising they could showing other programming. Heck Ch9 only show 1 NRL game live a week and that has a well established audience.

            If the networks thought they could recoup a $150million in advertising, they would have paid $100million for it, but they don’t think they can, so they don’t.

            • November 2nd 2012 @ 9:29am
              Punter said | November 2nd 2012 @ 9:29am | ! Report

              This is correct B.A. it would be hard for either of these channels to put the A-League game on prime time tv, we just do not have the following or the history.
              However, these days with digital TV, there are more options for the commercial stations, even channel 7 puts the premiers of the AFL on 7Mate in Sydney because it just doesn’t rate enough to put on channel 7.

        • November 1st 2012 @ 2:40pm
          oly09 said | November 1st 2012 @ 2:40pm | ! Report

          Also Peter, Socceroos games only cost $1M each because they are sold by the AFC. They assuming the Socceroos play 8-10 games a year, the majority of the $40M is being paid for the A-League. Not bad for a league only 8 years old.

      • November 3rd 2012 @ 1:29pm
        andaroo said | November 3rd 2012 @ 1:29pm | ! Report

        Hey Towser, don’t despair so much. Sure football is the future dominant code in this country, but the nation’s sporting landscape has a history to contend with. The legacy of Aussie Rules and Rugby code dominance is still with us. Big money is always slow to move initially. You can see in this initial deal outline that great strides have been made. More than double the size budget with greatly improved terms such as the Fta component , improved Socceroos exposure, extra A-league matches on delayed telecast (all reducing the cash offer from Fox but giving the FFA much greater flexibility for the next 4 years and for negotiating future TV deals) . Strategically it makes a lot of sense . There is also the fine print still to read concerning incentives for expansion of the league,….

    • November 1st 2012 @ 8:50am
      TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 8:50am | ! Report

      Congratulations to Ben Buckley on a job well done.


      • November 1st 2012 @ 10:29am
        Realfootball said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:29am | ! Report

        Absolutely. $40 million a year and free to air game is a significant achievement. Ben has left the A-League riding high. In the end, with some help from the club owners, he has delivered on his mandate.

        And please, don’t anyone blame him for Fury and GCU. The money was on the table for both clubs. No CEO could or would have turned them down.

        • November 1st 2012 @ 10:33am
          TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:33am | ! Report


          I’m not about to disagree.

          I have participated in walking all my life (within reason).


        • November 1st 2012 @ 12:03pm
          TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 12:03pm | ! Report

          oops, I responded to the wrong post, apologies

    • Roar Guru

      November 1st 2012 @ 9:14am
      Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:14am | ! Report

      Roy Masters has just regurgitated old opinion that has been published by journos, who have zero business acumen.

      I’ve been consistently informed by analysts, who perform valuations within the media industry, that the FFA’s new TV deal will be $50m-$70m/yr.

      Foxtel will pay $40m/yr for 5 HAL matches per round plus the finals plus all AUS WCQs
      SBS will pay $10m/yr for 1 HAL match per round plus the finals plus all AUS WCQs on 1hr delay
      Online broadcaster will pay $10m/yr for all 5 HAL matches per round plus the finals plus all AUS WCQs plus all matches qualifiers for AUSWNT, AUS underage teams (men & woment)

      The above figures are the midpoint = $60m/yr total (a brokerage fee for some of the sale may be payable to World Sports Group).

      PS: for those who want to read the best analysis of the FFA’s forecast Tv deal, Bonita Mersiades’s discussion paper: “the Rights Stuff” provides detailed analysis, with references & explanations for her reasoning.

      Bonita’s figure …”it is likely be in the vicinity of $60 million per year”

      Read the full story here …. but, you need to have a basic grasp of business – not the tabloid rubbish.

      • November 1st 2012 @ 9:18am
        JAJI said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:18am | ! Report

        Not so sure Fussball about that. Think about it. How does Roy Masters know? Remember that he is on the board of the Australian Sports Commission – the Government body controlling funding – and I guarantee given their commitment to football over the last 8 years they are probably across this deal……plus Gallop’s connections to League journos

      • Columnist

        November 1st 2012 @ 9:24am
        Vince Rugari said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:24am | ! Report

        And what will you say if Roy Masters is right?

        • Roar Guru

          November 1st 2012 @ 9:33am
          Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:33am | ! Report

          In the financial markets, there are people who throw darts at the list of listed companies to pick their “buys”.

          Do they make money occasionally? Absolutely.

          But, I prefer a more educated approach to analysis.

          Roy Masters was WRONG in his analysis of the AFL TV rights – underestimated their total.

          Roy Masters was WRONG in his analysis of the NRL TV rights – overestimated their total.

          As the saying goes: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”. Or if you prefer the George W Bush variation using the words of that great philosopher, Pete Townshend: “Fool me twice … won’t get fooled again!!”

          • November 1st 2012 @ 10:05am
            JAJI said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:05am | ! Report

            Difference is Fussball – Gallop starts at College Street in 10 days – this deal has to be announced between now and then….

        • November 1st 2012 @ 9:38am
          Dillan said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:38am | ! Report

          Personally I don’t take too much notice and any non-football personalities writing articles about Football. There’s nothing new in his article, so like most other non-football personalities he’s probably just rehashing info that he has read, rather than doing his own independent investigation…

        • Roar Pro

          November 1st 2012 @ 11:56am
          Sports Candy said | November 1st 2012 @ 11:56am | ! Report

          Let’s wait and see if Masters is right.

      • November 1st 2012 @ 9:32am
        TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:32am | ! Report

        But aren’t you actually providing further evidence that Roy is right?

        Bonita says, and I quote: “However, the celebratory sparkling wine must also be tempered by the fact that the net number that flows back to the game will be closer to $38 million per year…”

        Roy has mentioned $39 mill in his article – not much difference between $38 and $39 mill.


        • Roar Guru

          November 1st 2012 @ 9:57am
          Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:57am | ! Report

          Bonita’s $38m/yr figure that you’ve conveniently cherry-picked from the discussion paper:
          a) does NOT include AUS NT match revenue approx $10m/yr
          b) does NOT digital rights approx $10m/yr

          The $38m/yr is basically the HAL TV rights.

          There is more to AUS Football – much much more – than just the A-League competition.

          Every week a new article is published by reputable business media outlets (Forbes, Harvard Business Review, Wall St Journal, NY Times) that consistently tracks the MASSIVE migration from conventional TV to digital/online platforms – not just to watch sport but to access news, to watch new shows.

          FTA TV is almost dead – Ch 7 is deep in debt, Ch 10 is deep in debt & has poor ratings; Ch 9 nearly was declared insolvent & is now owned by Hedge Funds.

          Subscription TV is being decimated by online content providers. In the USA, for the 1st time, subscriptions for PayTV have started to FALL.

          British Telecom is now the co-owner of TV rights to EPL matches.

          • November 1st 2012 @ 10:04am
            TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:04am | ! Report

            As you forewarn in your first post, some business acumen is required to read it properly.

            I believe Bonita includes everything in that $38 million per annum figure – the key to understanding the number is being aware that there are big commissions payable to middle men for negotiating the various parts of the deal AND the fact that WSG already owns the socceroo rights, and the FFA can only count on $6 million per annum on an average six socceroo games per year for WCQ and ACQ.

            This is how she calculates her $38 million figure, recalling that it’s a net number we are talking about:

            1. $28 million for the A-League
            2. $6 million for socceroo games
            3. $4 million for online rights.

            The one unknown is what the FFA gets for socceroo friendlies – so that might add to that figure.

            • Roar Guru

              November 1st 2012 @ 10:22am
              Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:22am | ! Report

              “I believe Bonita includes everything in that $38 million per annum figure ”

              Well you didn’t read the article with any rigour.

              Attention to detail is paramount when conducting valuations or reading documents discussing valuations & the assumptions and limitations in the financial modelling.

              Maybe, you should get a friend, who has basic business acumen, to read the document & explain in lay terms.

              • Roar Guru

                November 2nd 2012 @ 5:08am
                peeeko said | November 2nd 2012 @ 5:08am | ! Report

                nice try but the commissions and brokerage here seem to be a whole lot larger than those in buying a house. 30% compared to around 3%

            • November 1st 2012 @ 10:31am
              TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:31am | ! Report

              Bonita states $38 million per annum, that’s her number, and she provides the detail about how she gets to $38 million.

              It’s all in her article – the one you keep wanting to refer to.


              • Roar Guru

                November 1st 2012 @ 10:39am
                Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:39am | ! Report

                I’m not sure how much clearer it can be.

                This paragraph has been cut & pasted from Bonita’s discussion paper:

                “All-up, when FFA announces the new deal for broadcast rights (TV plus digital), probably to come into effect one year early, it is likely be in the vicinity of $60 million per year”

                Even a Form 4 Business Student would be able to understand that paragraph.

              • November 1st 2012 @ 10:43am
                TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:43am | ! Report

                Yes, but she immediately qualifies that number by saying, and I quote:

                “However, the celebratory sparkling wine must also be tempered by the fact that the net number that flows back to the game will be closer to $38 million per year…”

                And she explains in detail what she means by that qualifier, and explains in detail how she gets to $38 million.


              • November 1st 2012 @ 12:51pm
                Australian Rules said | November 1st 2012 @ 12:51pm | ! Report

                The above is a fairly embarrassing exchange by Fuss.

                Amidst all the arrogant jabs about “business acumen” and “even a Form 4 Business Student would be able to understand”, and pontificating about an article that is not his…he then misses the critical point of it.

                Bonita is quite clear about the *real* (net) value.

              • November 1st 2012 @ 1:18pm
                Brendo said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:18pm | ! Report

                TC is correct, when you read the detail this is how Bonita comes to her figures. Fuss are you deliberately trying to deceive here?

                1. A-League rights $35M (but actually is $28M after comissions are deducted by WSG)
                The $35M is the figure that FFA sold the right to WSG for. People seem to forget that the fact is the FFA have already sold the rights, its actually WSG who are now onselling them.

                2. Socceroos Rights $6M (based on WSG having to pay us $1M per game)

                3. Online rights $4M

                So Bonita is saying the $38M per year is what will be the actual figure will be. Of course from a media prespective it just depends on what figures they use. Who knows which part of this Masters is referring to, which is why I agree with Fuss that I will take Bonita’s figures over his anyday.

                The only detail Bonita is not clear on is international rights. I would assume that WSG own them as part of the $28M deal but that is not clear.

              • Roar Guru

                November 1st 2012 @ 1:29pm
                Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:29pm | ! Report

                @ Brendo

                I’m afraid you are wrong.

                You are wrong about the online rights. Bonita has not give her forecast valuation. The $4m/yr figure is the EXISTING deal that Optus pays the FFA.

                Bonita has said – in this paper & on Twitter – the package is $60m/yr.

                You, TC et al are wrong about reducing the value of the asset based on potential commissions & brokerage.

                If – repeat IF – any money is payable to 3rd parties such payments (to brokers, lawyers, consultants, etc.) does NOT affect the price of the underlying asset.

                Have you ever bought a house or shares on the stock market?

                If I sell a share for $10, but my broker charges 1%; or I sell my house for $100 and the real estate agent charges 5% commission….

                … it does NOT affect the value of the share or the house.

                It’s absolute nonsense to bring up “commissions or brokerage” when discussing the value of an asset – in the world of finance, the cost of the asset is based on the market price paid.

                The cost of the asset is not adjusted for commissions, stamp duty, tax, brokerage, etc.

                I’m staggered adults in Australia aren’t aware of this pretty simple business concept of asset valuation.

              • November 1st 2012 @ 1:34pm
                Brendo said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:34pm | ! Report

                The FFA enagagement of WSG was back in May and it was expected at that time they could achieve $35 per year. Bonita doesn’t reference anything to back this up so may be just her opinion. This may very well be the figure that master’s is now quoting (ie WSG have managed to up it a little) but the 20% commission shoudl be taken into account.

                Also other than Bonita’s article I cannot find reference to this engagement. Is it possible that it didn’t go ahead and that FFA are negiotaing directly on the A-league rights.

              • November 1st 2012 @ 1:41pm
                Brendo said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:41pm | ! Report

                OK Fuss I see your point and I agree that there is a Apples and Oranges discussion going on here.

                The VALUE of the rights by Bonita’s calcs will be in the range of $60M. If master’s is really referrign to the value of the deal then he is way off base.

                and as we do not know what Master’s is referring to it is impossible to compare his figures against Bonita’s.

                As I said above I trust Bonita on this a lot more than Master’s.

              • Roar Guru

                November 1st 2012 @ 1:49pm
                Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:49pm | ! Report

                @ Brendo

                I have not seen the deal that WSG has with the FFA.

                However, in deals that I’ve worked on in the past, one possible deal structure would be for the FFA to purchase a “put option” from WSG for the HAL Tv rights.

                This means the FFA will pay WSG a nominal fee (premium) for the put option & in return, WSG would guarantee to pay the FFA an agreed price (exercise price) for HAL TV rights.

                Obviously, if the FFA can sell directly to the market for more than the “exercise price”, the FFA will not exercise the put option, but will do the deal directly with TV broadcasters. WSG will keep the premium that the FFA paid to purchase the put option.

                However, if the FFA cannot get a good deal on its own, it will exercise the put option & WSG will pay them a exercise price and WSG will have the task of onselling the rights to TV broadcasters.

                There are numerous other ways to structure such deals with 3rd party agents.

              • November 1st 2012 @ 2:25pm
                TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 2:25pm | ! Report

                It’s deceptive to talk about $60 million when the FFA are going to only see $38 million. That IS the net worth to them.

                At a minimum, you have to qualify your statement just as Bonita does (the very article you are referring to).


              • Roar Guru

                November 1st 2012 @ 2:39pm
                Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 2:39pm | ! Report

                TC suggests: “It’s deceptive to talk about $60 million when the FFA are going to only see $38 million”.


                It’s the way commercial transactions are defined – from selling a share, to selling a house, to selling a barrel of oil, or a flock of sheep.

                The brokerage & commission costs involved in the sale are not relevant to the value of the underlying asset.

                The price quoted for the a barrel of oil is independent of the brokerage fees involved in the sale.

                The price quoted for the sale of a house is independent of the marketing fees & real estate agent’s fee.

                To suggest anything else demonstrates a very unsophisticated grasp of commercial reality.

                The AFL received $250m/yr for its TV rights. Does anyone know what the AFL paid 3rd parties to finalise the deal? What were the legal fees, the fees to advisers & consultants? We don’t know because it’s not relevant. The asset price is what the market paid.

              • November 1st 2012 @ 5:35pm
                phutbol said | November 1st 2012 @ 5:35pm | ! Report

                Hang on a sec there Fuss, If i sell my house for $500k because thats what the market will pay, ie the market value, and i then have to pay legals, advertising and agents fees (commission), the net figure I receive will no longer be $500k. likely somewhere in the vicinity of 4% or $20k so i would net $480k from the sale.

                How is that different from the TV rights? its not about the ‘market’ value of them, its what you get after you take out expenses. Seems pretty straightforward.

                Whatever the market value is, if there are costs associated with gettting the deal done then they have to be deducted from the purchase price to arrive at the net figure. Put yet another way, even if the FFA get $60m for the rights, they will have to budget for $38m if there was $22m in sale costs.

                The only place your argument stacks up is in a headline that reads “A-league TV rights sold for $60m”. The commercial reality you refer to is that FFA has to budget for the net proceeds received. same as my house sale analogy.

                What the AFL paid to 3rd parties etc is entirely relevant away from that banner headline. its just that either there isnt any Mersaides type analysis available, or none of us have bothered to look for it.

              • Roar Guru

                November 1st 2012 @ 5:51pm
                Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 5:51pm | ! Report

                @ phutbol

                That’s not the way the market records asset prices.

                So, you sell your house for $500k – that’s the price that will be recorded. That’s the price that was paid.

                Your cost structures will impact your net profit for the year, but it has ZERO to do with the price of the asset.

                You may decide to do all your legal work & avoid real estate agents. This way you make more profit, but the market price of your asset is exactly the same.

                And, why stop at 3rd party costs? Why not factor in the admin costs (telephone calls, electricity in the office, time staff spent on the deal, etc?)

                If I buy BHP shares via an online broker, I’ll have lower brokerage than if I buy through a traditional, full-service broker. But, the price of the BHP shares is exactly the same.

      • November 1st 2012 @ 9:33am
        nordster said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:33am | ! Report

        While i agree analysts are a better read than tabloid rubbish…the only true test is what the actual bidding party in each media category feels the need to pay in order to secure the rights. Given there is little competition for the rights to aleague so far, any figures are subjective no matter how long or complicated the research note. A nice way to try and push up the perception of what value there is in a deal, i like that aspect. But in reality, no matter how intelligent the analysis …isn’t the only opinion that matters the ones of the bidding party (not parties remember)? Where are competing pay TV sports networks when u need em, eh?

        • Roar Guru

          November 1st 2012 @ 9:53am
          Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:53am | ! Report


          The bidding parties don’t just pluck a number out of thin air.

          Depending on the size of the deal, the bidding parties will seek advice from management consultants/accounting firms, or investment banks to project likely cash flows & earnings to arrive at a price range: low, medium, high and an appropriate “likelihood” will be ascribed to each scenario to reach a final price that is used.

          “Where are the competing pay TV sports networks”?

          Every ISP/telco is a potential broadcaster. Only recently, British Telecom was the successful bidder (along with Murdoch’s BSkyB) for the TV rights to the most valuable football league in the world – the EPL. BT is a telecom company but it outbid ESPN for the TV rights.

          It’s a new era. Mobile devices will be the No. 1 platform for watching sport by the end of this decade.

          • November 1st 2012 @ 10:07am
            nordster said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:07am | ! Report

            So where are the bids from these isps/telcos now…sounds a little further down the horizon in australia than this deal.

            And of course bidders can and will seek advice from external analysts. But internally ultimately it comes down to driving the price down as far as they can in order to maximise their end of the scenario, not up. So without competition for the rights in the pay tv category, why on earth would foxtel pay anything like what an external analyst might suggest if they dont have to. I would guess in this context they will look to pay less. Any suggestion they will go to a telco is pure bluff for now. And remember we arent rugby league or aussie rules that foxtel desperately Needs.

            Until of course the new era comes along and smashes the whole thing to pieces. Who knows what effect that will have on sports rights and the ability of bidders to monetise them. Quite possible thats to the downside for broadcasters. Most of our media companies at this point are basket cases due to the uncertainty in the sector. Foxtel is not immune to this either.

            • Roar Guru

              November 1st 2012 @ 10:19am
              Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:19am | ! Report

              1. We have no idea if there are any bids from ISPs/Telcos. That’s the nature of the tender process – it’s confidential

              2. Even if ISP does not bid, a valuation expert will create include “the value of an asset to competitors” when creating his/her valuation modelling.

              In my prior career, I’ve conducted numerous valuations for some of the largest listed companies in Australia. However, I have not done any financial modelling for sports tv rights. The biggest uncertainty with sports tv rights is the “unknown” attached to future online viewing numbers and the “unknown” attached to drops in traditional TV (FTA & subscription).

              Foxtel will not want to underbid because, if Foxtel loses football, they’ve lost a chunk of their subscribers.

              On FoxSports last week-end, every HAL match had more viewers than the Merseyside Derby.

              • November 1st 2012 @ 10:39am
                nordster said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:39am | ! Report

                The other big unknown attached to future online viewing is the ability of these future rights holders to monetise the rights they have purchased. Thats the big one.

                And really if there were isp telco bids out there, no doubt someone would have leaked it…especially people working on soliciting bids and pushing the price up. Naive to think otherwise. “The value of an asset to competitors” in this case of the aleague is unfortunately a little light.

                While i would love to think that if foxtel lost the A-league they’d lose a big enough chunk of their subscribers for it to matter to them, i suspect we both know deep down this isn’t true yet. The league is still in a growth phase where we are considered summer filler. Does it stop that many people from churning between afl/nrl seasons? Lets hope it does in time.

              • Roar Guru

                November 1st 2012 @ 10:56am
                Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:56am | ! Report

                “The other big unknown attached to future online viewing is the ability of these future rights holders to monetise the rights they have purchased. Thats the big one.

                Not at all.

                The NFL has monetised its content that is sold to overseas markets.

                Increasingly, online distributors are offering products to customers that are tailored to their needs – so if you want to watch the latest release of “Homeland” you don’t have to be locked in to also watching NFL … or vice versa.

                Technology has made the customer the king – of the music he wants, the TV he wants, the sport he wants


              • November 1st 2012 @ 11:09am
                Whites said | November 1st 2012 @ 11:09am | ! Report

                If I want to watch the latest episode of Homeland I know exactly where to go.

                (Hint:It’s not Channel 10)

              • November 1st 2012 @ 11:18am
                nordster said | November 1st 2012 @ 11:18am | ! Report

                We aren’t NFL…while some overseas markets will show our league, the broadcasters arent paying for it and no one around the world is going to pay online to watch our league, barring expats.

                I also look forward to the world of tailored media content. But to assume this provides a financial upside or windfall for our sports here is a very big assumption. Looking at the media industry over the last decade, greater online viewing and readership etc has wreaked havoc with their balance sheets here and overseas. It could have negative effects on many sports, even if they are selling directly to the consumer.

                Its a time of major upheaval and no valuation expert or analyst can predict where it will end up. Go back and read some of the reports from the late 90s and early 00s. They could be just as off base now as they have been in the past. Both on the media and sports sectors as well as broader economic trends

              • Roar Guru

                November 1st 2012 @ 11:25am
                Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 11:25am | ! Report


                You’re missing the point. It’s got NOTHING to do with overseas online rights.

                The NFL example is just to prove online content is being monetised.

                If an online provider offered an “HAL only” online viewing product – perhaps valued at $1-2 per match = $140-$280/yr – two things would happen:

                1. there would be a huge number of new customers willing to pay 1/5th the price of Foxtel’s Sport HD package

                2. Foxtel would lose existing HAL customers.

                The technology platforms exist. Many Aussies have the bandwidth in their homes to make this possible. The NBN will make this a reality for every Aussie household.

              • November 1st 2012 @ 11:31am
                Nathan of Perth said | November 1st 2012 @ 11:31am | ! Report

                Nordster, if you want a localised example, the NBL is selling its to all comers, including NZ subscribers who otherwise would not be able to watch the other games.

                It seems to be doing very well and is helping it get past the intransigence of Channel 10!

              • November 1st 2012 @ 11:57am
                nordster said | November 1st 2012 @ 11:57am | ! Report

                And if the NBL could get payola from foxtel or elsewhere they would, their ‘online strategy’ is one of necessity.

                Fuss, if the figures added up for the aleague selling their rights online in oz now they would be doing it. There are still a lot of barriers to getting games on to enough main tv screens via broadband (not ipad or laptop) to make it viable to a large enough segment. So domestic or overseas it does not make sense yet. So it is not a real competitor to foxtel yet, thats the point that i am not missing. The reason i raised overseas is as it is very obvious that domestic just doesnt add up yet, i assumed u would know this. The potential takeup numbers are not as huge as you’re saying.

      • November 1st 2012 @ 10:32am
        Realfootball said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:32am | ! Report

        I hope your $60 million is right, but personally I don’t believe that Masters would be reporting these figures unless his sources were good. Masters is hardly a “tabloid” journalist. He is respected senior scribe for the Sydney Morning Herald.

        • Roar Guru

          November 1st 2012 @ 10:36am
          Fussball ist unser leben said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:36am | ! Report

          As I mentioned, Roy Masters was wrong about the NRL valuation & wrong about the AFL valuation.

          Based on this recent form, it’s up to each individual to decide: “is Roy Masters qualified to offer opinions on sports tv valuations”?

          • November 1st 2012 @ 10:40am
            TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:40am | ! Report

            Roy was definitely wrong about the AFL (like 50% out), but he was pretty spot on about the NRL.

            One was probably wishful thinking, and the other was having inside knowledge.

            Realfootball is right that Masters writes for the SMH, which is not normally considered a tabloid, and which traditionally has been quiet supportive of soccer.

            Also, Master’s number is pretty close to Bonita’s number, who we all respect as someone who knows what she’s talking about, so I think we can all agree that the number is somewhere in the ballpark of $38 million to $40 million (but it ain’t going to be $60 million).


            • November 1st 2012 @ 10:46am
              Kasey said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:46am | ! Report

              What I take from this is that we should all probably wait the less than 10 days until it is officially announced by FFA before deciding if the deal is any good or not.
              Having said that, even if it is $40m p.a., that is still a a 100%+ increase in annual income for football and will ensure the short-medium term viability of the league.

        • November 1st 2012 @ 10:53am
          Nathan of Perth said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:53am | ! Report

          “Masters is hardly a “tabloid” journalist.”

          When did he make the switch? 😉

    • November 1st 2012 @ 9:17am
      Black&Gold said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:17am | ! Report

      Finally a free to air game. Football is heading in the right direction.
      Also, I am very confident the Socceroos will qualify for Brazil, as we have 3 out of 4 games at home. Our packed stadiums and the crowd-influenced Asian referees will get us there.
      So the next few years will be exciting.
      Before the next TV deal hopefully the FFA will add 2 more expansion teams : Canberra & Wollongong (in my opinion).
      Onwards and upwards!

      • November 1st 2012 @ 9:59am
        TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:59am | ! Report

        I think Canberra and Wollongong would be excellent additions, also increasing the amount of games to which away fans can travel to in a day trip.

        Personally, I would like to see the Wolves resurrected, representing a very important part of Australian soccer history.


        • November 1st 2012 @ 10:19am
          Black&Gold said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:19am | ! Report

          Yes I hope the Wolves would come back. Such a breeding ground in the Illawarra. I’m in the northern Illawarra & all the kids are kicking a football.
          The Wolves have fallen on hard times of late and I think ‘South Coast FC ‘ are more in line if expansion happens in the Illawarra.
          Ultimately a solid 14 team competition would be longterm fantastic idea. But after Wollongong & Canberra , where ? Perhaps another NZ team on the south island (another intense derby) and then reinstate the Fury (with another strip!)?

          • November 1st 2012 @ 10:21am
            TC said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:21am | ! Report

            heh, heh, definitely in favour of the next Townsville side wearing a different strip!


        • November 1st 2012 @ 10:33am
          Realfootball said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:33am | ! Report

          The most commercially astute addition to the A-League would be Auckland.

          • November 1st 2012 @ 10:52am
            Kasey said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:52am | ! Report

            I agree. As long as they play in Auckland at not at North Harbour. Auckland would add a NZ ‘ derby’ to the HAL’s growing stable of marquee games and consolidate the 4million population of NZ into the footprint of the HAL. Gives FoxSports another ‘early’ game in a triple header Sunday/Saturday too. Are Auckland City FC of the NZFC too small to ‘promote’ directly to the HAL?

            • November 1st 2012 @ 12:22pm
              Nathan of Perth said | November 1st 2012 @ 12:22pm | ! Report

              Bunbury, WA, if they can keep putting out players like Josh Risdon! 😀

          • November 1st 2012 @ 1:52pm
            clipper said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:52pm | ! Report

            Yes, agree – there is a lot of interest in Football there, has a good population base and would be a good derby with Wellington. They already have a competition to feed into it, with Waitakare United the current holders, so there would be a bit of talent there. While nowhere near Rugby in popularity, it would be on the next rung down with netball.
            Not a large population down south, would be hard to get a team started down there.

          • November 2nd 2012 @ 11:15am
            phutbol said | November 2nd 2012 @ 11:15am | ! Report

            Didnt the Knights play out of Auckland? not very astute at the time…

        • November 1st 2012 @ 10:54am
          Nathan of Perth said | November 1st 2012 @ 10:54am | ! Report


        • November 1st 2012 @ 8:01pm
          Football United said | November 1st 2012 @ 8:01pm | ! Report

          Yes canberra and Wollongong would be excellent purely from my selfish view as a MVFC supporter. build up the SE heartland with teams and i (and many other of the hardcore travellers) would have 6 away match venues in Adelaide, Heart, WSW, SFC, Canberra and the gong. Plus the options of CCM, NUJ and BR.