Before Australia plays its first Ashes Test against England in July, one would assume that the cricket TV rights would be settled.
We would therefore have the knowledge as to which network has the rights for the next five years.
Channel Ten has reportedly put in an offer of $500 million over five years (including content such as the Big Bash League) which means there is pressure is on Nine to match the offer if it wants to continue it’s partnership with cricket which began back in 1977 through the World Series era.
It would be fascinating to see who gets the rights. It would be even more interesting if Ten jagged them away from Nine.
However, when reading a few of the reports, such as the Financial Review’s article titled “Ten bid to bowl Nine out” there has been language used such as “Ten offer for all Test and limited-over matches and domestic competitions such as the Big Bash League”. D
oes that mean Ten are going after the home Test and one day matches that Nine cover every summer, or is Ten going after every match that Australia is involved in, such as overseas matches?
It is more likely that Ten are going after Nine’s summer content, but better clarification from the reporting would be preferable.
Many industry insiders predict that Ten would not make any money from the cricket rights, which in turn will become a loss leader for the station.
Nine will struggle to piece together the required funds to starve off Ten.
Nine is part of the NRL TV deal with Fox to tune of $1.025 billion over five years.
The other worry for Nine, it is believed two US-based hedge funds that are Nine’s key shareholders may want the station to withdraw from the bidding .
Currently, Nine are paying $45 million a year.
If Nine gets the rights, they would pay at least $80 million for the international content, while the BBL will almost certainly go to Ten.
Channel Nine’s coverage has been satisfactory but certainly far from perfect.
The problem I have with Nine’s coverage is the same content year in, year out between the months of November to February.
The Australian cricket team does play cricket to other parts around the world.
As far as the commentary team is concerned they don’t really bother me as such. Except for maybe James Brayshaw, whenever he commentates on Victorian all rounder Glenn Maxwell he gets a little too excited.
I understand many other fans would be angst listening to certain commentators.
You could argue that the older commentators should have given up the microphone a long time ago, while the younger callers are not up to scratch. Even if Ten get the rights, I’m sure their set of commentators would have a couple that drive viewers around the bend.
For many years, Tony Greig was a commentator who would polarise viewers with his distinctive accent and persona.
Many cricket fans wanted him out of Nine’s commentary team. Then when Greig passed away, everyone was honouring him as a great commentator and a courageous individual through World Series cricket.
Eventaully, Riche Benaud (82) and Bill Lawry (76) will depart the box, hopefully under better circumstances compared to Greig.
At the end of the day, the type of cricket content on free-to-air in my view is far more important, then whoever calls the matches.
Many cricket fans across Australia want a change in cricket’s coverage. One would feel that if Nine gets the rights, it will be the same coverage and content as it has been over the last few decades.
However, if cricket moved to Ten, it may give the sport a jolt it so desperately needs, especially with Ten been noted for been a station that goes after the younger demographic.
As a massive cricket fan, the one thing I like to see is for every Australian Test match to be broadcasted on free-to-air, which includes every Test at home and abroad.
At the moment the Test matches that are broadcasted on free-to-air are home Tests and the Ashes series in England.
In the past that would have been difficult with just five primary channels (Nine, Ten, Seven, ABC, SBS).
Today with digital television, we have extra digital channels such as GEM, 7Mate and One for sport to be played when need be, without interfering with the normal programming on the primary channels.
If anything, if overseas Test matches did broadcast on free-to-air, there would be more prime time content, compared to the home summer content Nine’s been having for the last 36 years.
You would have Test matches on the sub continent beginning at roughly 3pm in the afternoon, and stumps be called around 10 or 10:30pm.
Tests from South Africa and England would start at 7:30pm, with the first session in ideal prime time. Test matches from the Caribbean may not entirely be beneficial, as they normally begin around midnight.
However, what I’m trying to say is, if there ever was a sport that could benefit from those digital channels, it is cricket.
It is about time cricket coverage moves into the 21st century by broadcasting every Test match on free-to-air.
Overseas one-dayers and Twenty20 should also be on free-to-air, but the shortened forms of the game are not exactly a high priority.
In my opinion, our national team should be on free-to-air, and not hidden on pay TV. In fact all of our national teams, whether it’s Kangaroos, Diamonds, Wallabies or Socceroos should be on free-to-air.
It is one thing to have domestic football codes like NRL, AFL, A-League on pay TV, and it’s another to have national teams on pay TV.
If either Nine or Ten broadcast every Test match home and abroad, then everyone should stand up and applaud.
But to my reckoning, it may seem unlikely as both networks are fighting over the same home summer content. If cricket does move to Ten with the BBL alongside it, it will be different.
But it could have been oh so much better. We will have to wait and see.
michael landy
Guest
No free to air Show no sport in HD foxtel should have all rights
Jeff
Guest
or streaming with ad only or sport channels only
Jeff
Guest
Free air TV should have very limited right to Broadcast sports people want to watch hi profile sport should subscribe to it like they do in uk and stop interrupting normal programs
Timmuh
Roar Guru
1992 coverage was pretty poor really. All Australian games covered, semis and final, plus a few other but not many. A lot of games only had a local news camera turn up, not only were they not shown in Australia (understandable without pay TV) but were also unavailable in the competiing nations. I think it was the last, maybe only, WC where some games were not covered. We did get more overseas series on FTA back then though. The 1991 tour of the West Indies was great viewing, we got the 1995 series as well, even the 1992 England v Pakistin one dayers (world cup finalists). That has disappeared, apart from what is legally madated, since Foxtel became big - but every match is available for the money now which was not previously the case.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi Jamesb - as far as I am aware, going by major metro media reports as of June 1, Nine looks likely early next week to retain home international coverage of Test/ODI/T20 until at least Feb 2018. With the domestic Big Bash on Ten (hopefully on ONE.HD). As a cricket fanatic it has long bemused me why Nine can't be bothered to show Australia playing overseas... I think we got (the surprise) a year or so ago of the ENG-AUS stand-alone ODI series live on Nine (I was stoked). And yeah, playing from New Zealand/India/South Africa in particular is reasonable for time-slots locally. But with extra digital arm channels it simply shouldn't be an issue. It's the national team as others have said. I wouldn't even be fussed if it is not full, live coverage. The first session then highlights? A one-hour condensed package of a session? A one-hour condensed package of away T20 games? etc, etc. And please Nine, if you do secure the rights, get the 2015 ICC World Cup right this time! That means broadcasting more than just half-a-dozen Australia group-stage games, plus one semi and the final. Given it's probably the last Cup to feature any meaning whatsoever beyond the 10-nation Test old boys' club, there are actually TV viewers who would love to see Holland v Kenya, Ireland v Zimbabwe, etc. PLUS games live from across the ditch in New Zealand as co-hosts. I recall the 1992 World Cup coverage being terrific. We even got the opener from Auckland live. Either it is a WORLD Cup or it isn't, you know...!
Simon
Roar Guru
This is true, and to be fair I think Nine have done a great job of promoting international cricket over the last 4 decades, albeit in recent times their in-house promotion of their TV shows is a little irritating. We should count ourselves lucky that every HOME Test is televised free-to-air. This is not the case in England, where ALL international games are shown live on pay TV. I dare say it's probably the same in NZ and SA as well. The time zones probably make it difficult and the cost involved probably outweighs the viewing figures, except of course in the Ashes. To fly over the hosts, commentators, camera crew, producers etc. is a costly exercise.
Chairman Kaga
Guest
Every test is "free" ever heard of web streaming video?
jamesb
Guest
"the potential viewership of the audiences means that it will always be commerically viable for the FTA networks, but potential at lower prices." Hey Steve, especially overseas test matches that are played in prime time back here in Australia. I remember the 2001 Indian test series. Imagine if that great series was on FTA prime time.
Steve
Guest
I'm not sure it is the future for a sport like cricket in Australia. For more niche sports (Spanish Soccer or NBA), then PPV streamed online is absolutely the future. But that's because either no-one currently has the rights in Australia (La Liga) or the federation/association doesn't make enough from the Australian rights to justify not implementing this solution (i.e. NBA). But when it comes to the cricket, the dollars that the FTA networks offer are far greater than Fox offers, or can offer. The audience is wider, therefore the advertising costs are greater. Now whether the prices are too high - possibly, and they sure as hell won't continue growing unsustainably. Regardless of any anti-siphoning laws, the potential viewership of the audiences means that it will always be commerically viable for the FTA networks, but potential at lower prices.
jamesb
Guest
"I lived in the UK for a number of years and there is no cricket on FTA there, all on pay tv." I guess each country has their own way of broadcasting sport. Lets not forget, in the UK, they could afford to go with cricket all on pay tv, because the UK has a bigger population then Australia.
Don Corleone
Guest
This is probably the reason why English cricket grounds seat around 10,000 and it's the poor cousin to soccer.
Don Corleone
Guest
-1 An efficient way to kill off a sport would be to make it 100% subscription TV. You would just be preaching to the converted. Only 35% of the whole TV viewing audience have subscription and as is the case with Foxtel you have to purchase an additional sports package. How would you attract non-cricket fans, kids from non-sports families, kids from low socio-economic families?
The Bush
Roar Guru
I just prefer it on Foxtel due to no adds, now breaks for other shows, the commentary is usually better etc. If you're a real sports fan and you don't have Foxtel, I feel for you - but it is the future (in the medium term).
Steve
Guest
"The flow on effect of less cash would affect every level of each" The ironic thing being, that the premise of higher broadcast rights = more money to CA (or other federation) = more money to the players = better players = better cricket = better entertainment. I think we can all agree that the standard of cricket these days is significantly below even a decade ago, and yet the salaries and broadcast fees have grown exponentially. So who has benefited out of all of this? TV Networks, CA, mediocre players (Maxwell) or advertisers? Or perhaps all of the above? What about the average viewer?
DJW
Guest
I lived in the UK for a number of years and there is no cricket on FTA there, all on pay tv. Most sports are on pay tv there. Formula 1 is on both. You get the odd rugby league game on FTA and FA Cup was (not sure if it stll is). Otherwise you need Sky sports. I imagine it will eventually go the same way here. Except for maybe AFL.
Tanami Singh
Guest
I don't really care, having tickets to the first 3 days of the Lords test is enough for me :)
Tanami Singh
Guest
i got fox because it has almost all cricket except local internationals. Nines coveage of those games is rubbish broadcast in standard def not high def. Either way channel 10 or fox or a combo of the two is the way to go. Nine have had their time and we can only hope it's time someone sends them packing.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
"Cricket Australia don’t hold rights to any cricket held overseas & hence have almost no control over the overseas cricket broadcasts." That is reue as far as it goes, however the anti-siphening legislation means that Fox can not shows the Ashes from England exclusively if an FTA network makes a bid. This is the same legislation that prevents home internationals from being pay-TV only. That legislation could be extended to cover all Tests, or all internationals, but neither the free to air networks or the pay provider want this. What may happen, with multi-channelling enabled almost everywhere and analogue just about turned off, could be for the part of the law requiring content to be on "primary channels" (the one with analogue simulcast) to be removed. This would enable sport to be shown on the HD channel without splitting the network's own viewers across two channels as is required to show mandated programming (mostly sport) in HD now. Personally, I'd love it all to be on FTA as I just can't justify the expense of having pay TV, but the commercial reality is most away series outside the Ashes; and series not involving Australia; don't have broad enough appeal for the free to air networks to want them.
Silver_Sovereign
Guest
just hope the ashes in England are on free to air. and please HD!!!
Grover
Guest
+1 What I'd like to see is Fox Sports Cricket. The coverage on FTA sucks and it should be all on pay TV.