Time for football to negotiate a bumper broadcast deal

No idea if this has been mentioned already as there are so many comments on the article - but the A League should definitely play more midweek games in order to increase the next TV deal. As a football fan who doesn't really follow the A League too closely, the majority of games my friends and I watched last season were played midweek.

Ange was already included on the selection board for the new Carlton Coach,so the AFL have plenty of respect for him. After all,he is a prominent sportsman who knows how to get things done,& knows where code wars end & reality begins !

gugu--It really sounds like you would be happier in Europe!------bye!

I hate the Roar,but I would always be supporting them against any overseas club!

That's correct, corporate dollars comes in to sport at three levels - grass roots, club and federation level. Soccer will be behind in two out of three levels but at the federation (FFA/NRL/ARL/CA) level it has managed some very decent growth to overtake both Rugby codes. What is somewhat surprising is that the soccer national sides all remain unsponsored which I would have thought would have been the FFAs biggest earner? But the point on these corporate dollars is not so much the "bragging rights" but rather the change over 5 years, the growth rate and the implication that corporates see value in advertising through soccer, which from a Media company's perspective is essential.

...

Chopper I was having a think about the percentage you cite there, that the FFA retains over a quarter of the TV money. If clubs are receiving the salary cap as the dividend, that comes to $2.5 mill per annum, times ten clubs equals $25 mill. The cash component of the TV deal is closer to $36 mill, but you also have to make an allowance for the fact that a small part of that relates to Socceroo friendlies and the like, so the FFA is handing out something like 25/32, meaning it is keeping for itself an amount closer to 22% of the total, which, is probably not excessive.

That's a fair enough point, although I think the figures you are referring to were talking specifically about the governing bodies - not about the clubs themselves, which generate significant sponsorships in their own right. When you think about the ratings the NRL gets on FTA, you'd have to think that some of those clubs are pulling in decent sponsorship coin because of their exposure, especially a club like the Broncos.

Vic I think it was most unfair that you would address a celebrated member of this forum in such a manner. As someone who has a keen interest in the sports industry in Australia, I would like to explore what you are saying. You are looking at the Wanderers, who have made tremendous strides in the last three years, and because that team appears to be more popular than the AFL's newest team, you are wondering why the A-League can't get similar media attention? Is that the gist of the question? The first thing to note is that it's a flawed logic. The Wanderers are becoming, if they are not already, the 2nd most popular team in the A-League, which is a great achievement, but of itself, is not really in the ball park of the AFL's top 16 clubs (and arguably, even it's 2nd newest club, the Suns, is a bigger club). So you can't look at one club, compare it with the smallest AFL club and come to the conclusion that the A-League deserves similar media attention. Furthermore, it might surprise you to find out that that AFL club you are referring to, its newest club, has had the following attendances for its last three home games: 14,667 10,093 19,500 which averages out at 14,753. That's not big by AFL standards, but it ain't too bad either. But - one thing you have neglected to mention are the Wanderer's ratings on Fox. Here are their ratings for the last three games of the most recent season: 30k 32k 31k for an average of 31k. That is a seriously small number, which would be an indicator to the very media proprietors you are questioning that the true support for the Wanderers is rather shallow. By contrast, here are the Giants' Fox ratings for their last three games (a club that has never played finals in its short history): 150k 99k 174k for an average of 141k. Once again, that's not huge, but it ain't too bad either for the AFL's smallest club. Also, you might want to consider that in 2014, the giants generated over $7 million in sponsorship, which ain't half bad and would compare favourably with every A-League club, even the very biggest ones. So I simply offer these points as possible explanations, and I trust that you will accept them as such.

Herein lies the problem. However much the TV deal makes will the FFA minimise the amount it gets from the deal? Will it allow the clubs (franchises) greater autonomy in the running of the A League? Will the FFA use it's percentage of the fees more wisely? It does not matter how much the TV/ streaming rights are if the FFA continually take too big a share of the pot. They already have the franchises hamstrung with some of the sponsorship deals and at the present time take over a quarter of the TV income. Twelve clubs need to be able to receive the lions share of the TV money and also a good percentage of the sponsorship revenue in order for the game to survive. Alternatively if the FAA want to create a more even playing field it could negotiate the rental agreements for all the stadia, pay that, and allow the clubs the full income from ticket sales. That should cost the FFA no more than 36 mill per annum and it could then still pay another 3 mill per team as salary cap support. Successful teams can then utilise the gate takings, membership, sponsorship and merchandising to grow their clubs. The FFA also may have better response from state and federal governments in regard to funding more stadiums. To my mind Foxtel have been a great partner in growing the game and should have a major say in the new setup however the clubs have been working on a shoestring for far too long and it is time the FFA tightened it's belt.

ManUtd vs Newcastle EPL match Saturday, 22 August 2015 9:30 pm AEST kick-off Foxtel ratings: 78k It's ridiculous that people think there are hundreds of thousands of committed EPL fans subscribing to FoxSports. Let's be honest. If you're a real ManUtd fan - not an event watcher - you'd make sure you stayed home on Saturday night to watch your team in action at 930 pm.

That's not exactly true although there is validity on the soccer generation growing into decision making roles at some point -- as I've posted before the corporate dollars being spent in to soccer each year now exceed those spent in both League and Union. So in ten short years the code of soccer has managed to overtake two very established and corporate-connected competitors suggesting that corporate decision makers are catching on quicker than expected.

"What we don’t see is a party who are super keen for football" business fundamentals aside acknowledging the popularity of the oval ball game’s in Australia the fact is that the big decision makers just don’t care for the round ball game and this isn’t going to change for about three decades when the then big decision makers’ will care for the game as they will have experienced it more while growing up

You two just don't seem to understand that noone on this forum cares what you two self abusers think and say

It's a no brainer the streaming of course........................ Everyone has had a gutful of News Corp

The AFL??? Why would Ange ever consider working for the Victorian Rules Board?

The 10% fall in Fox ratings for football last season and the fall off in attendances have to be seen in the context of the clear detrimental influence of the Asian Cup break, and the competition, on the A League. I firmly believe that this season we will see a strong increase in both ratings and crowds for the A League. To even begin a discussion at this point about the next broadcast deal is premature. In my view the single most effective measure that FFA can undertake to further the interests of the A League is to ensure that any off season tournaments in future include an A League team in the mix. The RM/Man City/Roma tournament could have been an absolute boon for the A League had Melbourne Victory, and possibly Melbourne City, been involved. I suspect that MV would have acquitted themselves very creditably.

Middy Given what we know about the past deals with ALeague, etc. playing with a few figures this morning using a non-exclusive broadcast model for the next FFA TV deal. http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q535/FussballIUL/New%20TV%20model_zpsrub8qlwk.jpg

There's three codes announcing TV contracts at the moment, two are already public one is to be announced shortly. Which one has the most relevance for soccer - the billion dollar deals done by AFL and League, or the $40m/year to be announced by Union?

@Vic I'd be happy to respond to your post but, first, you will need to get an adult whose primary language is English to please review your diatribe to make it reasonably coherent. Or, if you want to present your insights on football coherently, perhaps, try not to post comments when you are obviously heavily affected by pills, or powder.