This week saw the release of the Ashley Madison account data, a dating site for married individuals looking for an affair. This has resulted in a few strained marriages around town.
However, there was one marriage coming apart at the seams that has nothing to do with Ashley Maddison, the one between the NRL and News Corp.
The reasons for this marriage separation have been documented enough on this site, and it seems the NRL community are split – those in the pro-News Ltd and anti-Dave Smith crowd, and those in the pro-NRL and happy to finally see Rupert Murdoch on the receiving end crowd.
I’ll try and look at potential suitors for the NRL and their remaining four matches per round available for broadcast. One thing to remember is to separate Foxtel and Fox Sports.
Existing video on demand (VOD)
Twelve months ago where was Stan, Netflix and Presto (a sibling of Foxtel) in the Australian market. By April this year Netflix had over one million subscribers in Australia in 408,000 homes, and is rising. Stan and Presto are well behind with less than 150,000 subscribers combined.
These services are of massive concern to Foxtel, primarily in the movies and drama categories. None have yet to venture into sports. Netflix haven’t shown any interest in sport anywhere else in the world and have stated they have no interest in the NRL.
I think the word Netflix is getting thrown around as the generic term for video on demand operators. I would put Stan as an outside shot, just because of their link with Channel Nine.
Other video on demand
A couple of big brand names are circling Australia and NRL rights may be the perfect launching point. Google, through Google TV and YouTube, in the US have grabbed Willow TV, a couple of MLB games a day, some NBA and UFC.
One thing that YouTube has is global reach and an already existing viewer base. They currently do live simulcasts, with Felix Baumgartner’s free fall jump a couple of years ago attracting eight million live viewers. I have watched Coachella and Glastonbury live via YouTube. The 2015 IPL was also broadcast on YouTube. Subscriber costs can be shared between advertisers and viewers, who can pay per game, month or season.
One extra benefit is a deal similar to the IPL, where the stream was broadcast into some countries without a fee. So if somebody in the United States wants to have a look at this game Jarryd Hayne has come from they can watch a game live on YouTube, for no cost. An ideal way to spread the rugby league gospel.
The other major name is Amazon Prime. The Top Gear crew were just signed to a £250 million (approximately $535 million) deal with Amazon Prime. That is their way of launching into the UK market. Obviously, they have money to spend. But the question for Amazon Prime is whether they find the Australian market too crowded and therefore decide not to enter. At this stage I’ll say Google has more of a shot than Amazon Prime.
ESPN
The self-proclaimed “World Wide Leader” kicked the NRL tyres five years ago, but nothing came of it. Half a decade later they still have a presence in the country with two channels. The broadcaster has lost the Champions League and will be looking to diversify from it’s now US-centric line-up. Most of their current live sport is during the day in Australia, opening up the prime time spots to the NRL.
While Fox Sports in the US has been spending big over the past few years in an attempt to draw viewers away from ESPN, it would be ironic if the opposite happened in Australia. NRL would like them because they are on the existing sports package on Foxtel, meaning fans can watch the games at the current cost. It might be a nice sport to schedule on late night US TV. Might even get a few tries on the Sportscenter Top 10.
While they currently have no NRL talent on their books, there will be a number of Fox Sports people looking for a job if they choose to pass up the rights. Personally, I have a number of criticisms of ESPN, but it is mostly nothing to do with the quality of their live broadcasts. I think if they are serious and want to do it, they are in with a big shot
beIN Sports
Formerly Setanta, now owned by Al Jazeera and with money behind them. Available on Foxtel, but for an added fee, and also online for a fee. Current line-up is about 90 per cent soccer, and they just stole the Champions League off ESPN. Have a bundle of cash, but their line-up consists of sports they can offer internationally, particularly Asia and the Middle East. Very doubtful they will be interested.
Channel Nine
If push comes to shove, Channel Nine may try and get the remaining games and throw them on GEM and/or bundle them into Stan. Not at all implausible. It will be for less money than the NRL would get from others, but the added advantage of access to every game for everybody.
Channel Ten
May try and buy a game, but realistically they are out of the question. The merger with Foxtel and the much needed injection of funds is still being deliberated.
Fox Sports
At the moment, getting Fox Sports and the NRL in a room will be like the scene in “Wedding Crashers” where John and Jeremy are arbitrating the divorce between Dwight Yoakim and Rebecca De Mornay’s characters. There have been a number of ex-prime ministers who could tell you what it’s like to be on the wrong side of the Melting Candle, so Smith is playing a dangerous game here.
It seems, though, that Smith has a few brains and the commission is filled with successful people, so there must be something behind their approach.
Foxtel need something that will keep viewers, as well as attracting new ones. Don’t be fooled into how shocked Fox Sports people were, they knew it was coming. They were just shocked at the suddenness of it all. The purpose of Phil Rothfield’s article about a dedicated NRL channel and games on Channel Ten was to build up the fans’ expectations, only for them to be disappointed with Channel Nine getting the coverage. News Ltd knew what was coming.
Fox Sports are trying to play hardball. They need the NRL and I think they will end up paying top dollar for it. It won’t happen today, it probably won’t happen this year, but they will come around.
The NRL have one big bargaining chip they can play – Monday night football. At this stage it’s gone, but they can bring it back, just as long as Fox Sports pay.
As just mentioned, at the end of the day I think Fox Sports will come around. David Smith is going to cop it for the next 12 months. Every referee mistake will be his fault. Every player misbehaving will be his fault. Every little success the AFL has will be a blight on Smith.
Fox Sports will end up paying top dollar, with every game simulcast, and probably with Monday Night Football. They can sell that as a win for themselves. And I think coming out of it will be a new approach to the game from the News Ltd writers, a bit more positive.
ESPN I think are the next best chance. They want a bit of diversification to their channel, and don’t want to be seen as the broadcaster of American sports. They have the international expertise, open time slots, web presence (ESPN3) and a bundle of cash. It all depends how serious they are. News won’t be too upset with this as they won’t lose subscribers.
Channel Nine would be the third in line. Putting the remaining matches on GEM or Stan would make them very happy. It will reduce the dollars for the NRL though, so maybe not the end result Smith would want.
Personally, I hope that YouTube get the digital rights. They have the international reach that Telstra don’t have, have apps that work on all smartphones and can be accessed at any PC. I doubt this will happen as long as Telstra remain naming rights sponsor.
This all has a long way to go, and will be very interesting to see how it all plays out. Where VOD will be in 6 or 12 months’ time will play a major role here. At the end of it all there will be bruised egos and a few battered reputations. All part of this wonderful sport.
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
People continually compare themselves to AFL - but RL people just want to play and watch RL - we don't care what AFL is doing really, except when it intersects Im with CC on this, the Roy masters article has been taken out of context here for purposes other than the original story. There's still more deal to come. Roy didn't spin this, he chose to look at one angle, and frankly I think it has a giant bearing on the outcome; and oddly some people, namely non RL people, on here are thinking its got to be exactly like the AFL contract. Well, clearly the two halves are not alike, so no deal should be structured exactly alike. Of course C7 would pump up advertising potency - because they just wrote down a stack load and have a lot of debt. They want to bring about market confidence. These people use their media time effectively. He doesn't say stuff to the media every day. __ You know what, CC has the right of it and I am not just saying that. Too many jump to conclusions. They did some 40+ interactions (presentations, ect, back and forth) on this very issue with fox, I do not think they arrived here lightly. Whats more, cyngell, like many others, including on here have come out and said (myself included) any deal with fox will be for a very sizable amount of money. __ But welcome to a game that more than one network would actually like to broadcast. Rugby league.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
The more available to FTA the better.The NRL has achieved a decent live increase from really 2 to 4.The Friday night games (one of which on replay) And pray tell what happens when the NRL expands to 18 teams and has 9 games per round?.Andf that is not out of the question. And has now more FTA games available . The TV ratings in the Northern states are abysmal for the AFL.Yet rarely brought up by their fans or admin.Gil says nothing on teh matter.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
It is not misleading.What is misleading by your constant spin,is you constantly ignor nearly 20 % of the population which happens to reside in areas of rugby league strength,and who actually watch FTA.That is the bottom line.Population . No he is not GOGWS FHS using the G/F as the sole criteria to establish viewership.He would be as you apparently are not aware of the fact ,nearly 12 million people watch the SOO series each year. You can throw in All stars and Aucklandf 9s to the mix. Don't let your dislike of Masters get in the way of reality. As an aside ,you spent a lot of time suggesting News Ltd was so pro rugby league etc etc,yet events of the last few weeks have shown otherwise.And you have been a silent as a lamb. I could spend time on your threads re C Wilson,P Smith,Whately,K Underwood et al.countering some of their ant rl guff,I just don't have the time or inclination. Masters is on the button,get used to the fact.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
there is nothing magical about the 50/50 split. The AFL has 9 games per round - what are they going to do? Broadcast 4.5 FTA games per round for this ideal 50/50 split you've dreamt up. There's quite a bit of switching between respective state FTA games so what you have access FTA will depend on where you live but you can be sure all non-Vic based clubs (8 teams) will still have live FTA for the games involving their local team...so Eagles/Dockers get two FTA games per week involving the WA based teams broadcast into Perth plus a couple of other FTA games, Swans/Giants shown into into Sydney and so on. It's a good deal with good access for fans - largely the same as the prior deal, and still significantly better FTA than the current NRL deal which has another two seasons to run.
EastsFootyFan
Roar Guru
Good points Midfielder. In fact NZ is expected to increase - even double. It was $100m for 5 years last time, but with increasing success of the Kiwis in international league and ever larger junior numbers there, they reckon NZ's TV rights will hit over $200m for this contract. Longer term, PNG in particular is a massive asset - 20 million people and a GDP growth rate of 15% that is finally dragging them toward development will equal a lot more middle class people and increasingly valuable TV rights for the NRL to sell to the only country in the world as mad about Rugby League as Qld or NSW are (if not more). They all look at the NRL like international soccer fans look at the EPL, so they will become an increasingly large asset in years to come.
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
bingo, i almost certainly think. my take on it was spite - that RM offered afl more out of spite, fully knowing he' have to offer nrl more now
BigAl
Guest
Wow ! - tell Roy Masters this.
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
its not misleading, get over it.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
So what you’re saying: - one code has 50% of its matches available to 100% of the possible audience - the other code only has 39% of it matches available to the target audience, and - has 50% of the matches available to regions that haven’t taken to the game, despite 30 years of trying So, how are the FTA deals similar? 61% of matches available only to 30% of the population is a good thing? You don't think a 50/50 split would be more ideal?
Midfielder
Guest
Nice article but you have left out one important asset Smith also has he can sell to an international market. I read some time back NZ 20 million PNG 20 million UK 30 million... that 70 million per year so 350 million over 5 years. paid the AFL 800 million over 6 years or 133 per years whereas 9 have paid 185 million per year or an extra 62 million so 310 million. Add these together and its 310 million more than the AFL assume Telstra pay around 250 milion ... its 350 for the international rights + 250 for the telstra rights so 600 million + the 925 million from 9 and thats 1,525 million ... he has 500K NRL users on Fox paying over $ 100.00 per month if he went to say a youtube at say $ 20.00 per month you could assume 850 K pick up and Fox loose 500K viewers... I can see the NRL with over 2 billion ...
GoGWS
Roar Guru
Yes pay TV penetration is limited but that was also try under the last deal for both codes. And the AFL gave their fans 4 live FTA games verses the NRL giving their fans 2 games. So what the NRL has done for the next deal is redress this situation and catch up and give heir fans 4 FTA games. The NRL isn't breaking ground here - they are catching up. Good on them. And as for the AFL being behold to pay TV it's just untrue - across their new deal they still average 3.5 FTA games, and in NSW/QLD it'll be the same 4 FTA games....the same as the NRL. So spare me the 'AFL is beholden to pay TV and NRL is not' nonsense. The AFL deal is very similar in structure to their last deal - now they just get paid more.
marco
Guest
Its the standard of journalism in reporting on the media deals that is poor. Too many assumptions, misinformation and spin. I'm not the only one.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
Bottom line is that Roy's comparison is bogus and misleading, and he knows it (and you know it). The point he's trying to make (with no substance whatsoever) is that the NRL has more viewers than the AFL when you take into account regional viewers. Nonsense. And he tries (unsuccessfully) to get there by comparing a single night NRL grand final to a single day AFL grand final.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
You can't have it both ways.It's OK to exclude regionals when ratings are based on Cap cities. Yet 5.3m people live in those regionals of Qld and NSW. So its' not OK to compare apples with oranges on G/F ratings. In both cases it's not a true indication of consumer interest. We well know you expected a hell of a lot less on the last NRL deal.In fact you were miles out. If you bother to check the difference on the last TV deal,it was paper thin between the two codes.For your edification.I take your TV deal comparisons ATM with a grain of salt. I have no need to take my pick from anyone,neither Masters,C Wilson ,Whateley,News journos or even SMH ones for that matter.They are agenda driven,and twist reality to suit. Even Whateley ignore the fact it was a 6 year deal when he was trying to point score against Roy. Some of Roy's points are correct there is more FTA for the NRL,Rupert was indeed miffed.i saw the AFL deal on TV announced. Then seeing Kelli Underwood on The Back Page with the usual suspects and Hooper,the NRL was on a hiding to nothing. I have no inkling what the final NRL figure will be suffice to say ,it won't be a giveaway. Playing catch up really LOL ,when other streaming parties are interested,Foxsports needs the NRL,International TV to be negotiated as with Telstra.You only have to read the tripe News media is putting out ,to understand they are a little put out.
jamesb
Guest
"the NRL shouldn’t be held to ransom on what is a 30% audience and falling." That point has been overlooked so often. The NRL wants to give the game as much exposure as possible. Yet Fox's penetration rate doesn't allow for exposure growth. Imagine if Fox had a penetration of around 60%. Chances are the value of the pay TV component would just about double. Fox's low penetration level is depriving the NRL and other sports of exposure and millions of dollars.
EastsFootyFan
Roar Guru
To be honest, those "excuses" often come from the likes of Channel 7, who in the SMH business pages were quoted as talking about how AFL's more frequent breaks, longer run time and quartered format make it a better sell to advertisers. That seems pretty reasonable to me, but all the same the NRL got essentially the exact same as the AFL did in the last TV deal. Looking at it objectively, I think the AFL has more to sell to advertisers locally, but the NRL has a product that has more appeal regionally, if that makes sense. The last time around the NZ TV rights kicked in a decent amount alone; they're essentially a 4th state for the NRL that compensates for their limited presence in WA and SA and are a strong growth proposition further down the track. Then of course there's PNG. Still too underdeveloped, but at a 15% GDP growth rate, as their middle class grows, so will the value of the TV rights for the NRL for its 20 million League mad population.
Cathar Treize
Roar Guru
How has Smith bungled negotiations when they are not completed yet? Are you privy to how the commission are handling negotiations? Pls remember the NRL negotiations for the new deal do not come into affect until 2018, plenty of time to see what new players will enter the Australian market.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
No it's not in order. By pulling in the regionals what Roy has done is imply that he is evening up the score to make an apples and apples comparison but he isn't. He corrrects for the regaionl/capital variation in viewing numbers but ignores the massive variation due to day/night. It's a totally bogus comparison and he knows it. It'd only be in order if Roy threw in a few words acknowledging the day/night comparison (which he never does). And also ROy conveniently phrase the article around FTA coverage which is fine but he doens;t aknowledge that the NRL is merel playing catch-up to the AFL and moving it's FTA content to abouit the same. There's always an excuse as to why the AFL gets more money on the broadcast rights deal. I wasn't it was going to be but already we have multiple offerings from Roy - Smith bungled the negotiation, Rupert is miffed, increased FTA coverage. Take your pick. Anything other than the obvious - the NRL gets less because it's worth less.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
He is Sydney's equivalent of Caroline Wilson or lately Whately. Tend to go overboard and ignore facts on occasions. The facts are rugby league is at its strongest in the regionals of NSW and Qld,yet they are continually ignored due to this Cap city ratings setup.The population of those areas greater than WA/SA and Tas for a start. On that basis it is quite in order and arguable for Masters to compare NRL Sunday night grand final; with a Saturday afternoon grand final with the AFL. As in both cases they are not comparing apples with apples. If its not oK to bring in regionals (who are consumers) into comparisons.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
AFL fans get in a lather because his article frequently put down the AFL, and the opinions expressed are invariably based on inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information and he knows it. In the article in question Roy brings out his old war horse that if you include NSW/QLD regional viewers then the most watched sporting event in 2014 was the NRL grand final NOT the AFL grand final which is based on capital city data. I'm not even sure whether this assertion is strictly correct (he often claims this but never verifies the data) but let's grant that It is true. Even if it is true what tricky Roy has failed to acknowledge is that he is comparing a day-time AFL grand final on a Saturday to a Sunday evening NRL broadcast. Apples and oranges. He knows the NRL got a massive lift in viewers when it shifted it grand final to a night timeslot, and he knows the AFL would also get the same lift if it ever went to a night broadcast and would be miles ahead of the NRL. Roy knows this but he conveniently omits that little piece of information. And then he infers than because the NRL grand final out rates the AFL grand final (he reckons) then the NRL must be worth as much - forget about the other 22 rounds of games. Let's just base the whole argument on the comparison of a night NRL grand final versus a day AFL grand final. He's a broken record.