As it stands A-League broadcast arrangements with Fox Sports and SBS are to continue until the conclusion of the 2016-17 season. Though it is rumoured the FFA are seeking to have another free-to-air holder take over from SBS.
Before any deal is signed, though, let’s look at three key points that require some consideration.
Viewership decrease
In 2013-14, SBS came on board to assist in the broadcast with Fox Sports. It was viewed as a huge step forward for the game.
SBS placed the A-League on their multi-channel SBS2 and already there were cries to have it shown on the main channel as some thought this would hinder the potential growth in viewership.
Fast forward to the conclusion of the 2013-14 season (including finals) and SBS2 provided an additional 3.1 million extra viewers. Fox Sports had 9.25 million viewers. Between the pair, they totalled 12.45 million viewers.
Looking back to the 2012-13 season, Fox Sports on its own had a total of 10.35 million viewers over the course of the whole campaign.
So despite an increase of 2.1 million viewers, which can be attributed to the exposure on free-to-air, Fox Sports had a decrease of 1.10 million viewers.
Did the 1.10 million viewers drop their Fox Sports subscription and become content with the viewing of the A-League on SBS2? Time would tell.
One would hope that due to an increase in exposure on a free-to-air channel that it would create the potential for Fox Sports subscriptions to increase, as fans may have wanted the option of watching all five A-League matches per round.
In 2014-15, SBS ultimately made a decision to move the A-League from SBS2 to its main channel. Many thought this would increase viewership even further.
Once again we fast forward to the conclusion of the 2014-15 season and find that SBS provided a total of 3.75 million viewers, a further increase of 600,000 viewers from SBS2 to SBS.
Unfortunately, this was not the case as Fox Sports totalled 8.1 million – a large decrease of one million viewers. This provided a total viewing audience of 12.23 million viewers which was a further decrease overall.
At this point, some may raise key points such as the marquee factor for season 2013-14 or the Asian Cup factor for season 2014-15, but football is football. Are we establishing that without significant marquees, viewership will decrease to the levels it was previously at prior to marquee arrivals?
Season 2015-16 rolled around and SBS relegated the A-League back to SBS2. Oh, how that backfired.
A total of 1.8 million tuned into SBS2 throughout the course of the season, down close to two million viewers. Fox Sports had 8.3 million viewers, giving season 2015-16 a total 10.1 million viewers – a decrease of 2.1 million.
Many would point to the contributing factors such as the A-League being moved back to SBS2, the dramas between the PFA and FFA and the boycotting of matches by A-League fans. All up it has potential to create an unwelcome feeling and one which may have turned viewing audiences away.
So looking all the way back to the 2012-13 season, Fox Sports’ numbers have dropped from 10.35 million viewers (2012-13) to 8.3 million (2015-16).
SBS came on board at the start of the last TV deal for season 2013-14 and what started out as 3.1 million viewers (2013-14), finished as 1.8 million (2015-16).
Taking the 2015-16 totals from both Fox Sports and SBS and comparing to the 2012-13 season with Fox Sports alone, it doesn’t make for pleasant reading. There has been an overall decrease of 200,000 viewers despite the quality of football improving and greater exposure of the game.
Yet FFA want an increase in the next TV deal. Couple that with the loss of Socceroos matches as a bargaining chip and one can only pray a miracle occurs.
Competition for broadcast rights
Despite the TV viewing numbers, the A-League finds itself in the unusual position of surrounding competition.
Fox Sports chief executive Patrick Delaney has stressed the importance of retaining A-League rights and its importance to the Fox Sports brand.
“We have been an unfalteringly strong supporter of Australian football and specifically the A-League and that dates a long way back to the time when the A-League was only a glimmer in the eye of Frank Lowy,” he said.
“We’re committed to continue to work with the FFA and the football community to build on what’s happened in the last ten years and continue to mission of making football more popular in Australia.”
With Fox Sports’ recent loss of the English Premier League to telco company Optus, Fox Sports have realised the importance of taking football seriously and the retention of the sport for Australian summer viewers.
With the recent acquisition of beIN Sports, which includes three additional channels, and delayed broadcast of six of the top EPL teams’ games, Fox Sports have, despite losing the EPL coverage in its entirety, stepped up its game.
As mentioned before, Optus acquired the EPL rights, which has recently been met with scathing criticisms.
Australian EPL fans feel as though they are being held to ransom to come up with the dollars to be able to view the EPL. Essentially, if you are a Fox Sports consumer and wish to still watch the EPL, you’re left with the dilemma of where it is you decide best to spend your hard-earned money.
It is without a doubt that the deal Optus offer to current customers may be appealing, but for those locked in lengthy contracts with other telco companies, it may come down to the simple fact that even if Australian EPL fans did wish to view the matches, they can simply not afford to make the change.
In summary though, Fox Sports are serious about football and Optus have changed the landscape, which has provided competition.
But who else other than Fox are interested in the A-League?
Optus, of course. Just days ago, Optus commented saying, “We’re looking at it (A-League) seriously”.
“If it makes sense and it adds value to what we are providing football fans, at a commercial deal that we feel is fair, then we will see how we can bring it across. But, it’s early days and let’s see what happens.”
Though, Optus aren’t the only challengers to a potential TV rights deal.
Earlier in the year, Channel Ten CEO Paul Anderson commented on the A-League rights as well.
“I think what we’ve shown with Big Bash is that we have the ability to innovate and do things differently,” he said.
“We’ve shown that if you have an alignment with the sporting body about the direction of the code and you work together for a mutually beneficial outcome, then lots of things become possible.”
What exactly this means remains to be seen, but there is competition nonetheless and this may prove to be the saving grace for the A-League given the circumstances.
Viewing figures, competition for TV rights, free-to-air/pay TV and TV dollars
With competition for TV rights, the FFA need to strongly consider all options.
Given the backlash Fox Sports faced regarding the loss of the EPL and the competition for pay-tv subscribers increasing with the likes of Netflix and co, can Fox Sports afford to lose the A-League?
With the loss of the Big Bash League a few seasons ago, sporting summer options have dwindled down to the A-League, National Basketball League and other once-per-year events like Formula One and the Australian Open.
Some Fox Sports subscribers may ask themselves whether it is worth remaining a customer if sporting options are limited even further. One might simply unsubscribe until such a time as the winter sports re-start and options are plentiful.
The backlash from a large portion of football and non-football fans towards Optus is a concern. One might fear that if Optus were to acquire the A-League rights that it would be buried away never to be seen again.
Although the EPL viewing audience in Australia might be affected, the EPL does not need to compete as hard as the A-League for attention and a viewing audience.
A strong TV deal is imperative firstly to the survival of the competition but secondly the opportunity to grow.
FFA have expressed a desire to have the A-League broadcast on a free-to-air network that will expose the game to a larger audience.
Looking at the simple viewing habits of Australians, it is easy to see why the FFA want to move away from SBS. It is just a fact that more people watch Channels 7, 9 and 10 significantly more than SBS. Due to this, it is believed that there is a large enough audience out there for viewing figures to increase.
Yet, as highlighted earlier, even when the A-League was afforded more exposure to a smaller free-to-air network, the long-term numbers showed that there was no real benefit obtained.
Viewing figures have not increased dramatically to the point where if I worked for these larger free-to-air networks, I would not be overly confident that purchasing the A-League would benefit my network in the slightest.
The room for advertising is limited when football is broadcast and this is something Channels 7, 9 and 10 largely consider when broadcasting sports such as AFL, NRL and the Big Bash League.
There needs to be a return for investment, otherwise it is throwing money away. And for what? Do they feel as if they need to help the FFA and football continue growing in the country?
Don’t get me wrong, I love my A-League more than anything, but when the numbers stack up, it is very easy to see why the knockers come a knocking and people remain pessimistic. There is no evidence available that indicates a move to free-to-air will prove successful.
Even when the ICC was broadcast, and with what many would deem significantly better quality than the A-League, the most any match could attain was 338,000. Now this isn’t anything to scoff at, but could A-League teams achieve these sorts of figures?
Could these sorts of figures be obtained were the Newcastle Jets, Central Coast Mariners and Wellington Phoenix play on the free-to-air network? No. The figures are easily obtainable and when you look at the viewing habits for these teams on Fox, it is a huge concern. So already our options are limited.
Will Fox Sports fork out top dollar if FFA want to have the best games broadcast on a free-to-air network?
If the general public has access to the highest quality games without the need to pay for a subscription to Fox Sports, one can only imagine the lack of interest to sign up to obtain all other four matches. Perhaps Fox Sports subscriptions would once again decrease.
With other issues regarding expansion, promotion and relegation, grassroots football, quality playing surfaces and stadium management, the TV deal is just the tip of the iceberg in what will shape as potentially the most important broadcast deal made for football in this country.
It is imperative that whatever the FFA do, they consider all factors in deciding who best to hand A-League rights to. Who knows, it may just be that Fox Sports and SBS remain our broadcast partners.
With FFA’s commitment to increase viewership and attendances, are they really serious about bringing a new batch of marquees to the competition?
Would expansion be placed on the table as an offer to increase TV dollars in conjunction with a plan to bring well-known marquees to Australia?
Whatever the plan, there needs to be one that will work, because looking over the course of the past four seasons we’re yet to find the right formula.
*Viewing figures obtained from www.footyindustry.com
Beny Iniesta
Guest
What a load. Foxtel is very cheap for the content you get.
Charlie
Guest
At this stage i think that the FFA should forget the FTA channels, they will not do anything to improve the A-League. The FFA should concentrate on Foxtel and a better deal, get bigger money at this stage to improve the A-League, help the clubs to grow their own support, forget people sitting in their lounge room they do nothing for the sport, more bums on seats get's the sponsors interested. When the stadiums have a big crowd for every game then the FFA should Start to think about FTA.
Emps
Guest
Why the obsession with the EPL. There is surely an opportunity for TV broadcasters to televise the English Championship league. It would be so refreshing to watch equally as good football as the EPL. Also it would help to level the football playing field, (no pun intended). In other words temper the EPL's appetite for sucking the vast amount of cash subscriptions from the English football leagues generally.
Boban Fett
Guest
I want to talk about ratings. How accurate are they really for pay TV? Let me explain. I know plenty of Glory fans that don't have pay TV and head down to the pub to watch the game whenever Glory is on the road. There must be 50 people in the pub watching at the bare minimum. What would the official reading from the ratings guide be based on who is watching on the big screen at the pub?
Martyn50
Guest
MF states plenty of good intelligent facts. Fuss ball and a few others need to see the light that 10 million views a year will not make it to FTA for one simple fact, and that is commercial stations are battling to make a dollar now will possibly go under as television advertisers will not spend big money on low viewer numbers. BBL woman's cricket out ranked A League over summer when the NRL and AFL were sleeping. FTA gets first picking of all sports in Australia. If it's does not bring quality to the table, then if Pay TV wants it, then it can. Must be embarrassing that netball can get 2 live games each week on a prominent FTA channel and soccer one game on a back end channel on SBS.
Fussball IUL
Roar Rookie
@asanchez Agree but this largely depends on whether the FFA has entered into a contract with SBS in the first place. It could be FFA entered the TV contract with Foxtel & then Foxtel has agreed to on-sell Friday night matches to SBS on the proviso that the FFA doesn't schedule the marquee matches. From what I've read commercial networks are ready to take over Friday Night A-League but ONLY IF they get access to the best matches. I reckon the only way to get rid of SBS involvement with ALeague will be if Foxtel agrees to terminate the current TV rights deal 12 months ahead of expiry. Foxtel may be willing to do this to lock in ALeague until 2020, rather than wait another 6-9 months & have more competitors. These TV rights will be a wonderful Case Study in deal-making - for both vendor & buyer.
asanchez
Roar Guru
Fuss, What the FFA should actually do is strip the rights off SBS this coming sesson, by getting a commercial FTA channel to take in the rights, even by paying SBS out of their final year, and part subsidising this next season, which further removes any risk for a commercial FTA partner. Yes they'd prob lose the current $5-6m that SBS pays, but they'd make the product make more accessible overnight, and with some decent ratings next season, they'd be up for an even better payday the season after.
Fussball IUL
Roar Rookie
@Ahmed "I think we’re both on the same page. Just a tiny bit of confusion on whether traditional tv should remain (it definitely should)." Yes, I think we're on the same page. To make it perfectly clear .. I want ALL types of platforms broadcasting ALeague. So, my advice to FFA would be: 1) PayTV (Australia only, Foxtel, or beIN Sport, or ESPN) 140 HAL matches, plus 16 FFA Cup matches, plus 15 W-league, plus national team friendlies 2) FTA Tv (Commercial network, most likely Seven Network) 59 HAL matches, plus 3 FFA Cup matches, plus 15 W-league, plus national team friendlies 3) Digital/online (perhaps Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Yahoo! - any globally recognised web streaming platform available to everyone on the planet for free. Ad revenue shared by FFA & streaming operator) 140 HAL matches, plus 31 FFA Cup matches, plus 57 W-league, plus national team friendlies, plus 40 NYL matches, plus 1000+ NPL matches 4) International TV (Global streaming will be part of digital/online platform, but payTV operators such as UK SkyTv, SkyItalia, US FoxSports, etc. still need content) 140 HAL matches, plus 3 FFA Cup matches
Fussball IUL
Roar Rookie
You're spot on with your thinking, Middy. Plus there are more people with access to the internet than Foxtel, so straight away we'd get more ALeague fans watching on the internet. There's the potential to create streaming for FREE with ad revenue covering the $2 cost I've read ads on Youtube are around 10c-15c per 15 second ad (can go much higher since ad price is set by an auction process) Even if we charged 5 cents for a 15 second ad; have 5 brands with pop up ads displaying twice during each half ($1 ad revenue during play) and same 5 brands with 30 second ads (10c per ad) twice at HT ($1 ad revenue at HT). Total ad revenue per viewer per match = $2. Brands will be able to target specific audiences & because the unit cost is so low, even small local businesses could get involved like they would in the old days with local newspapers. So, a hairdresser in Gosford could target only females aged 20-30 in postcodes around Gosford. If there are 500 such people watching a match, the total outlay to reach these people is only $200. And, the hairdresser is targeting exactly the customers it wants; unlike TV where the ad for 20yr old females is the same as the ad for 70 yr old males. A BMW mechanic in Melbourne could target only people driving BMWs. Caltex could send a voucher for "8c off per litre" to every person who owns a motor vehicle and watches an ALeague match. Woolies could send a 10% discount voucher; fast food outlets a voucher for 2 for 1, etc. etc. Immediate bang for your advertising buck! The data mining & analytics are already available for streaming on Youtube.
Ahmed
Guest
The main problem i see with streaming on these sites is the connectivity of the internet to the TV. It is a standard feature in many new TV's, however many old ones do not have this function unless they are able to hook up a ChromeCast (another obstacle). The obstacle of installation and also of data limits may in fact deter many from watching. At present those with Foxtel can simply turn on the TV and change channel. Netflix appeals to the masses do to its varied content. A-league appeals to a much smaller section. Just as it takes time for people to switch from traditional tv to netflix, it will take time to switch to sport streaming. Not all demographics stream, and not all demographics have the technology to stream. You mention 95% of Australians are on the internet. Not all Australians have access to fast internet, even within the cities it can be slow,, and not all those with fast internet have unlimited downloads. Thus I believe that any sports league would be foolish to go completely online. They would be cutting out a huge portion of potential customers. But going in small steps like the NFL with Twitter, or the AFL/NRL/CA with apps is the best way to go, at the moment. I think we're both on the same page. Just a tiny bit of confusion on whether traditional tv should remain (it definitely should). I understand the FFA is most likely trying to create a false sense of competition from a variety of non-sources. The NRL is attempting the same with its relocation of the Grand Final (does anyone seriously think it will go overseas?). In both of these, the experts who deal with negotiations will see right through it and perform their own thorough research and do their own sums.
Caltex & SBS support Australian Football
Guest
So true Holly, SBS and the ABC are the only channels, for folk who actually do care, what is happening to Australian culture, trying to lift standards from the bog-mire of boganism.
Midfielder
Guest
Fuss Ahmed Tis interesting if you run some very basic numbers and I will use published numbers in so far they are what David Smith said when he was CEO of the NRL before News got him. Smith said RL had 500, 000 subscribers on Fox that would walk if they left Fox. He further when on to say if the cost fell to less than a hundred dollars a year he believed subscription would rise by a factor between 2 and 3 times. Lets say we use David Smith base info on Fox and for the sake of making it very realistic lets go under what Smith said. Lets assume Football has a base core of only 20% of the NRL at say 100, 000 Thus say 5 games per week at say 150K @ $ 2.00 per game is 750, 000per week for 27 weeks is 1.5 million Therefore Weekly rounds 27 @ $ 40.5 million Finals assume 200K per match five games is 2 million Socceroos assume 300 K *10 matches is another 6 million. At this rate a fan could watch his all his teams matches, the finals and Socceroos for $ 84.00, instead of $ 1, 200.00 to Fox. That’s 48.5 million Say to 10,/ 9 / 7, you can have all the A-League matches, all Socceroos, all Matildas matches that’s over 150 matches which would include five finals and 18 internationals for 10 million plus broadcasting costs. You can should what you want or on-sell to Fox . That’s 58.5 million International rights for another 25 million. This could work in fact I would be surprised if this is not plan "C"
Fussball IUL
Roar Rookie
@Ahmed You raise good points but no one is expecting people to jump into something new. People have already jumped - jumping into something new occurred about 10yrs ago (to be precise 12 years for Facebook; 11yrs for Youtube, 10yrs for Twitter). They're already on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter. 95% of Aussies are connected to the internet. They already stream movies via Netflix. All they need to do is stream sport via the internet. In relation to Optus, that's not a fair comparison. Optus have intentionally said "we are not interested in reaching every Aussie. We only want to reach Optus customers." If the FFA were to do this, I would be aghast... albeit, Foxtel does a similar thing & people seem less outraged.
Ahmed
Guest
@FussBall. The huge risk of these smaller leagues diving fully into streaming products is that a small income drop can have a significant impact on the whole sport. They would be placing the whole league into a gamble that if it didnt pay off, the league would collapse. People don't automatically jump from one medium to the other, as evidenced by many epl fans revolting against Optus. It is much better for all sports to enter new mediums with care, some go boom and then bust. MySpace is a prime example of this.
holly
Guest
"It is just a fact that more people watch Channels 7, 9 and 10 " A sad indictment on Australian society !
Ahmed
Guest
The A-League, like other leagues (AFL, NRL etc) can showcase their product internationally at little to no risk. For all these leagues the international component of the rights would be little in comparison to domestic rights so a risk can and should be taken in this area. If say the A-League were to use Weibo to showcase matches online they could target the Chinese soccer league. If the AFL used Youtube they could target Australian expats who are casual fans. If the NRL used Facebook they could target league fans in the UK. All of this without sacrificing domestic income.
BigAl
Guest
Interestingly, that article was more about Twitter(a medium) and less about the NFL (a message). Brings to mind that famous quote from the equally famous philosopher who opined about the developng electronic world . . . "The medium is the message" !
Fussball IUL
Roar Rookie
Not at all. There's little risk for FFA because they're not getting that much money in the first place. The big risk is for AFL & NRL. If they say "we'll go directly to the public", they're risking $400m risk-free cash that's being provided by Foxtel, FTA Tv & Telstra. And, based on their viewing numbers, they'd be unlikely to get better returns - their products are being valued fully. But, Netball Australia, FFA, NBA, etc are risking virtually nothing by going directly to the public. These competitions are getting low broadcast dollars from traditional sources anyway. And, I've never suggested: get rid of traditional TV. That's just a nonsense perpetrated by disingenuous folk who read their own narrative into my posts.
AZ_RBB
Guest
But there's a fundamental difference between the ALeague and the other leagues you have mentioned. The others have enormous television viewer numbers as a foundation. They are able to take these innovative risks because they have that as a foundation. ALeague unfortunately doesn't have the same foundation, at least not yet. I would completely embrace the ALeague having a foray into the world of streaming. But traditional television cannot be ignored.
Ahmed
Guest
Short term income is not always the goal however. The NFL as Fuss Ball showed me below has forgone some initial income in order to go for growth and long term higher revenue. The A-League could sell their next rights for $80 million domestically, and then sign a partnership with a company like youtube to broadcast the matches internationally. Simple way to grow the future income, whilst still retaining an income. NOTHING people discuss on here is going to affect the tv rights for any sport, so i dont know why A-league fans are trying to exaggerate the possible size of the deal. The AFL should do away with the AFL international subscription. I travel regularly, and find it easier to simply stream a match using VPN. However id much rather watch a high definition on youtube (depending on which country ...) and see ads, then fiddle around with VPN's. The globalisation of television channels is upon us, and only the best will survive. We have seen a consolidation of newspapers. I would not be surprised in 15 years to see a 'television' landscape of SBS/ABC merged, Channel 10 rebranded as CBS, and either Nine or Seven, a well as a small list of global channels like BBC, NBC, ESPN, Al Jazeera, Facebook etc. Already we have seen a major major setback for channel Win in the last few months. Starting with small steps like one match a round helps to grow the game without sacrificing current revenue.For instance right now I am streaming the football on my phone whilst 'doing work' on my laptop. Without paytv, I am watching a live match that only 5 years ago I would not have been able to. The game has grown.