George Orwell’s Animal Farm was a metaphor for the Russian Revolution and the subsequent tyranny of the regime that deposed the old tyrants.
After the takeover of the farm, the liberated animals write the rules for their new utopia on the side of the barn. The foremost of these rules was “All animals are equal”.
Later in the story, underneath is scrawled “but some animals are more equal than others”.
And so it is with the distribution of free-to-air spots for NRL sides.
Presently, Channel Nine has control of the match scheduling and they can choose the matches that are most commercially appealing to them. Fair enough, right? They pay the big bucks, they should be able to get what they want.
I guess…
However, the problem is that what Channel Nine care about is not the overall health of the game. As a business, they rightly care first and foremost about making a profit for their shareholders.
As a result, they seem to pick virtually the same teams every week for the free-to-air spots. A handful of sides get the lion’s share of the Thursday night, Friday night and Sunday afternoon spots, while other sides are barely seen.
Fans of those forsaken teams must either pay for Fox Sports, get a season pass from the NRL and stream online, or listen to the radio. Alternatively, they could follow the AFL, which features a far more equitable sharing of the free-to-air spots.
Further, these marginalised sides face an uphill battle to get sponsorship as they are unlikely to get the exposure to the widest audience.
However, the biggest problem is with the supporter base. As a kid, I first started going to Seiffert Oval not to see the Canberra Raiders, but to see the players from the other teams whom I watched on television.
I went to see Parramatta. I wanted to see them in the flesh. I’ll never forget the excitement of watching Eric Grothe and Peter Sterling that cold Sunday in 1982. I paid very little attention to the lone try for the Raiders, scored by a wiry young centre called Craig Bellamy.
I had no idea whom the Raiders players were. I saw the Eels on the TV every second week. And so it is still.
The problem with the inequitable sharing of free-to-air games was brought home to me the other day when I was around at a family member’s house. One of the kids – a nine-year-old league fan who is born, bred and raised in Canberra – went past me with a haircut he thinks is cool but I think looks like he lost a bet.
So I said to him, “that hair cut looks worse than Jordan Rapana’s”, to which the boy responded, “who’s that?”
I was almost too stunned to say, “Presently the leading line breaker in the NRL and one of the leading try scorers.”
This kid watches the NRL frequently but he doesn’t have Fox. He told me that he was going to see the Rabbitohs when they came to town and then reeled off lots of their players’ names. In spite of their relatively poor season, South Sydney will feature in 16 free-to-air games this year.
The kid couldn’t name a Raider. This kid who has never lived anywhere else knows nothing about the team from his town.
Out of all of the free-to-air matches this year the Raiders have only featured in four of them. What’s even worse is that they are doing better than the Warriors, Newcastle and the Gold Coast.
Just look at this chart to see the haves and have-nots of free-to-air games in 2016:
| Team | No. free-to-air games allotted in 2016 | Percentage of matches on FTA | Percentage of overall FTA matches |
| Brisbane | 18 | 75% | 25.3% |
| South Sydney | 16 | 66.6% | 22.5% |
| Cantebury | 15 | 62.5% | 21.2% |
| Sydney Roosters | 12 | 50% | 16.9% |
| St George Illawarra | 11 | 45.8% | 15.5% |
| Wests Tigers | 11 | 45.8% | 15.5% |
| Parramatta | 10 | 41.6% | 14.1% |
| Penrith | 10 | 41.6% | 14.1% |
| North Queensland | 9 | 37.5% | 12.7% |
| Manly | 8 | 33.3% | 11.2% |
| Canberra | 4 | 16.6% | 5.6% |
| Cronulla | 4 | 16.6% | 5.6% |
| Melbourne | 4 | 16.6% | 5.6% |
| Newcastle | 3 | 12.5% | 4.2% |
| New Zealand | 3 | 12.5% | 4.2% |
| Gold Coast | 2 | 8.3% | 2.8% |
| Average | 9 | 37.5% | 12.7% |
Five of the eight most featured sides on free-to-air this year did make last year’s finals. However, the bias is clearly towards the larger Sydney sides and, of course, the Broncos. These sides pull in the viewers and with those viewers come the advertising dollars.
However, that course doesn’t allow the clubs outside that clique to get a foothold to improve their lot, designating them to the role of ‘making up the numbers’.
The NRL holds off announcing the scheduling of the last six rounds until well into the season. Last Friday the NRL released those details.
During the first 20 rounds you can understand that the scheduling would be based upon: a) favouring the top teams from the previous season; b) viewer favourites; and c) a fair spread of all teams.
Yet once the free-to-air matches for the run into the finals are announced you would expect that it would be based almost entirely on the current season’s form, with an emphasis on showing the most pivotal match-ups.
Right? Wrong.
Of the 36 free-to-air spots that teams could get allocated, 24 of them (66.6%) are taken by just six sides – just one-third of the clubs. And which clubs are they? No surprises: the Broncos, Bulldogs, Roosters, Dragons, Eels and Manly.
Thirteen (36%) of those free-to-air spots have been allotted to sides unlikely to finish in the top eight. Just have a look at the distribution:
| Ladder start of Round 17 | Allotted free-to-air matches in final six rounds |
| Cronulla | Zero |
| Melbourne | One |
| North Queensland | Three |
| Parramatta* | Three |
| Brisbane | Six |
| Canterbury | Five |
| Canberra | Zero |
| Penrith | One |
| St George Illawarra | Three |
| Gold Coast | Zero |
| New Zealand | One |
| Wests Tigers | Two |
| South Sydney | Two |
| Manly | Three |
| Sydney Roosters | Four |
| Newcastle | Two |
The games selected to go on free to air in four of the final six rounds have nothing to do with the form match-ups and everything to do with maintaining the status quo of covering preferred teams. These examples from the following rounds leave no doubt about that:
Round 21
Free to air: Brisbane (5th) vs Roosters (15th), Bulldogs (6th) vs Dragons (9th), Sea Eagles (14th) vs Knights (16th)
Not on free to air: Cowboys (3rd) vs Storm (2nd)
Round 22
Free to air: Dragons (9th) vs Broncos (5th), Eels (4th?) vs Sea Eagles (14th), Wests Tigers (12th) vs Cowboys (3rd)
Not on free to air: Sharks (1st) vs Raiders (7th)
Round 23
Free to air: Bulldogs (6th) vs Sea Eagles (14th), Broncos (5th) vs Eels (4th?), Roosters (15th) vs Cowboys (3rd)
Not on free to air: Raiders (7th) vs Storm (2nd)
Round 26
Free to air: Broncos (5th) vs Roosters (15th), Bulldogs (6th) vs Rabbitohs (13th), Warriors (11th) vs Eels (4th?)
Not on free to air: Storm (2nd) vs Sharks (1st)
The scheduling has virtually ignored the realities of this year’s competition. Although they are second and third-last respectively, there seem to be some people in the scheduling department at Channel Nine who think the Sea Eagles and Roosters are still a chance in 2016.
Conversely, one wonders exactly what the Sharks have to do to get priority?
A few months ago I examined how the scheduling had dealt a number of sides five-day turnarounds between matches.
In spite of the furore that occurred due to this, the finalised draw has thrown up another 12 instances of five-day turnarounds, five of which involve the side having to travel interstate as well. No side has won so far this season when facing a five-day turnaround with genuine travel, and 75 per cent of the time even without travel, sides with a five-day turnaround also lose.
So who are the lucky sides that get to play the teams with very challenging turnarounds? Well, it probably won’t surprise you to know that the sides that get the free-to-air favouritism feature heavily on the happy side of this equation too:
| Teams | Games played against teams on five-day turnarounds |
| Brisbane | Five |
| Canterbury | Five |
| Manly | Four |
| South Sydney | Four |
| Sydney Roosters | Four |
| Melbourne | Three |
| Newcastle | Three |
| North Queensland | Three |
| Canberra | Two |
| Parramatta | Two |
| Wests Tigers | Two |
| Cronulla | One |
| New Zealand | One |
| Gold Coast | Zero |
| Penrith | Zero |
| St George Illawarra | Zero |
Lo and behold! The Broncos and Bulldogs get the advantage of meeting the most teams coming off short turnarounds in 2016. Manly, South Sydney and the Roosters are just behind them.
And once more at the bottom we see poor old Gold Coast. The team that clearly either no one cares about, or vested interests don’t want to be able to get a decent toehold in south-east Queensland – or both.
And there are the ladder-leading Sharks as well. If they can manage to pull off the fairytale this season, it will be all the more impressive given the scheduling inequities they will also have to overcome.
The NRL regains control of the match scheduling in 2018. However, until then it’s a good bet that some teams will continue to be far more equal than others.
Pedro the Maroon
Guest
The $600 is $900 before tax. Every $ i spend is an after tax dollar. i choose to spend my precious $ on things like swimming lessons for my kids - not Foxtel. As for coffee, I'm lucky that my work as a proper coffee machine for free. But foxtel - I just can't afford it. We do like the radio for footie games though. Much better than 9.
SeaEaglesAreGo
Roar Rookie
Slightly off topic but relevant: I recall, not that long ago up to 2012, Telstra used to have NRL. AFL, News Weather etc FREE. I could not watch any NRL games until after they had been played, but I could watch all of the games, replayed a few times throughout the week. Unmetered. Now they have found that they can make more money from a service they used to provide for free.
81paling
Roar Rookie
For those watching the Parra game with you in 1982 and supporting Parra who still support them now all this hardly matters the NRL will destroy Parra's chances of making the finals. It will be interesting to see the timing which will be aimed at reducing crowd and viewer drop off. I wonder if you look at the stats can you tell if TV has been given the heads up so they can change their schedule accordingly. Might be time to try and find a betting market based on these stats for that event.
At work
Roar Rookie
Bruce the SOO period is a farce in terms of the forced equalisation. Take my Dragons, we've faced (& beat) both a seriously under strength Storm and Cowboys. Play those teams any other time and we drop those 4 points. These wins could get us in the top 8, whereas the Storm might miss out on the minor premiership, and the Cows a top 4 spot. I don't know how this scheduling mess had gone on for so long.
LMM
Guest
Ive been saying for ages that the "popular" teams will only get more popular as kids grow up following these teams. Its unbelievable that a lot of kids whose parents can't afford Fox don't know who Shaun Johnson and BJ Leilua are!
Chris Meister
Roar Guru
Why should Melbourne get punted to Monday nights when nobody can go?
Asko
Guest
Spot on!
Josh
Guest
That was hilarious. Might as well get in early. Tim, it must be time for an Alfie running onto the field story. What about an Alfie running onto the field before the game when nobody is there. I would love that. Or you thought you saw Alfie running into your garage and letting your tyres down. You are sure it was him because he had a blue shirt.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
Exactly. I can "afford" to pay $15 for a coffee but that doesn't make it a smart use of my money.
Griffo
Guest
Hi Tim. I'm looking at doing a statistical analysis of 5 day turnarounds as compared with other factors like playing away, ladder position etc. to see if the 5 day turnaround is significant and if any other factors are more or less significant to the end result.
Ron Swanson
Roar Guru
Thanks Chubbzy much appreciated.
Tim Gore
Expert
Amen Peeko.
Tim Gore
Expert
DUDES! Am I hearing you right??? Do you seriously not understand that $50 a month is a huge extra expense for lots of people? That eating and heating take massive and clear precedence over pay tv? And Intenet costs money. Computers cost money. Cables cost money. Money lots of people don't have. Telstra might throw in NRL streaming for free but they are the most expensive internet provider. And the others have GB limits. Downloading/ streaming games drains that quickly. You know what helps poorer people? Being able to watch the traditional working class game for free. For some people the best thing they've got is their league team. But you guys reckon it's fair that they pay $600 a year to be able to do that? Lotsa people struggling out there. We've gotta care for them and represent them. We want a fair society. Don't we?
Tim Gore
Expert
Short answer: yes. Long answer: is very long. But you poked the bear so here goes. Yes Canberra does have the highest income on average per capita in Australia. it also has the highest charges for rego ($1100) the highest charges for a basic parking fine ($104) the highest charges for a basic speeding fine ( 5-10 over ($256) and the highest average rates bill ($1900). A bus ride costs $4. Houses on average cost $500,000+ - and those are far from palatial. Those are often bog standard 3 beddies. Canberra has these high costs because is 1988 it had "self government" forced upon it. Previously the place was run and paid for by the department of territories, a federal government department. Another federal government department - the national capital development commission - was set up by RG Menzies in the 1950s to actually make Canberra happen. They were given a budget and instructions to build a city that couldn't pay for itself: wide roads, very spread out suburbs, lots of schools, multiple remote town centres. Why? Because Menzies was sick of bringing foreign dignitaries to a capital that was just a paddock in the middle of nowhere. So he commanded Canberra built. He commanded the ANU was created. He ordered that the public service departments finally move up from Melbourne. But why did he have to do that when the site for Canberra was chosen in 1908 and Parliament House was built in the 1920s? Because Sydney and Melbourne didn't want canberra. But if they had to have it they were sure as hell going to make sure that it never could become a city that could rival or replace their own power. So how do you do that? Easy: make it a place that people won't come to. People bring political representation. Lots of people bring lots of political representation. Lots of political representation = power. So decide on a place business won't go. Give it no harbour (a bizarre decision in 1908) and remove it from the main transport lines. No major industry in their right mind would go to a place like that! Further, make it cold. Really cold. So instead of selecting Goulburn - a thriving agricultural centre on the train and road line between sydney and Melbourne - or Eden - a deep water harbour equidistant between most capitals with an emerging dairy industry and plentiful resources - they chose Canberra... Well played good burghers of Sydney and Melbourne! Added bonus: while Sydney and Melbourne actually supply nearly 50% of the nations pollies, who in turn make most of the decisions, they somehow seem to get away with blaming Canberra when it suits them. The last PM who wasn't from a Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne electorate was in WWII. Canberra has a population of 400,000. Tasmania has 500,000. Canberra has just four representatives in the Federal parliament.,Tasmania has 17. Canberra is the least represented constituency in Australia. Fenner and Canberra have more voters in them by a mile than any other electorates. A strong argument can be made for us having four electorates. But it doesn't happen. That would mean power. Instead in 1988 Paul Keating added an extra tier of government to canberra and kicked us off the federal purse. Not only do we have to pay for an expensive city not suited to self government, we now have to pay for a parliament and a public service. The one thing we have going for us is the Commonwealth Public Service is still based here and with it jobs. Jobs that have decent pay rates to help the lure people they need to this cold place in the middle of nowhere that costs a bomb to live in and has the least political representation in the land. And I'm sure there is a job here for you too Big Al - but do you actually want to move here, or did you just want to engage in Canberra bashing? And that kid lives with his mum. They don't have much money. Happens in canberra too. Lotsa poorer people in canberra as well. Lots of them love their rugby league. Be good if they could watch it on Telly.
Rilo
Guest
Not enough viewers on Saturdays.
monday QB
Guest
Tim, we've squabbled about this one before and...at the risk of doing so again...i'll just say that if you want a comp where everyone plays everyone else twice in a season at 2pm on a Saturday, then professional sports are probably not for you! The reality is the draw (in almost every league) is the result of a mix of lots of things including the pressures and requirements of tv networks who pay the big dollars to broadcast the games, club preferences (there are lots of clubs, including north qld and cronulla, who prefer not to have friday night games and i believe the broncos are regularly after more sunday games...like most things in life i'm sure nobody is happy!) and a heap of other things. But do people really believe that when the NRL take more control of the scheduling it will result in significantly less broncos games being broadcast on FTA television (which seems to be the major complaint in your article and in many of the comments) or that it will somehow mean channel 9 and foxtel aren't the first people consulted when the schedule is being prepared? As the saying goes...I've got a good block of land to sell to anyone who does!!
James T
Guest
reduce the number of teams in Sydney and the problem will be reduced. How to do this without dissolving them all and starting again I don't know, no wonder the nrl haven't done anything
peeeko
Roar Guru
you might want to check how many people have the internet in australia
Chris Love
Roar Guru
This will go round and round for years until they stick the teams into a computer algorithm that as closely as possible gives an even amount of Thursday/Friday/Saturday/Sunday/Monday games to each team whilst trying to limit the amount of 5 day turn arounds as possible. Adding to that an even number of FTA at home and away. It is simply the only fair way of doing it. The NRL feeble attempts of making an even competition through the salary cap is then contradicted by their complicit bias in favouring some teams over others. Case in point, of course the Friday night Broncos are going to have as much Third Party Aragements outside of the cap as under the cap when they are on TV almost every Friday night. If you are a sponsor with no affiliation with a club and want to use RL as a marketing vehicle it is absolutely a no brainer to go to the Broncos to do so. I totally get where channel 9 execs may want to control this for their own interests and a media bigwig is going to have a hard time explaining this to a board if an even deal was made but. A competition where each team gets treated equally, in time will even up the competition. If teams like the Tigers, or Manly or Stgeorge or the Gold Coast (Cronulla and Melbourne) are all playing the same amount of prime time games then they all have the same opportunity for external sponsorship. Imagine a company in Western Sydney wanting to push money into sponsoring a James Tedesco. Until he gets selected for NSW the chances of him being seen on FTA television is less far less than 50% in 2016. What a farce!
BigAl
Guest
Doesn't Canberra have the highest per capita income in Australia ?