The A-League’s new broadcast deal by the numbers

There are further breakdowns available if you look for them. I saw one in the Courier Mail and another in the AFR. This is what it looks like to me, putting it all together: Averaged over the six years, it comes to $57.6 mill per annum…BUT…that’s just an average of the best possible outcome of the Fox deal. It’s not a straightline proposition. The first season of the deal will be for $51 million, for the remainder of the deal it will be $56 mill per annum. That’s about $14.6 million short of the publicised amount, that’s because there are triggers for the final two years to add a further $7.5 mill for each of those two years if certain targets are met. When you consider that there is $6 mill of contra per annum, that basically means that the starting position in actual cash terms is as follows: Year 1: $45 mill (plus FTA component of approx. $4 mill) Year 2: $50 mil (plus FTA component of approx. $4 mill) Year 3: $50 mill (plus FTA component of approx. $4 mill) Year 4: $50 mill (plus FTA component of approx. $4 mill) Year 5: $50 mill (plus FTA component of approx. $4 mill) (with up to $7.5 mill extra available if certain targets are met) Year 6: $50 mill (plus FTA component of approx. $4 mill) (with up to $7.5 mill extra available if certain targets are met) Only today, Bonita Mersiades has written an article that confirms the flavour of what I have written above: http://www.footballtoday.com.au/tabs/blog/2016/12/346-million-reasons-to-be-festive? That $5 million jump from Year 1 to Year 2 is clearly there to accommodate the proposed expansion (although she has the amount for Year 1 as $50 mill as opposed to the figure I had of $51 mill). She says, and I quote: "However, sources familiar with the details of the negotiations are adamant that the 'additionality' is already counted in the $346 million. In other words, it's not $346 million plus some more when the A-League competition expands. It's $346 million over six years including when (and on the assumption that) the A-League expands into two more markets....that means $44 million available for distribution in the first year. " (I have $45 mill in my table above) She also says that Fox have made it clear that the new clubs must come from Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane.

I'd say this deal now means that FFA should lift a number of the restricting elements on a club's ability to make a profit on those revenue sources you list seeing as they'll be getting an increased amount from tv revenue that they can cover the loss of revenue to them that goes to the clubs directly. It is this will make the clubs more financially stable and improve the credibility of investing in the them.

Obviously opinions on whether the monetary figure is a good one are like arses - everyon'e got one, just not all of them are good! The thing that bugs me most though is that this deal is for 6yrs and there has been no mention of whether FTA coverage will expand with the advent of more teams (whether that be 2 or 3 or 4 ++?) during the course of the deal. THAT worries me as FTA is crucuial in continuing the growth in fans and supporters (viewers and consumers for the metric-focused!) that FFA and us fans of the sport would like going forward. If the deal were only for the next 3yrs then I could understand not having such a clause, but the change in the game from both a quality perspective at A-league level, as well as engagement from fans is going to happen so quickly going forward that 6 yrs is an aweful long time to be locked in to a deal that may not reflect the real value of the sport by its final year.

Hey, Rick a couple of questions for you? How old is Collingwood Football Club? And do they still play in the top national league for Australian Rules football? What about Melbourne Football Club? Or What about North Melbourne, or Richmond, or Hawthorne, or Foots... oh wait no, they changed their name to the Western Bulldogs... What about Fitzr.. oh wait they changed their name too, but also where they are located didn't they? Yeah, something about Brisbane and being Lions and having the original blue and red of their club colours staying on... I think we can now debunk the myth that the AFL as a competition is only 26 yrs old and probably most AFL fans wouldn't support your argument either! You can argue all you want about soccer having been played in Aus since way back (even before the old NSL if I'm nice enought o help your argument!), but the facts are that all the clubs in the A-League have a vastly shorter lifespan than most of the AFL & NRL clubs and therefore the culural following hasn't had anywhere near the same amount of time to develop itself to the same degree - the idea of lifelong supporters of clubs in either code would draw very different impressions to just about anyone who was asked to describe one!

"anything more in depth would be a total waste of my time." Come on Mark, let's be honest...you have nothing else.

hay you guys, the AFL tab's over there <<<<

good comment I think some may be the same person I also think that it shows their insecurity, having to beat up on another sport to show themselves how superior their game is (not)

"You really think someone who writes as well as I do on this forum didn’t deliberately make that comment to draw someone like you into this conversation?" "Oh the irony of it all Mark, especially that in-depth riposte to my argument you just delivered." When you can't seem to work out whether you're tr0lling or trying to respond on a factual basis, and you clearly have your head so far up your own ... that you won't change your mind regardless of what anyone says to you, anything more in depth would be a total waste of my time.

I just can't argue with a sample size of you and a couple of your buddies standing around a water cooler.

"and your knowledge of the sport you claim to be a guru in has all the depth of a teaspoon." Oh the irony of it all Mark, especially that in-depth riposte to my argument you just delivered. I think this is appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LAnmnS0-9g

It has to out-rate whatever they're putting on the main channel. Whoever loses Big Bash will want to get the A-League, but they key that people are overlooking is that the Saturday night fixtures are generally the bigger fixtures (than Friday nights). If those Saturday matches are derbies and high profile games they might out-rate the alternative Saturday night movie and win the main channel. One of the problems is that the A-League would be under pressure to give every club a share of FTA fixtures when in reality, CCM, Jets and the Nix are going to attract horrible ratings and should probably be ignored. It's the same problem the AFL/NRL has with Friday night football. FTA stations pressure for big ratings matches while the clubs want equity.

Great post.

That is too funny, Rick. Your sword has all the power of a feather duster and your knowledge of the sport you claim to be a guru in has all the depth of a teaspoon.

per player relates to how the pay trickles down and is spread through the clubs. AFL and NRL clubs make a lot more money from their own sponsors and revenues than just the TV rights deal though. Comparing just TV rights is good, but not the full story. (Though I would never include pokies revenues in the equation which is just unsustainable.)

That's probably right. In today's Australian: " That will hopefully result in a Saturday game being shown live on FTA. Gallop said there had been interest from the commercial television channels, though it has been reported by website DeciderTV that the Nine Network is not interested. Gallop confirmed that if a free-to-air deal did not eventuate, then the fifth game would revert to Fox Sports, which will fork out extra money. The Australian understands the figure is around $3m and that, theoretically, Fox could sell that game to networks for significantly less than the $10m to $15m FFA would like to get for it. "

WHy is cable going to decline and who says Foxtel won't be in the lead in TV on demand via the internet essentially running the same service as now? All these assumptions about TV on demand overlook the reason why sport is still making big dollars when other shows are making very little, it's because Sport happens once and is an event, if you're not watching it live, you might as well not bother watching it. TV on demand such as streaming services work much better for binge watching dramas or films than for sport. Cable TV will rely on sport just like Sport will rely on cable TV. This is what has happened in the US and UK apart from a few experiments, but nothing long lasting.

lol...1 mill for over the hill defenders. Very good!

To say that noone is interested in watching football is a bit of a stretch. Whether you want to accept it or not, football fans have a smorgosboard of content to watch. Football is global and is 24x7 & year round. We exist in a completely different market to AFL and NRL and we compete on a global basis for player retention etc. Its getting a bit tiresome having to constantly justify/argue with the AFL bloggers on here who think that they can provide relevance to their local game by trying to compare their sport with football. Just like you think that football will never be the number one sport in Australia the same can be said that noone apart from a few states in this country will ever follow AFL. Globally it will always be a novelty sport and no amount of posturing by the AFL bloggers on here will ever change that.

Justin that's a very good point. With football basically going for 45mins with little or no breaks its hard to see how it would be palatable to a FTA channel like 7. They love AFL as they can pump you with ads every time a goal is scored (and there are lots of goals in AFL). To be honest Im happy that Fox has basically retained the rights to football as they do a very good job in promoting the game etc. FTA is stuck in the 70's with its white middle aged anglo view of the world.

Yes I agree with your analogy. Hows the AFL global expansion going? Has the Iceland league started up as yet?