So after much speculation and innuendo from football types, the FFA has signed a new TV deal, renewing their contract with Fox Sports.
We finally know what the A-League is worth to Fox Sports, as the competition has signed a new six year deal with the STV provider, worth $346m over six years, which will kick in from next season.
The $346m six-year deal, is made up of $310m in cash ($52m pa) while the remaining $36m is in contra ($6m pa).
The amount of money the FFA has negotiated, or lack there of, has copped plenty of criticism from within football circles. The new $57m per year deal is seen by many as not enough, primarily because of much higher figures of $80m-$100m being bandied around in the media by the FFA in the past 18 months gave many people a false hope, and needlessly lifted their already high expectations.
Sure I would’ve liked more money for the evolution of the game, as would most, but I think the FFA got the best deal it could at this time, and keeping in mind that what we know so far, is only the Fox component of the overall deal.
It’s well known that the FFA have tried to relieve SBS of the current free-to-air game on Friday nights in the past, and get that onto a commercial free-to-air station, without any luck. But the new deal with Fox allows the Saturday night game (Melbourne and Sydney derbies, Big Blue, Victory versus Adelaide etc) to be simulcast live in a free-to-air network.
The FFA will be hoping that this part of the deal, which will be concluded around March 2017, will not only bring in some extra cash but also some much needed extra exposure for the league. Even if it doesn’t attract the huge dollars, the extra eyeballs are very important for the future of the game.
But now that the majority of the deal has been done, everyone within the game has put their hand out for their share. None more so than the A-League owners, who are reportedly asking for $6m per club per year. The FFA will have to juggle those demands, with the demands of all the other stakeholders in the game who will also want more.
It’ll be a tough job for Gallop and co, to slice up the pie and distribute the funds, but this is what they get paid to do, to make the big decisions for the future of the game. This is what I would do, and where I’d spend the money.
I would increase funding to all clubs to $4m each per year ($40m), increase the salary cap to $2.85m with a minimum of $2.6m per year, increase W-League funding to $4m per year ($44m), increase the ‘Marquee Fund’ to $5m ($49m) and increase the marketing and promotional fund to $5m ($54m). The contra part of the new deal would cover the marketing and promotion of the league
The remaining $3m per year would be kept for any contingencies or emergencies that may come up, including rescuing any team that may be falling over, or if their owners take off and leave clubs dangling by a thread.
And the FFA could use the extra incoming money from free-to-air, the international and the digital rights (assume $15m-20m per year for the lot) for some of the other priorities in the game, like funding grassroots, part funding of facilities etc.
Expansion is also another hot topic in the game, but those details weren’t clear cut in the presentation of the new deal. Some believe that it will be funded by extra money aside from the new deal, others believe that the FFA will have to slice up new deal 12 ways instead of 10, with no extra money to come in for expansion, but I guess time will tell.
In a nutshell, yes this deal could’ve been better for the game, but if the money is spent wisely, I think its enough to keep growing the sport, and help it get to the next level.
Waz
Guest
"At least for now" is a fair statement, however it does unfortunately play in to the arrogance of the ffa in believing it's acceptable for clubs to lose $2-$3 million each year while they redistribute money earned by the competition as they see fit. The sooner independence for the HAL comes to fruition the better, even if that means a messy legal battle to get there!
AR
Guest
Predictable indeed. Fussball, you're so often wrong it's embarrassing. You could not have been more wrong about the FFA's Pay rights, and yet you're still here pontificating with high-handed authority about things you clearly know very little about.
Nemesis
Guest
Predictable. Given 2 options to choose a) a more positive narrative about the FFA TV deal from a journo who writes for the only respectable business & financial newspaper in Australia, who was at the FFA's media briefing, who has seen the FFA's tender documentation & who has proven to be on the money (pun intended) when it comes to the business & finance of sport; or b) a more negative narrative about the FFA TV deal from a disgruntled ex-employee of the FFA, who did not even get invited to attend the FFA's media briefing, but now writes regular anti-FFA columns The Casual Multi Sports Fans choose the negative narrative, from the columnist who wasn't at the media briefing. Casual Multi Sports Fans: people who know nothing about everything.
AR
Guest
I don't back MF. I back Bonita Mersiades, who I think is one of the best and bravest commentators in Australia. I am aware, however, that since she left the bosom of the FFA, Fuss has derided her as a "bitter ex-employee" and attacks basically everything she says. That said, he also attacks Andrew Jennings - another brave journo who truthfully writes about sport, so there's an obvious pattern. I'm comfortable with where I sit on this one. How bout you punter ?
punter
Guest
AR backs Mister Football, what next, you'll tell me Donald Trump will be next president of the US. Who would have thought.
steve
Guest
I would assume that its the FFA, the games governing body, that Fox Sports have done the new TV rights deal, not the clubs themselves. In much the same way as Channel Nine and Channel Seven, along with Fox Sports have done the deal with the AFL and the NRL, both Aussie Rules and Rugby League's governing bodies. The 18 AFL clubs, the 16 NRL clubs and the 10 A league clubs and the respective competitions that the teams play in, are the products that the governing bodies of each sport are selling to the broadcasters.
asanchez
Roar Guru
Waz, Unfortunately whether we like it or not, it is the FFA's money to distribute, at least for now, and they can only give the owners what they can afford to. The owners have stated they want $6m each per year, but the current deal is only $57m at best. Plus as I've said before the FFA will not give 100% of the funds to the A-league clubs, as it has many more mouths to feed. It's like every other business deal in life, they've come into the negotiation asking do the top figure ($6m), knowing that the FFA will meet them somewhere in the middle. If the Salary Cap goes up to $2.8m-$3m, but every club gets $4m like I've proposed, I can't see how that's a bad deal from the clubs, as they'd be getting an extra $1m on top of the salary cap, to spend how they wish, which would either be on a marquee player's wage, or on covering their running costs. That'd be up to the individual owners. But IMO, the nutters can't run the asylum, could you imagine people like Griffin, the Bakries or Tony Sage running the A-league? Please, the league would be broke within 5 years, and heavily fractured. Sure, the current arrangement isn't the best, particularly in the long run, but for now it's the best solution.
Truth Bomb
Guest
Ahhhh, the fuss is back to 90 to 100 million. Bless ?
Justin Mahon
Guest
The logic is thus. The clubs have a franchise agreement to sell a product the FFA controls under law on behalf of FIFA. The clubs may 'raise' the money as you say, but they do so by on selling another's rights to control the game of football in Australia.
Waz
Guest
I don't follow the logic - it's the clubs raising the money why shouldn't they control it, it's their money not the FFAs.
Nemesis
Guest
You can quote. Bonita. Or Lolita. Or Vegeta. It's all rubbish. You may not know it, but I know it. The FFA TV deal is 346m over 6 years. With international rights, AFC TV distributions, FIFA TV distributions, digital rights & FTA TV we'll be around $90m. With a couple more teams, make that $100m/yr. Not bad for a crap quality league that has low viewing figures, low crowds and no media interest. Just plodding along trying to scrape a buck here & a buck there. As they say: That's football.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Maybe, although as Bonita reports it, Year 1 it starts at $50 mill (incl $6 mill of contra). You can add Fox's floor price of $4 mill (as long as we accept that over AFR's figure of $3 mill). So we're at $54 mill. Seems a long, long, long way to $100 mill, or even $80 mill. The following year, if there's expansion, that will go up to $60 mill. In Year 5, if certain ratings targets are met, that will go up to $67.5 mill. It's creeping closer, but it will be well short of that in Year 1 of the deal.
Nemesis
Guest
"That was a big jump in the value of the rights from $40 mill to $100 mill per annum." It'll be pretty similar to the jump FFA will get when all the broadcast deals are signed, sealed & delivered. ALeague TV deals seem to be tracking about 18 years behind the AFL. No harm. ALeague only started 15 years ago and we offer content that is low quality, low ratings, crowds are poor & limited advertising appeal. But, for some reason, each TV deal we get is similar to how the AFL TV deals evolved. That's football.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
That was a big jump in the value of the rights from $40 mill to $100 mill per annum. Interestingly, that was the one and only time Nine held the rights instead of Seven (in the modern period), despite the fact that Seven had already paid $20 mill for first and last rights - they chose not to match. Seven would not make that mistake again, grabbing the rights for $800 mill, in partnership with Ten, from 2007 to 2011 for $780 mill, and then alone from 2012 to 2016 (for FTA portion) for $1.25 billion. But that big jump back in 2002, 250% of what it was the previous year, was probably the start of the crazy pricing which has persisted to this day.
steve
Guest
TBF, Id rather the games governing body in Australia control the money, rather than the clubs themselves.
offsider
Guest
The medium house price in sydney i 2001 was 320 000 dollars,now its over a million.
Truth Bomb
Guest
That's exactly right, the figures gel. The 50 then 56 with 2 extra teams plus 7.5 when key metrics a met makes sense with al, the info provided or leaked.
Nemesis
Guest
As recently as 2001, the AFL TV deal was $40m per year. I was out by 12 months. Big deal. $40m/yr for 16 team competition when crowds are 32k. Aleague is doing very well from TV. Rubbish crowds. Rubbish ratings. Rubbish quality. But the money is the same as the AFL was getting a few years before the HAL started.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Nemisis wrote: "As recently as 2002, the AFL TV deal was $40m per year..." That appears to be incorrect, Wookie has on his excellent site: http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=52 that: " The News Consortium paid $500 million for 5 years. " (for 2002 to 2006 inclusive) By my calculation, that comes to $100 mill per annum. I'm not sure what the rights were before that, I think for the 5 year period 1997 to 2001 it was around the $300 mill mark, or about $60 mill per annum. So if you wanted to continue that line of discussion, you could say that the AFL was only receiving $60 million per annum as recently as 2001.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
That sounds like a case of what should be - but what we currently have is the FFA negotiating the deal with Fox, publicly announcing the deal, and pretty much controlling the revenues from the deal, pending where negotiations with the clubs take them.