“It’s cricket, but not as you know it” reads Foxtel’s summer tagline, and for many fans in the last week, this rang frustratingly true.
There was a delayed sense of indignation when the summer’s first international was beamed into just three in ten Australian homes. I say ‘delayed’ because we knew this would be the case way back in April.
Cricket Australia ‘landmark’ deal brokered with Foxtel and Seven stipulated that all white ball internationals would be behind a paywall.
It appeared many (justifiably) didn’t take too much notice of CA’s announcement earlier in the year.
‘$1.2 BILLION’ screamed the dailies, but opulence in sport no longer surprises. Despite some initial column inches, its April release coincided with footy season heating up.
Kevin Roberts, pictured here with Ricky Ponting in 2005, is Cricket Australia’s new CEO. (Photo: Kristian Dowling/Getty Images)
The sporting world had more pressing matters. Now, however, it is real. The four T20 internationals in the next 11 days won’t be on free-to-air TV.
If we’re looking for precedent, we need to look no further than our old foes in the UK. Their experience in the shift to pay-TV is a cautionary tale told by those lamenting cricket’s downturn in popularity.
Back in 2005, the England and Wales cricket board moved its entire cricket offering onto pay-tv provider Sky Sports after that year’s hugely successful Ashes.
The move brought unprecedented investment in the game’s governing body – which you could argue is a reason for their steady improvement in recent times – but a monumental drop in ratings and with it, wider popularity.
The ECB were blinded by the Sky money, and will still argue to this day their decision was correct. A recent decision to return some cricket to the BBC from 2020 might suggest otherwise.
It’s an intriguing (and complex) case study that, up until this year, Cricket Australia had noted and sought to avoid replicating. Which makes the decision earlier this year to move two of three international formats behind a paywall their biggest gamble in an already testing year.
Forget new chairman, CEO, coach and skipper – granting Foxtel the rights to a significant chunk of the summer is the one result they’ll be sweating on most at Jolimont. Its ramifications for the bottom line are stark.
The predicament is nothing new.
Sporting bodies are continually weighing up the fiscal foresight of a) putting their sport behind a paywall and guaranteeing a financial windfall, while alienating a percentage of the population; and b) granting rights to a free-to-air provider, thereby sacrificing a big payday but guaranteeing long-term exposure to all eyes.
As it turns out, Cricket Australia has gone down the middle: ODIs, T20Is and around a quarter of BBL games are pay-TV only, while tests and all other BBL games are free-to-air.
Australia has been playing badly – not that you’d know it (AAP Image/Richard Wainwright)
So while they haven’t followed the ECB path and moved the entire product to a Murdoch subsidiary, this is a time they can ill-afford to have any international cricket reserved for the few.
Some argue, convincingly, that the move to put ODIs behind a paywall is insignificant given the format’s decline in recent years.
While this is hard to argue with, the decision to have all T20 Internationals on Foxtel appears extremely short-sighted. CA has made no secret its desire to push T20 as a primary marketing tool for the younger generation.
Putting all of next week’s T20s against India on Foxtel blocks momentum leading into the summer.
There’s no doubt Foxtel will be great for cricket. Their production and commentary has already shown promising signs, and a dedicated 24-hour cricket channel can only be good for the game. But, as cricket is essentially a numbers game, it’s impossible to look past the 70 per cent who are missing out.
The ‘go watch it at a pub’ argument, usually espoused by those with access to the games, is unfeasible.
Cricket Australia will argue the money derived from the Foxtel deal ensures it can invest in the game at a far greater level than if they accepted a free-to-air only deal. But then again, that’s exactly what the ECB said. It’s also the primary justification sporting bodies the world over use to justify what is essentially an exposure cut.
In the UK, a cull in free-to-air screen time coincided with a downturn in the game’s popularity.
Here’s hoping the same fate doesn’t await.
Hamster
Guest
What does cricket Australia say to 2/3's of Australians ( and future cricketers) who can no longer watch their country's men play the most popular form of the game on TV ( the only really enjoyable way to watch it apart from live). Will they now allow Foxtel to manipulate Bigbash broadcast games so progressively in years to come this games most enjoyable contests are bled off to pay TV only ? The rights deal was a great deal for the business men of Cricket Australia, but not for the future of cricket. Ask young people about it and they have one answer...Netflix
Duncan
Guest
The big bucks were already flowing. They were so greedy they wanted even more. They put the fans last.
Duncan
Guest
No because they have spoiled Big Bash too. I used to go to every game with my son but my feelings about the whole comp have changed.
Duncan
Guest
Wrong - a quarter of the Big Bash games are behind the Foxtel paywall. It means kids can’t follow the whole series like my son used to do. Very damaging. Takes the gloss off the whole comp.
mbp
Guest
you are correct.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
BBL finals will be on 7, 16 preliminary games are Fox exclusive. But even there, because the BBL is being dragged out even more, just as many games are on FTA as previously.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
It's $25 a month for the basic (which allows you to stream on two devices) or $35 a month for premium (which is 3 or 4). The $25/month is perfect and not that expensive considering all the sports programming both live and on demand. I promise I don't work for Foxtel.
shifty
Roar Rookie
While most posters are saying at least BBL is still on FTA, it's only the preliminary games. I'm pretty sure all BBL finals are locked behind the paywall.
jameswm
Roar Guru
True, but I think we’ll forget after the tests and Big Bash get going.
Dart
Guest
Hear, hear.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I used to have Fox Sports around 2014/15 - around the time Fox Footy launched I got into it as I really enjoyed watching AFL 360 and a host of the other shows around AFL, as well as being able to watch 3-4 games a weekend. but I guess over time I found I was watching the sports package more just to justify the money I was spending on it - I got rid of it around 2016 and didn't bother renewing it, mainly because so many AFL games were just pointless contests involving sides like Freo, north, st kilda etc who I didn't really give a toss about watching. I am sure the cricket coverage is a superior product over what is available on Free to Air, and look, if anyone is absolutely distraught that they can't watch ODI cricket anymore, then yes, sign up for Foxtel. But I can see and understand why some people wouldn't bother. For me it's just a case of not bothering to watch it, I don't really have strongly held views on cricket, just here for a discussion really! And I agree AFL crowds aren't impacted by attendances on FTA/Foxtel, but that's a fair bit to do with the product on offer. I know if my choices are watching on TV or schlepping it by train/bus to the gabba on a scorching summer day I'm probably going to take the airconditioned choice that involves moving 10m between the fridge and the TV unless I'm going with a group to the game
Nick
Roar Guru
Don't you have a David Lord article to blindly agree with? Anon, Foxtel is a rip off for what you get. It is - by far - one of the most expensive subscription services going around. And while you don't get ads on the sport channels, you do for the entertainment channels (which you must get if you want the sport channels), which begs the question as to what advantage Foxtel has over the market, or something cheaper and better like Amazon Prime.
anon
Roar Pro
If you like sport, then Foxtel is a must. In the scheme of things, Foxtel is not expensive. The enjoyed the ODI coverage on Foxtel. No ads during play for a start. No Michael Clarke is always good. Channel 9's commentary had become a boys club. Completely stale. Foxtel's combination of commentators were a breath of fresh air. No rubbish like Classic Catches. Attendances were low but they have been for about 5 years. This has nothing to do with moving matches to Foxtel. Does it affect AFL attendances when a match is exclusively on Foxtel? Of course not.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Foxtel have launched the beta for their 'Netflix of Sport' concept in Kayo. I suspect we'll see a big push once its out of beta to drive subs. I've signed up and it is actually a fairly good platform for a beta. Very few issues with live stream. The success of the Cricket move will depend a lot on their ability to drive traffic onto this service.
Ozibatla
Guest
To all the respected authorities and administrators who hide behind the reason of selling cricket to pay tv in order to improve the overall game throughout all levels - I call bulls*it! Purely a marketing ploy to drain abit of extra money out of our nations summertime sport. We always here that euphemism of cricket nowdays being a cut-throat business industry... Touche!
JamesH
Roar Guru
Fingers crossed it doesn't come out of beta til March.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Yeah - just saying I'm not bothered by that, they're a joke anyway. australia has fielded a 2nd and half XI in recent years as most of the test players skip them or have already jetted off for the next series, so it's a bits and pieces side usually.
AREH
Roar Guru
The T20 Internationals are exclusively on Fox too, I believe
Gary
Roar Rookie
Agreed. BBL on fta over most/all of the school holidays is sufficient to keep kids, and many bigger kids, interested in cricket. CA has many product lines : tests, ODIs, T20Is, BBL, Sheffield shield etc. Furthermore, they have male and female competitions for each product. The issue moving forward is which product lines will be cut moving forward... if kids are only watching T20 format, are they really going to warm to anything longer as they get older? Few people are willing to dedicate a whole day to watching sport when there is far more options of entertainment available than what there were last century.
Paul
Roar Guru
David, CA and the networks have put a lot of eggs in one basket - the BBL, at the expense of other forms of cricket. I doubt greatly too many people will want to watch 59 games of this form of cricket. It's following exactly the same path as ODI's did on the 80's & 90's where CA decided to flog the golden goose and hold as many one dayers as they could each season. The end result was people staying away and switching off in droves. I also question what the NEW CA Board will do? I realize they have a contract to honour, but the current season is not based on fostering cricket at all, but around getting as much money making cricket into us viewers as possible while playing lip service to other aspects, such as the domestic ODI series and the Shield. The Board has to recognize that unless we have a strong Shield comp, we're not going to generate strong cricketers in any format of the game? This means balancing the needs of the networks with those of the game itself; if we continue to kill off the Shield comp and pay lip service to the JLT, we'll end up having mediocrity in all forms of the game.