Cricket Australia’s new billion-dollar broadcasting deal has created a polarising view on the economics and ethics behind our nation’s most beloved sport and how, let alone if, we can watch it.
There are two main sides to the great broadcast debate, those who have Foxtel already, and those who don’t want to pay for it.
But what about those fans who can physically not access it?
I, like all of us here, am a die hard cricket fan. I bleed green and gold. I wake up at 3am to watch the side lose in an ODI, just to wake up again the next day to watch them lose a T20. I have alarms set for 1am on each of the days of the Redbacks Shield campaign so that I don’t miss a second of the action, and a pulled five-sick days in a row to watch the first Ashes Test in 2013-14.
Most of all, I paid my 70 dollars for my Live Pass from Cricket Australia.
This used to get me the same basic coverage as any Australian living in the mainland but from the comfort of my apartment in Amsterdam. As of two weeks ago, however, the Cricket Australia Live App, cricket.com.au and the so-called ‘Cricket Network’ have stopped offering any paywall service to Australians (and non-Australians) who live abroad. All 310,000+ of us.
In efforts to make Australian cricket more popular than ever, making it physically impossible to watch games that sit behind a paywall is a colossal step in the opposite direction.
One option to get around such utter corporate stupidity could be to buy a subscription to Foxtel. Simple right? Just do what every other Australian has to do under the new broadcast deal. I would be fine with doing so, except for the fact that Foxtel subscriptions are also geo-restricted.
Australia cricket player Kane Richardson and his teammates (AP Photo/Rajanish Kakade)
Oh! What about the new revolutionary Foxtel subscription platform that is supposed to be the “Netflix of Sports Coverage” Kayo Sports? You guessed it, also geo-restricted.
This leaves the 1.3 per cent of total Australians that live abroad, no legal way to watch paywall cricket.
Related
I’m fine with paying for my cricket. But at least let me do so. Otherwise I’ll just sit through the 1,500th Toyota Corolla advert on a dodgy website that still has Ricky Ponting as the face Cricket Australia and the New Zealand flag as our own, at least they care about audience accessibility.
No matter where I was living at the time, whether it be India, Russia, Slovenia or Malaysia, watching the cricket with my family in our living room was an integral part of my childhood.
So not only does it sadden me deeply, it also angers me greatly, that many kids, just like myself, will now grow up unable to physically access the cricket, and as a result, might lose touch to a vital part in what makes them feel Australian, even if they don’t live there.
Maxwell Charlesworth
Roar Rookie
Eurosports comes for free in many countries, couple AFL games have been played on that sometimes
mavric21
Roar Rookie
But does that include the sports package? The cheapest I could get was the basic package for $15 and the sports package for $29 per month. And that is after buying the foxtel puck.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
The Minister has discretion to waive the list, which he did. Until now if an FTA network picked up the rights and did not want to use part of them they had to be first offered to other FTA networks (resulting in Lord's Tests sometimes being on a dofferent network due to clashes with Wimbledon coverage or some such). Minister Fifield used his discretion to allow that step to by-passed and Foxtel to step in for the bits Seven are declining to show rather than another FTA provider. A loophole in the laws that effectively allows Foxtel to bid indirectly for listed content.
Maxwell Charlesworth
Roar Rookie
Thanks for the kind words Byron! Yeah I've emailed them too and supposedly "they are sorting things out", this was in September. 2 months and 2 series later no update.
Byron
Guest
Maxwell great article exactly my thoughts. I am in the same boat as you living in Japan. I have raised this issue with CA two or three times this season already but with no luck yet. I’m happy to pay for cricket coverage (I already pay for AFL and Supercars live access) so not sure why CA is making life so difficult. Apparently Fox Sports Asia has rights to Japan but as far as I can see Fox Sports Asia is not yet available in Japan...hope this is sorted out before the first test.
Maxwell Charlesworth
Roar Rookie
Its is an outcome of the new deal, the previous Live Pass system worked under the old broadcasting deal, it has since been changed with the introduction of paywall cricket. The difference being that mainland Australians have the opportunity to see the cricket, even if they pay for it, whereas those living outside Australia do not.
Maxwell Charlesworth
Roar Rookie
Taken from Kayo Sport's terms of service : "The Service can be purchased from kayosports.com.au. To join the Service you must be at least 18 years old. You can access the content within the Service from Australia only. You acknowledge that you cannot access or view the content within the Service from anywhere outside of Australia."
Kangas
Roar Rookie
I get Foxtel for $ 29 a month
R2k
Guest
There are a handful of words that don't get brought up nearly enough when talking about the Foxtel purchase of cricket. Anti Siphoning Laws. It's actually legislated against, international cricket featuring Australia must be shown on free to air if it's played in Australia.
anon
Roar Pro
Foxtel's coverage of the cricket has been far superior to what Nine and Ten offered. No ads at the end of every over, no Michael Clarke, crisp HD (no Gem or Nine Mate), all the commentators seem sharp and engaged Nine's commentary was a self-indulgent boys club and Ten treated you like an idiot who wears fast food packaging on your head. If it was a choice between not attending any live events for one year or cutting Foxtel, I'd keep Foxtel and stop attending games.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
The AFL has basically $0 overseas media rights though. Even the NRL has some rights value in PNG, NZ and maybe the UK. Cricket, rugby or league would have contractual issues overseas to worry about that the AFL does not. (Yes, the AFL is available on pay TV outside Australia, but the value of those rights is zip.) That should not make it insurmountable, but remember Murdoch also owns many of the outlets with overseas rights.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
CA has employed the ECB model of a decade ago. The ECB prepared the cricketing public for a full time move to Pay TV with a short term switch to Ch4 before giving the rights to Sky exclusively and CA watched carefully to see what the reaction was likely to be, including the uptake of Pay TV subscriptions. Lucky for the ECB the change to Sky coincided with a resurgent Test team in 2005-06 and the public begrudgingly installed Sky. CA is going down the same path and it is nothing more than marketing spin from both CA & Seven to promote that they are the 'new home' of cricket telecasts. By the time Ch7 shows the 1st Test, Australia will have already played 4 Internationals on home soil against an opponent whom Free to Air viewers will not see at all this summer. Considering the controversy surrounding the last meeting you would think CA would be maximising their exposure. However they're playing the medium long game and will lobby the government hard in the next couple of years to kill of this Live & Free on free tv concept. You can see them now quoting the fall in free to air audiences from a couple of years ago as justification to take the sport exclusively to pay tv. The advertising of Channel 7 is ridiculous calling themselves the new home of cricket when they are only televising Tests & Women's domestic T20's. It's trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, especially as mentioned that the international season will have been under way for a month before they even turn a camera on. The world moves on and sports administrators know full well they can dictate to consumers, especially when they've been canny enough to get paid for not televising to the masses.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Ah well, at least you don't have to give any money to Rupert! Silver lining.
josh
Roar Rookie
kayosport.com.au is $25/m If you are used to streaming and casting. this is perfect. Not a paid advertisement.
Maccaa
Guest
And where is the Foxtel cricket only app? Like NRL or AFL. Where you can pay $4 a month or $90 a year. But no you have to sign up for the entertainment package first then add the sports package... blah ... blah.. I just want the cricket!!!!!
Jon Richardson
Roar Pro
Max I disagree that the two sides of the broadcast debate are between those that have Foxtel and those that don’t. The question is whether Cricket Australia, aided abetted by the Government and the regulators should have undermined the broadcasting legislation designed to ensure that everyone can see certain sporting events, including those who can’t afford or can’t receive Foxtel. I wrote this article on it the other day https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/11/16/cricket-australias-tv-deal-failed-the-public-and-brought-the-game-into-disrepute. I pay for Foxtel, that’s not the issue. I sympathise with your situation but that’s another question for CA, not an outcome of the Foxtel deal. I guess it is part of an approach that will shrink viewing audiences and player participation most likely.
Paul D
Roar Guru
https://www.cricketaustralia.com.au/about/partners/broadcast So my understanding is that they have blocked it in any country where they've signed a broadcast deal with another company and basically told people living in those countries to go through those companies instead. All in the pursuit of the dollar. Stuff like this is why I don't give them any more money to watch or follow the australian cricket team
jason
Guest
is the cricket on?
Wise Old Elf
Guest
Bring back the World Series Cup.
Maxwell Charlesworth
Roar Rookie
Oh how I wish. The CA page says more info to come in the next few days. Posted in the beginning of September. Typical.