The blind leading the blind: Australian cricket follows Rugby Australia into oblivion

Brett A They gave up with the Winter tests up north in Darwin & Cairns as CA had to give them to channel 9 for free, so it cost a fortune with small ratings as the football codes are in full swing down south.

I've been banging on about games in Darwin all year, Brett. It makes so much sense to me, given the terrific playing conditions, the fact that the pitches can easily be altered to suit spinners, quicks, etc, not to mention the great hospitality. The payback to the city and the communities would be enormous, but as with all good ideas, the powers that be haven't thought of it, so it won't happen again any time soon

Darwin too. Could allow us test matches in the Australian winter, and aligns with CA's indigenous strategy.

My guess is that an agreement in the contract negotiations with the pay tv provider was access to a limited number of "exclusive" matches so that there was some incentive for punters to subscribe, rather than just sit back and watch the FTA package. As a small side note , we get all our broadcast television through the Foxtel cable and as a result we can't see any of the matches that 7 hide away on their secondary channels. It is indeed a very slippery slope that Cricket Australia needs to navigate. Gaining exclusive rights to Rugby and V8 Supercars has certainly provided some great cash injections into those sports, but at the same time the grassroots spectators' capacity to view and appreciate the sports is fading. Undoubtedly it will damage the long term viability of the sport. Eventually the grassroots support will not justify the big dollars being paid by Fox and there will be a significant cutback in coverage and cash. Cricket at present seems to have a good balance, Fox has a superior coverage, but if you choose not to pay you can still view 95% of the balls bowled each year. Cricket Australia does need to be careful with this balance though, overseas matches have already transitioned to Pay stations and it becomes progressively harder to view all Australian performances. The barbeque cup and the sheffield shield are now virtual irrelevances for the australian public , lets hope Australian one day and 20-20 doesn't go the same way..

January – Australia v Sri Lanka

Yes I've been following that news. Likely Foxtel looking to get the best commercial outcome they can. Hard to know what the current bid is and what a re-submitted bid looks like.

Sadly, international matches have rarely been seen out of the capitals. In the old days, touring sides played in country areas. Then we had the Packer Circus with heaps of games in country areas but little since.

see this :) https://www.theroar.com.au/2019/11/24/foxtel-withdraws-offer-for-rugby-broadcast-rights-optus-move-looms/

I can't even remember the last Test match they played in Canberra. When was it?

Sports need to be careful narrowing their base and cricket has already experienced this in the UK. In a new book, 'Test Match Special Diary' Jonathan Agnew notes in the introduction that cricket was absent from free-to-air TV in the UK from 2006 until the World Cup this year. As such, cricket in the UK was in serious danger of passing most people by. Let's hope Cricket Australia can heed that sage advice.

Yep - me too. Just because you live in a smaller city you shouldnt be denied the opportunity to watch top level sport. We see too much of this with international rock bands and drawcards playing only Sydney, Melb. and maybe Brisbane - play em all or dont come - youve ripped enough money out of this country in the past - give a bit back. Wouldnt that be great ?

While I disagree with some of what is in this article, I think you're missing the point. The author isn't saying there should be any intervention to stop CA from selling rights to pay TV. He's criticising CA's decision to do it. Those are two different things. Even if there were no anti-syphoning laws in place, CA would still have had to make a decision about whether or not it puts some or all of its product behind a paywall to make extra cash, at the risk of shutting out a section of potential viewers. That's what the article is looking at.

What, I'm not allowed to criticize? particularly when it comes to facts that you've gotten wrong? Maybe acquaint yourself with the fundamental principal of this site...

Yes. And that's the case for most host nation scheduling. Even if we have TWO iT20 WC's in successive years!

Agreed, for the reasons I noted to Joshua Kerr.

Hi Joshua. Yes, the "paywall" discussion is very different between the Australia and England experiences. Perhaps where England went awry was the fact it was 2005 and went long term, when "digital disruption" and the "landscape" were very much in their infancy compared to now. It's true that the iT20s are not on FTA. BUT, the Australian cricket public has *never* truly embraced T20 at the international level (even before it was lost to FTA, I wonder how many - me included - could name 50% of the national team?). In any event, the T20 format is well covered on FTA by the public's preferred comp, the BBL. So "kids" not knowing what T20 is - when all they really care about is the domestic comp which they can watch in terms of number of games that would never have seemed possible by my generation (at their age) - is nonsensical. There are 3 ODIs in March (when attention will have turned to the footy codes) which also are not available to FTA. But again, the public's interest in ODI's mostly waned 10+ years ago, though given a shot by the recent WC. BBL has replaced ODI's as the January cricket go-to. And FTA is showing 43(!) of these. Plus the Tests. So exactly how is the FTA cricket watcher getting less? They're getting more than ever before. The fact is, from early October until early February, almost ALL of the "premium" cricket comp matches are on FTA. Tests, BBL, WBBL, WiT20s, WODIs. In a 120 day summer cricket window, that's 68 "days" of men's cricket and 110 days combined men's/womens (and that's excluding the women's WT20). What did we have 15 years ago? 45 days max (6x Tests + 15 ODIs, being generous)? And what has been the "trade-off"? A super-charged growth in the game across most formats, but particularly the women's game, driven by a massive financial injection. Plus quality programming for those prepared to go the extra step and support the game financially, via subscription - and let's be clear here; those who want the game to continue to exist by people paying nothing to access it, don't really have a plan for the future. Fact is, cricket - including (and especially) "pre-broadcasting" - has always been behind a paywall; yes, you have always had to "pay" to go and watch cricket, including prior to the 1940s. There is no comparison between the English experience and what is currently the Australian experience. And no doubt, as media platforms and digital technology continue to change at ever rapid rates, it'll look different again in a few years. We ALL pay to access content nowadays. Game of Thrones wasn't the success it was because it was made available on FTA. FTA has done virtually *nothing* to grow the game; it's simply delivered up the same poor-quality experience year after year and treated fans with disdain. Why should they be given carte-blanche to continue with serving mediocracy through a guaranteed monopoly that requires them to do nothing, other than bombard us with their inane "ads" every 6 balls and there woeful internal programming cross-promotion after every other ball?

Purely because Australia are hosting to T20 World Cup next year and need to maximize opportunities to get our team and tactics sorted

Newcastle's hosted Shield games so no reason why they couldn't host a Test, or at least a white ball international.

typical corporate overreach!

Ironic since the Canberra test last year was an overwhelming success.