The case for FFA TV

I'm not arguing the point of subscritpions vs advertising, my point on the viewership data would be just as valuable to understand what they're subscribers are watching. Plus I imagine those smaller programs which are there to just fill the scheduling gaps are likely puchased as a package from the overseas broadcaster, and are also quite cheap so it doesn't matter as much if theyre not capturing useful viewer data.

What about all their other programs that get maybe less than 1000 people watching, Antique roadshow etc etc....it is all very well to differentiate between football codes and that might suit some people, however Fox is more interested in selling subscriptions than advertising.

there are rumors Optus will be buying the A leauge tv rights for next season.

I think Fox would be very interested in how many people view each program. It's valuable data which allows them to analyse how many people care about a chosen sport (and hence future broadcast dollars), otherwise how else can they know how many subscribers like the A League vs the NRL or AFL, etc.

This isn't my area of expertise, but from Fox's perspective, you are talking about their advertising revenue, and I believe they are able to differentiate between live viewing and time shifted viewing. It's the clubs and governing bodies who are looking for the sponsorship revenue, and they are going to throw a wide range of facts and figures (actual, estimated, and made up) to woo potential sponsors to part with their money. Many are large corporations, often multi-nationals, and they are weighing up the value proposition (as mentioned by Pedro), and they might be sifting through dozens of approaches at any point in time. As far as the FFA is concerned, whether we like it or not, everyone will know about that 9k number, and they will be trying to persuade these corporations that the more accurate number is closer to 120k. They might succeed in doing that. But the bigger codes will be pointing to numbers in excess of one million, widely reported and widely accepted.

I'm not sure how well the economics of it all would stack up, but it's exciting in my mind. Realistically a 2nd division could get by with 3 cameras, for decent coverage so wouldn't cost the world to broadcast, with a local commentator being paid a couple hundred. When I think of paying $9 per month for Disney+ which effectively provides no new content that I'm interested in (as my daughters endlessly rewatch existing movies), then paying a similar amount for wall to wall football coverage doesn't seem like too bad a deal.

That's fair comment, Robbie, but how do Fox factor in all those programs i record and then just skip through the adds, how do they explain that to would be sponsors?

If soccer can not stand on its own feet (media coverage) then it should not be broadcast.

A couple of years back they got something like $30 mill to help increase the coverage of womens sport. A couple of weeks back, it was announced they were getting an additional $10 million to help fund the broadcast of smaller sports.

Yep. The problem can sometimes be that once the advertising or sponsorship has been received, the recipients sit back not caring about the fundamental basis as to why the advertising or sponsorship was applied in the first place and that advertising or sponsorship is soon lost to a better value proposition (a different club, sport or advertising medium).

If the public broadcasters stopped playing politics then there may be a better opportunity to garner some funding to cover production costs (bearing in mind some of the more widely played sports in Australia such as netball could be closer to the front of the grants line). PS: what grants are Fox receiving (just asking)?

Hi all, hope you're well. Tough times for our great game out there. But it will get better. Is it just me or is it hard to watch the aleague with Adam Peacock in the booth? My goodness if this is what we have to endure next season from December- god help us! What have they done to poor Adam? Thrown him straight into the deep doing something he has no business doing. The guy is not a commentator, but a great host on the desk. I sure as hell hope he doesn't do a double-back tonight!!! As for FFA TV it's a good idea, though as a production house to onsell to another platform- preferably Optus streaming, who let's face it is the "home of football" nowadays. Only hardcore folk will subscribe to the aleague on its own (pains me to say), it has to leverage off the back of the EPL, UCL etc at this stage, to garner some extra eye balls. However a free-to-air network is needed for the exposure but whom can we trust? It can only be the ABC or SBS (with their own crews for heaven's sake!). I see the latter is giving the aleague a lot of love of late- well done Lucy Zelic & Nick Stoll. Let's face it 7, 9, & 10 wont be interested. Its such an injustice it is.

Years back, Lowy senior got SBS to pay $7 million per annum for one game per round. Those days are long gone. Where we sit at the moment, entering a recession, it's hard to picture any FTA paying one red cent (even just for the production costs). Worse still, the Federal Government continues to give grants to Fox while cutting the public broadcasters off at the knees.

That's true, although in both cases the info is important for: 1. sponsorship revenue, the clubs have to convince potential sponsors that they can bring extra eyes to their product 2. advertising - Fox (or someone) would still make a bit from advertising (becomes even more important if the FFA does it alone and goes 100% streaming where the price paid by subscribers is minimal)

OK, and I agree the price of registration fees is outlandish, I'm pretty certain that the FFA won't be advocating that fees rise, more along the lines of a dollar per existing registration goes towards the FFA TV. Then if clubs or federations insist on increasing fees the parents take their complaint, not to the FFA but to their club chairman, or local association secretary.

To a point you are right, but as an example, do Fox really care if I watch any of their programs once I've paid my subscription. I don't think that is their priority, their priority is getting people to buy subscriptions. Another example, where subscriptions are used, would be in monthly magazines, we subscribe to a mag that gets delivered monthly, do the publishers care if it sits on my desk in the office, or if it's read cover to cover by every one in the family.

Unless there's a significant FTA (or even Fox) component, there is pretty much zero chance of ever growing the fan base. The A-League would be destined to only ever be seen by hard core fans, as you simply won't get casuals signing up for a subscription service. The other issue is the cost of providing professional coverage. It's OK when an NPL team provides free streaming on facebook with 1 camera and a couple of amateur commentators, but you wouldn't want to charge for that level of production, and the cost of providing quality production across the various NPL leagues would be huge in comparison to the likely small audience. So I doubt the sums will work whilst a network is prepared to pay $20m plus.

Do we think that the pumped up 120,000 viewers/listeners across various platforms is enough to entice an FTA network to stump up the necessary production costs? Are we thinking Channel 44 here?

The number of eyes (subscribers) will still determine the viability of broadcasters (and what does or doesn't get covered).