Australian cricket fans were left fuming on Tuesday night, as many struggled to find a way to watch the Bangladesh vs Australia T20 series opener in Dhaka.
In chaotic scenes online, many — including Australian captain Aaron Finch himself — were unable to watch the national team in action after no Australian broadcaster secured the series rights.
“Can’t find it anywhere…I thought it was meant to be via YouTube in Australia,” Finch tweeted.
Prior to the first ball, reports suggested the match would be available on YouTube via the RabbitholeBD Sports channel.
However once the match began, it became apparent the coverage was geo-blocked in Australia.
Cricket.com.au has since reported that the rights holders (a marketing agency representing the Bangladesh Cricket Board) “have instructed the RabbitholeBD channel…to black out the Australian market”.
To confuse matters further, cricket journalist Adam Collins said he was told “in no uncertain terms by the decision-maker in Bangladesh that this definitely would NOT be streamed on YouTube in Australia”.
Which, he said, made it “all the more puzzling why there were reports saying it’d be free on YouTube”.
Despite the messy situation, most fans eventually found a stream of the T20 clash, either via a VPN (a ‘virtual private network’ that can hide a users’ location), betting agencies (although users must have deposited money into an account) or illegal online streaming sites.
And while those determined enough could watch their team in action, the situation is an embarrassing one for Australian cricket.
It was the first time in 27 years that the Australian men’s team has played a series not broadcast back home via free-to-air or pay television.
That was for Australia’s tour of Pakistan in 1994.
At the heart of the issue is the fact Fox Cricket, Australia’s self-styled ‘home of cricket’, did not secure the series rights.
A Foxtel Group spokesperson did not answer questions put by The Roar as to why a deal had not been secured.
One can only assume that negotiations between Foxtel and marketing agency BanTech, working on behalf of the Bangladesh Cricket Board, had fallen over, with neither side willing to budge on their valuation of the series.
“The Foxtel Group does not have the rights to broadcast the Bangladesh T20 series,” the spokesperson said on Wednesday morning.
“Fox Cricket was pleased to bring viewers the recent tour of the West Indies, and we can’t wait to bring them the ICC T20 World Cup starting in October as we head towards The Ashes in Australia this summer.”
Perhaps worryingly for Australian cricket fans, the situation may not be a one-off for lower-profile series abroad.
Prior to this week, it was not uncommon for Foxtel to leave overseas broadcast negotiations to the last minute.
Less than a month ago, it secured the rights to broadcast the West Indies vs Australia T20 and ODI series mere days before the opener.
However this time, worryingly, the pay-tv provider has been unable, or unwilling, to reach a deal.
While it’s difficult to speculate without having an ear to the negotiating table, what’s clear is that these situations should simply not occur in a proud cricketing nation like Australia.
In the UK, for instance, Sky Cricket often secures broadcast rights for England men’s team overseas tours well in advance.
There is rarely, if ever, a ‘will they/won’t they’ situation where fans are left questioning whether they’ll be able to watch their team.
With Game 2 of the series taking place tonight, it’s unclear whether Cricket Australia may step in and ensure fans can watch the remaining four matches without using ‘other’ methods.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
I just think both parties had a view on what a deal was worth and weren’t prepared to budge from their respective positions. I still maintain if you’re going to criticize one, you have to do the same about the other. At the end of the day the BCB has fixed costs of putting the tour on. They’ve turned revenue down. Maybe they’re not that desperate for money?
Shaid
Roar Rookie
more then one TV
jamesb
Roar Guru
"What exactly did you think the countries played cricket for before TV coverage?" In cricket and sport, you can't go back before tv rights and coverages took over. If we go back to 1994 tv coverage, players would receive no where near the amount of money of which they are getting today. Also there would be less money towards grassroots. Its all about progression through the years. Cricketers in 1994 were better off from players who were involved in the 70's. And today, players are financially better off compared to 1994. I remember listening to updates/ commentary on radio of that Pakistan series. I think Healy missed the stumping, and Pakistan won. Anyway, with tv coverages, you can't go back.
Micko
Roar Rookie
CA are largely at fault to begin with: told the Bellerive curator to stop producing such green pitches because Shield games were lasting two days because the specialist batsmen just couldn't deal with the bowler friendly conditions! :angry: :thumbdown:
nics
Roar Rookie
Depressing isn't it. Where I come from there's a phrase "kampung jaguh" which loosely translates to village champion/big fish in a small pond. Maybe we need to play all Shield games in Tasmania, in winter, with a Dukes ball.
Rellum
Roar Guru
That is not an insult. What exactly did you think the countries played cricket for before TV coverage? The fact that Jeff struggled to answer that question blows my mind. Why do armatures play the game, it is not just for the beers.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Probably depends on what they're paying for each of those series. Indeed, the Womens Hundred perhaps comes as a telecast requirement of securing the rights for the Mens Hundred. Or taking the Men's Hundred in the first place is part of a package requirement to secure the England-India Test series. etc. Hard to know.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
About as good a chance as the Ireland T20 which they have been showing lately, against SA, most of whom are also no-names in Australia.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Jeff, you may have a point, but I’m not sure why an international series involving Australia should make any less money for Foxtel than other series they have been showing like Ireland - South Africa or Pak-England T20, Women’s Hundred, or the England Vitality Blast, which is pretty ordinary. Maybe they’ve hit a crunch point in profitability, so the timing was wrong. But I do agree that Bangladesh shouldn’t have been shooting too high in what they could get away with demanding.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Not if they overestimate their value. They probably needed to sell the rights a lot more than Fox needed to buy them. So anything would be a plus for BCB, as long as they didn’t accept a piddling amount. We just don’t know whether they were being too greedy or Foxtel too stingy or couldn’t be bothered. If the latter, it’s pretty hard to accept they could do the minimum necessary to secure rights to an Australian international series when they’ve been showing things like the Vitality Blast (below Big Bash in quality), Ireland vs South Africa and England - Pakistan T20s and the Women’s Hundred FFS. Time zone is no more of an issue with Bangladesh than England/Ireland. Even a package of highlights would have been something. It’s pretty galling when Foxtel claims to be the home of cricket. And when they refuse to explain themselves to the media.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Why do you think an international T20 series involving Australia would make a loss any more than some of the other cricket Fox shows - Women’s Hundred, Vitality Blast, Ireland vs South Africa T20I? Makes no sense. Just depends on the price.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Don’t think it would be loss leader Jeff - minimal additional costs unless they were only broadcasting in Bengali not English, but I’m sure they would have English to broadcast it in India and elsewhere. So surely it should have been easy enough to negotiate a reasonable price. Hard to know whether Bangladesh was being greedy or Fox just couldn’t be bothered. If the latter, I’m pretty pissed off they think we want to watch Women’s Hundred as opposed to international cricket.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
It’s really just a platform to market it differently in the UK with only eight franchises (with most players having little connection to the home city) as distinct from the regular T20 comp based on the 18 county clubs. But the game is hardly different apart from some gimmickry and lots of marketing BS.
Mooty
Roar Rookie
One needs to weigh up what value it offered to the broadcasters. We don’t know the asking price, it is up against the Olympics in the early stages, and is played at late in the day, for Australia’s main population. Perhaps a future solution could be that CA somehow get involved in this part when negotiating the tour.
David Schout
Expert
One key difference: this is a recurring theme with Fox. Sky have no issues sealing deals with foreign cricket boards and never leave things to the last minute. Quite clearly, Fox continue to low-ball. I don't believe the BCB would have refused a reasonable offer
no one in particular
Roar Guru
and without product broadcasters have no viewers
Mahbubur Rahman
Guest
Yes you are right cause its Bangladeshi TV channel and thanks for watching :happy:
jamesb
Roar Guru
Without fans, there's no professional cricket.
jamesb
Roar Guru
Thats weird comment. So rather than debate, you go and insult someone. Well done. If you have an away Ashes series, where England are broadcasting via Sky for example, and in Australia no network picks it up, then it does cheapen the product. If fans on one side of the equation cant watch it, then what is the point. Can professional cricket survive without fans? You work it out.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Ain't THAT the truth! :unhappy: