Most cricket fans might be aware that the current deal for television rights will be expiring next year, and that later this year we’ll see networks line up their bids for the next cycle of cricketing broadcast in our country.
Here, I’m trying to explore how the networks line up, what to expect and if the fans benefit moving forwards.
The sad truth is that the television networks don’t run the same way today as they did back when Fox and Channel 7 won the rights, in 2017.
So, sadly I don’t expect those same deals will never be on the table again, i.e. Channel 10 will not bid to have every bit of cricket on their primary and secondary FTA channels for free.
Channel 9 won’t have all games for free on their channel, as they’ve branched out into Paramount+ and Stan Sports respectively.
Looking at the current options – we have four main contenders. Fox, 10, 9 and 7. I’m disregarding ABC and SBS from this race as they don’t have the funds. Similarly I am discarding options like Optus Sports or the likes as they don’t have cricket ambitions.
Starting with Ch. 9. Now this is a personal opinion, but Channel 9’s coverage for all its nostalgia, was absolutely terrible by the end of their last deal.
While it’s something that can be improved upon, their attitude towards cricket still is ridiculously weird. From having tennis hosts lined up for their Ashes coverage in 2019, to glossing over both men’s T20 WC last year and Women’s World Cup this year – it seems cricket is not on their agenda.
That’ll align with the money they’ve spent on tennis coverage and recently acquiring rugby union and UCL.
However, 9 bosses have said they can carry both tennis and cricket in the summer (have no idea how they’ll pull that off financially).
Rod Marsh (Photo by Adrian Murrell/Getty Images)
Stan Sports is a massive factor in this as well.
Stan Sports is in its infancy and needs more events than the occasional tennis and UCL. I don’t think Ch. 9 can win the cricketing rights and for me they’re more of an outsider. P.S. Channel 9 are now chasing Olympics too.
Next, ch. 7. Have they had a history with CA already. Having sued them for not fulfilling their “quality” duties and then having lost that case, their relationship can be best described as frosty.
The decision to swap tennis for cricket hasn’t paid off as well they hoped, but let’s not forget in terms of ratings they’ve done alright. Non-AO weeks Ashes and BGT they won the week in ratings over MFS and other stuff on 9.
They still don’t have a paying subscription model, which worked wonderfully for the Olympics. Where now? Well, Olympics coverage is under threat, they’re nowhere close to any steals from other networks and AFL is their benchmark and keeps doing well.
Will they continue on with cricket? I’d say they’d bite their tongue, look at the Ashes ratings and try bang on. Else they’d have a big broadcasting hole in the summer.
Next, ch 10. Boy, did they try for the rights last time. All cricket, including shield. All on FTA. No paid subscribers. Everything free for everyone.
The dream bid for a fan – which didn’t meet CA’s expectation money wise. And collapsed. Since then, CBS and Paramount+ have happened. And they’ve dipped their toes into some sporting waters with A-league. Started off poorly, but since then it’s been okayish.
With CA, I’d expect them to bid and bid big. They have the money. They have a platform devoid of content. And if they need to keep growing Paramount+ numbers, they’ve to attract customers with something more.
The flip side is cricket with 10 will no longer be all free. Expect ODIs, T20s, some BBL made subscriber only on their streaming platform. That’s the only reason they’d at all be interested in these rights but expect them to go big.
Lastly, Fox. Anytime PayTV enters the conversation, we know that it leads to lack of growth of the sport. Ethical reasons aside, Fox has done a good job.
Kayo was launched and it made access cheaper. 24/7 channels, quick highlights, ad-free and a one-stop platform for not just Aussie cricket, but with it Indian, English, Kiwi, South African cricket and leagues and ICC tournaments.
However, just focusing on Aussie cricket, they’ve pulled in strong ratings as well. BBL keeps declining, but international cricket remains strong. So, expect them to bid and try hard. They lost A-league to 10, part of NBL to ESPN, rugby union to Stan, but cricket has been identified as one of their core sports coverage alongside motorsports, AFL and NRL.
Can they continue their deal? They paid a lot for F1 extension and acquired Netball from Ch. 9 recently. So, who knows what’s left in the kitty, but they’ve pulled in more money than predicted in the pandemic.
So, here’s my take. Ch. 9 is the least likely to win the rights and Ch. 10 in sheer terms of what it’ll mean to them and money available, will be the forerunner. Fox and Channel 7 both should be extremely interested in continuing this deal but can be eclipsed by 10’s foreign investors.
It’ll be an interesting battle between these two.
However, for the fans, unfortunately the era where you can watch all cricket for free on your telly is done and won’t come back. So whether you shell out money for Kayo, or Paramount or Stan, eventually you have to, in order to watch all games live.
Each have their pros and cons, Kayo gives you more cricket, Stan has mandatory entertainment stuff tied to it, yada yada but none is free.
P.S. Ash retired this year and that obviously will have an impact when AO returns next year on tv ratings. Will that tempt 9 into going big? Also if Fox wins the rights, they have to have a FTA partner for the tests – if 7 pulls out, will we see a 10+Fox combination? If you ask me, I’d say Fox+7 will get an extension but 10 will come extremely close.
Brepen
Roar Rookie
Jeff our household has Foxtel,Netflix,Stan and Appletv since EPL Aleague and super rugby have left the Foxtel option I’ve consumed no EPL and A League and limited Rugby, I’m interested but not committed so a casual follower , isn’t a pay model just preaching to the already committed.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
But the point is, people are prepared to pay for what they want to watch/listen to/access. Just "having" cricket on FTA doesn't mean broader exposure; people now make their own choices re content and there are very few left - certainly under 40 - who default to "whatever" is force-fed to them on FTA. It's up to cricket (CA and others) to make their case re their content being compelling to spend time on. Otherwise consumers will spend there time elsewhere from the many multiple options available. And after all of that, then there is the discussion re what limited (IMO) additional exposure cricket can achieve on FTA, versus the money it can access from the highest bidder to fund development of the game (the last broadcast rights being a case in point re the material growth of womens' cricket for example). There's a reason why subscription (pay per view) providers are prepared to pay for exclusive access to cricket content. It's because they are reading the viewing habits of the market.
Big Fat Dummy
Guest
I'd be really interested in any case study where a major sport has eschewed the money and gone after the fans with FTA. How does that influence participation and crowd support? AFL seems to be a juggernaut and remains pretty freely available, it may not be the best example, interested if any one has some examples internationally.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Even if there are very high subscriber numbers to a pay to view service, that doesn't necessarily mean they are sport or that they include Fox/Kayo. The only way to ensure near 100% potential reach is via FTA. If people are paying for Netflix and Stan, for example, that's not much access to Fox/Kayo cricket content. If a paid service supplements that, then great, but cricket essentially disappears from wider public view when not on FTA.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
It's just going to get worse n worse. Hanrahan told me when l was last in Tallarook.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
“whitewashes against the likes of South Africa and Pakistan aren’t going to attract viewers” Are you aware that Australia hasn’t won a home series v South Africa since 2006?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
In terms of the next deal, CA needs to think carefully about managing their relationships with a view to the longer term. Fox (with Kayo) has demonstrated a strong commitment to the sport. Whilst one can argue about personalities that do the commentary, never before have we had such extensive content, uninterrupted by ads, mostly unpolluted by cross-program promotions and not cut short by "going to the evening news", amongst other things. Given the commitment shown by Fox, CA needs to think about fostering this relationship to facilitate longer term, consistent, delivery of the sport. Yes it's pay-to-view, but to those that bemoan how cricket will die behind a paywall, the fact is 80% of Australian households subscribe to at least 2 services and >95% of Gen Z and Millennials pay to view content (the ECB 2005 decision to put the game behind a paywall is just completely irrelevant in the discussion in 2022). The "days" of the one household TV in the living room just being "on" with cricket showing and therefore providing exposure to new eyes by default, are long gone. The nuclear family no longer gathers around the corner box to watch prescribed programming. People sit on their phones and devices as well as the larger screen (the "TV"), choosing what they want to access and when - and they are prepared to pay for that access for a few dollars a month. And things will again change exponentially re technology and viewing access/habits over the next 5 years, as they have over the last 10 years. The Ch 7 side of it is different. From what I have seen/heard, Ch 7 is at best a fair weather friend to CA and cricket. That said, I think for the next cycle CA must still ensure Tests are on FTA simply because the "backlash" (i.e. if not on FTA) - whilst in my view would be unwarranted - it nevertheless has the potential to create a negative sentiment that the sport can do without, at least just now. As for Shield/domestic, yes its great that Ch 10 said last bidding cycle that they would show it, but let's face it, anyone can stream it for free on the CA website anyway and how many households don't own a streaming device? Actually, how many households don't own at least 4 streaming devices? So I think it comes down to giving FTA Test content, but keeping enough exclusive content for the likes of Fox Sports.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
CA, along with practically every other sporting body in the nation is tax exempt. The argument from all the sporting bodies is that the additional money from pay-tv or streaming allow more to go grass roots. (Highly dubious that is actually does, IMO.) I do think all internationals should be on FTA, assuming any network wants them. But there is a balancing act between the money and the sport. Personally I think far too often the lure of money has been to the detriment of the sport - and not just in cricket.
MxDay
Roar Rookie
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cricket Australia is a not for profit and therefore gets tax exemptions. That means that Australians underwrite it and therefore it should be written into it's charter that all cricket that it oversees is free to air. How else can it hope to promote the game to the widest possible audience?
Timmuh
Roar Guru
For cricketing, rather than financial, reasons CA needs to overhaul the home calendar. The ideal move would probably bring a little less money, but fix some cricket issues, so it won't happen. That aside, Ten/Paramount are not allowed to bid for the AFL and NRL under the agreement to show (very little on Ten) Association Football. That possibly leaves them in a situation where they may have budget. However, can they do both sports at once as the smaller of the main networks? Ten itself only shows one ALM and one ALW games, usually Saturdays, a week. Other than day/night and Perth Tests there is potentially no timeslot conflict, only logistical. CA and Seven do not have a healthy relationship, and Nine do seem - as you say - more focussed on tennis. There is also the possibility of a new government, which might not be so happy to acquiesce to putting things behind a paywall which are on the anti-siphoning list. White ball internationals may have to be made available to FTA, even if Fox Sports wins the bid. And, CA have surely seen how much damage hiding the mens white ball internationals has done. As an outside proposition : I could see a situation where Ten get Tests and 50 over internationals, and Seven take mens and womens T20s - BBLs and Internationals; with a large slice of BBL/WBBL being Fox/Kayo exclusive. Seven would want guarantees on player availability for T20Is though, which might be a bridge too far.
Frank
Guest
The problem both 7 and 9 is the way the international cricket summer is scheduled with tests wrapping up in early January. Following that there is BBL but the ratings are lowish and for nine with the lead up to mafs they also need to be targeting the female audience which tennis would help with more then the cricket. With the cricket, outside of England and Indian tours there is little to interest casual fans as many of the remaining cricketing nations are quite poor at the moment and whitewashes against the likes of South Africa and Pakistan aren’t going to attract viewers. As for Paramount/Ten, they have completely bombed out with the declining a-league and are barely pulling 60k viewers each week even in prime time.