You seem to be misinterpreting what i’m saying. I’m not saying AFL on 10 wouldn’t get good ratings, but it wouldn’t match 7’s, Also, the grand final would rate 4 million even on SBS. It’s event viewing, like Origin is. Regular season AFL games are not event viewing.
Your arguments about 10 News+ following is flawed given on Saturdays, 10 News+ doesnt screen on Saturdays. Your assumption if backing onto 10 News+ is only logical if 10 gets the entire rights package, which i think is unlikely as 7 will fight tooth and nail to keep the rights to what they have
3 Likes
You have no evidence of this. Your argument is speculative and flawed. You are stating as fact what actually is your opinion. 10 in fact had many high rating AFL grand finals.
1 Like
Clearly however it is a worry for multiple sports who do think their sport would be harmed by going with 10.
3 Likes
The problem the speculation is viewers won’t follow the sport to a new home. When Seven and Nine literally switched the Summer sport they screened this wasn’t an issue.
The problem is since the late 1980s and continued during Bob Shanks’ time at the network.
The biggest concern should be, is it financially stable enough to host AFL. They have done it on in a joint venture, not as a solo effort. As far as sports goes, the NSWRL putting 10 into receivership in 1991 doesnt help 10’s argument, but that said, the FTA networks are currently getting to the stage where despite anti-siphoning rules, it cannot force parties to a contract.
On theory if Nine and Seven walked away from AFL and/or NRL, would the respective codes swallow their pride and take a 10 offer or force people to streaming and pay TV?
Sorry if i am a little off topic
I think there were reports that 7 might air a Wednesday night NBL game a week. It’s not a very good comparison since 10 airs their NBL Sunday afternoon, but it could be a starting point to see if being on 7 gives those NBL games a bigger ratings, if those reports are true and 7 airs NBL
Yeah AFL & Cricket both chose to go with Fox & 7 instead of 10/Paramount who had bigger offers after seeing what happened with 
with cricket they got a lower price from 7 compared to the 2018 deal + 7 was suing CA.
I think the Cricket Australia position has nothing to do with 10’s handling of Soccer, but more to do with the view previously expressed by former CA Chairman David Peever who referred to 10 as “bottom feeders” and called their tactics as appalling when they submitted a joint bid to co-broadcast cricket with Nine in 2018.
The CA board wanted $850 million, $350 million more than they had under the previous deals. Peever also claimed the tactics from CBS were appalling.
3 Likes
Saturday night’s blockbuster match between Collingwood and Brisbane not on free-to-air TV
It’s on Seven in Brisbane.
1 Like
I think it’s clear she’s talking about Seven not producing it and broadcasting it nationally.
2 Likes
I know she works for 7 with Agenda Setters but I like how she said that she thinks 10/Paramount bid would have given the AFL flexibility and been better for league than the current deal even if it’s less money
2 Likes
Plenty of people said this but the AFL were hoodwinked and deceived by Fox that they couldn’t possible survive without them.
7 Likes
To be fair to the AFL Commission, the agreement in question was signed at a time when Foxtel Group was jointly owned by News Corp and Telstra. The terms relating to Foxtel were negotiated and agreed upon under that ownership structure—well before any serious sale discussions or speculation about a change in control had begun.
The real issue lies with DAZN. By their own admission, they acquired Foxtel purely for its sports content—an announcement that sparked widespread media hype about what DAZN’s financial muscle could mean for the future of sport.
It’s easy to make bold declarations to the media. Backing them up is another matter entirely. DAZN is now showing clear signs of buyer’s remorse. It’s as simple as that.
1 Like
Let’s put aside how it probably would’ve been unconscionable for the AFL to leave a significant amount of money on the table and accept a lower bid.
I don’t understand how Caro thinks 10 having the rights would have prevented ‘blockbuster’ games not airing on FTA. The fact of the matter is like Fox requires, Paramount+ would have needed exclusive ‘blockbuster’ games in order to attract subscribers and justify the $600 million per year investment for the AFL rights.
Considering Paramount currently makes half of all Matildas & Socceroos games exclusive to Paramount+, if Caro thinks 10 having exclusive AFL rights wouldn’t have meant no ‘blockbuster’ games would be behind the Paramount+ paywall, she’s frankly not living in the real world.
3 Likes
They would’ve been able to interchange games on particular time slots to place on free to air depending on interest or quality of games as the rights are under one umbrella. Whether this would’ve happened or not is speculative but clearly easier than the current arrangement.
1 Like
So the big issues are…
Not having free to air Saturday night football in Victoria?
Thursday nights are no long cutting it?
Foxtel is now on shaky ground due to its new ownership?
1 Like
Realistically speaking, why doesn’t DAZN/Fox sell the saturday night slot to 7, 9 or 10? Both Nine or 10 would pay overs just so they can be apart of the AFL broadcast network, and it would give the league 4/5 games on FTA each round. Surely this would be the easiest solution given DAZN wants to pay less for their rights (giving 1 game to a FTA network would give them extra money) and the AFL would get the extra FTA game
2 Likes
It wasn’t a significant amount of money. It was 600mill per season vs 643mill. So if they took 10/Paramount it would have been about 430mill less over the total of 10 years. Over 7 years it would have been 300mill less.
I think what she is saying is that they can change which game is on FTA based on the fixture. Like in R23, they can show Dockers vs Lions on Friday night instead of Bombers vs Saints or that same round show Saturday Night Crows vs Pies instead of Sunday afternoon etc.
All she’s talking about is that because it’s the same broadcaster they can change which game is on FTA. Also when the AFL is deciding their floating fixture after R15 they can give 10 some good Saturday night games & put Thursday on Paramount+ if the games aren’t good. Like R18, Thursday Blues v Lions could have been paid exclusive while that Saturday Night Dockers vs Hawks could have been FTA.
1 Like
That sounds like a considerable amount of money to me - that gap would almost cover the losses made by the AFLW
I think this is a dangerous assumption to make - while it might be easier for an FTA-aligned subscription service to change the game coverage, there will still be a desire to keep some ‘premium’ games for subscription-only.
4 Likes