However long they extend the deal for will give a bit of a clue as to what the AFL is thinking as far as the number of teams.
The Tassie team question is meant to be finally resolved later this year, if that gets the go ahead, the AFL has only ever had odd numbers of teams for short periods of time, adding a 20th team in say 2028-2029 brings in a 10th game per round and more options/revenue in the broadcast rights.
This is terrible news.
I donât have a problem with the outside-Vic changes, but the lack (potentially) of any FTA streaming (at least this year the non-game parts are live streamed) is just plain stupid. And to not even ask the question of anyone else is dumb, you could pump up the price if you say âoh weâll go somewhere elseâ.
And to completely disregard the potential of Amazon coming in to steam a game or two is also stupid.
from www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2022-gillon-mclachlan-stands-down-as-league-chief-executive-key-questions-tv-rights-deal-contenders-to-replace-him-19th-team-latest-updates/news-story/461c50f4a5b162b5510b2dbb0bb399a0
There was an option in the current broadcast deal for Fox to onsell a weekly Saturday afternoon game to a FTA network. Seven didnât want them, and 10 was mentioned but also didnât want them (this was prior to their A League deal).
The fact is Saturday afternoon is by far the lowest rating timeslot in TV terms.
They need to toughen up and accept what is given to them. If they cant afford it, just watch the games you are given. Same with the Football here in the UK. Stop whinging. Pay extra if you can afford it, but Murdoch is protecting his interets and his compamies, i say good on him.
There is also a potential for Amazon Prime (and Paramount+) to stream matches to its international subscribers. In parts of the world where Amazon Prime and/or P+ are not available, the existing deals with local broadcasters should remain.
I think by 2025 this will be much less of a problem, by then Starlink (and potentially others) will cover all the current internet blackspots with internet that is unlimited and fast which will vastly reduce the current digital divide in remote areas.
Starlink is still very expensive though.
Anyway back to the rights coverage:
I wouldnât mind seeing Seven go with Amazon Prime in a partnership and get rid of Fox altogether (they have a fairly cosy relationship with their partnerships in drama and Seven airing certain Amazon Prime content occasionally). If something like that happens and Nine/Stan as well as 10/P+ are in the mix then Fox really has nowhere to go.
This is the first chance the FTAs can screw Fox over after so many years of Murdoch holding a dagger by their throats.
Sadly it ainât happening this time around.
Gil trying to keep his brother in a job for a few more years. Another conflict of interest by the AFL.
The problem with an extension of the current deal is itâs the worst possible outcome for fans. Broadcasting has moved on from this model.
This is 100% the case.
I want more footy on FTA and less influence of Foxtel just as much as anyone else, but this would essentially make the Fox Footy channel redundant. After all the effort Fox have gone too in their AFL coverage, I canât see them giving up the rights without a fight.
Also canât see the AFL letting them go whilst they have a dedicated footy channel.
If Stan or P+ came in and offered on-demand streaming of games and nightly footy panel and news programs (like Fox Footy do) then itâs basically a like-for-like replacement for the Fox Footy Channel anyway. I donât think the AFL would care if they lost a dedicated footy channel provided the content was still accessible.
Also Stan can offer 4K streaming of AFL matches, like its coverage of the finals of this season of UEFA Champions League. Can Kayo live stream matches in 4K?
Unlike the deal for the Olympics, the broadcastersâ existing relationship with the sports organisations themselves play a much bigger role than just a $$ figure.
The issue is would either/both be willing to spend the significant amount required to either knock Foxtel out of the picture or acquire the complete rights (ie; knock Seven out as well)? For context, News Corp reportedly stumped up $1.3 billion of the original (ie; before COVID-releated reductions occurred) $2.508 rights deal for 2017 - 2022.
Itâs all well and good for some people here to want Foxtel out of the picture for personal vendetta reasons. However, that happening requires other networks/outlets to offer more than what Foxtel are willing/prepared to bid to retain their rights.
If Iâm being honest, I donât mind the current deal, itâs not that bad. I only have 2 issues with the current deal and if it remains 7 & Fox they can fix it
Live streaming of FTA on 7+
This doesnât apply to me but maybe All matches to SA & WA should be live instead of having some delayed matches
But for most part itâs not terrible
Theyâve been able to do this for some time now - they just needed to offer the additional cash (and have a mechanism to broadcast the additional games) or find another partner to share the cost (but at the same time risk having a similar deal to now, just with someone who isnât Fox). It seems to get lost by a lot of people in these shared FTA/Fox deals, itâs Fox that is doing the heavy lifting money-wise.
What are these alternate models you speak of?
There are plenty of non simulcast deals around the world.
Have a look at the EPL model in the UK or the NFL in the US.
Australia is a sports rights backwater where sports organizations are beholden and held to ransom by 1 pay tv company. Itâs a disgrace and all these sports could do better and get better coverage without foxtel.
