I agree with you.
In Victoria do we get every Victorian game on FTA? No! I barrack for Geelong and their games are mostly on Foxtel, like earlier today. SA/WA should be treated like everyone else, and not have a tantrum that not all their state games are on FTA. They need to deal with it.
Completely agree but that also means they should be treated equally in the fixture.
I can guarantee WA clubs get more Sunday twilight slots than any Victorian club. Which means less FTA games.
If they can give an equal amount of FTA games then I agree. Also games like showdowns and derbies would need to be guaranteed on FTA. Just like Victorian clubs have this guaranteed with Easter Monday, ANZAC, queens birthday etc.
Fremantle had 4 games produced by 7
West Coast had 1
Adelaide had 1
Port Adelaide had 7
The lowest VIC FTA was North with 1, the next lowest was Hawthorn with 8
If Fox gets exclusive to SA/WA teams then they need to have more games on 7. I would say a minimum of 6 games - but obviously depending on form etc
Incumbency is also powerful - our major sports rights rarely change broadcasters and this says a lot about the strength of the relationship between the code and the broadcaster and it produces a renewal process that benefits the incumbent.
In this round, it felt like the AFL was more interested in courting the big international streamers (the Amazons and Netflixes of the world) which it looks like itâs been a failure (there was some reporting that appears to have been skipped here that no one in that group actually bid)
Especially when theyâre looking at reducing the cash component but increasing the total value, a decent amount of the deals are in contra.
It is to some extent, but we didnât see it to this extent when Seven and Nine were owned by overseas private equity or Ten were majority owned by Canwest. The level of autonomy says a lot about the faith that Paramount put in Tenâs ability to operate.
Gee I hope we get an announcement in the next couple of days.
I am sure as long as the money rolls in, generally those owners are happy to keep it going as is. Ten have to ensure that any major deal like this is financially positive, that it does not reduce profit levels.
I doubt Paramount are interested in a loss leader as far as Ten are concerned, they know they have the number three. Does NFL coverage in the US generate profit for broadcasters there, or are they used as loss leaders?
Iâd argue that theyâre having to fight for number three and if they arent careful, Ten could be fourth consistently behind the ABC - Paramount might be happy with that (although I doubt it). The AFL rights could offer a real opportunity for both Ten and Paramount+ to launch a reinvigorated push for viewers and subscribers.
Ten lack a real coherent strategy - they really just make up the numbers - and that might satisfy Paramount, as their business model is evolving towards the new media options but that is likely to indicate that Tenâs future at Paramount might be limited.
I agree with Paramount+ getting a increase of subscribers if they get AFL. Although, I kind of doubt 10 will, especially in early primetime. However they could start comind second or even first on Friday/Saturday nights.
Back to what game Foxtel should get exclusive. I reckon Thursday nights should be Foxtel only, as if it isnât permanent by 2025, then some rounds Seven would only get Friday night and Sunday afternoon.
Was thinking exactly this the other day too, Seven and Nine for example have large, top-rating, entrenched news services, not just the servicesâ coverage themselves, but the eyeballs they can attract to simply promote âAFLâ and upcoming broadcasts or lead-ins.
Same for the equally high performing breakfast, morning and midday national news programs, promos/ads during top-rating reality or later shows, etc.
And simply just the large average and rusted on audiences and demographic spread these networks have.
A sports organisation couldnât ignore these factors.
Donât think itâs fair to classify âhome state protectionâ as giving non-Victorian fans âa free rideâ when its purpose is to ensure that local fans can follow, support and watch their local teams. Itâs the same reason why the NFL requires games that air on ESPN, NFL Network and (now) Amazon must be aired on FTA in the local markets of the two participating teams in each game.
If the AFL gets rid of âhome state protectionâ, itâll result in an impossible task for them and the FTA rightsholder to put together a FTA schedule that ensures that all 18 teams are âadequatelyâ featured throughout the season.
Thatâs different though since there are so many Victorian sides, implementing âhome state protectionâ in Victoria would result in nearly every game being shown on FTA every round. It would significantly reduce the value of a pay TV/streaming package.
Weâre going back to 1979, sports fans.
AFL is âconsidering delaying two free-to-air matches each week by up to two hours in interstate markets to give Foxtel more exclusivity for its streaming service Kayo Sportsâ.
The reduction of live games in QLD and NSW will be a disaster for the AFL as theyâre still considered growth markets and theyâre reducing their viability in those northern markets will undo all the work in building them up. The whole rights dealing is stupid. They shouldâve auctioned off separate packages with exclusive rights.
These games are no longer âeventsâ and the coverage is run of the mill and no engaging proposition to tune in. Thereâs so many things they could do better and extract much more value than just give into the whims of an unholy union between 7/fox.
People without Foxtel/Kayo trying to ignore the score updates on their Teamâs social media pages:
I remember that every week!
The other potential change which hasnât been discussed is Tasmania. With the vote starting next week I believe and depending on the timeline but it was mentioned earlier on that the broadcasters had tasked with preparing their bids with both 18 team and 19 team options.
This is more for the AFL thread but if Tasmania donât get granted a license, I could see that as being a state about to withdraw a lot of support for the competition. I know weâre a small state but thereâs a lot of people who travel to games each week in Melbourne and the games that come over and play here and I think it could also be quite detrimental to the game, along with changes to the games for other states, it could all come back and bite the league.
That feels like desperation to me from the AFL to get this particular deal done. Itâs a completely nonsensical idea in 2022 and would seriously hamper growth in the developing markets.
I always got a giggle out of Nineâs version of the âlook away nowâ scores as they always played âdo you see what I seeâ by Hunters & Collectors under it. Teasing those who had looked away.
However, Seven is fiercely opposing the suggestion on the grounds it would hurt fans and significantly reduce the value of its own rights.
At this rate with so much back and forth bickering between Foxtel and Seven with suggested proposals, Iâm beginning to doubt weâll see an Announcement tomorrow as was speculated.
And the two obviously arenât on the same terms, given Foxtelâs recent frustrations with 7+ streaming for Seven produced matches. Donât think these proposals will make for good PR either.
Wonder if potential bidders are considering of taking advantage of yet another stalemate.
It will be a backward step especially for GWS and Gold Coast, both of which need more FTA exposure.
Just because the AFL is considering a proposal doesnât mean itâll happen. Indeed, if the Nine Newspapers reporting is correct and Seven are not only âfiercelyâ against the proposal but argue it would reduce the value of its rights, itâs probably unlikely to happen.
Thatâs not surprising - both are pushing for things that would be in their best self-interest (eg; more exclusivity for Fox and streaming rights for Seven) and pushing back against other things that arenât in their best self-interest (eg; Fox losing streaming exclusivity and Seven not wanting Fox to have more exclusivity).