Additional exposure doesn’t appear to be helping at least one of those clubs (and its not the obvious one)
Yeah I understand that, but if they are even considering a move such as the one outlined in the article, it suggests a desperation to get the deal with 7/ Fox done.
Whether they follow through on it, which I agree with you is unlikely, doesn’t diminish that imo.
This articles presents nothing new but I would argue if they get 500-550m a season for the AFL it’s a poor outcome. 600m will be the benchmark of success. If they cannot get to that number it shows that simulcast deals do not work as they cannot extract an exclusivity premium.
1 Like
If FTA wants a better deal, then they need to front up additional money otherwise there has to be an acceptance that there will be a shift towards Subscription.
Its a bit rich to demand a premium product, but not pay appropriately for that premium
7 Likes
Streaming is the way of the future. AFL is stuck in the 90s with traditional pay Tv and free to air TV deals
3 Likes
Has it been reported Seven wouldn’t be? Surely the same applies for Fox as well.
It doesn’t have to be just FTA. But they’re not extracting top dollar from this hybrid model. The NFL, NBA, MLB, EPL don’t structure their deals like this shit they do over here. These sports are still scared of News Corp.
Their are subscription models that involve streaming that could be harnessed instead of using fox and their primitive coverage and structure.
The AFL’s negotiating efforts have been about how they can get better value for Fox which suggests that they’re the ones willing to tip the lionshare of the money in.
Each of those codes operates under a considerably different model - the American sports only show some games nationally with the vast majority shown under an arrangement of localised deals (the only way to access all the games is to subscribe to expensive streaming/subscription services operated by the codes themselves) and the EPL only have just over half their games under the domestic broadcast deal (and have rules that are monitored by the UK competition commission)
None of which are particularly comparable to the circumstances in Australia
4 Likes
I take it Foxtel aren’t getting a ‘Super Saturday’ then, that is AFL must’ve sided with Seven on keeping Saturday nights in Melbourne on FTA? So guessing this may be some reward for Foxtel, especially if Seven are also getting their way with streaming on 7Plus?
1 Like
I was more meaning has it been reported (or is it known?) that Fox would be increasing that lion’s share share in a way that would, at least monetarily, justify a less premium FTA product? Not a dollar figure, but as a proportion of the whole deal.
If that is what’s happening and Seven aren’t willing to keep pace then yup, I agree they can’t expect as much going forward. If they are though then they’re quite entitled to dig their heels in.
The reporting, to me at least from what I’ve read, revolves more around Fox ‘demands’ rather than AFL ‘wants’, although I’m sure the AFL are open to them in some form, and I think it’s fairly obvious they want a Fox/7 deal.
2 Likes
Hopefully this quote from the SMH article answers part of your question:
Foxtel wants more exclusive content in return for paying millions more to the AFL each year. News Corp is already contributing most of the $946 million that the AFL receives in broadcast fees.
1 Like
Thanks for that!
Do you know if there’s similar info about Seven’s contribution going forward?
1 Like
From an SA/WA point of view at least we’re at this point rather than previous demands of Foxtel exclusive games, keep negotiating. Victorian clubs will have to compete less with the SA/WA clubs for FTA access as well (still a bit if 7 want to broadcast a game live into a certain state rather than on delay).
The NSW/Queensland part sucks for the growth of the league though.
No problem 
It’s not much, but there is this point:
Seven is also facing pressure from the AFL to make concessions to Foxtel because it does not have a paywalled streaming product.
I remember they considered a premium tier of 7+ a while back, maybe they’d use it for this?
1 Like
That probably might be the case. However, it can’t (rightly or wrongly) be the way of the future for the AFL if the Australian streamers (ie; Paramount+ and Stan) reportedly haven’t aggressively gone after the rights and the big overseas players (ie; Amazon and Apple) haven’t been players in this rights negotiation process.
3 Likes
To quote Marty McFly - “Guess you guys aren’t ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it”.
Maybe the next rights agreement in 2030 will be when the online streamers finally get a big look in.
7 Likes
The age article also mentions this:
“This season, six matches aired on Seven on delay in Western Australia and South Australia, but all matches in Queensland, NSW and Victoria are broadcast live on Seven. Under plans being considered by the AFL, more matches would air on free-to-air each week (four) - but two of these games would be delayed by up to two hours in markets outside Victoria”
They will never do this in New South Wales and Queensland, especially if 7mate and day time, just imagine 2 hour delay for a 1:10pm game that’s a thriller but the local team loses by a point. With the result known, you’d get just about zero viewers tuning-in there.
But South Australia and Western Australia (which I presume are the actual states under debate here) is another question however.
My main point is that they are reporting 4 games on FTA, but I don’t see that being possible especially if Fox gets super Saturday
2 Likes
“Free to air” will likely eventually mean they need to be on YouTube. It’s the only streaming site that fits the bill for open access, and by default has become the neutral platform.
Otherwise the issue the AFL and other sports face is what discoverability is. Getting people into a habit of watching footy, when ‘watching’ linear broadcast is a foreign concept.
While streaming will be the delivery mechanism - services like Kayo just presume a level of already existing interest, that has been created by people growing up with the old media still hanging on - for the moment enough of an audience still know what a ‘Channel 7’ is for FTA rights to be worth anything and there to be viewers.
The 7+ component is absolutely critical for Seven, so I expect there’s big compromises made to ensure that.
As for how much is ‘live’ - I still think the Channel Nine 4pm game is the correct model - delayed start, then catch up to live. It’s enough of an ‘exclusive’ to have the full game not live, but there’s no spoilers. Plus in a market like Qld/NSW - might be a more palatable way of watching a broadcast than a near 3 hour game.
4 Likes